Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:51:46.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia) (I.C.J.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Larissa Van Den Herik
Larissa Van Den Herik*
Affiliation:
Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies at Leiden University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On February 3, 2015, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered judgment in the case between Croatia and Serbia.1 Croatia had instituted proceedings on July 2, 1999 and claimed that during the armed conflict which erupted in 1991, Serbia had violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention). In its counter-claim, Serbia alleged that rather Croatia had violated the Convention, particularly during Operation Storm in 1995. This Serbian counter-claim was unanimously rejected. Croatia’s claim was also rejected, but with Judge Cançado Trindade and Judge ad hoc Vukas dissenting. The most vigorous disagreement between the judges did not concern the merits though, but rather focused on one remaining jurisdictional issue.

Type
International Legal Materials
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 54 , Issue 5 , October 2015 , pp. 787 - 889
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

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

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at International Court of Justice (visited October 12, 2015), http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/118/18422.pdf.

1 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment (Feb. 3, 2015), http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/118/18422.pdf [hereinafter Judgment]. The separate opinions, verbatim reports, and written pleadings produced during the case are available on the ICJ’s website. See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), International Court of Justice, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=73&case=118&code=cry&p3=4 (last visited Oct. 7, 2015)Google Scholar.

2 See e.g., Judgment, supra note 1, 23 (declaration by Xue, J.).

3 Id. ¶ 9 (separate opinion by Skotnikov, J.).

4 Id. ¶ 117.

5 Namely President Tomka, Judges Owada, Skotnikov, Xue, Sebutinde, and Judge ad hoc Kreća.

6 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 85.

7 Id. ¶¶ 153, 474.

8 Id. ¶ 472.

9 Id. ¶ 474. Judge Donoghue dissented on this point. Id. ¶ 11 (declaration by Donoghue, J.).

10 Id. ¶ 125 (elaborating on the precedential value of the 2007 Judgment).

11 Id. ¶ 136.

12 Id. ¶ 142.

13 Id. ¶¶ 162–163, 376, 434, 435, 477, 510. See also id. ¶ 6 (separate opinion by Keith, J.).

14 Prosecutor v. Tolimir, Case No. IT-05-88/2-A, Judgment, ¶¶ 190–256 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Apr. 8, 2015).

15 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 159.

16 Id. ¶ 160.

17 Id. ¶ 356.

18 Id. ¶ 182.

19 Id. ¶ 183.

20 See Philippa, Webb, Binocular Vision: State Responsibility and Individual Criminal Responsibility for Genocide , in The Diversification and Fragmentation of International Criminal Law 117–148 (Larissa van den, Herik & Carsten, Stahn eds., 2012)Google Scholar.

21 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 187. But see id. ¶ 17 (separate opinion by Sebutinde, J.). Notably, Judge Sebutinde was previously a judge at an international criminal court, namely the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

22 Id. ¶ 461.

23 Alphons, M.M. Orie, Stare, Decisis in the ICTY Appeal System?: Successor Responsibility in Hadžihasanović , 10 J. Int’l Crim. J. 365, 635–644 (2012)Google Scholar.

24 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 471.

25 Id. ¶ 2 (separate opinion by Gaja, J.). See also Larissa van den, Herik & Catherine, Harwood, International Commissions of Inquiry and the Charm of International Criminal Law: Between Transactional and Authoritative Approaches , the Transformation of Human Rights Fact-Finding 233–254 (Sarah, Knuckey & Philip, Alston eds., forthcoming 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 217; id. ¶ 35 (separate opinion by Keith, J.).