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: 30 October 2015
On 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.
1 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Merits, Judgment of 3 February 2015, at 40, para. 84, and at 50, para. 113.
2 Ibid., at 50–51, paras. 113–15.
3 Ibid., at 145, para. 524.
4 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, [2007] ICJ Rep. 43.
5 Croatia v. Serbia case, supra note 1, at 55, para. 128.
6 Ibid., para. 129.
7 Ibid., at 59–60, paras. 145 and 147.
8 Ibid., at 60, para. 146.
9 Ibid., para. 148.
10 Ibid., at 62–63, para. 157.
11 Ibid., at 63, para. 158.
12 Ibid., paras. 159–60.
13 Ibid., at 64–65, paras. 162–3.
14 Ibid., at 65, paras. 164–6.
15 Ibid., at 68, para. 182.
16 Ibid., paras 184–7.
17 Ibid., at 91, para. 295.
18 Ibid., at 102, para. 360.
19 Ibid., at 101, para. 356.
20 Ibid., at 106–7, paras. 376–82.
21 Ibid., at 109–10, paras. 397–400.
22 Ibid., at 110, para. 401.
23 Ibid., at 112, paras. 408–9.
24 Ibid., at 118, para. 435.
25 Ibid., at 119, para. 437.
26 Ibid., at 120, para. 440.
27 Ibid., at 120, para. 441.
28 Ibid., at 145, para. 524.
29 Ibid., at 130, para. 475, at 133, para. 485, and at 135, para. 493.
30 Ibid., at 136, para. 496, and at 137, para. 499.
31 Ibid., at 137–8, paras. 500–2, and at 141, para. 508.
32 Ibid., at 139–40, paras. 504–7.
33 Ibid., at 142, paras. 511–14.
34 Ibid., para. 515.
35 Ibid., at 145, para. 524.
