Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:50:58.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Judgment of the International Court of Justice in the “Genocide” Case Between Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Antoine Ollivier
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , March 2007 , pp. 185 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International 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

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the International Court of Justice website (visited March 16, 2007) <.http://www.icj-cij.org. >

1 Created by the UN Security Council in 1993, see S/RES/827, May 25,1993.

2 The name of the State evolved from “Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” to “Serbia and Montenegro”. It became the ‘ ‘Republic of Serbia'’ after the independence of Montenegro in 2006. The Court considered that Serbia, which had accepted its legal continuity with Serbia and Montenegro, remained the only Respondent in the case (§§ 67-78).

3 Adopted by the UN General Assembly on December, 9,1948.

4 From a procedural point of view, the hearings devoted to experts, witnesses and witness-experts called by the parties as well as the submission of video material, documents and CD-ROM, raised some difficulties (see¶¶ 40-49). The Court appeared to take into account those elements by revising some of its Practice Directions and adopting new ones (see Press Release 2006/43).

1 Submissions 3 to 6 relate to counter-claims which were subsequently withdrawn (see paragraphs 26 and 27above).

2 Submissions 3 to 6 relate to counter-claims which were subsequently withdrawn (see paragraphs 26 and 27 above).