Thread by @mabecker17

In view of #TheGambia case versus #Myanmar at the #ICJ alleging genocide against the #Rohingya, there may be calls for other states to file their own cases or to intervene under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute. A few thoughts here about why I'm skeptical about such proposals. 1/5

For example, this piece by @PhelimKine urges other states to file their own #ICJ cases ‘to create a critical mass of international opprobrium’ targeting #Myanmar. The underlying idea is well-intentioned, but I think it is unnecessary and risks being counter-productive. 2/5

Additional cases or interveners will slow down and complicate the proceedings. It could lead to competing legal strategies that undermine each other. And, ultimately, I don’t think having multiple states involved will influence the ICJ’s conclusions one way or another. 3/5

States can still contribute by expressing support for the case, or as @PhelimKine writes, by enforcing sanctions. More concretely, if states have intelligence that would support the legal case, they should share it. This would be more productive than joining the litigation. 4/5

There may be a few limited situations in which non-party intervention under Art 62 is warranted here, but not to express support or solidarity. Rather, a few states in the immediate region may have an interest of a legal nature that is likely to be affected by the judgment. -end-