This paper analyses The Gambia's legal activism at the ICJ as a pivotal case study of decolonising IR in practice.

It argues that Gambia's case against Myanmar for alleged genocide against the Rohingya demonstrates how a

small African state can avail itself of international legal mechanisms to challenge global power hierarchies and

agency constitutes a transformative blueprint of how the Global South states might play the role of active shapers

of international norms from within.

Keywords. Decolonising, International Relations, International Court of Justice, Global Justice, Genocide,

Postcolonial theory, The Gambia, Myanmar, Erga Omnes Partes.

The discipline of International Relations, since its inception, has been predominantly shaped by Western

epistemological frameworks, from realist and liberal institutionalist theories to the very definition of what

constitutes a "legitimate" subject of study. This has often resulted in the systematic exclusion, marginalisation,

and misrepresentation of voices, experiences, and modes of knowledge emanating from the Global South. The

project of decolonising IR is, therefore, not an additive process of incorporating more diverse case studies into

comparatively scarce.

This paper fills this critical lacuna by examining The Gambia's trailblazing legal activism at the ICJ as a key

case study of "decolonisation in action." We argue that The Gambia's determination to take Myanmar to court

for alleged genocide against the Rohingya constitutes one of the most potent and sophisticated forms of African

agency seen thus far. This was no rejection of the international system, but rather a strategic repurposing of its

very own institutions-the ICJ and the Genocide Convention contest entrenched global power hierarchies. The

case shows how a state with limited material power can use international law to articulate a vision of global

justice that is deeply anchored in postcolonial solidarities as well as in African philosophies such as Ubuntu,

which holds that our shared humanity and mutual responsibility bind us together.

This is an act of legal entrepreneurship with a dual function: it sought concrete accountability for the Rohingya

explores the colonial legacies underpinning international law and governance to set up the intervention by The

Gambia as a challenge to that historical inertia. At the heart of the paper is a detailed case study of The Gambia

v. Myanmar, which is underpinned by primary source evidence from the ICJ case in order to dissect the legal

strategy involved, the rebuttal of Myanmar's objections, and the landmark ruling on obligations erga omnes

partes. This is followed by an assessment of the African philosophical underpinning of this agency, linking the

legal action to notions of solidarity and restorative justice. This is balanced by an appraisal of the challenges and

constraints faced, including resource limitations and geopolitical realities. In conclusion, the wider implications

of this case for decolonising IR theory and practice are considered, with a view to establishing that The Gambia’s

actions represent a groundbreaking blueprint for how agency can be executed from the margins to reform the

global order from within.

Primary Source Analysis: The foundation of this analysis is based on a direct interaction with official court

documents from the ICJ. These include:

The analysis is framed through a conceptual framework that links critique explicitly with agency. This

framework is based on two pillars:

The dual framework enables us to assess how The Gambia, drawing on the rich philosophical traditions of

Ubuntu from Murithi (2006) and Pan-African solidarities from Adi (2018), moved beyond simply using the

critique of inequities in international law. This was a pragmatic and skilful use of the Convention on Genocide

and the ICJ to advance a decolonial agenda that turned institutions of the system into instruments of its own

reform.

To fully appreciate the significance of The Gambia's intervention, one must first understand the historical terrain

on which it acted. International law is not a neutral realm of abstract principles; it is deeply rooted in the colonial

project. The so-called foundational doctrines of terra nullius ("land belonging to no one") and the "civilising

mission" were not simply abstract theories of philosophy but powerful legal tools utilised to give legitimacy to

the European imperial expansion and subjugation of non-European societies (Anghie, 2005). It is on this

privilege former colonial powers, as noted by Vestergaard & Wade (2015). This perpetuates a system of

neocolonialism wherein structural dependence and unequal rules maintain a global hierarchy often at the expense

pressing practical imperative. This would imply a critical engagement with the founding principles of the system

and an actual re-imagining of these frames according to the experiences, aspirations, and juridical voices of the

Global South (Mutua, 2000). It requires an overcoming of the politics of request towards a practice of normative,

assertive contestation. In this light, the legal move by The Gambia represents something very significant: a

critical decolonial move. By invoking the 1948 Genocide Convention against Myanmar, The Gambia did

something quite profound: it cast a small West African nation as a guardian of universal human rights. This

directly challenges the Eurocentric assumption of the prerogative to define, enforce, and shape global norms as

residing with traditionally Western, powerful states alone (Schmidt, 2020). Such an act of agency serves to

illustrate that decolonisation is not an abstract project stuck in theory or confined to academic discourse; it is a

practical, ongoing struggle. It is advanced through the strategic deployment of the system's own frameworks by

individualism that underpins so many Western legal frameworks, underlining instead a sense of communal

solidarity, restorative justice, and the basic interconnectedness of human beings. At its core is the philosophy of

Ubuntu, a Nguni Bantu term loosely translated as "I am because we are." Ubuntu holds that our humanity is

inextricably linked to the humanity of others; the emphasis is on mutual responsibility, compassion, and the duty

to ensure the dignity of every person within the community is maintained (Murithi 2006; Lauer 2017). It is not

a passive sentiment but an active ethical commitment to participation and care for collective well-being.

By advocating for the Rohingya, a people with no ethnic, geographical, or historical link to The Gambia, the

nation operationalised Ubuntu on a global scale. This was an expression of what may be described as

transnational solidarity, extending the circle of "we" beyond national boundaries to include all of humanity. In

large measure, this approach is fully aligned with the Pan-Africanist ethos, which over time has framed liberation

as a project not of one nation but of humanity as a whole, emphasising collective African responses to global

the UN's principal judicial organ, to confront state-level impunity for genocide, The Gambia epitomised a

proactive and sophisticated African approach to shaping international law from within. It moved Africa from the

This legal victory by The Gambia is a milestone, but any critical engagement with the case also needs to

The adversarial nature of ICJ proceedings puts a premium on legal resources, in which financial and technical

imbalances can become highly consequential for the outcome of the case. Myanmar's preliminary objections,

though ultimately dismissed, were a strategic leveraging of those asymmetries, forcing The Gambia to mount a

costly and complicated defence. The immense financial burden of hiring international counsel, gathering

evidence, and sustaining a multi-year litigation was one that The Gambia, a small developing state, could not

bear alone. Its ability to proceed was entirely contingent on the financial and political support of the Organisation

of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) (Jeffrey, 2023). While pragmatic and highly effective, this dependence underlines

a fundamental paradox: for most African countries, genuine access to international justice is often mediated

through foreign partnerships. This goes to core questions of autonomy, setting the agenda, and subtle ways in

which dependence shapes legal strategy. It underlines a structural problem where the actual act of legal agency

a sobering counterfactual: would a similar legal challenge to a permanent member of the UN Security Council

with great skill. In forming this strategic alliance with the OIC, The Gambia shrewdly transformed a would-be

vulnerability, resource constraints-into a source of strength by marshalling the power of international solidarity.

Mindful of procedural rules, framing sound legal arguments, and winning on the pure principle of erga omnes

partes obligations, it showed that even the most resource-constrained nations can, through determination, legal

ingenuity, and collaborative strategy, champion accountability and reshape international norms. This is

pragmatic agency, exercised within the interstices of a constrained system, and it represents a potent form of

decolonial praxis.

normative commitment. By acting as a “norm entrepreneur” for accountability, The Gambia generated

significant soft power, compelling the world’s primary judicial body to affirm its stance and mobilising

the Global South to see itself as a valid enforcer of international law and make use of the same legal gateway of