Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-94d59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T12:58:40.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

I. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Extract

The judgment in the Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (‘Genocide case’) was handed down on 26 February 2007.1 Broadcast live across Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and making front-page news,2 it is a landmark opinion of considerable substance that contains a whole host of interesting international legal issues. The judgment and individual opinions attached thereto contain many important points on evidence, the law on genocide and state responsibility. This comment will touch upon only some of the many issues raised. In order to do so, though, it is first necessary to recall the history of the case.

Type
Decisions of International Tribunals: International Court of Justice
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) [2007] ICJ Rep, available at <http://www.icj-cij.org>..>Google Scholar

2 See eg Simons, M ‘Serbs failed to stop Bosnia genocide’ International Herald Tribune (27 02 2007) 1.Google Scholar

3 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Provisional Measures [1993] ICJ Rep 3Google Scholar; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Provisional Measures [1993] ICJ Rep 325.Google Scholar

4 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Preliminary Objections [1996] ICJ Rep 595.Google Scholar

5 Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v Bosnia and Herzegovina) [2003] ICJ Rep 7Google Scholar; noted by Tsagourias, N (2004) 53 ICLQ 731.Google Scholar

6 At the time of oral argument, the FRY had changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro. At the date of the delivery of the judgment, Montenegro had declared its independence and Serbia had accepted continuity between itself and Serbia and Montenegro. As such, the Court considered the Republic of Serbia to be the only respondent: Genocide (n 1) para 77.

7 Case Concerning Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v Belgium), Preliminary Objections [2004] ICJ Rep, paras 79 and 127.Google Scholar

8 Genocide (n 1) para 135.

9 ibid paras 121–39.

10 ibid Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Ranjeva, Shi and Koroma, para 3.

11 For comment on the judgment in the Legality of Use of Force cases, see Gray, C ‘Legality of Use of Force: Preliminary Objections Judgment of 15 December 2004’ (2005) 54 ICLQ 787.Google Scholar

12 Genocide (n 1) para 196.

13 ibid paras 197–201.

14 ibid para 276. 15 ibid para 277.

16 ibid paras 319 and 354 respectively.

17 ibid paras 328, 334 and 344 respectively.

18 ibid paras 361 and 367 respectively.

19 ibid para 297.

20 ibid para 372. 21 ibid paras 373.

22 See eg Prosecutor v Brdanin Judgment IT-99–36-T (1 09 2004) para 970.Google Scholar

23 In the Corfu Channel Case [1949] ICJ Rep 4, 18 the Court stated that: ‘The proof may be drawn from inferences of fact, provided that they leave no room for reasonable doubt’ (emphasis in original).Google Scholar

24 Genocide (n 1) para 376.

25 Prosecutor v Jelisić Judgment IT-95–10-A (5 07 2001) para 47.Google ScholarSee also eg Prosecutor v Krstić Judgment IT-98–33-A (19 04 2004) para 21Google Scholar; Prosecutor v Akayesu Judgment ICTR-96–4- T (2 09 1998) para 523.Google Scholar

26 Genocide (n 1) paras 276, 319, 334 and 354 respectively.

27 ibid para 374.

28 Prosecutor v Erdemović Judgment IT-96–22-A (7 10 1997) Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cassese para 8.Google Scholar

29 Prosecutor v Momir Nikolić Sentencing Judgment IT-02–60/1-S (2 12 2003) para 63, n 110. See also Genocide (n 1) Dissenting Opinion of Vice President Al-Khasawneh para 42.Google Scholar

30 Momir Nikolić ibid paras 63–5.

31 Mettraux, GInternational Crimes and the ad hoc Tribunals (OUP Oxford 2005) 59.Google Scholar

32 See also Genocide (n 1) Dissenting Opinion of Vice President Al-Khasawneh para 42.

33 On the facts, the Appeals Chamber did not consider the Trial Chamber's finding so unreasonable as to warrant overturning. However, it stopped short of endorsing the findings: Prosecutor v Stakić Judgment IT-97–24-A (22 03 2006) para 56.Google Scholar

34 Brdanin (n 22) para 981.

35 Genocide (n 1) para 372.

36 ibid paras 155–79.

37 ibid paras 386–9.

38 ibid paras 390–5.

39 ibid paras 396–412.

40 Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaraguav United States of America) [1986] ICJ Rep 14 para 115.Google Scholar

41 Prosecutor v Tadić, Judgment IT-94–1-A (15 07 1999) paras 83–145.Google Scholar

42 Genocide (n 1) para 403.

43 ibid para 404.

44 See also Milanović, M ‘State Responsibility for Genocide’ (2006) 17 EJIL 553, 585.Google Scholar

45 Tadić (n 41) para 87.

46 ibid para 104.

47 ibid Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen para 17.

48 Genocide (n 1) para 405.

49 Cf Tadić (n 41) Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen para 20.

50 Genocide (n 1) Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Al-Khasawneh para 37. See also Tadić (n 41) paras 117 and 137.

51 See also Tadić (n 41) Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen para 19; International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Commentary to Art 8 in Crawford, J, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (CUP, Cambridge, 2002) 112.Google Scholar

52 See eg Cassese, A, ‘A judicial massacre’ Guardian Unlimited (27 02 2007) available at <commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/antonio_cassese/2007/02/the_judicial_massacre_of_srebr.html>>Google Scholar; Wedgwood, R ‘Slobodan Milosevic's Last Waltz’ New York Times (12 03 2007).Google Scholar

53 Genocide (n 1) paras 416–24.

54 ibid para 430.

56 ibid para 431.

57 ibid para 438.

58 See eg Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) [1971] ICJ Rep 16 para 118.Google Scholar

59 Genocide (n 1) Separate Opinion of Judge Tomka para 67; Declaration of Judge Skotnikov 10.

60 Provisional Measures Order (n 3) para 52A(2).

61 Case of Ilaşcu v Moldova and Russia ECHR App No 48787/99 paras 376–94. The matter was a jurisdictional one however the pertinent point for our purposes is unaffected.

62 On the varying relationship between control and obligation, see eg Visscher, C de, Theory and Reality in Public International Law (Princeton, 1968) 285–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eagleton, C ‘International Organization and The Law of Responsibility’ 1950–I Rec des Cours 319, 386.Google Scholar

63 Cf Genocide (n 1) Declaration of Judge Skotnikov 10.

64 Genocide (n 1) para 432.

65 The Appeals Chamber left this open in Prosecutor v Blaškič Judgment IT-95–14-A (29 03 2004) para 47.Google ScholarOther Chambers have considered the possibility eg Prosecutor v Limaj, Bala and Musilu Judgment IT-03–66-T (30 11 2005) para 517.Google Scholar

66 Genocide (n 1) paras 421–2. Interestingly, the summary of the judgment refers to ‘was aware or should have been aware of the specific intent’. Had this been the standard used, it may have lead to a very different conclusion.

67 ibid para 432.

68 R v Woollin [1998] 4 All ER 103Google Scholar; R v Cunningham [1982] AC 566.Google Scholar I am indebted to Robert Cryer for this point and for helpful conversations on this comment more generally.

69 See eg Giogianni (1984) 156 CLR 473 (Australia)Google Scholar; Crooks, [1981] 2 NZLR 53 (New Zealand)Google Scholar; Dunlop and Sylvester (1979) 47 CCC 93Google Scholar (Canada) but cf Carter v Richardson [1974] RTR 314 (England and Wales).Google Scholar See generally Simester, A, ‘The Mental Element in Complicity’ (2006) 122 LQR 578, 586–8.Google Scholar

70 Genocide (n 1) Declaration of Judge Keith; Declaration of Judge Bennouna; Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Mahiou.

71 The description is that of Cassese (n 52). Admittedly, this is not helped by a declaratory judgment on the one hand and a likely substantial monetary award on the other.

72 Genocide (n 1) paras 439–49.

73 ibid para 456.

75 ibid paras 459–70.

76 ibid para 209.

77 ibid para 206 and Dissenting Opinion of Vice President Al-Khasawneh para 35.

78 Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) [2005] ICJ Rep para 61.Google Scholar Such use was also foreshadowed by Higgins, R ‘A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations From the Bench’ (2006) 55 ICLQ 791, 804.Google Scholar

79 See eg Genocide (n 1) paras 328, 344, and 232 respectively.

80 ibid paras 295, 296.

81 ibid paras 278–97.

82 ibid paras 172 and 300.

83 ibid para 223.

84 ibid para 403.

85 See eg ibid para 374.

86 The Court (para 403) did state that it gave ‘careful consideration’ to the reasoning of the Appeals Chamber. However, there is a tendency to refer to ‘careful consideration’ or some such before going on to depart from the relevant reasoning or finding. See eg Prosecutor v Mucic et al Judgment IT-96–21-A (20 02 2001) para 24 (on Nicaragua)Google Scholar; Sanchez-Llamas v Oregon 126 S Ct 2669, 2683 following Breard v Greene 523 US 371, 375 (on Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America) [2004] ICJ Rep)Google Scholar; Mara'abe v Prime Minister of Israel HCJ 7957/04 para 56 (on Legality of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory [2004] ICJ Rep).Google Scholar

87 See eg Prosecutor v Mucic et al (n 86) paras 76–7 citing the judgments in Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia and Nottebohm; Prosecutor v Kupreškič et al Judgment IT-95–16-T (14 01 2000) para 524Google Scholar citing the judgments in Nicaragua, Nuclear Weapons and Corfu Channel.

88 For one view, see Glenny, M ‘The greater of two goods’ Guardian Unlimited (26 02 2007) available at <commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/misha_glenny/2007/02/the_greater_of_two_goods.html>..>Google Scholar

89 Prosecutor v Stanišič and Simatovič IT-03–69; this was recognized by the Court at para 395.