Rape and Sexual Violence in the ICJ's Judgment in Croatia v. Serbia

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 945-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
GIULIA PECORELLA
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Violence ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Actus Reus

AbstractThis article examines the approach followed by the International Court of Justice in Croatia v. Serbia in relation to rape and sexual violence as acts of genocide under Article II of the Genocide Convention. It is argued that this decision leaves much uncertainty with respect to the elements constituting the actus reus of genocide. First, the Court has narrowed the interpretation given by the ad hoc tribunals to what constitutes ‘serious harm’ under Article II(b). Second, it has introduced an objective requirement, which is in fact unnecessary under Article II(c) of the Convention. Third, it seems that, according to the Court, in order for rape and sexual violence to be regarded as genocidal conduct within the meaning of Article II(d) of the Convention, it is necessary to prove that such conduct did in fact prevent births at least within a part of the group.

When Ethnic Cleansing is not Genocide: A Critical Appraisal of the ICJ's Ruling in Croatia v. Serbia in relation to Deportation and Population Transfer

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 937-944
Author(s):  
MARTIN STEINFELD
Keyword(s):  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Population Transfer ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Judicial Recognition

AbstractThis article critically examines the concept of ethnic cleansing in light of the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Croatia v. Serbia. It suggests that the lack of overt reference to it in the Genocide Convention constitutes a significant lacuna in judicial recognition and protection of atrocities committed in both the Former Yugoslavia and more generally, which the ICJ categorically refused to address. Having examined how the ICJ attempted to conceptualize ethnic cleansing as evidence of both the actus reus of genocide (particularly in relation to Article II(c) of the Convention) and its mens rea, the article then critically assesses the Court's reasoning in its refusal to rule that a violation of the Convention had taken place in relation to deportation and forcible transfer. The article then concludes by contending that the Court simply failed to provide a much-needed and workable precedent to properly include ethnic cleansing within the legal and factual matrix of genocide.

Introduction to the Mini-Symposium on Croatia v. Serbia

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 887-892 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANDREW MAMO
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Succession ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractOn 3 February 2015, the International Court of Justice delivered its Judgment on the merits of the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia) case. This Judgment concludes the Court's involvement with allegations of state responsibility for genocide in the Balkans, which has spanned more than two decades since Bosnia brought a case against Serbia under the Genocide Convention in 1993. The many judgments and separate and dissenting opinions in the Bosnia and Croatia genocide cases have not only addressed the elements of the crime of genocide itself and the obligations imposed by the Genocide Convention, but have also considered jurisdictional questions, matters of state succession, and the relationship between the International Court of Justice and the work of the ad hoc tribunals, in particular the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.The Leiden Journal of International Law has organized a mini-symposium about the Croatia Judgment in order to address this important decision. The six articles in this symposium address several of the main issues raised by the judgment. A brief summary of the judgment follows.

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

2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (5) ◽  
pp. 787-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larissa Van Den Herik
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

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.

National Judges and Judges Ad Hoc of the International Court of Justice

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 889-900 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Schwebel
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Fundamental Problem ◽  
International Justice ◽  
State Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World

When the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice was drafted by an Advisory Committee of Jurists in 1920, a paramount question was, should a judge of the nationality of a State party to the case sit?The sensitivity of the issue was encapsulated by a report of a committee of the Court in 1927 on the occasion of a revision of the Rules of Court. It observed that: “In the attempt to establish international courts of justice, the fundamental problem always has been, and probably always will be, that of the representation of the litigants in the constitution of the tribunal. Of all influences to which men are subject, none is more powerful, more pervasive, or more subtle, than the tie of allegiance that binds them to the land of their homes and kindred and to the great sources of the honours and preferments for which they are so ready to spend their fortunes and to risk their lives. This fact, known to all the world, the [Court's] Statute frankly recognises and deals with.”1

A Special Chamber of the International Court of Justice — An Alternative to Ad Hoc Arbitration

1968 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 439-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
James N. Hyde
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Institutional Development ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

Litigation of contentious cases before the International Court of Justice has in some instances been a lengthy and comparatively expensive procedure. However, it is not necessarily the Court or its procedure that produces this situation, because governments parties to litigation sometimes feel it is important to retain a number of advocates to plead, and they agree on comparatively long periods for the preparation of written pleadings. Comparing this procedure with ad hoc arbitration before a referee and two arbitrators, the latter looks comparatively swift and inexpensive. However, there are as yet unused possibilities for the International Court to adjudicate cases on a basis comparable in time and expense to ad hoc arbitration. The use of the Court for what might be less important cases would also contribute to its institutional development.

scholarly journals Custom as a Source Under Article 21 of the Rome Statute

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Amit KUMAR
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract The adoption of the Rome Statute is a significant moment for international criminal law. Before its formulation, the criminal law was governed by the sources mentioned in their statute or Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice [ICJ Statute]. Custom is one of the important sources within the ICJ Statute. The ad hoc tribunals applied custom and even formulated certain customs. The formulation of custom is considered as against the principle of legality. To avoid such criticism, the State Parties inserted Article 21 in the Rome Statute. The provision clarifies the law which the court can apply. The parties chose not to include custom explicitly. However, the wordings of the provision indicate that the custom is still a source for the court. Apart from the wording of Article 21, other provisions of the Statute give ample scope for the application of custom.

The International Court of Justice and the Responsibility to Protect: Learning from the Case of The Gambia v. Myanmar

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Martin Mennecke
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Gambia ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Unique Contribution ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Accountability Measures ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Central Actor

Abstract It is a commonplace in the R2P discourse to describe accountability measures as key means to implement the responsibility to protect. In particular, the International Criminal Court is regularly highlighted as a central actor, both in the literature, the annual R2P reports issued by the UN Secretary-General, and the subsequent debates in the UN General Assembly. Conspicuously absent from this conversation is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (icj). This article examines the potential role of the ‘World Court’, as The Gambia in November 2019 started a new case under the UN Genocide Convention against Myanmar before the icj. Analysing the limitations and prospects and existing icj case-law, the article concludes that the International Court of Justice can make an important and unique contribution to the responsibility to protect.

The 1987 Elections to the International Court of Justice

1988 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 379-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward G. Lee ◽  
Edward McWhinney
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention

The Statute of the International Court of Justice specifies that the nominations of candidates for election to the Court shall be made by “national groups” constituted either by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PGA), or by national groups appointed for this purpose “under the same conditions” as those prescribed for members of the PCA under the Hague Convention of 1907. As of May 1987, about half the member states of the United Nations — seventy-six out of one hundred and fifty-eight — were members of the PCA, but among these only sixty-two had functioning national groups. Official United Nations documents show that a great many national groups from other states, perhaps created on an ad hoc basis for the regular elections to the Court, submit nominations as provided under Article 4(2) of the Statute. Once a candidate has been nominated by one or more national groups, the state of which he is a national is free to decide whether formally to sponsor his candidacy and to seek the support of other states in the elections to be held in the General Assembly and the Security Council.

GHOSTS OF GENOCIDES PAST? STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR GENOCIDE IN THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Paddeu
Keyword(s):  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Past State

IN Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v Serbia), the International Court of Justice (“ICJ” or “Court”) dealt with a claim by Croatia that Serbia was responsible for the commission of genocide against ethnic Croatians in contravention of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“the Convention”), and with Serbia's counter-claim that Croatia had committed genocide against ethnic Serbs also in breach of the Convention. In its judgment of 3 February 2015, the Court dismissed both the claim and counter-claim. While many of the acts complained of constituted the actus reus of genocide, there was no evidence that they had been perpetrated with the required mens rea, namely the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, the targeted group as such.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document