Thread by @mabecker17

The #Maldives has announced its intention to intervene in the #Gambia v #Myanmar case at the #ICJ concerning alleged acts of genocide against the #Rohingya. While many will undoubtedly welcome this move, I'm skeptical about the value of such an action. foreign.gov.mv/index.php/en/m… 1/8

#Maldives will presumably seek to intervene as a non-party pursuant to Article 63 of the #ICJ Statute, and it has every right to do so as a party to the #GenocideConvention. Assuming Maldives complies with Article 82 of the ICJ Rules, the request will presumably be granted. 2/8

In principle, intervention under Article 63 is limited to how the intervenor believes specific provisions of the treaty in question (ie, the #GenocideConvention) should be constructed—not to other issues in the case. Nonetheless, that likely gives Maldives a wide berth here. 3/8

So why my skepticism? I think an art 63 intervention that merely parrots Gambia’s legal position is unhelpful. It may be that the Maldives supports the overall claim yet has a different idea about what the best legal argument relating to the GC should be. We’ll see. 4/8

This is, more or less, what happened in the Whaling case, where Australia and New Zealand were aligned but deviated slightly on the best way to interpret the Whaling Convention in pursuit of the overall goal of holding Japan in breach of its obligations. 5/8

But downsides are that the intervention may slow down & complicate the proceedings (and if Myanmar objects, this may require a hearing). Intervention could also lead to different legal arguments that undermine each other. Co-ordinating positions requires further resources. 6/8

Myanmar will likely complain that intervention of this sort (undertaken expressly to support one party against the other) is inherently disruptive of the balance between the parties. It also plays into domestic narratives about how the Muslim world is ganging up on Myanmar. 7/8

So I’m skeptical. Even if the underlying impulse to express solidarity with the #Rohingya people, and those seeking to vindicate their rights, is well-intentioned, simply having multiple states take the same position will not influence the ICJ’s legal conclusions. END