Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T12:12:25.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

SANDESH SIVAKUMARAN  and
SANTIAGO VILLALPANDO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The long awaited judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was handed down on 26 February 2007. It has attracted the attention of the international legal community as well as political circles. In addition, the world media – not to mention the local media – have taken note of the judgment, with leading newspapers carrying the story on their front pages rather than buried deep within, as sadly tends to be the case with international legal issues.

Type
HAGUE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS: International Court of Justice
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 63 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2008

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), Judgment of 26 February 2007, General List No. 91, available at www.icj-cij.org.

2. See, for example, ‘EU Presidency Statement on the International Court of Justice's Judgment’, 26 February 2007, available at http://www.eu2007.de/en/News/CFSP_Statements/February/0226Serbien.html.

3. Of late, there have been notable exceptions, for example M. Simons and T. Weiner, ‘World Court Rules US Should Review 51 Death Sentences’, New York Times, 1 April 2004 (on Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), [2004] ICJ Rep. 12); G. Crouch and G. Myre, ‘World Court Rules against Israel’, International Herald Tribune, 10 July 2004 (on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, [2004] ICJ Rep. 136).

4. E.g. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall, supra note 3; Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), [2005] ICJ Rep. 168.

5. E.g. United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), [1980] ICJ Rep. 3.

6. Take, e.g., the judgment in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), [1986] ICJ Rep. 14.

7. Recent such cases include Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, [1996] ICJ Rep. 226; Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), [2002] ICJ Rep. 3.

8. For discussion of some of the procedural aspects raised in the case see A. Riddell, ‘Report on the Oral Proceedings in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro): Selected Procedural Aspects’, (2007) 20 LJIL 405.