Nor+- Corr-IQ~
Uncorrectecl
InternationalCourt Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THE HAGUE La HAYE
Public sitting
held on Wednesday 25 August 1993, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Sir Robert Jemings presiding
in the case concerningthe Application of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishnt of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovinav. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Hontenegro))
Requesl for the Indication of Provisional Beasures
Ho 2
VERBATIM RECORD
Audience publique
tenue le mercredi 25 août 1993, à 10 heures,au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de sir Robert Jemings, Président
en 2'affaire relative à Z8Applicationde la convention pour
la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide
(Bosnie-~erzégovinec. Yougoslavie (Serbie et Honténégro))
Demandes en indication de mesures conservatoires
COMPTE RENDUPresent:
President SirRobertJennings
Vice-PresidentOda
JudgesSchwebel
Bedjaoui
Ni
Evensen
Tarassov
Guillaume
Shahabuddeen
Aguilar Mawdsley
Weeramantry
Ajibola
Herczegh
Judges ad hoc Lauterpacht
Kreca
RegistrarValencia-Ospinaprésents:
Sir RobertJennings, Président
M. Oda, Vice-Président
MM. Schwebel
Bedjaoui
Ni
Evensen
Tarassov
Guillaume
Shahabuddeen
AguilarMawdsley
Weeramantry
Ajibola,juges
Herczegh,juges
Lauterparcht,
Kreca,juges ad hoc
M. Valencia-Ospina, GreffierThe Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is represented
by: :
H. E. Mr. MuhamedSacirbey, Ambassadorand Permanent Representative
of Bosniaand Herzegovina to theUnitedNations;
Mr. FrancisA. Boyle,Professor of InternationaLlaw,
as Agent;
Mr. Phonvan denBiesen, Advocate,
Mr. KhawarQureshi, Barrister E,ngland,
as Advocates and Counsel;
Mr. Marc Weller,Assistant Lecture in Law,University of Cambridge,
SeniorResearchFellow ofSt. Catharine's College, Cambridge,
as Counsel.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Elontenegro))is represented by:
Mr. RodoljubEtinski,Professorat the Schoolof Law,Novi Sad
(Yugoslavia),
Mr. DjordjeLopicic(LL.C.),Chargéd'affaires a.i. of the Embassy
of the FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia to theNetherlands,
as Agents;
Mr. ShabtaiRosenne, Advocatf eromJerusalem(Israel),
Mr. MiodragMitic (LL.C.),ChiefLegalAdviserof the Federal
Ministryof Foreign Affairs,
as Counsel and Advocates.Le Gouvernement de la osn nie-Herzégoviene$ représenté par:
S. Exc.M. Muhamed Sacirbey, ambassade etrreprésentantpermanent
de la osn nie-Herzégoviauprèsde liOrganisatiod nes
NationsUnies,
M. Francis A.Boyle,professeur de droit international,
comme agent;
M. Phonvan den Biesen, avocat,
M. KhawarQureshi,avocat,
comme avocats et conseils;
M. Marc Weller,Assistant Lecturer in &aw àl'université de
Cambridgeet Senior Research Fellowbf St. Catharinets College,
Cambridge,
comme conseil.
Le Gouvernement de la ~é~ublique fédérative de Yougoslavie (Serbie et
Monténégro) est représenté par:
M. RodoljubEtinski,professeur du cadre permanen t la Faculté de
droit,Novi Sad(Yougoslavie),
M. DjordjeLopicic(LL.C.),chargé d'affaire a.i. de l'ambassade de
la République fédérativ de YougoSla~ieaux Pays-Bas,
comme agents;
M. Shabtai Rosenne, avoca at barreau deJerusalem(Israel),
M. MiodragMitic (LL.C.),conseiller jpridiqu en chef duministère
fédéraldes affaires étrangères,
comme conseils et avocats. The PRESIDENT: Pleasebe seated. The sittingis open.
The Courtmeets today, pursuantto Article74, paragraph3, of the
Rulesof Court,to hear the observations of the Partiesto the case
concerning Application of the Conventionon the Prevention and
Punishment of theCrime of Genocide (Bosniaand HerzegovinaV.
Yugoslavia (Serbia and ~ontenegro))on a requestfor the indication of
provisional measuresunderArticle41 of the Statuteof the Court
presentedby the Republio cf Bosniaand Herzegovinaon 27 July 1993,and
a similar request presente dy the Republicof Yugoslavia(Serbia and
Montenegro) on 9 August1993.
The proceedingsin the case wereinstitutedby the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovin (towhich 1 shall refer, for convenienc as,
Bosnia-Herzegovina againstthe Republic of Yugoslavia(Serbiaand
Montenegro)(to be referredto as Yugoslavia),by an Application filedon
20 March 1993,invokingas basisof jurisdiction the 1948 Conventioonn
the Preventionand Punishment of the Crimeof Genocide. On the samedate
Bosnia-Herzegovina filed a request for indicationof provisional
measures; and in written observation presentedon 1 April 1993
Yugoslavia alsorecomrnende thatprovisionalmeasuresbe ordered. Ban
Orderdated 8 April 1993, the Court,afterhearing the Parties,ordered I
certain provisional measures which, however,nw otredenticalwith
thoseaskedfor byeither Party.
Sincethemakingof thatOrder,each ofthe Partieshas availed
itselfof the right conferreb dy Article31, paragraph3, of theStatute
of the Court,to choosea judge ad hoc to sit in the case,inasmuchas
the Courtincludesupon the Benchno judgeof thenationality of theParties. Bosnia-Herzegovina h chosenMr. Elihu Lauterpacht,C.B.E.,
Q.C.,Directorof the Research Centre for InternationalLaw, University
of Cambridge;Yugoslaviahas chosenMr. MilenkoKreca, formerly
Professorof International Law and AssociateDean,Belgrade School of Law.
Before proceeding further,1 shall inviteJudgesLauterpachtand
Kreca to make the solemndeclarationrequiredby Articles 20 and 31 of
the Statuteof the Court. They willdo so in the orderof precedence
laid dom by Article7, paragraph3, of the Rules of Court,i.e., first
JudgeLauterpacht, thenJudgeKreca. 1 shallrequestal1 presentto
standwhile the declarations aremade. JudgeLauterpacht.
JudgeLAUTERPACHT: 1 solemnlydeclarethat 1 will performmy duties
and exercisemy powersas judgehonourably, faithfully, impartial and
conscientiously.
The PRESIDENT: JudgeKreca.
JudgeKRECA: 1 solemnlydeclarethat 1 will performmy dutiesand
exercisemy powersas judgehonourably, faithfully, impartial and
conscientiously.
The PRESIDENT: Pleasebe seated.
1 place on record thesolemndeclarations just madeby
JudgeLauterpachtand JudgeKreca,and declarethem duly installedas
judges ad hoc in the case concemingApplication of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocideosnia and
Herzegovinav. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)).
When the second requestby Bosnia-Herzegovinfaor the indicationof
provisional measurewsas received,it was myduty as President "to fix a
date for a hearingwhich willafford thePartiesan opportunityof beingrepresented at it" as prescribedby Article74, paragraph3, of the
Rulesof Court. Takingal1 the circumstances intoaccount,1 fixedtoday
as the date for thehearing,and was unableto accedeto representations
by Bosnia-Herzegovina tht ate date bealteredto an earlierday.
It was howeveralsourged byBosnia-Herzegovin that the Court
could,and in thiscase should, indicate provisional measures without a
hearingat whichthe otherPartycouldbe represented, notwithstanding
the termsof Article74, paragraph3, of the Rules. This contention was
basedon Article75, paragraph 1, of the Rulesof Court, whichprovides
that
"The Courtmay at any time decideto examine
proprio motuwhetherthe circumstances of the case require
the indication ofprovisional measure whichoughtto be taken
or compliedwith by any or al1 of the parties."
A similarcontention had beenmade byBosnia-Herzegovin aat thetime
of its original requesf tor provisional measureon 20 March 1993. The
Parties wereinformedby letterof 24 March 1993that the Court had
considered the matterand ruledas follows:
"TheCourtnotesthe suggestion made in the requestthat
the Court take certain actionpropriomotu and the reference
in this connectiotno Article75, paragraph1, of the Rulesof
Court. It doesnot howeverconsiderthatin the present
proceedings,wherea specific requesthas been madefor the
indication of provisional measuresany questionarisesof the
exerciseof its powers underthatprovision, which in any event
do not, in the Court'sview, extendto indicating measures
withoutaffording both Partiesthe opportunity of beingheard."
1 was thereforeboundto regardthis approach as an attemptto
re-opena matteralready settled bd yecisionof the Court;
on my
instructions the Registrar reiteratedi,n aletterto theAgentof
Bosnia-Herzegovina dat1 ed August1993,the Court'sposition asset out
in the letterof 24 March1993. In view of the circumstanceh sowever 1feltit appropriate to exercisemy powersunderArticle74, paragraph4,
of the Rulesof Court. On 5 August1993, 1 addressedan urgent message
to both Parties,recalling thetermsof thatArticle, which enablesthe
President,pending the meetingof the Court,
"to callupon the partiesto act in sucha way as will enable
any orderthe Court maymake on the request for provisional
measuresto have its appropriateeffects".
The messagecontinued:
"1 do now callupon the Parties soto act,and 1 stress
that theprovisional measures already indica inedhe Order
which the Courtmade after hearintghe Parties,on
8 April1993,stillapply.
Accordingly 1 callupon the Partiesto take renewed note
of the Court'sOrderand to takeal1 and any measures that may
be withintheir power to preventany commission, continuan ocre
encouragementof theheinousinternational crim of genocide."
[BHY93/47,Ann. 3.1
On 10August1993,the Government of Yugoslaviafiledin the
RegistryWrittenObservations, dated9 August1993,on the secondrequest
for provisional measurp esesentedby Bosnia-Herzegovina. On the same day, the Govemment of Yugoslavia itselfiled a requesftor
the indication ofprovisionalmeasures.
The Agentof Bosnia-Herzegovin has, sincethe filingon
27 July 1993of the second request for the indicatioonf provisional
measures,transmitted to the Courta considerable numbe of
communications and documentshe purposeof whichwas to amendor
supplementthat request,and in some casestheApplication instituting
proceedings. Itwill be for theCourtin due course toruleon the
statusof theseinstruments; for the present1 shallsimplyenumerate
them.
.iir
Communications directe to amendingor supplementingthe requestfor
provisional measures or presenting additional materiw al,e addressed
to the Court by theAgentof Bosnia-Herzegovin an 4August,8 August,
22 August(two communications2 ), Augustand 24 August1993;
communications directe to amendingor supplementingboth the requestfor
provisional measuresand theApplication instituting proceedings were
addressedto the Court by theAgent of Bosnia-Herzegovin on 6 August,
7 August,10 August,13 Augustand 22 August1993.
Copiesof al1 thesecommunications were transmitt tedtheAgentsof
Yugoslaviaas soonas theywere receivedin the Registry. By a letter *(
dated 24 August1993,theAgentof Yugoslavia submitte Written
Observations of his Governmenton themattersraisedin a numberof the
communications from the Age oftBosnia-Herzegovina.
1 note the presencein the Courtof the Agentsand representatives
of the two Parties. The Court is at presentseisedof requests by both
Partiesfor the indicatio nf provisional measures;since
Bosnia-Herzegovini as theApplicantin the case, andits requestfor
measures is priorin date to thatof Yugoslavia,1 proposeto give the
floor first to Bosnia-Herzegovina. 1 therefore givethe floorto Mr. MohamedSacirbey,Permanent
Representativeof Bosnia-Herzegovin ao theUnitedNations.
Mr. Sacirbey.
Mr. SACIRBEY: Thankyou,Mr. President.
Mr. President,distinguisheJdudges ofthe InternationalCourtof
Justice,may it pleasethe Court.
On 8April1993,thisCourt issued its Orderin responseto a
requestfromthe Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina for preliminary
measures, by concludini g,part,thatSerbiaand Montenegroshould take
al1 measuresto ensurethatgenocidedoesnot continue to be executed
againstthe Bosnianpeople and, in particular, againstheMuslimsof
Bosniaand Herzegovina.
Today,we are here to informyou that thegenocide continueand
thatwe, the Governmentof the Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina,are
now being forcedto negotiatewith the perpetratorof this crime,while
the threatof ongoinggenocide is held as a loadedgun to Our head.
In view of the fact that the aforementioanedsof genocide
continuein contraventioonf the Court'sOrderfor ProvisionalMeasures
of 8 April 1993,we cal1upon the Courtto address three generaand
essentialissues:
First,can the absoluterightto self-defence, affirmb ed
Article51 of theUnited Nations Charte of the Peopleand Governmentof
the Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovinabe abridgedby the
Security Councila,s longas the Councilhas nottakenal1 thenecessary
measuresrequiredto stop the genocide?
Second,can the Security Councilct to limitthe affirmative
obligationof the signatoriesof the Conventioon the Preventionand
Punishmentof the Crimeof Genocideto stop thecrime? and Third, can any agreement signedy the Republicof Bosniaand
Herzegovina, underthe compulsionand threatof continuing genocidb e,
deemed as validand binding on the Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina?
These three issues areinvariablyinterrelated.
Despitean ongoinggenocide, certaii nnfluentialmembers ofthe
European Communityand certainpowerful permanen membersof the
Security Council, have undu usyed theirinfluenceto maintainan unjust
and genocide-abettinagrmsembargoon the Republicof Bosniaand
Herzegovina and to effectively prevent thi rduntries fromtakingthe
necessary measuretso confrontthe Serbians and stop theircampaign of
genocide. Thus far,the common denominator oal1 international
cornmunitiynterventionhsas been the lack of wilto confrontand stop
the Serbian perpetrators.
Promoting negotiations betwe the victim anpderpetrator is,in and
of itself,an inadequate and unprincipledresponseto the crimeof
genocide. What is especially flawe in thisprocess,both morally and
logically, is that thenegotiations arperomotedas a preconditionto
endingthe execution of the crime.
In thismatter1 noted yesterday the threatof Dr. Karadicthat if
in factthe Republic of Bosni and Herzegovinadoesnot acquiesceto the I
demandsto sign the currentproposa1 from thC eo-Chairmen, thaitn fact
the assaultsand siegeson the peopleof Bosniaand theircities will
intensify.
Although numerous calls tbye SecurityCouncil and GeneralAssembly
for a cease-fire,the free flowof humanitarian assistanca e,d an end to
ethniccleansing, murder,tortureand rapeof civilians have been ignored
by the Serbian forcest,he internationalcommunityavoids the
responsibilityto confrontthe Serbians byplacingthe unprincipledburdenupon the victimto find a waythroughtalksto satisfythe
ambitionsof thosethathave resortedto the ultimate in evil,rape,
torture,murderand genocide.
Certain membersof the international communihave offeredthe
servicesof mediatorsto assistin the negotiations. Lackingthemeans
and/orwill to compel the Serbian so complywith the resolutionsnd
Orders of the SecuritCouncil,the General Assembly, the London
Conferenceon the Former Yugoslaviand this Court, the mediators
effectivelylegitimizethe ambitions,pretencesand, ultimatelyt,he
consequencesof the crime. The ruleof law is overriddenby the ruleof
force. The more brutal,determinedand criminalthe force,it seems,the
less will there itso confrontit.
Some might argutehatthe Bosnians always havtehe optionnot to
participatein the negotiations, itheyare so flawed. However, even
here,we faceunprincipled pressure. That is, ifwe do notparticipate
in this process,we arethenlabelledas unco-operativb ey thosewho have
the very responsibilityo stopthe crime. Consequently, thecriminal
takes advantagaend is emboldenedto pursueits objectives even more
boldlyand brutally,believingthatthe internationa community will not
respond,and believingthatthe victim will beblamedfor resisting the
legitimizatioannd consequenceosf the crime.
None the less,becauseof a clearlackof will to confrontthe
perpetrator, the Bosniamnsst pursuenegotiations asa subtitutefor
Justiceas the onlyavailable option fora longertermpeace. However,
if the negotiationasre to bring about anyurable peace,they mustbe
pursuedin an environmenthospitablefor an equitable solution. A
cease-firemust befirmly established humanitarian assistance must not
be blocked,and the aggressionand sieges must stop by whateveransarenecessary. To pursuenegotiations in any other environments to make an
agreement,resultingtherefrom, nul1 and voidon the basisthatany
signaturewas coercedunderthe threat of continuinggenocide.
More to the point, shoulwe evenexpect thatan agreementdelivered
undersuch inequitable circumstancesouldbe durable? From the
perspectiveof the victim,it is a sourceof continuingbitternessand
fuelsthe desireto see justicedelivered. From the viewof the
perpetrator,it is a formulafor successand an al1 too obvious
invitation for furthecrimes. This Court, inits Order for Preliminary Measureosf 8 April 1993,
unequivocally called foran end tothe genocideagainst the Bosnian
peopleand for al1 measuresto stop this genocide. Today,the siegeof
Our citiesand the torture, rape,murder,and expulsion ofOur citizens
continueunabated. The Court is now facedwith the imperativefor more
directand resolute measuresto see its Order of8 April 1993,
implemented. In addition,the Courtis facedwith the prospect that the
failureto implementits Orderof 8 April 1993, has, in fact, been
utilizedas a means to coercethe victimto accept, rather than resist,
the consequences ofthe crimesthat this Courthas alreadycondemned.
Despitesome reasonsto fear that this Courtmay becomesubjectto
political pressurew ,e, the Bosnians, must deliverur confidence inthe
independence of the Courtand its commitmentto legal principlesand the
rule of law. After all,a failureby this Courtto confrontthe Serbian
aggression, crimeof genocide,and the consequencet shereofwouldnot
only be a tragedyfor Bosnia,but also adenigration of the international
legalsystem.
As the crimeof genocide continueu snabated, Serbiaand Montenegro
are usingthe apparatusof the International Courtof Justiceand the
UnitedNationsto deny and therefore abet theircrime, byrepeatedly
denying the existenc of the plaintiff. In the currentcontext, such
legalmanoeuvringmust beseen as abetting the crime. Signallingthe
attemptto dismembera sovereign State through genocide, officia1
Yugoslav statementrsepeatedlyreferto the "the so-calledRepublicof
Bosniaand Herzegovina"or "theFormerRepublicof Bosniaand
Herzegovina"- includingin arguments beforethis Court. This is
demonstrated in the document submittetdo the Court, entitled"Observations of the FederalRepublicof Yugoslaviato the second request
made on 27 July 1993and the amended secor ndquestmade on4 August1993
by the so-calledRepublicof Bosniaand Herzegovina for th endication
of provisionalmeasures"(emphasis added). Again,"FormerRepublicof
Bosniaand Herzegovina( "emphasisadded)appearsin officalpress
releasesof the United Nations Missio onthe FederalRepublicof
Yugoslavia, forexample,the PressReleases dated 6 August1993and
12 August1993. Clearly, Yugoslaviais usingthe forumof the
United Nationsand thisCourtto eulogizea recognized MembeS rtate,even
as Yugoslavia,that is Serbiaand Montenegro,commitsgenocide aggression
1'
against that State.
Thus, in the referencesto the "so-calleda"nd "Former"Republicof
Bosniaand Herzegovina, the Belgraderégimeseeksto mock the authority
of the InternationalCourtof Justiceand theUnitedNations, utilize
theseinstitutions to furtherthe dismembermentof the Republicof Bosnia
and Herzegovina,a memberof the UnitedNations,and signalsthe Belgrade
régime'sfinalsteps inperpetrating it sggressionand the crimeof
genocide.
Thankyou foryour attention, and 1 now will cal1uponmy fellow
Co-Agent,ProfessorBoyleto presentthe restof Our case.
ProfessorBOYLE: Mr. President, distinguished Memberof the
InternationalCourtof Justice, may it pleasethe Court:
The Membersof the Court arefamiliarwith the procedural posturoef
this case,so 1 will nottakeyour timeto reviewit here. On
8 April 1993,thisCourt issued an Orderindicating three measuro es
provisional protectio on behalfof the Republicof Bosniaand
Herzegovina,but the Respondent- Yugoslavia(Serbia and Montenegr -o)paid absolutelyno attention whatsoeve to thisCourt'sOrder,and
immediatelyproceededto violateeachand every oneof its provisiono sn
a dailybasis.
SectionB of our currentrequestof 27 July 1993, asarnendeadnd
supplemented,containsa briefchronology of the Respondent's violation
of the Court'sOrder. It is a chronologyof death, destruction murder,
rape,terror, torturet ,hewantondevastation of cities,and the
intentional inflictio on physicalandmental sufferinu gponhundredsof
thousandsof completely innocenthumanbeings. There areover30 pages
of single-spaced, denseltyypedentriesdrawnfrom reputabln eewsmedia
sourcesaroundthe worldincluding accountsby organsand officialsof
theUnited Nations Organization,distinterested foreiggnvernments,war
correspondentsa,nd othereye-witness accounts. As youcan see for
yourselves,the Respondenhtas committedand continuestodayto commit
actsof genocide against the people anSdtateof Bosniaand Herzegovina
in violationof the 1948 Genocide Conventioand this Court'sOrderof
8 April1993.
There areno limitsto the cruelty, rapacity, territori ambitions
and bloodlustof thisRespondent.And as confirmation of this fact,
publicofficialsof the Respondent - includingand especiallythe
Presidentof Serbia,Slobodan Milosevic- are todayopenlyand publicly
proposing anndegotiating iGneneva, BelgradeZ,agreband elsewhere,the
partition, dismemberment, annexat andnincorporationf the sovereign
territoryof the Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina,as we speak here
today. The success oftheir endeavourswill constitute the logical
culminationof their genocidal plan to createa "GreaterSerbia"as
explainedin Our Applicationthat institutetdheseproceedings. Ifnotpreventedby thisCourt,the Respondent plansto annexand incorporate
approximately 75 per centof the sovereignterritoryof the Republicof
Bosniaand Herzegovina.
This brutal,savageand criminalactwill thenbe followedby
furthermeasures ofso-called "ethnic cleansing" againstal1 who livein
Our landsand continueto recognize Bosniancitizenship - whetherMuslim,
Croat,Serb,Jew or other. We have already establishe in Our previous
submissions to the Courtthat "ethniccleansing" is a formof genocidein
violation of the GenocideConvention.The Respondent's proposed
negotiated partitio of Bosniaand Herzegovina will bethe preludeto the
'(i7
ultimateextermination of Our peopleand thefinal extinctioo nf Our
State. Clearly, the destructio on a sovereign natioState bymeansof
genocide by another State mustfa11withinthe prohibitiono sf the
GenocideConvention to whichboth States are Contracti Parties.
Sincethe Court'sOrderof 8April1993,another major development
havinga decisive bearingupon Our request for provisional measuo res
27 July is that theRespondent has officiallyadmittedits responsibility
for arming, equipping,and supplythe Serbarmyand militiaforces,
paramilitary and irregulararmedunitsoperatingin Bosniaand
Herzegovina.SectionC of Our currentrequestcontainsthe fulltextof V
at least three statement to that effect issuebdy the Respondentn or
about11 May 1993. Here 1 want to draw yourattentionto whatwe believe
to be themost salientportionsof two of thesedocumentsfor the purpose
of this request.
The first communiquwéas issuedby the Republicof Serbia,whichis
the predominantpart of Yugoslavia(Serbiaand Montenegro), the
Respondentin this case. It startsby proclaiming: "Firmlybelievingthat ajust battle for freedom and the
equalityof the Serbian people is being conductedin the Serb
Republic [of Srpska]the Republicof Serbiahas been
unreservedlyand generously helping thS eerb Republic,in spite
of the enormousproblemsit had to face due to the sanctions
introduced againstit by the UN SecurityCowicil."
And, that was one month afteryour Court Order. Notice, the Republicof Serbia shamelessly buftorthrightly
proclaimed that thc eampaign ofgenocideby Serbs in Bosniais "a just
battle forfreedom andthe equalityof the Serbian People". In other
words, the Republic of Sebh ias fullyendorsed,ratified and approved
what the Bosnian Serb have done: genocideand acts of genocidein
violationof the Genocide Conventioa nnd this Court'srderof
8 April 1993, lessthan a monthbefore. The Republicof Serbia, inthe
communiqué, then admitted thatit "hasbeen unreservedlyand generously
helping"the Bosnian Serbsin violation ofthe express will of the
United Nations Securit Council. What effrontery. In essence,Serbia
has admitted thatit is factually and legall responsible for whatthe
Bosnian Serbshave done to the peopleand Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina
and couldnot care less what the SecurityCouncilsays about thismatter.
Towards theend of the document,the Republic of SerbiaStates:
"Sincethe conditions for space have beenmet ..." Notice the use of the
word Q1space".Here the Republic of Serbiaindicatesan awarenessthat
Bosnian Serbshave been driving non-Serbs ou tf theirhomes in orderto
create "space"by means of so-called"ethniccleansing", which isa form
of genocide. Serbia'sse ofthe word "space"in this communication
shouldremind the Court of the invocationof the word"Lebensraum" by
Hitlerand the Nazis over a generationago. This communiqué by the
Republicof Serbiaconcludesby freely admitting tha it has been
providing "fundsf,uel, raw materials,etc." to the Serbs in Bosniaat
the costof its "economicdepletion".
These admissions bythe Republicof Serbia werefully endorsed,
approved,and ratified by Yugoslavia(Serbia andMontenegro)in the
second communiquéissuedin conjunctionwith and as part of the same
document asthe firstcommuniqué and 1 have attachedthis documentto my
requestand it was providedto me by the Respondent'sMission inNew York. So, the Respondentin thiscaseitselfhas legallyadmitted
that it has supplied"funds,fuel, raw materials etc."to theSerbsin
Bosniafrom theoutsetof thisconflicton or about 6 March 1992 upto
and includingat least11 May 1993. This is more than enoughto
establishthe Respondent's responsibilituynderinternational law for
violating the 1948 Genocide Convent andnal1 three operativperovisions
of thisCourt'sOrderof 8 April1993.
The firstcommuniqué's use of the abbreviatio"etc."raisesthe far
more seriousand ominous implicatio that theRespondent has been
providing militaryweapons, equipment supliesand troopsto Serbian
forcesin Bosnia, whoin turn haveused theseinstruments of warfareto
inflictactsof genocideupon the people anS dtate ofBosniaand
Herzegovina.This conclusion is made quiteclear byal1 the facts
introduced into evidencseo far in thiscase. It can alsobe confirmed
by a statementgivenby Slobodan Milosevic, Presido entthe Republicof
Serbia andde facto rulerof the Respondent,whichwas issuedin
conjunctionwith the promulgationof these communiquéson 11 May 1993and
1 have providedto the Court thefulltext ofthe translatioo nf
Mr. Milosevic'sstatement, preparedby the BBC. This statementby
Mr. Milosevic- actingin his officia1capacityas Presidentof the
Republicof Serbia - speaks for itselafnd binds theRespondent.
Mr. Milosevic startebdyadmittingthat theRepublicof Serbia
providedassistance to "Serbsoutsideof Serbia" for "thepast two
years" - that is, going backto on or about May1991 orso, justbefore
the entireconflictin the formerYugoslavia was unleashed by
Mr. Milosevichimself whenhe instituted barbaricaggression and
genocidal warfare againt ste peoplesof Slovenia and Croatiaandthen
lateragainst Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. Milosevicthenshamelessly stated: "Mostf the assistancweas
sent to peopleand fighters in Bosniaand Herzegovina." Let me repeat
his word "fighters". In other words,Mr. Milosevicadmitted andconceded
that the Republic of Serbi provided "assistancefor the pasttwoyears
to "fighters" in the Republic oBosniaand Herzegovina. He also
indicatedthat this assistance wa provided"to Serbs whowere at war" in
defianceof the willof the internationa lommunity, asexpressedby
international sanction adoptedby the United Nations Securi Council.
Once again,Mr. Miloseviccouldnot carelessaboutSecurityCouncil
resolutions and thatis why thisCourtmust pay most significant
attentionto the 10 provisionalmeasuresof interimprotection thatwe
have requested.We believethatthe Security Council wil pay some
attentionto what thisCourthas to say.
Mr. Milosevicthenstatedquiteclearlythat, asa resultof the
help providedby the Republicof Serbiato Bosnian Serbs fot rhe past two
years,"Mostof the territory in the formerBosnia-Herzegovina belongs
now to Serbprovinces." In other words,Mr. Milosevichas endorsed,
approved and ratified t hempaignof "ethniccleansing"and genocide
launched by the Bosnian Ser atsthe behestof the Respondent, which has
resultedin theirseizureof almost75 per centof the sovereign
territoryof Bosniaand Herzegovina.If therewere any doubtabout this,
Mr. Milosevic conclude his statement by sayinghat,becauseof the
"great,greatdeal of assistance to the Serbsin Bosnia"given bythe
Republicof Serbia, the Bosnian Ser" bsaveachievedmost of what they
wanted".
Thesethree documents sef torthin Our requestindicatequite
clearlythatthe Respondenh tas knowingly armede,quipped and supplied
Serbianfightersin Bosniafor the express purposeof seizingBosnian
lands andthendrivingout non-Serbs by meansof "ethniccleansing", aformof genocide. Moreover,al1 foreign observers agra eed SectionB of
our current reques as supplemented indicates that,spitethe so-called
cut-offof 11 May 1993,the Respondenthas continuedto provideweapons,
equipmentand suppliesto Serbian military,militia,paramilitaryforces
and irregular armedunitsoperatingin Bosniaand Herzegovina
continuously until toda as,we speak,in violationof the
Genocide Convention and this Court'sderof 8 April 1993.That is
preciselywhy the Respondentrejectedits priorofferto permit the
stationingof United Nations monitorslong itsborderwith Bosniaand
Herzegovinain orderto verify theirso-calledcut-off.
The Courtwill recall that thehenacting Agent for the Respondent,
Mr. Zivkovic,toutedthisofferbefore the Courd turingthe courseof
oral proceedingosn 2April1993 asan indication of the Respondent's
supposed peaceful intentions towards the pa eopState ofBosniaand
Herzegovina.Yet as we now know everything the ActinAgents for theRespondenttold
the Courton 2April 1993 was a completecontradictionto the truth: The
three statementq suotedverbatimin SectionC of ourcurrent request
testify to the true facts t ofiscase. They indicatequiteclearlywhy
i
the Courtmust grantOur requestfor the additionam leasures of
protection set forthon 27 July 1993.
In orderto substantiate and corroboratteheseadmissions we have
also filedwith the Courton 24 August 1993 andexpertarticleby
Dr. Vego publishedin JanelsIntelligence Reviea ws recentlyas October
of 1992, the content of which 1duly incorporat here by reference.
This articleestablishes beyondra easonable doubt thathe Respondent
actuallyexercisesoperational command-and-controolver the JNA/YPA
militaryforces and other Serbian militaryparamilitaryand irregular
armedunitscurrently deployedin Bosnia and Herzegovinathathave
committed acts of genocide in violatioof the 1948 Genocide Convention
and thisCourt's Orderof 8 April1993. We respectfully ask the Courtto
considerthis expertarticlewhen it retiresto deliberate on our current
request.
SectionD of Our requestsets forththe consequences sough to be
avoidedby theseadditional measures. Their overriding objectivet os
prevent thefurtherloss of humanlife and furthea rcts of genocide
against the peoploef Bosniaand Herzegovina.Already,a minimumof
about 150,000 people have been killed, 30 w,omenhave been rapeda,nd
abouttwo-and-a-halm fillion Bosnians have been renderedefugeesfrom
theirown homes.
But thetragedyof Bosnia and Herzegovin has only justbegun -
unless thisCourtmoves promptlye ,ffectively,and fullyby meansof
granting the additional measur ofsprotection setforthin Our request.If the Respondent actuall yarriesout itsplan to partition,annexand
incorporate three-quarters orso of the sovereignterritoryof the
Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina, the generally accepted figures that
up to one millionor more Bosniancitizenswill thenbe subjectedto
so-called "ethniccleansing",which is a formof genocide. And 1 do
writethat figure from an officia1State Departmensttudy whosecontents
was supported earlier thissummerin the NewYork Times. Rightnow as
we speak,hundredsof thousandsof completely innocen humanbeingsin
Bosnia and Herzegovina ac rerrentlybeingsubjectedto death,
starvation, malnutritios n,verebodilyinjury,torture, physicaa lnd
mentalharm, as well as themass rapeof women,and the systematic abuse
of children. The provisional measure to be indicatedare thuscompelled
by themost fundamental humanitaric anncerns.
The Respondent's gross, systemata ic,persistent violatio of
basic international lega ald humanitarian rights pertainitnogthe
peopleof Bosniaand Herzegovina could neverbe adequately compensated
for the paymentof monetary reparations shou the Court ultimately
decidein favourof Bosniaand Herzegovina's claim as set forthin our
Aplication. Pendingthe Court'sdecisionon themerits,it is imperative
that theRespondent's criminaland genocidal behaviou re terminated
forthwith bytheseadditional provisional measuresO .therwise,the
Respondent andits agentsand surrogateswill inflictimmediateand
irreparableharm uponthe peopleand Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina.
Only by grantintghe provisional measures setorthin our current
request can the rightsof the peopleand Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina
be fullyprotectedand preserved. Indeed,if the Court does not grant the additional provisional
measures set forthin Our request, Bosnia and Herzegovina will not be
able to argue its case on the meritsto the Court. 1 herebycertifythis
fact to be true in my capacities as Agent forthe Republic of Bosniaand
Herzegovina,as a Memberof the Bar of the SupremeCourtof the
United States of Americaand the Barof the Supreme Judicial Couro tf the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.This Courtmust not allowthe Respondent
to win this case by means of exterminating the peopl and destroying the
Stateof Bosnia andHerzegovina.
But if you do not act that is exactlywhat they intendto do, to
removeus from the list permanently.
In the recentpast, this Courthas emphasized that r aequestfor the
indicationof provisional measures
"must by its very nature relatt eo the substanceof the case
since,as Article41 [of the Statute]expresslyStates,their
objectis to preservethe respective rights of either party"
(~nited States Diplornaticand Consular Staff in Tehran,
Provisional Measures, I.C.J. Reports 1979,p. 16, para. 28):
"The Courtshall havethe powerto indicate,if it
considersthat circurnstance so require, any provisional
measures which ought to be takento preserve the respective
rights of either party." (Emphasisadded.)
And 1 emphasize the word "any"foundin Article41.
Our request for additional measureo sf protection is motivatedby
the desireto have the Court protect th "rights"of the peopleand State
of Bosniaand Herzegovina as set forthin Section D of Our request. This
request is even moreimportantly motivate dy the desireto have the
Courtprotectthe very existenceof the peopleand Stateof Bosniaand
Herzegovina from extermination by means of genocide,partition,
dismemberment, annexatio and incorporation by the Respondent. Sincethe
Courthas the legalpower to protect the "rights of BosniaandHerzegovinaunderArticle41, thena fortiori the Court mushtave the
legalpowerto protectthe Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina itself.
The sovereign"rights"of the people anSdtate of Bosniaand
Herzegovina to their independent existenasea nationStateand as a
member Stateof the United Nations Organization mc usttainly bearnong
the "rights"thatthe Courtcan protectunderArticle41 of the Statute,
which is "an integralpart"of the UN Charter accordintgo Article91.
In essence,I am todayaskingthe Courtto act underStatuteArticle41
to protectthe veryexistence of a State Member oftheUnited Nations
which is a "party"to a casethatis currently pendin before theCourt
fromthe physical mutilationand thentotalannihilation by theother
"party" tothe same case in violatioonf the 1948Genocide Convention,
which is the verysubject-matteorf the lawsuit itself.The word"any"
foundin StatuteArticle41 indicates quiteclearly that the Couh rts
the powerto protectBosniaand Herzegovina by al1 meanspossible from
genocide,exterminationp ,artition, dismemberment, annexation,
incorporationa,nd thenultimate destruction b the Respodent.
The Court's jurisdiction inhiscaseis alreadyprimafacie
establishedunderthe Genocide Convention fo al1 the reasonsset forth
in Our Applicationand Our 20 March 1993requestfor provisional
measures, andthe oral submissiontshat1 already made befortehe Court
on 1 and 2 April1993.Indeed,the Courthas alreadyindicated provisional measure on behalfof
Bosniaand Herzegovina in its 8 April1993Order. In lightof the three
statements made bythe Respondent, on or about11 May 1993,in light of
the public plans by the Respondentto partition, dismember,nnexand 4
incorporate substantial portio onsthe sovereignterritoryof the
Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina, ani dn lightof the violation of this
Court's Orderof 8 Aprilby the Respondent we believethat theCourt
must now indicateadditional provisional measuresto preserveOur rights
underthe GenocideConvention as well as our rightto existas a
sovereign nation Stat and a Memberof the UnitedNations.
w
Becausethe Respondent has repeatedly contested the jurisdict ofon
the Courton the basisof the Genocide Convention, 1 have feltit
necessaryto filewith the Court a44-pageMemorandumof Law on
jurisdiction underthe Convention, thatwas dated22 August1993. 1 will
not reviewthatMemorandumin detailhere,but will simply incorporate
its contentsby reference at thi time. But theMemorandumestablishes
beyond a reasonable doup bteciselywhy thisCourthas jurisdiction over
our Applicationand our currentrequest for provisional measuresunder
the 1948 GenocideConvention.It alsoestablishes beyonda reasonable
doubtwhy the Court should construe i jurisdictionunderthe Genocide
Convention in themost liberaland far-reaching mannerpossiblefor the
purposeof theseproceedings and in orderto accomplish the sacred
objectives of the Genocide Conventioitself. 1 submitthatthe Court
has al1 the authorityit needsunderthe GenocideConvention and Statute
Article41 to grantal1 of the provisional measure we havenow requested
in fulland as soon as possible.
Nevertheless,and out of an excessof caution,concerning this most
importantquestion ofthe jurisdiction of the Court,1 have also fileda
briefMemorandumof Law outlining our thought on why theCourt'sjurisdictionin this case is also groundein the Customary and
Conventional International Laws of a WarInternational Humanitarian
Law, including butnot limitedto the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949,
the FirstAdditional Protocol of 197 7,e Hague Regulationsn Land
Warfareof 1907and the Nuremberg Charte Judgement, andPrinciples.
And 1 shouldnote thatthe FormerYugoslavia did indeedsign the
NurembergCharter. The precise reasonf sor the assertionofthese
additional jurisdictional bases will debvelopedat greater lengtihn
Our Memorial whichis due beforethe Courton 15 October1993.
But ifthe Courtdoesnot grantour additional measuresof
protection in fulalnd as soonas possiblewe willnot be able to submit
Our Memorialto the Courton 15 October1993. Withouttheseadditional
measuresof protection, we couldbe physicallydestroyed andlegally
liquidated, both asa people and aState, bythe Respondent befortehen.
So the Court mustgrantOur requested additiona measuresof protection
in orderto permitus to even beginto argueOur caseon themeritsto
the Court. Certainly, one of the"rights"of Bosniaand Herzegovina that
the Courthas the powerto protectunderStatuteArticle41 is Our right
to institute andconducttheselegalproceedings in accordancewith the
provisions oftheUnited Nations Charter, theStatuteand Rulesof the
Court and theGenocide Conventio itself.
Once again,out of an abundanceof caution,conceming thismost
importantquestion ofthe Court'sjurisdiction to grant additional
provisional measures and the final rew liehave requestedw,e have also
reliedupon the letterof 8 June 1992 from Slobodan Milosev icd
Momir Bulatovic, the respective Presido entSerbia and Montenegr (the
Respondent)to Mr.Robert BadinterP ,residentof the Arbitration
Commissionon the Conferenceof Yugoslavia.On 13 August 1993, 1 filedwith the Court aforma1Memorandumof Law on why "Yugoslavia(Serbiaand
Montenegro)has acceptedthe Court'sJurisdiction underArticle36,
paragraph1, over al1 Legal DisputesBetweenthe six FormerYugoslav
republicsarising from thD eissolutionof Yugoslavia"on thebasisof
this 8 June letter. Once again,1 will notreview the content of the
Memorandum here; but will simply incorporatit byreference. But for
reasons fullyexplainedin theMemorandum, we submit that theletter
falls withinthe rulingof this Courtfoundin the NuclearTests case
of 1974insteadof the Aegean Sea ContinentaShelf caseof 1978.
We submit thatby meansof the letterthe Respondentaccepted the
jurisdictionof the Courtto hear al1 three questionpsosedto the
BadinterCommission by Lord Carrington,and including"al1questions
involvedin the overallsettlement of the Yugoslavcrisis"and "al1legal
disputeswhich cannotbe settled byagreement". This declarationis
clear, unconditiona and immediate,andwas expressedin unambiguous
language andintent. As the lettermakes clear, the Respondentaccepted
the jurisdictionof the Courtover thesemattersin orderto avoidand
evadethe jurisdiction of the BadinterCommission.But now we have
acceptedthe Respondent'sofferto have thesematters adjudicated b the
Court, the Responden seeksto avoid and evadtehe jurisdictionof this w
Courtas well. The Respondent canno htave it bothways. It is either
Badinter, whichtheyhave rejected,or thisCourt, whichtheyhave also
rejected.
In termsof context,the letterof 8 Junewas a forma1public
statementissuedin responseto the Chairof an international arbitration
tribunal concernin the properforumfor the resolutio of a definedset
of issuesbetweena definedset of parties. It cannotnow be dismissed
as a generalpolicystatement withno bindingeffect. The RepublicofBosniaand Herzegovina as well as the participanin the conferencaend
the entireinternational communi tyve reasonably reliedpon this
letterby the Respondenats an acceptanceof the Court'sjurisdiction
with respectto al1 legal disputes betweethe Former Yugoslavrepublics
arisingfromthe Yugoslavcrisis,which would includ the subject-matter
of this lawsuiatnd our current requefsotr provisionaleasures.
Sincefirst introducing thl istterintoevidence before the Court
on 1 and 2 April,we have obtained a preciseranslationof the operative
paragraphs froam Serbo-CroatialnanguageintoEnglishby a linguistic
expert,Professor AnneHenderson at the Colleo ge William anMary in
Williamsburg,Virginia. Professor Henderson's translation demonstrates
thatthe language used in the letterwas intendedto conveyan immediate
and unconditional acceptanceto he Court'sjurisdiction.And here 1
quotefrom theoperative paragraphsof ProfessorHenderson's translation: "TheFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia takes the position
that thoselegal disputes which cannotbe resolvedthrough
agreementof the FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia and the former
Yugoslav republics mus te submittedto the juisdictionof the
International Courotf Justice asthe principal court
organizationof the UN.
Therefore, keepingin mind thefact that thequestions
your letterraisedwere of a legalnature, the FederalRepublic
of Yugoslavia proposetshat if agreementon thesequestions
cannotbe reached among the participantsof the conference,
they be resolved beforethe International Courotf Justicein
accordancewith the Statuteof that Court."
The language isunqualifiedin statingthat al1 legal disputes specified
therein"mustbe submitted"to the Courtand laterthat thethree
specific questions"be resolved"by the Court. The languagein
AegeanSea was neither asdefinitenor as forceful. Moreover,the
AegeanSea communiquéwas notsignedor initialledby eitherof the
PrimeMinisters,which is the casehere for thetwo Presidentsthat
constitute the Responden (see I.C.J.Reports 1978,p. 39). Once
again,we submit thisletterand declarationfit within the
NuclearTest casesnot the AegeanSea case. Finally,in supportof
this proposition,1 also mentionit this time and cite asauthority
directlyon point the Arbitration betwee nranceand Canadaof
17 July 1986involving the applicationof a 1972 FisheriesTreaty between
the two States.This Arbitration can be interpretedto stand for the
propositionthatwhen a party to a dispute makes aforma1declaration
duringarbitration, this declaratii onbinding(seeRevue générale de
droit internationalpublic,p. 756). In this case,the Frenchagent
declared duringan earlier arbitratiopnroceedingthatFrancewould
enforcethe 1972 Treatyquotason its nationals who were fishingin the
disputedarea. The ArbitrationCommitteeruled thatthis statement was
bindingon France (ibid.). Similarly,the 8 June 1992letterand declaration was a formal,
signedjointstatementto the Badinter Commission b the Presidentsof
Serbiaand Montenegroon behalfof the Respondentin this case made
duringthe proceedingo sf the International Conferen onethe Former
Yugoslavia.The Chaiman of the Conference askedthe Arbitration
Commission, and indirectlyal1 six republicshow thenumerouslegal
issues shouldbe settled. SerbiaandMontenegro responded on behalfof
the Respondent, thaitf the republics themselves conuold settletheir
disputes, thenonly the InternationaClourtof Justice -not the Badinter
Commission -must adjudicatethemattersat issue. Such a declaration,
made duringthesearbitration proceedingi s,bindingupon Serbiaand
Montenegro, andthusupon the Respondent, fotrhe reasonset forthin
these1986arbitration proceedings betwF eennceand Canada.
One finalpoint about th8 e June letterneedsto be explained.The
BadinterArbitration Commissionreportedin its InterlocutoryDecision
(Opinions Nos. 8, 9 and 10) of 4 July 1992that
"TheRepublicsof Montenegro and Serbiainformed the
Chairmanof the [ICFY]Conference and theChairmanof the
Commissionof Arbitration inletters dated19 June il9921that
theymaintained their positio[ nsetforthin the jointletter
of 8 June 19921,Serbiaconsideringin additionthat the
Commissiondid not havethe powerto pronounceupon its own
competence."(SeeInternational Legal Material Vo,l. 31,
pp. 1518-1519,No. 6: November1992.)
So in otherwords,on 19 June 1992 the Presidentof Serbiaand the
Presidentof Montenegro independentr lyaffirmedtheir joint positioonf
8 June thatoutstanding matters between F themerYugoslav republics
thatcouldnot be resolvedby meansof agreement, must besubmittedto
the InternationalCourtof Justice. Now despiteOur best effortsw,e
have not yet beenable to obtainthesetwo 19 June letters. But,we
respectfully submi that the Court shoutldke the Badinter Commissioatits word and concludethat theRespondenthas, not once,but twice,
publicly and officiali lydicatedits intentionand willingnessto submit
thesedisputesto the Court. Andherefore,again,the Court's
jurisdiction fallswithintheNuclear Test cases, the earlier
Arbitration,not within Aegean Sea.
Now to concludethe sectionon jurisdiction,and thenperhapsthe
Court mightwish to takea coffee break, 1 have onefinal pointto make
and thatis, onceagainout of an abundanceof cautionand in deference
to the wishesof the Courton the questionof jurisdiction,1 have filed
with the Courton 6 August1993a forma1Memorandumof Law submitting
that in additionto the jurisdictional basis alres ady forth,the
Court'sjurisdiction to hear thiscase inOur current request for
provisional measure is groundedin the Treaty betweentheAlliedand
AssociatedPowersand the Kingdomof the Serbs,Croatsand Slovenes
(Protection of Minorities)signedat Saint-Germain-en-Lao ye
10 September 1919, whicchalledfor the protectioonf minoritiesand
whichprovided for the compulsory settlemenof disputesby the Permanent
Courtof International Justice. Once again,1 will notbotherto take
your timehere to review this detailed Memorandum and amend toeOur
Application and the current requeastthis time, but was simply
incorporatedby referencein my oralsubmission.
For al1 thesereasons,then,we respectfully submitthat the Court
now has al1 the jurisdictioit needsto grantOur requested additional
measuresof protection on the groundsof the Genocide Convention;the
customaryand conventional internation alwsof war and international
humanitarian law;the Respondent's letterand Declarationof
8 June 1992; and finallyon the basisof the Serb-Croat-SloveT neeaty
of 1919. Thank you very much and 1 suggest that we al1 break for coffee.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much Professor Boyle. So we will
take Our break now and then resume.
The Court adjourned from11.20 to 11.40 a.m. The PRESIDENT: Please beseated. Professor Boyle.
Mr. BOYLE: 1 am not goingto readthroughal1 of the ten additional
measuresof provisional protectiw on have requested- you have them
there beforeyou - but 1 will provideyou with a briefcommentaryupon
the rationale for eac of them.
The firstone, acease-and-desiso trderagainst the Responden to
provideany typeof assistance to Serbsin Bosniaand Herzegovina, is
fully warrantedby the three statementmsade by the Respondenotn or
about11 May 1993, concerning thseo-called cut-of of assistanceto
Serbianfightersin Bosnia. Al1 informedobserversagreethatthis
assistanceis continuing to be providedby the Respondentand the
Republicof Serbiato Serbianfightersin Bosniaand Herzegovina in
violation ofthis Court's Orderof 8 April1993and the1948Genocide
Convention. Indeed, ifyou read the thres etatements themselvets,ey
al1 indicatethatvarioussorts ofassistance will continueto be
providedto Serbianfightersin Bosnia, despitethe so-calledcut-offand
despitethisCourt'sOrderof 8 April1993. We are askingthe Courtto
orderan immediateand unconditional cut-offof any typeof assistanceby
the Respondent, including t Republicof Serbia,to BosnianSerbsfor
any purposeor any reason.
The second measureof provisional protectiois fully warrantedfor
the reasonsset forthin Section D of Our request. We have askedthe
Courtto issuea cease-and-desist orderto publicofficials in the
Respondent and especial Mry. Milosevic,concerningal1 schemes,
proposals, planasnd negotiationsto partition, dismemberannexor
incorporatethe sovereignterritoryof Bosniaand Herzegovina. As we
pointed outin our Applicationi,t has beenthe long-standingplan ofthe
Respondentto create a "GreaterSerbia"by meansof genocideand acts ofgenocide. In the eventthat thepartition, dismemberment, annexat ion
incorporation oBfosniaand Herzegovina by the Respondents actually
carriedout, then therewill inevitably occur furth erts of so-called
"ethniccleansing" and genocide againstst taeggering figure oalmost
one million morehumanbeings - completely innocen men, womenand
children - in Bosniaand Herzegovinaand you can see theirsufferingon
your TV sets this eveninwhenyou comehome fromwork.
Concerningthis secondrequested measure of protection1 have filed
documents withthe Court proving that t rhecently concluded
"negotiationsi"n Geneva werepremisedupon the assumptionthat the
Republic of Bosniaand Herzegovinawouldbe carvedup into three
independentstatesand deprived of its membershiipn theUnitedNations
Organizationand deprived of sovereign controover ourown capital,
Sarajevo. As proofof this,1 refer the Court to my brief communication
of 6 August 1993and my 20-pagecommunicatioonf 7 August 1993concerning
the so-calledOwen-StoltenberPglan andthesenegotiations.Again, 1
will not botherto reviewthesedocuments here but will simply
incorporate them bryeferenceat thistime. Thesedocumentsestablish
beyond areasonable doubtthat thesecondand third provisional measures
of protection arefully warrantebdy thecircumstances.
The so-calledOwen-StoltenberPglan is a diktat thatis the legal
equivalentto what Hitlerpresentedto Czechoslovakiaat Munichin 1938.
It is basedon the assumptionthatthe Republicof Bosniaand
Herzegovina,a member State oftheUnited Nations Organization, will be
carvedup intothreeindependent statesand deprivedof our
United Nationsmembership.We have repeatedly anm dost emphatically
rejected thisproposa1to signour own death certificata es a sovereign
nationState andmemberof theUnited Nations Organization.But 1 want
to indicate thatBosniaand Herzegovina will always negotia inegoodfaith, in accordancwith general principlesof internationalaw,
includingtheUnited Nations Charte and theprinciples of the London
Conference,wheneverwe have the opportunityto so negotiate.The second
and thirdprovisional measure will giveus the opportunityto negotiate
in good faith,without agun ofgenocidepointedat Our heads.
The thirdmeasureof protectionseeksto make it crystal clearto
the Respondent,as wellas the entireworld,that theannexation or
incorporation oefven onecentimetreof the sovereignterritoryof Bosnia
and Herzegovina shall billegal,null,void ab initio,deprivedof any
legal effects whatsoever, that cannot be recog byizedinternational
w'
community for anryeason orat any timefor therestof eternity. We
believethatan emphatic and sound declaratioonf Our "rights"to that
effect bythe Courtat this time will prevent thpartition,
dismembermentand annexationof Bosniaand Herzegovina bythe Respondent,
as well as further actof genocideand "ethniccleansing" that could
approachthe mind-bogglingfigureof over onemillionhumanbeings. We
submitthat the Courthas the authorityto protectOur rightsby making
such a declarationunderStatuteArticle41.
The fourthproposedmeasureof protection simply call for the Court
to determinethe rightsand converselythe obligationsof the peopleand w
Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina underArticle 1of the Genocide
Convention: "TheContracting Partiesconfirm thatgenocide, whether
committedin timeof peaceor in timeof war, is a crimeunder
internationallaw whichtheyundertaketo preventand to punish."
(Emphasisadded.) This provisional measur ef protection draws attention
to the factthatthe Government of Bosniaand Herzegovinhas an
obligationunderthe termsof the Genocide Conventio "to prevent"the
actsof genocide thatare currentlbyeinginflicted upon Our peopleby
theRespondent and yet, becauseof the arms embargo imposeuponus by the
Security Councilillegally, we are unableto protect ourown peoplefrom
genocide.
In the fifth provisional measuw re,are askingthe Courtto
clarify -not determine but clarif -ythe legal responsibilio tyal1
other Contracting Partit esthe Genocide Conventi" ono prevent"the
commission of actsof genocide against the people S andte ofBosniaand
Herzegovina,as they are obligate to do so by Article1 of the
Convention.This provisional measure of protecti ionrequireby the factthatmany
prominentStates of the worlcdommunityhave publiclytakenthe position
that despitethe fact they are parti testhe Genocide Conventiotnhey
have no legal obligation whatsoev"ero prevent"the acts ofgenocide
that the Respondent is undeniab perpetratingagainstthe peopleand
Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina. We areaskingthe Courtto make it
crystal clearto al1 ContractingPartiesto the Genocide Conventitonat
theydo in factand in lawhave a legal obligation "to prevent"genocide
against the peoplaend Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina. Sucha
declarationof rightsby the Courtat this timewill go a longway toward
w
preservingOur "rights"underthe Genocide Convention witht ine meaning
of StatuteArticle41. We have a "right"to the assistance of the other
Contracting Partietso the Genocide Conventionnder the termsof the
Convention itself ,articularlyArticle1.
The sixthmeasure: we are askingthe Courtto declarethatthe
Government of Bosniaand Herzegovinmusthave the meansto defendits
peopleand State from actsof genocideand partitionand dismembermen ty
meansof genocide. This conclusion flows inevitablfyromthe
Genocide Convention itsea lfwell as from Articl51 of the
United Nations Charter, both of wh wecare a partyto. Again,the
Court's issuanceof a declaration of rightalongtheselineswould
clarify the legal situatif onr the entireinternationacommunity, and
especially for thCeontractingPartiesto the Genocide Convention,
severalof which are also Member of the United Nations
SecurityCouncil. And here, 1 believeit is the case thatal1 but three
Stateswho are Members ofthe Security Council are also parttiesthe
GenocideConvention.Sucha declaration of Our "rights" bythe Courtatthis timewill go a longway towardpreserving our "rights"underthe
Convention withitnhe meaningof StatuteArticle41.
The seventh measure of protection dewaltsh the rightsand
obligationspertaining to the other ContractiPngrtiesto the
GenocideConvention.We are askingthe Courtto declarethatal1
ContractingPartiesto the Genocide Convention have the obligation
underArticle1 to preventacts of genocidea ,nd partitionand
dismembermentby meansof genocide, againstthe people and Stat of
Bosnia andHerzegovina. Again,many prominenS ttatesin theworld deny
that theyhave a legal obligatiotno do anythingwith respectto Bosnia
and HerzegovinadespiteArticle1 of the Convention. Their position
simplyis injustifiable. So, we are askingthe Courtto clarify,not
determine butto clarify,the rightsand dutiesof al1 Contracting
Partiesto the Genocide Conventiw onth respectto Bosniaand Herzegovina
undertheseuniquecircumstances.Once again,we submit, sucha
declaration of ourl'rightsb"y the Courtat this time wilgo a long way
towardpreserving Our "rights"underthe Convention withitnhe meaningof
StatuteArticle41. Once again,we have a"rightlt 'o the assistance of
the ContractinPgartiesunderthe termsof the Genocide Conventio nhat
we are askingthe Courtto protectunderArticle41.
Now, noticethatso farnot oneof theseseven measures of
protection1 have called for conflicwtsthUnited Nations
SecurityCouncilresolution 713 of25 September1991that imposedan arms
embargoupon the formerYugoslavia.
Duringthe course ofthe oralproceedings on 1 April1993,1
provided a detaile analysis ofthenegotiating historo yf this
resolutionto prove,first,thatresolution 713 (1991)was adoptedat the
expressrequestof and with the permission of the former Yugoslavia;secondly,thatmost Members of the Security Council madit quiteclear
that the legal validitoyf resolution713 dependedupon the consentof
the former Yugoslavitao the arms embargo; and thirdly,thatwithout
such express requesatnd consentby the former Yugoslavitahe
SecurityCouncil would not haveadoptedresolution 713.Again, 1 will
not go throughal1 thatanalysishere again,but simply refer you to the
verbatim record o my oralsubmissions on 1April 1993, and incorporate
themhere byreference.
Recall,however,the Security Councii lmposed thearms embargoupon
the former Yugoslavia only and at its express requesatnd with its
consent. But the Republic of Bosniaand Herzegovina hadot yet come
into existenceas an independent Statuentil6 March1992. So, the arms
embargoupon the former Yugoslavidaid not and couldnot byits own words
applyto the Republic of Bosniaand Herzegovina.We have neverconsented
to or acquiescedin the extensionof this arms embargforom the former
Yugoslaviato ourselves.We have alwaysclaimedthat any extensio nf
thisarms embargofromthe former Yugoslavit ao ourselves wouldiolate
our inherent righo tf individuaand collectiveself-defenceas
recognized by customary internatio lawand United Nations Charter
Article51.
Now later,the Security Counci reaffirmed thaerms embargo against
the formerYugoslaviain paragraph 5 of resolution724 of
15 December1991. But for similarreasons,the arms embargocontinuedto
applyonly to the formerYugoslavia.By its own terms,
resolution724 (1991)did not and couldnot applyto the Republicof
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
This bringsus to thecriticalresolution of 8 January 1992, when
the Security Counci adoptedresolution727, in which it decidedtoreaffirmthe arms embargoupon the formerYugoslavia appliei dn
paragraph6 of resolution713 and in paragraph5 of resolution724, and
then to applyit in accordancewith paragraph33 of theUnited Nations
Secretary-Generall ReportS/23363,usingthe following languag ehatis
in resolution724:
"6.Reaffirms the embargo appliein paragraph6 of
resolution713 (1991)and in paragraph5 of
resolution724 (1991),and decidesthatthe embargoapplies
in accordancewith paragraph33 of the Secretary-General's
Report(S/23363)."
This paragraph33 of S/23363readsas follows:
"33.To al1 interlocutorsd,uringhis recentfifth mission
to YugoslaviaM,r.Vancepointed out that th arms embargo
imposedby the Councilin resolution713 (1991)and reinforced
by resolution724 (1991),continuesin forceand will retain
its application unless the Security Council determines
otherwise. Indeed,Mr. Vanceadded that the arms embargowould
continueto applyto al1 areasthathave beenpart of
Yugoslavia,any decisionson the questionof the recognitionof
the independencoef certain republicnotwithstanding." As best as can be figured out from threcord, paragraph of
resolution 727 incorporated the referen ceparagraph33 of S/23363for
the purposeof providing formeU rN Special Envoy CyruVancewith some
negotiating leverag at thatparticular time for deali with the
conflicts surroundin the dissolutionof the formerYugoslavia.
Nevertheless,whatevernegotiating utilit yhatthe threatcontainedin
paragraph33 mighthave had in earlyJanuaryof 1992 haslongsince
disappeared and become irreleva imm,aterialcounter-productive and
superseded by supervenie ngentsduringthe past18 monthsthat are
well-knownto thisCourt.
In particular,on 22 May 1992,the UN General Assemblaydopted
resolution 46/237that admitted th Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina to
Membership.At that pointin time,the Republic of Bosniaand
Herzegovinawas subjectto al1 of the responsibilities, rights,
privileges, dutiesand obligationsof theUnitedNations Charter,
including and especially Arti5 clethereof:
"Article51
"Nothingin the present Charter shall impa the inherent
rightof individual or collectiveself-defenceif an armed
attackoccurs against aMemberof theUnitedNations,until the
Security Councihlas takenmeasures necessartyo maintain
international peac end security..."
Certainly,no laterthan22 May 1992,the Republic of Bosniaand
Herzegovina had,and stillhas, the inherent rightto defenditself, both
individuallyand collectively,underArticle51 of the United Nations
Charter.
Indeed,there is nothingin resolution727 thatwould conflicw tith
this conclusion.And here 1 wish to draw to the attentionof the Court
the lastsentenceof paragraph33 of S/23363: "Indeed,Mr. Vance added that thearms embargo would
continueto applyto al1 areasthathad been part of
Yugoslavia, any decisionson the questionof the recognition
of the independenceof certain republicnsotwithstanding."
(Emphasisadded.)
We must analysethe last sentenceof paragraph33 quite carefully
becauseit containsthe crux of the problem. The Secretary-General's
report expressly used th words "anydecisions". Within the context of
the Report, thesetwo words can onlymean "any decisions" by certain
foreignstatesto recognizethe independence of the variousrepublics
withinthe formeryugoslavia. By itsown terms,paragraph33 never
intended todeal with the eventuality thastuch former Yugoslav republics
might be admittedas member States to the United Nations Organization
itself.
Paragraph14 of our Applicationof 20 March 1993pointed out that in
December1991, Bosniaand Herzegovinaappliedto the EuropeanCommunity
for recognition as an independentState. It is this recognition bythe
member States of the European CommunityhatMr. Vancewas referringto
duringthe courseof his fifthmissionto the former Yugoslavia that took
place from 28 December1991 to 4 January1992, whichwas the
subject-matter of the Secretary-General'ReportS/23363,and that in
turnwas the occasionand reason forthe adoptionof resolution 727 on
8 January1992. That is why the last sentenceof paragraph33 of S/23363
refersto the words "anydecisions". Thesewordsmust be interpreted to
mean "any decisions"by variousmember States of the EuropeanCommunity
to recognizethe independence of certain republicosf the former
Yugoslavia.
This interpretationof paragraph33 can be confirmedby reference to
the rest of the Secretary-General'Report,where numerousreferencesare
made to efforts bythe EuropeanCommunity and its memberStatesto obtaina peaceful resolutio of the conflictsin the former Yugoslavia.The
conclusion can be made especially cleaby referenceto paragraphs31
and 32 of S/23363. 1 will notreadthoseparagraphs here but would
encourage al1 of you to readS/23363for yourselves.If you do, you will
see that it is withinthe contextof anticipatedrecognitionby the
EuropeanCommunitythatparagraph33 must be understoodand interpreted.
It had nothingat al1 to do withadmissionto theUnited Nations
Organization.
So, it is clear from thiseport thatMr. Vancesaidnothingat al1
aboutthe armsembargo that was imposedupon the former Yugoslavi being
w
imposedand extendedto its former republic if and when theywere
formally admittet do theUnited Nations Organizatioitself. There is
nothingin there,read it foryourself, you will see. So the two
sentencesfoundin paragraph33 tha-t were laterincorporated in
resolution 727 onlydealt withthe eventualito yf recognitioof the
Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina by thememberStatesof the European
Community. Paragraph33 did not and indeed legally couldnotdealwith
the admissionof Bosniaand Herzegovina to membershipin the
UnitedNationsOrganization by General Assema blyof 22 May 1993.
Likewise,resolution 727 did not and coulnot prejudicethe rights of
Bosnia and HerzegovinaunderArticle51 of the Charterwhen it was
formally admittetdo Membershipin the Organization.
For similarreasons then,al1 subsequent Security Council
resolutions that routinelyreaffirmedthe arms embargoimposedupon the
formerYugoslavia by paragraph6 of resolution713 (1991),paragraph 5 of
resolution724 (1991)and paragraph 6 of resolution727 (1992)cannot
properlybe construedto applyto the Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina
upon its admissionto theUnited Nationsas of 22 May1992. Rather,al1suchSecurity Council resolutio must be construe in a manner
consistent withArticle51 and thereunder the Republicof Bosniaand
Herzegovina hasand stillhas the inherent rightof individualand
collective self-defence. Awe need the Courtto affirm thisright
becausewe are undergenocidal attaca knd aggressionthisvery day.
So, none of thesenumerousSecurity Council resolutio cnan be
properly interprete to applyto theRepublicof Bosniaand Herzegovina
as a member Stateof the UnitedNations. To dootherwisewould "impair
the inherent righ of individualor collectiveselfdefense"of the
Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina, and thusviolate UN Charter
Article51 and render theseSecurity Council resolutions ulv tiraes:
"Nothingin the present Charter shallimpairthe inherent rightof
individual or collectiveself-defence..."(Emphasis added.)
This conclusionis also supported bUyN Charter Articl24,
paragraph2, thatprovides:
"2. In dischargingheseduties[ofmaintaining
international peac end securityt]he Security Councishall
act in accordancewith the Purposesand Principlesof the
UnitedNations. The specific powers grante to the Security
Council forthe dischargeof theseduties arelaiddown in
ChaptersVI, VII, VIII,andXII."
So, even whenit acts underChapterVI1 of the Charter,the Security
Council must"act in accordancewith thePurposesand Principles of the
United Nations" setforthin Chapter1 and this consistsof Articles 1
and 2 of the Charter.In particular, Articl 2, paragraph1, provides:
"TheOrganization is basedon the principleof the sovereignequalityof
al1 itsMembers".
The arms embargo imposedpon the former Yugoslavia bthe Security
Council legalldyid not applyand couldnot applyto the Republicof
Bosniaand Herzegovinaupon its admissionto theUnitedNations.Otherwise, the SecurityCouncilwould not beacting "inaccordance with
the Purposesand Principles ofthe UnitedNations" and thuswould bein
breach alsoof Charter Article 24, paragraph2. Such an improper
interpretation of resolutions713, 724, 727and their successorswould
have illegally deprived Bosni and Herzegovinaof out "sovereign
equality"with al1 other UN Member Stateswhen it comesto exercisingOur
sovereign right, Our inherentright,Our natural right - to quotethe
French version of the Charter- to self-defenceagainstthe armed attack
and armedaggression by means of genocidethathas been continuously
perpetratedupon us by the Respondent in violationof the Genocide w
Conventionand the United Nations Charter. Once again,such an improper
interpretation of theseresolutions would renderthem al1 and their
successorsto be ultra vires the Security Counci lnder both
Article 24, paragrap2 h, and Article51 of the Charter. And hereagain 1
will quote from the introductory languaoge Article51: "Nothingin
the present Charter shalilmpair the inherent rigo ht individual or
collective self-defence..."(Emphasisadded.) That includesSecurity
Council resolutions aw sell.
Finally, Charter Article25 Statesclearly: "TheMembersof the
United Nations agret eo accept and carry out thdecisionsof the
Security Council in accordancewith the presentCharter." Article51 is
certainly oneof the most fundamental provisio ofsthe Charter. So, the
Member States of the UnitedNations havean obligationto carryout the
termsof resolutions713, 724, 727and theirsuccessors "in accordance
with the presentCharter,"which would mean "in accordancewith
Article51". So, the Member Stateo sf the United Nationand partiesto
the Genocide Convention- and a hundredof them are - are obliged"to
accept andcarryout" resolutions 713, 724, 727and theirsuccessors in amanner that would respectBosniaand Herzegovina's right of individual
and collective self-defence again the armed attackand armed aggression
by means of genocidethat is currently being perpetratedby the
Respondentin violation of both the Charter andthe GenocideConvention. The Security Councilhas never expressly deprivedhe Republicof
Bosniaand Herzegovinaof its rightof individualand collective
self-defense. Indeed,for reasons already explained,the SecurityCounci
wouldnot havehad the legal authority to adopt such a resolutionin the
firstplace,and that is preciselywhy theynever did so. There is no
resolutionexpressly applyinb gyname to Bosniaand Herzegovina. It
isn'tthere. So, the obligationof al1 Contracting Partiesto the
GenocideConvention"to prevent" genocide agains the peopleand Stateof
Bosnia and HerzegovinaunderArticle1 remainsintact.
And under the Genocide Conventiont,he Republicof Bosniaand
w
Herzegovinahas a "right"to the performance of theseobligations by the
otherContractingPartiesto prevent genocide agains us and thisright
can be protectedby this CourtunderArticle41 of the Statute.
This bringsus then to requestedProvisional MeasurNeo. 8 and
becauseof its importance1 will read it:
"8. That in orderto fulfillits obligationsunder the
Genocide Conventionunder the currentcircumstance,the
Governmentof Bosniaand Herzegovina must have the abilityto
obtainmilitary weapons, equipmena t,d supplies from other
ContractingParties."
The Courthas already stated in paragraph48 of its Order of8 April:
"whereas fromthe information avaialblteo the Courtit is
satisfiedthat thereis a grave risk of actionbeing taken
which mayaggravateor extendthe existing disputeover the
preventionor punishmentof the crimeof genocide,or render it
more difficultof solution ...".
In Our current requestas supplementedand amended,we have indicated
that such genocidal actionis stillbeing perpetrateudpon us todayby
the Respondentfrom 8 Apriluntil now, aswe speak,you can see it ontelevision thismorning. Undertheseterriblecircumstances of ongoing
genocide, we are callingupon the Courtto clarify andexplainthe right
of Bosniaand Herzegovinu anderthe Genocide Conventio no obtain
militaryweapons,equipment, ans dupplies fromthe otherContracting
Parties necessartyo defendOur peopleand Our State from acts of
genocide, and partitionand dismembermenty meansof genocide,thathave
been and are continously being perpetrauteodn us by theRespondentand
its agents and surrogates in violatiot nheGenocide Conventio and
thisCourt's Orderof 8 April.
A declarationby the Courtto this effectat this timewill go a
longway towards preservingOur "rights"underthe Genocide convention
withinthemeaningof StatuteArticle 41.Conversely, withous tucha
declarationof Our "rights"underthe Genocide Convention by t Courtat
this time,Bosniaand Herzegovina wiln lot be in a positionto argueits
claimson the meritsto the Court becausewe willsoonbe partitioned,
dismembered, annexed incorporated, and destroy bydthe Respondent.
This is not an exaggeratiobut a statementof fact.
In the eventthe Courtwere to make sucha declaration ofOur
"rights"underthe Genocide Conventio ant this time,it would beup to
thoseotherContracting Partiesto the Genocide Conventio to decidewhat
to do next. Andthatwould include the 12 Membersof the
SecurityCouncil whoare also partiet so the Genocide Conventio- they
would decidewhat to do next. We arenot askingthe Courtto orderthem
to do anything, simpltyo declareOur rights.
Thisthenbringsus to theninthproposedmeasure of protection:
"9. That in orderto fulfill theiobligationsunderthe
Genocide Conventionnderthe current circurnstanceasl1
ContractingPartiesthereto musthave the ability toprovide
military weaponse,quipment,supliesand armedforces
(soldiers,sailors,airpeople) to the Government of Bosniand
Herzegovinaat its request." Article 1 of the Genocide ConventioclearlyStates:
"TheContracting Partiesconfirm that genocide, whether
committedin timeof peaceor in time ofwar, is a crimeunder
internationallaw which theyundertake to preventand to
punish." (Emphasis added.)
So, al1 Contracting Partietso the Genocide Conventioare obligated
to prevent the Respondent'sactsof genocide and partitionand
dismemberment by meansof genocide,against the peopleand State of
Bosnia and Herzegovina.Conversely, we have a "right"to the assistance
of the otherContracting Partiesto the Genocide Convention that can be
protectedby thisCourt underArticle41 of the Statuteby makingsucha
declaration.
Article41 empowers this Cour to indicate"anyprovisional
measures"the Courtdeems necessary to preservethe "rights"of Bosnia
and Herzegovina.Underthe uniquecircumstances of this case,and at
this criticaltime in our nation'shistory,we submitthata declaration
of our "rights"by theCourt along the linesof thesenine proposed
provisional measure might verywell Save the peopleand State ofBosnia
and Herzegovina froemxterminationa,nnihilation and liquidationby the
Respondent.
Concerning the tent proposedmeasure ofproisional protection,1
have been advisedby my GovernmentthattheUnited Nations peacekeeping
forcesin Tuzla have been obstructing thedeliveryof humanitarian relief
suppliesto the people of Bosniaand Herzegovina.Some believe thatthis
is a measureof compulsion designedto coerce theGovernment of Bosnia
and Herzegovina intgooing alongwith the so-calledpartition planthat
has been concoctedby the Presidentof Serbiaand thePresidentof
Croatiawith the supportand approvalof EEC Special Envoy David Ow and
the currentUN Special EnvoyThorvald StoltenbergB .e thatas it may,weare askingthe Courtto orderUnitedNationspeacekeeping forcei sn Tuzla
to do al1 in their powerto securethe free flow of humanitaria relief
suppliesto the innocent people oB fosniaand Herzegovinaand in this
regard 1 have been advisedby my Foreign Ministet rhat thereare nearly
one millionpeoplein the generalvicinityof Tuzla whoare near the
point of starvation.
Finally,at the end of Our requestfor provisional measure you will
note thatwe have askedthe Courtto exerciseits powersunderArticle75
of theRulesof Courtto indicate provisiona measures proprio motu.
We have suggested severaladditional provisiona measuresthat the Court
might see fit to cal1 upon the Respondentto obey bothnow and in the
future,and amechanismand ameans to do this.In general,we are askingthe Courtto grantsuchother and further
relief atthistime asthe Courtmay deemto be just,proper, necessary
and sufficient to save thepeople andState of Bosniaand Herzegovina
from actsof genocideand partition, dismemberment, annexation,
incorporation, destructia ond lossof our United Nations membersh biyp
meansof genocide,and thatis clearlywhat is contemplated at this
time. Again 1 referyou to my communication sf 6 and 7 August1993that
are already on file withthe Court. With al1 due respectto the
honourable Members o thisCourt,it is the obligation of thisCourt
underthe United Nations Charte un,derthe Statuteof the Court, under
the Rulesof Court andunderthe Genocide Conventiop na,rticularly
Article8, to divise whatever typeof reliefis necessaryto save the
people and Stato ef Bosniaand Herzegovinafromextermination and
annihilation by the Respondent.Towardsthatend,we have also requested
the Court to keep the situation in Bosniand Herzegovinaunderactive
review forthe indefinite futurefor the purposeof indicating
provisional measuresproprio motuwithoutwaitingforus to fileyet
another written request. Becauseof the Respondent'bsarbaricaggression
and genocide,it is extremely difficul for me asa generalagentto
communicatewith the authorities, my Governmen it,Sarajevo,to get
instructions to comehere. Time is of the essencefor the peopleand
Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina.
At this point,1 must commentbrieflyupon the Respondent's recent
request for oneprovisional measureof protection againstthe Republic of
Bosniaand Herzegovina thatwas madeon 9 August1993and 1 will try to
keep it brief. In al1 honesty,this proceduras ltuntremindedme of the
timewhen over a generation agothe Nazi Governmentblamed the German
Jews for the wanton destructio onsynagoguesand Jewishpropertyon theinfamousKristallnacht of 9 November1938 and then orderedthe Jews to
pay for thedamagethathad been inflictedupon themby the Nazis. The
Respondent'stransparentattemptto make it appearthat theyare not the
perpetrators of genocidecan easilybe disprovenby the Courtreferring
to any of the documentatiocnitedin Our Applicationor any of the
evidentiary submission made so far in this case.
Even the Agent forthe Respondenthas concededflat-outin his
requestof 9 August1993:
"Although comprehensive eviden onethe crimeof genocide
now being committedagainstthe Serb peopleand the ensuant
responsibilityof the so-calledRepublicof Bosniaand
Herzegovina is hard to providein the circumstances,...".
There is one good reasonfor thelack of this evidence: it simplydoes
not exist:
The Respondentand itsagentsand surrogates right now illegally
occupy over 75 per centof the sovereign territoroyf the Republicof
Bosnia and Herzegovina. And theystillcannot produceany independent or
credible evidencethat the Republio cf Bosniaand Herzegovinais
responsiblefor acts of genocideagainstOur own Serbiancitizens. This
is becausethis evidence does not exist. And despitetheir best efforts,
the Respondenthas been unableto producesuch evidenceas concededby
their currentAgent, asrecentlyas 9 August1993, i.e., less than two
weeks ago.
In comparison,in Our Applicationand subsequentsubmissionsto the
Court,we have referredto andreliedupon voluminousdocumentation by
the variousorgansof the United Nations - the Security Council,the
General Assembly,the HumanRights Commissioa nnd its Special
Rapporteur -by the European Community, b yeutralgovemments and by
distinguishednon-govermentalorganizations in thehuman rights field,
such as Amnesty Internationa and HumanRights Watch,in orderto supportOur claimsand Our request for provisionm alasures. If you read through
thismass of outside,independent, objective documentati you,will see
that thereis no evidence that the Governme ontBosniaand Herzegovina
has committedany actsof genocide againsO tur own Serbiancitizens. 1
challenge the Responden to producesuch evidence from ano yutside,
objective, independen source. So far, the Responden tas failedto do
so, despitethe fact that the Responde ntd its agents and surrogates
illegally occupy 75 per centof Our sovereignterritory. Where is the
evidence? - 1 said that the last tim ewas here before theCourt. It
simplyis not there.
Al1 the Agent for the Responde has givento the Courtin support
of his request are documents that have been gener bytthe Respondent
itself. No documents by any outsideorganization.The Respondent's
allegations have not been verifiedby any outside,independent, objective
source. Indeed,severalof thesedocuments,if you read them carefully,
concedethat theentirerestof the world community disagre weith the
allegations founi dn thesedocuments. So if the Courw tere to acceptthe
allegations founi dn the Respondent'sdocuments, the Court would ha toe
believe that everyon in the entireworld is lying about thh euman rights
situationin Bosniaand Herzegovina - includingthe Security Council the W
General Assembly, th HumanRights Commission, its Special Rapporteur,
the EuropeanCommunity, the United StatesGovernment, Amnesty
International andHumanRights Watch, to narnjust a few.
The Respondent assures the Cou rtat this timeit and italoneis
telling the truth. Yet the Courtnow knowsthatthe acting Agents for
the Respondent contradicted the tr ounhehalfof theirGovernent
duringthe courseof the proceedings held on 2 April 1993and 1 submit
that on 9 April the Agent for the Respondent similarly contradicted thetruthwhen he said that therewas evidencethat the Government of Bosnia
and Herzegovinahas committed genocida egainstOur own citizens. Rather,
the exactopposite is true: The Respondent and its agentsand surrogates
have perpetratedacts of genocide againstthoseSerbiancitizensof the
Republic of Bosniaand Herzegovina who supportOur Governmentand strive
to maintainand asserttheirBosniancitizenship and nationality. They
have been killedtoo, alongwith the Muslims, the Croatst ,he Jews and
others.
Now, againby comparison, duringthe course ofal1 the proceedings
up until today, Bosniaand Herzegovinahas reliedalmostexclusively and
referredto and submitted factual allegationbsasedupon outside,
objective,independent and neutralsources. 1 wouldnot insult the
intelligence of this Courtat this timeby givingyou Our own internal
documentation, whicwhe have. We at this timewould likeand submitthe
Courtto rely upon sources other than Our own when it comesto the
indication of provisionalmeasures, whether aosf 8 April 1993 oras of
today. Under the expeditedprocedures,the emergencynatureof these
hearings,we are askingthe Courtto look atoutside,objective,
independent, neutral sources o asposedto sourcesproducedby the Party
to this lawsuit andwe believethat is thebest wayto proceed. If and
when we get to the merits stage ofheseproceedings, then of course we
fully intendto producethe voluminousevidencethathas been producedby
Our Governmentto supportOur factualallegations.At that time, this
evidence can be critically examineby the Court andby the Respondent.
We believethat Our own internal evidencweill withstandthe most
demandingscrutinyand will certainly fulfil Our burdenof proofon the
factual allegations setforthin Our Applicationas amendedand
supplemented and certainlyOur current requesttoday. In the meantime, howevera,nd for the purposeof indicating
provisionalmeasuresat thistime,we submitthat theCourt must not rely
upon evidenceproducedby the Respondena tnd especiallywhen this
so-called"evidence" has not beencorroboratedby any outside,
independent, objectiv and neutral sourcew,hether by a governmenbt, an
international organizati onofficial,or by any human rights
organization.So we respectfully reques the Courtto rejectthe
Respondent'srequestfor thisone provisional measure again thte
Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina, as the Courtdid in itsOrderof
8 April 1993. Thereis no evidenceto support the Respondentr 'squest
J
and therefore theries no need forthe Courtto give this request.
Finally,1 mustmake a briefcommentupon what is entitled
"Memorandum"producedby theso-called"YugoslavStateCommission foW rar
Crimes andGenocide"of April1993, which you have, thatwas submittedto
the GeneralAssembly and the Security Councioln 2 June 1993. The truth
of the matteris that it hasbeen the Respondentand its agentsand
surrogatesthathave perpetrated massive aco tfs genocideupon the poor
people livingin EasternBosniaand Herzegovina and especiallyin the
vicinityof Srebrenica.The Respondent'sacts ofgenocide are preciselywhy theseBosnian
citizenshavenow fled to the so-called"safehavens" in EasterB nosnia
and Herzegovina,including and especially SrebrenicaT.his
self-interestemdemorandumby an agencyof the Respondent trietso turn
the truth uponits head. It is the peopleresidingin EasternBosniaand
Herzegovinawho haveconstituted thm eost and theworstvictims
per capita of acts ofgenocideperpetratedby the Respondentand its
agentsand surrogates.It is the Serbmilitiaforces acting atthe
behestof the Respondent thathave perpetrated''ethniccleansing"which
is a formof genocide, upon almostthe entiretyof EasternBosniaand
Herzegovina except theso-called"safehavens"includingSrebrenica,
which asyou know,is notvery safe either. We ask the Courtto take
judicial notice oafny of thenumerousmaps thathave corneinto the
public recordconcerning "ethniccleansing"by the Respondentin Eastern
Bosniaand Herzegovina. And, if you look atthosemaps, includingthe
so-called"safehavens"you will seethatit is the peopleof Bosniaand
Herzegovinawho have been thevictimsof genocide, not the pepetrators.
Indeed,it is curious that pag e9 of this memorandum indicattesat
the "YugoslaviaState CommissiofnorWar Crimesand Genocide"reliedupon
evidenceproducedby "thecommandand unitsof theArmy of the Republic
of Srpska"in the productioonf this memoranduamnd its evidence.1
repeat: "thecommand and unitsof theArmy of the Republic of Srpska".
It is thatvery same command andunitsof the Armyof the Republicof
Srpskathathas perpetrated thm eost atrociouasctsof genocideagainst
the peopleand Stateof Bosnia and Herzegovin in violationof the
1948Genocide Conventio and this Court'sOrderof 8April1993. As a
matterof soundpublic policy and of general international law, this
Court mustnot acceptas so-calledevidenceany allegations producedbythe Respondent workinw gith and in CO-operatiowith and on the basis of
evidence manufactured by its agen and surrogatesin Bosniaand
Herzegovina, the Army of the Republicof Srpska,which themselves have
committed massive acts ofgenocide,murder,systematicrape,torture,
robbery,and wantondevastationof homesand property. How dare they
rely upon the militiaand armedunitsof the Republicof Srpskato
producethis reportand then insult the intelligenceof this Court, let
alone the Security Council, by filii ngwith you? These are the people
who arethe killersand themurderers; theseare the people whh oave
preparedthis report - the Respondent. Then, 1 thinktheir request
rr
shouldbe denied. Indeed thispage 79 of thememorandumsimplyprovides
additionalproof of the fact that theRespondentis actingin
CO-operation with "the commandand units of the Army of the Republicof
Srpska". They haveadmittedit, they filedit withthe Security Council,
theyhave now filedit withyou. Itgoes back to Our point on command
and control,that the Respondent is workingwith them. Such an officia1
admission bythe Respondent providesyet anotherreason whythe Court
should grant Our ten measuresof provisional protectio of 27 July 1993
and rejectas a matterof sound policy the Respondent's requested measure
of 9 August1993. W
The Respondenthas stillnot createdeven a prima facie cas on
either the facts or the law to supportits request. By comparison,the
Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina has createdmuch more than a
prima faciecase on both the factsand thelaw that theRespondentand
its agentsand surrogates such as "the command andunits of the Army of
the Republicof Srpska"(p. 79), are perpetratingacts of genocide
againstthe peopleand Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina.The true facts
of this case are therefor the entireworld to see. We ask the Courttotakejudicialnotice of what the entireworldknowsto be true for the
purposeof decidingon theserequestsfor provisional measures.
At the conclusionof my briefpresentation today,1wish to draw the
attentionof the Courtto one shortpassage takenfromthe lengthy
negotiating historoyf the Genocide Conventiothatseemsto be
particularly prophetic a ondpoint concerning oucurrentrequestfor
additional provisionalmeasures. Here 1 wish to quotefrom commentsmade
by Mr. Zourek fromCzechoslovakia, the vict ofmMunich, at the
103rdmeetingof the SixthCommittee held on 28 November1948:
"Mr.Zourek(Czechoslovakia )aid that theCommittee was
discussing guarantees ftore applicationof the Convention.
Thoseguarantees should ba eppropriatto the objectof the
Convention, which watsoensurethe prevention andpunishment
of the crimeof genocide.
Genocide wasbrought aboubty racial, national or
religioushatred. That crime mightbe committedunexpectedly
and on a largescale. Legal guarantees, however, seet med
slow to ensurethe effective preventio onthe perpetration of
sucha crime.
The representative of Czechoslovakia observed that there
was every reason to think that thehuman group concerned would
be massacredbefore the completion of proceedings instituted
with the International Courtof Justice.The Czechoslovak
delegationaskedthatsupervision of the implementation of the
Convention should beentrustedto the Security Council, which
had appropriatemeansat its disposa1for stopping, should
occasionarise, theperpetration ofthe crimeof genocide ..."
(SeeOfficia1 Records of the General kssembly, Third Session,
Part 1,Sixth Committee,Legal Questions,
21 September-10December 1948, aptage439.) (Emphasis
added.)
As we al1 know,thisproposa1fortunately failed. The SecurityCouncil
was not givenexclusive jurisdictionto dealwith genocide; the Court
was givenjurisdiction thatwas concurredwith andwe submitat times
superiorto the jurisdiction otfhe SecurityCouncilto dealwith the
crimeof genocideunderthe Convention. With al1 due respectto Mr.Zourek,we submitthatthe International
Courtof Justicedoes indeedhave the powerunderStatuteArticle41 to
guaranteethat thepeopleof Bosniaand Herzegovina will not "be
massacred before the completo ionproceedings institutwedth the
International Cour tf Justice". That is why we have Article 41. To
reiterate, Articl4e1 Statesquiteclearly: "TheCourtshall havethe
powerto indicate,if it considersthatcircumstances so require,any
provisionalmeasures whichoughtto be takento preservethe respective
rightsof either Party." (Emphasisadded.)
Despitethe predictionmsade by Mr. Zourekalmost45 years ago,it
is obviousthat,becauseof seriouspolitical disagreemena tsongthe
PermanentMembersof the Security Council, the Security Coun haslbeen
unableto quotefromMr. Zourekto "intervene with the necessaryspeed"
in the caseof Bosnia andHerzegovina'sgenocide being perpetrated
againstus. In accordance with its own terms,the Court directethat
one original copyof its8 April1993Orderbe transmitted "to the
Secretary-Generaolf theUnited Nationsfor transmissionto the
SecurityCouncil",which wasdone.And yet the exterminatio nf the peopleand Stateof Bosniaand
Herzegovinahas continuedapaceand uninterrupted since 8 April1993as
verifiedby our requestas supplemented and amended. Indeed,now the
situationis significantlm yuchworseand more dangeroussincethe
Respondent is publicly planning, preparing, conspirp inog,osingand
negotiating to partition, dismember, annex, incorporate and destroy
Bosniaand Herzegovina by meansof genocidein violationof the
Convention and thisCourt'sOrderof 8 April. This will in turnresult
in one millioncompletely innocentmen,womenand childrenbeing
subjectedto so-called"ethniccleansing" and acts of genocidein Bosnia
and Herzegovina.
We ask the Courtto take judicialnoticeof the seriouspolitical
disagreementsamong the Permanent Memberosf the Security Councitlhat
have so far preventedthem fromtakingdecisiveaction"to prevent"the
ongoing genocide against the peo andeStateof Bosniaand Herzegovina
by the Respondentt,he Permanent Memberosf the Security Councialre
required by Article1 of the Genocide Conventioto stop the genocide.
Al1 of the Permanent Member are partiesto the GenocideConventionand
are bound by Article1 to preventthe genocide against Bosna iad
Herzegovina and yet sofar theyhave failedto discharge this obligation
and we are nowaskingthe Courtto do somethingaboutit, to clarifyOur
rightsunderthe Convention as you have the powerto do underStatute
Article41.
Thesepolitical disagreemena tsong thePermanent Membersof the
Security Council are amatterof publicrecord. You can read themin the
debatesof the Security Council you can read themin the pagesof the
newspapers- 1 will notget into them here. Butdefaultof such
actionby the SecuritC youncilit now becomesincumbent upon the Court
"to intervenewith thenecessaryspeed",to preventthe peopleof Bosniaand Herzegovinafrom being"massacred beforethe completionof
proceedings institutw edth the InternationaCourtof Justice". We
submitthat StatuteArticle41 providesthe Court with al1 the legal
authorityit needs underthe United NationsCharterto grantOur proposed
*
additional measure of protectionand any other relietfhe Courtdeemsto u
.
be necessary and sufficienunderthe tragic and desperate circumstances
of the peoplein Bosnia and Herzegovin today.
As you retireto deliberateupon Our recent requestp,lease remember
that the very lives, well-beinhg,alth, safety,physical, mentaalnd
bodily integrity homes,propertyand persona1 possession of hundreds of
*
thousandsof completely innocen men, women,and childrenin Bosniaand
Herzegovina are rightnow at stake,hangingin the balance,awaitingthe
next Orderof thisCourt. Makeno mistakeaboutit: this willbe the
lastopportunity this Cour sthall haveto Saveboth the peoplaend State
of Bosnia and Herzegovina fr exterminationand annihilationby the
Respondent.God will recordyour responseto Our current requesf tor the
restof eternity!
Thankyou foryour attention. Anday God be withyou at this
criticaltime in Our Nation'shistory!
The PRESIDENT: Thankyou verymuch ProfessorBoyle. So that1
think concludesthe presentationforBosniaand Herzegovina in this stage
of the proceedings.So we shall meet tomorrowat 10 o'clockin the
morningto hear Yugoslavia'spresentationand thenagainin the afternoon
tomorrowto hear the two replies.
Thankyou verymuch.
The Courtrose at 12.50p.m.
Audience publique tenue le mercredi 25 août 1993, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de sir Robert Jennings, président