COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Uncorrected Non -corrigé
CR 99/26 (translation) CR 99/26 (traduction)
Wednesday 12 May at 3.05 p.m. Mercredi 12 mai à 15 h 5
Le VICE-PRESIDENT, faisant fonction de président : Veuillez vous asseoir. La Cour se réunit maintenant pour
le deuxième tour d'audiences dans les affaires concernant laLicéité de l'emploi de la forceinstitutées par la
Yougoslavie contre dix états défendeurs.
En fonction des nouveaux moyens de compétence invoqués aujourd'hui dans les affaires contre la Belgique et
les Pays-Bas, la Cour tient à informer les Parties qu'elle va donner sa considération à toutes observations de la
part de la Belgique ou des Pays-Bas quant à l'admissibilité des moyens additionnels invoqués.
C'est avec grand plaisir maintenant que je donne la parole à l'agent distingué de la Belgique, Mme Raymonde
Foucart-Kleynen.
Mrs. FOUCART-KLEYNEN: Mr. President, Members of the Court. In order to respond to the grounds relied
on by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Maître Ergec, counsel for the Kingdom of Belgium, will first
consider the argument that the Court allegedly has jurisdiction under the Convention on Conciliation, Judicial
Settlement and Arbitration of 25 March 1930 between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of
Yugoslavia.
Mr. President, Belgium could have asked for additional time to reply to an argument raised in extremisin a way
that is completely unfair and in bad faith on the part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Out of respect for the Court, and not wishing to delay unduly proceedings which, according to the applicant
State, are urgent in character, we shall not do so.
Maître Ergec will also summarize the arguments already presented in our defence relating to the legality of
armed intervention for urgent humanitarian reasons.
Finally, as regards the claimed status of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a Member of the United
Nations, Belgium would refer you to the decisions of organs of the United Nations and of organs of specialized
international institutions1, which I have cited in my written submission; these are sufficiently clear and
unequivocal, in particular resolution 48/88 of the General Assembly of 20 December 1993. More specifically,
recital 19 of that resolution expressly reaffirms resolution 47/1 of 22 December 1992 and requires member
States and the Secretariat, in the spirit of that resolution, to bring to an end thectoparticipation of Serbia
and Montenegro in the work of the United Nations.
With your permission, Mr. President, I will now call on counsel for the Kingdom of Belgium, Maitre Ergec, to
speak. Thank you for your kind attention.
Le VICE-PRESIDENT, faisant fonction de président : Je vous remercie. Je vous en prie.
Mr. ERGEC: Mr. President, Members of the Court, the Kingdom of Belgium wishes first to protest against this
latest procedural manoeuvre by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which today, shortly before the close of
the hearing, submitted to the Court a new ground of jurisdiction.
What is more, and above all, I would refer you here to Article 38, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, which
provides: "The application shall specify as far as possible the legal grounds upon which the jurisdiction of the
Court is said to be based." It follows clearly that it is unacceptable, as has happened here, to add a new groundin extremis supplementing an essential point in the arguments on the prima facie jurisdiction of the Court.
Moreover, we may ask why the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which must be familiar with the treaties to
which it claims to have succeeded, thought it unnecessary - contrary to the principle of the sound administration
of justice and the provisions of Article 38 which I have just cited - to include this ground when filing its
Application.
Yet Yugoslavia had ample time to do this.
This illustrates clearly the contempt shown by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia not only for the respondent
States but also for the Court.
The Kingdom of Belgium therefore asks the Court, primarily , to strike this ground from the proceedings. In the
alternative, I would remind the Court that the Convention of 1930 confers jurisdiction - obviously - not on this
Court but on the Permanent Court of International Justice.
Mr. President, the Permanent Court no longer exists today. It is quite true that Article 37 of the Statute allows
the International Court of Justice to substitute itself, to a certain extent, for the Permanent Court of International
Justice, but this same Article 37 makes it clear that this is possible only where the States in dispute are also
parties to the Statute of the Court, i.e., the International Court of Justice (see Charles Rousseau, Droit
international public, Vol. 5, p. 445).
Now Mr. President, Members of the Court, as has been amply demonstrated, the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia is not a party to the Statute of the Court. It therefore follows that the bilateral Convention of 1930
does not constitute a sufficient ground of jurisdiction, even prima facie.
In the further alternative, in relation to the Convention of 1930 relied on by the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, the Kingdom of Belgium would remind you that, under the terms of that Convention, the role of
the Permanent Court of International Justice is a subsidiary one.
Article 4 provides:
"All disputes with regard to which the Parties are in conflict as to their respective rights shall be
submitted for decision to the Permanent Court of International Justice, unless the parties agree in
the manner hereinafter provided, to resort to an arbitral tribunal." (Emphasis added.)
Moreover, Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Convention describe in a precise way a preliminary procedure of
arbitration and conciliation.
Yet the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has instituted none of the procedures laid down by the Articles cited
above.
Having not done so, it has failed to use the preliminary procedures whose exhaustion is a necessary condition
for seisin of the Permanent Court of International Justice.
You can therefore derive no ground of jurisdiction, even prima facie, from this Convention.
We have here yet another procedural device, intended to overcome our irrefutable and unrefuted preliminary
objections to the manifestly invalid character of the recognition by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of the
jurisdiction of the Court on the basis of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute.
Mr. President, I come now to the reply by my distinguished colleague, Professor Brownlie, to our argument
relating to the legality and the necessity of armed intervention by NATO.
I note first that he has said not one word about the doctrine of necessity, as developed by the Kingdom of
Belgium.
In relation to the notion of intervention on humanitarian grounds, Mr. Brownlie said that we had failed to citeany doctrinal support for our stance.
Here, at this point in the proceedings, are two:
- Mario Bettati, "Intervention, ingérence ou assistance" ( Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme ,
1994, p. 300ff.);
- Silvio Marcus-Helmons, "Le droit d'intervenir, un corollaire des droits de l'homme?" ( idem, 1992,
p. 470).
Thank you for the Court's attention, Mr. President.
Le VICE-PRESIDENT, faisant fonction de président : Je vous remercie. Ceci termine les conclusions de la
Belgique par voie de réplique et la Cour va maintenant procéder à entendre les conclusions dans l'affaire
Yugoslavie c. Canada . Le juge distingué ad hoc représentant la Belgique sera accompagné de la tribune et le
juge distingué du Canada sera installé. La séance va reprendre dans quelques instants lorsque les aménagements
nécessaires à la barre seront terminés.
L'audience est levée à 15.15.
1 Third supplementary report concerning the second report of the secretariat of the Governing Body of the International Labour
Office, March 1993, 255th Session "Review of the decisions of the Governing Body of the International Labor Office"; Second
supplementary report of the secretariat of the Governing Body of the International Labor Office, March 1994, 259th Session "Review
of the Decisions of the Governing Body of the International Labor Office"; verbatim transcripts of the plenary sittings of the World
Health Organization on 3 May 1993; resolution of the Council of Administration of the Universal Postal Union of 20 October 1998.
Traduction