But that can also include disputes arising from the Convention for the Punishment and Prevention of Genocide, established in an earlier case when Bosnia sued Serbia for genocide. The convention covers “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.’’

In its suit, Gambia claims that applies to Myanmar. The novelty in this case, though, is that Gambia is not at war with Myanmar, as Bosnia and Serbia were. But the Genocide Convention treaty does establish a mandate for member nations to act against genocide, wherever they are.

Experts say that if the court accepts the case, whatever the outcome, it will draw renewed attention to the immense suffering of the Rohingya people, most of whom fled to Bangladesh and now live in refugee camps there.

It is not clear how Myanmar, which has always denied accusations of ethnic cleansing and genocide and argues that it was defending itself against an insurgency, will respond to the case.

“Myanmar will ignore this at its peril,’’ said John Packer, a professor of law at the University of Ottawa who has long studied the Rohingya’s plight. If the court hears the case, he said, “there will be a sort of public truth-finding exercise. Myanmar’s simple denials will not stand up to scrutiny.’’

A different body, the International Criminal Court, was specifically created to prosecute genocide and other atrocities. But that court has no jurisdiction over cases in Myanmar because the country has not signed on to the court’s treaty. (Neither have the United States, China, India, Israel and several other countries.)