We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 June 2008
The Bosnia Genocide case dealt with several important matters of international law, apart from the issue of responsibility proper for genocide. The Court began by addressing issues of state succession in order to identify the proper respondent. It then found that the objection to jurisdiction raised by the respondent was res judicata. It held that the Genocide Convention created state responsibility in addition to international criminal responsibility of the individual. The contribution of the judgment to the law of evidence, in particular with reference to the standard and methods of proof, is significant. Finally, the Court applied the codification by the International Law Commission of attribution in state responsibility to the situation before it in deciding that the genocidal acts subject of the case were not attributable to Serbia, while also holding that Serbia was, nevertheless, responsible for omitting to prevent genocide.
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), Merits, Judgment of 26 February 2007 (not yet published) (hereinafter Bosnia Genocide case).
2. The three remaining conclusions related to compliance with a provisional measures order, compliance with the obligation to turn in war criminals to the ICTY, and satisfaction as a remedy.
3. Bosnia Genocide case, supra note 1, at para. 75.
4. Ibid., at para. 76.
5. Ibid., at para. 79.
6. Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 11 July 1996, [1996] ICJ Rep. 595.
7. Bosnia Genocide case, supra note 1, at para. 102.
8. Ibid., at para. 103.
9. Ibid., at para. 116.
10. Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina), Judgment of 3 February 2003, [2003] ICJ Rep. 7.
11. Bosnia Genocide case, supra note 1, at para. 125.
12. Ibid., at para. 128.
13. Ibid., at para. 135.
14. Factory at Chorzόw (Poland v. Germany), 1927 PCIJ Rep. Series A No. 12, at 23 (Judge Anzilotti, Dissenting Opinion).
15. In re Hubeau, ILOAT Judgment No. 574 [1983], at 3. For a discussion of res judicata in general, see Amerasinghe, The Law of the International Civil Service (1994), Vol. I., at 241.
16. In re Hubeau, supra note 15, at 4.
17. Ibid.
18. Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Compensation, Judgment of 15 December 1949, [1949] ICJ Rep. 244, at 248.
19. Bosnia Genocide case, supra note 1, at paras. 80–141.
20. Ibid., at paras. 155–82.
21. Ibid., at para. 162.
22. Ibid., at paras. 166–167.
23. Ibid., at para. 170.
24. Ibid., at para. 181.
25. Ibid., at para. 202.
26. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment of 26 November 1984, [1984] ICJ Rep. 392, at 437, para. 101.
27. See C. F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation (2005), 65–6, 67.
28. Bosnia Genocide case, supra note 1, at paras. 204–207, 370–376.
29. Ibid., at paras. 370–376.
30. See Amerasinghe, supra note 27, ch. 11.
31. Bosnia Genocide case, supra note 1, paras. 208–210.
32. Ibid., at para. 209.
33. For a discussion of higher standards of proof than the balance of probabilities see Amerasinghe, supra note 27, at 232.
34. Dissenting judges disagreed with the findings of the Court on this aspect. See, e.g., Bosnia Genocide case, supra note 1, at paras. 3, 34 (Judge Al-Kasawneh, Dissenting Opinion).
35. Bosnia Genocide case, supra note 1, at paras. 211–230.
36. Ibid., at para. 223.
37. Ibid., at para. 230.
38. It is beyond the scope of this article to re-evaluate the evidence in the place of the Court. Suffice it to note that the Court's evaluation of the evidence in coming to its conclusions was agreed to by a sizeable majority of the judges.
39. Bosnia Genocide case, supra note 1, at paras. 377–415.
40. Ibid., at para. 386.
41. Ibid., at para. 388.
42. Ibid., at para. 389.
43. Ibid., at para. 395.
44. Ibid., at paras. 399–407.
