|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
7TH AMERICAS MODEL UNITED NATIONS
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Topic Area B – Contentious Case
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
“Soldiers! ... This paper is about this very question: the problem of genocide in territory of the former Yugoslavia. ...
This scenario is the background for the institution of proceedings by Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia before the ICJ for the application of the Genocide Convention on 20 March 1993. ...
LET’S STOP MESSING ABOUT: THE APPLICATION
On 20 March 1993 the Bosnian government pursued its case against Yugoslavia in the ICJ. ... In its Application, Bosnia and Herzegovina request that the Court adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia, through its agents and surrogates, has inter alia breached its legal obligations under the Genocide Convention, violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter, and breached its obligation under general and customary international law by killing, murdering, wounding, raping, robbing, torturing, kidnapping, detaining, and exterminating the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. ...
INSIDE THE MATRIX: HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s application to the ICJ was filled on 20 March 1993 instituting proceedings against Yugoslavia for violating the Genocide Convention. ... With no delay, on 1 April 1993, Yugoslavia requests the Court to order the application of provisional measures, including a cease-fire in Bosnia and Herzegovina, closing prisons and detention camps in which Yugoslavia alleged that Serbs were being detained due to their ethic origin, allowing Serbs to leave safely some towns and other places in Bosnia and Herzegovina, ceasing destruction of churches and worship places and of other Serb cultural heritage, and putting an end to the discrimination based on nationality or region and the practice of ethic cleansing.
The Court ordered provisional measures on 8 April 1993 indicating that Yugoslavia “should immediately […] take all measures within its power to prevent commission of the crime of genocide” and that both Bosnia and Herzegovina and Yugoslavia “should not take any action […] which may aggravate or extend the existing dispute”. The Court refused to assume its prima facie jurisdiction on other basis, but Article IX of the Genocide Convention.
Little time latter, on 27 July 1993, Bosnia and Herzegovina filed once again a request for provisional measures, stating that Yugoslavia had violated the measures of protection on behalf of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that it was besides “continuing its campaign of genocide against the Bosnian People […], the Respondent is now planning, preparing, conspiring to, proposing, and negotiating the partition, dismemberment, annexation and incorporation of the sovereign state of Bosnia and Herzegovina by means of genocide” . Yugoslavia answered with another request for provisional measures: “The Government of the so-called Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina should immediately […] take all measures within its power to prevent commission of the crime of genocide against the Serb ethnic group”. ... The UK replied that an application in that sense was with no foundation whatsoever. ...
However, on 26 June 1995, four days before the expiry of the time-limit for filling the Counter-Memorial, Yugoslavia filed certain preliminary objections relating, firstly, to the admissibility of the Application and, secondly, to the Court’s jurisdiction on the then case. ... On 11 July 1996 the Court delivered a Judgment dismissing the objections and holding that, on one hand, it had jurisdiction to adjudge the dispute, and on the other, the Application was admissible. ... In its introduction Yugoslavia pointed out the inclusion of counter-claims, accusing Bosnia and Herzegovina of genocide against the Serbs. ...
Nevertheless, a new case was brought before the Court by Yugoslavia on 24 April 2001 whereby, referring to Article 61 of the Court’s Statute, it requested the ICJ to revise the judgment delivered on 11 July 1996 in the proceedings of the Genocide case (object of this paper). In the Application, Yugoslavia alleged that its admission to the UN occurred on 1 November 2000, therefore it was not a UN member at the time of that judgment. ... Consequently, on 3 February 2003 the Court delivered its judgment stating that the Yugoslav application was inadmissible under the terms of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court.
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
Yugoslavia raised preliminary objections within the time-limit for filing of the Counter-Memorial concerning the admissibility of the Application and the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate upon the dispute. By its judgment of 11 July 1996, the Court found the Application admissible and that it had jurisdiction to entertain the case on the basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention. ... It was not contested that Yugoslavia was party to the Genocide Convention, since it actually made a formal declaration expressing its intention to remain bound by all international treaties at the time of the proclamation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, on 27 April 1992. Bosnia and Herzegovina, for its part, became a Member of the UN on 22 May 1992 and, on 29 December that same year, it transmitted a Notice of Succession to the UN Secretary-General, as depositary of the Genocide Convention. Bosnia and Herzegovina could, therefore, become a party to the Convention through state succession mechanism.
However, Yugoslavia still questioned that the Convention could not be in force at the time because the two States did not recognize one another. ... – Jurisdiction ratione materiae
To entertain the case in the light if Article IX of the Genocide Convention the Court had to verify if there is a disagreement that falls within the scope of that provision. Article IX of the Convention provides as follows:
“Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide […] shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice…” (Emphasis added).
Approximate Word count = 4735
Approximate Pages = 18.9
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|