Judgment of 3 February 2003

Document Number
122-20030203-JUD-01-00-EN
Document Type
Date of the Document
Document File
Bilingual Document File

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFST ORDONNANCES

DEMANDE EN REVISION DE L'ARRÊT
DU 11JUILLET 1996EN L'AFFAIRE RELATIVE
À L'APPLICATION DE LA CONVENTION POUR
LA PRÉVENTION ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME

DE GÉNOCIDE (BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE c
YOUGOSLAVIE), EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES
(YOUGOSLAVIc BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE)

ARRÊT DU 3 FÉVRIER 2003

2003

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONSND ORDERS

APPLICATIONFOR REVISIONOF THE JUDGMENT
OF 11 JULY 1996 IN THE CASE CONCERNING
APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE
PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME
OF GENOCIDE (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

v.YUGOSLAVIA), PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
(YUGOSLA VIA v BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA)

JUDGMENT OF 3 FEBRUARY 2003 Mode officiel de citatiOn
Demande en revlSlon de l'arrêtdu 11 ;uzllet 1996 en l'affmre relatzve
à l'ApplicatiOn de la conventùm pour la préventiOnet la répressiOn
du cnme de génocide(Bosme-Herzégovme c Yougoslavie), exceptiOns
préltmmaires (gos/avŒc Bosme-Herzégovme), arrêt,CI J Recueil
2003, 7

omc ciatan Î'
Applzcatzonfor Revzszonofthe'Judgment of 11 July 1996 m the Case con­
cermng Apphcatwn of the ConventiOn on the Prevention and Pumsh­
ment of the Cnme ofGenoc1de (Bosma and HerzevYugoslavia),
Prehmmary Objections ( Yugoslavw v Bosma and Herzegovma), Judg-
ment.fC J. Reports 2p 7,

''

N° de vente·
ISSN 0074-4441
Sales number862
ISBN 92-1-070968-3 3 FÉVRIER 2003

ARRÊT

DEMANDE EN REVISION DE L'ARRÊT DU 11 JUILLET 1996
EN L'AFFAIRE RELATIVE À L'APPLICATION
DE LA CONVENTION POUR LA PRÉVENTION
ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE
(BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE c YOUGOSLAVIE),
EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES

(YOUGOSLAVIE c BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE)

APPLICATION FOR REVISION OF THE
JUDGMENT OF Il JULY 1996 IN THE CASE CONCERNING
APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION
AND RUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
(BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA v YUGOSLAVIA),

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
(YUGOSLAVIA v BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA)

3FEBRUARY 2003

JUDGMENT 7

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

YEAR 2003
3 February
General List
3 February 2003 No 122

APPLICATION FOR REVISION

OF THE JUDGMENT OF 11JULY 1996
IN THE CASE CONCERNING APPLICATION OF

THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

(BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA v. YUGOSLAVIA),
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

(YUGOSLA VIA v BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA)

Artzcle61 of the StatutAppl!catwnfor revzswn-Partzes'arguments asto
whether therlSa ''fact" whzch. although znexzstence at the date of the Court's
Judgment of 11 July 1996, was at thal tzme unknown bath to the FRY and to the
Court - Whether the FR Y relzes on facts whzchfall wzthm the terms of Ar­
ttel61 of the Statu tCharacterzsttcs whtch a "new" fact wlthm the meamng
of Articl61 must possess - Admtsswn of the FR Y ta the Umted Natwns
occurred weil after the 1996 Judgment and cannat be regarded as such a new
fact- FRY's Appllcatwnfor revtswn zsbased on the legal consequences whzch
llseeks to draw from facts subsequent to the JudgmThose consequences
cannat, even supposmg them to be establzshed, be regarded as facts
meanmg of Article 61Sltuatlon created by General Assembly resolutwn 47/1
of 22 September 1992 - Sm genens posztwn of the FRY was known to the
Court and to the FR Yen the 1996 Judgment was gzven General Assembly
resolutwn 55/12f1 November 2000 cannat have changed retroactzvelsmthzs
genens posztwn - Legal Counsel's letter of 8 December 2000 cannat have
affected the Y'sposztwn m relatwn to treatzeLack of d1scovery of "sorne
fact" whzch was "when the judgment was gzven, unknown to the Court and also
to the party clazmmg revzswn" - No need to examme whether the other
requzrementsof Article 61 have been sallsfied

4 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 8

JUDGMENT

Present Pres1dent GuiLLAUME, V1ce-Pres1dent SHI, Judges RANJEVA,
HERCZEGH K,oROMA,VERESHCHETI PA,RRA-ARANGURE RE,zEK,AL­

KHASAWNEH B,uERGENTHAE L, ARABY ,udges ad hoc DIMITRIJEVIC,
MAHIOU, Reg1straCouvREUR

In the case concermng the Appbcatwn for revlSlon of the Judgment of
11July 1996,

between
the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta,

represented by
Mr Ttbor Varady, S J D (Harvard), Ch1ef Legal Adv1ser at the Federal
M1mstry of Foretgn AffairS of the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslav1a, Pro­
fessor of Law at the Central European Umverstty, Budapest, and Erriory
Umverstty, Atlanta,

as Agent,
Mr Vladtmlr DJenc, LL M (M1chtgan), Adv1serto 'theMtmster for Foreign
Affa1rsof the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm,

as Co-Agent,
Mr Andreas Znnmermann, LL M (Harvard), Professor of Law, Umvers1ty
of Kiel, Duector of the Walther-Schuckmg Inshtute,

as Counsel and Advocate,
Mr lan Brownhe, C B E , Q C , F B A , member of the Internatwnal Law
Comnusswn, member of the Erighsh Bar, Ementus Ch1chele Professor of
Pubhc InternatiOnal Law, Umvers1ty of Oxford,
as Adv1ser,

Mr DeJan Ukropma, Attorney from Novt Sad,
Mr Robm Ge1ss,Asststant at the Walther-Schuckmg Instltute, Umverstty of
Ktel,
Mr Marko Mtcanovté, LL M (New York Umvers1ty),
Mr Slavoljub Cane, Counsellor of the Embassy of the Federal Repubhc of
Yugoslav1a m The Hague,
Mr Mwdrag Panèesk1,F1rstSecretary of the Embassy of the Federal Repub­
hc of Yugoslavta m The Hague,

as Assistants,
and

Bosma and Herzegovma,

represented by
Mr Saktb Softlé,
as Agent,

Mr Phon van den B1esen,van den B1esenAdvocaten, Amsterdam,
as Deputy Agent,

5 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 9

Mr Alam Pellet, Professorat the Umverslty of Pans X-Nanterre, member

and former Chatrman of the Internatwnal Law Commtsston,
as Counsel and Advocate,

Mr Antome Olltvter,
Mr Wtm Muller,
as Counsel,

THE CouRT,

composed as above,

after dehberatwn,

delzvers the followmg Judgment

1 On 24Apnl2001, the Federal Repubhc ofYugoslavta (heremafter referred
to as the "FRY") filed m the Regtstry of the Court an Apphcatwn dated
23 Apnl 2001 mstttutmg proceedmgs, whereby, refernng to Article 61 of the
Statute of the Court, tt requested the Court to revtse the Judgment dehvered by
tt on 11July 1996 m the case concernmg Applzcatwn of the Conventwn on the
Preventwn and Pumshment of the Cnme of Genoczde (Bosma and Herzegovma
v Yugoslavza), Prelzmmary Ob;ectwns (/ C J Reports 1996 (//), p 595)
2 Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Apphcatton was
forthwlth commumcated by the Regtstrar of the Court to Bosma and Herze­
govma, and m accordance wtth paragraph 3 of that Article, ali States entitled
to appear before the Court were nottfied of the Apphcatwn
3 By letters of 26 Apnl 2001, the Regtstrar mformed the Parties that the
Court bad fixed 30 September 2001 as the tlme-hmtt for the fi1mgby Bosma

and Herzegovma oftts wntten observatiOns on the admtsstbthty of the Apphca­
tlon contemplated by Article 99, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court
4 Pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, a request by
the Republtc of Croatla for the pleadmgs and annexed documents to be made
avatlable tottwas granted on 6 August 2001 after the vtews of the Parttes bad
been ascertamed
5 By a letter of 2 August 2001, the Agent of Bosma and Herzegovma
requested the Court to extend to 1 December 2001 the ttme-hmtt for the fihng
by bts Government of tts wntten observatiOns By a Ietter of 17 August 2001,
the Agent of the FRY mformed the Court that bts Government dtd not abJect
to thts ttme-hm!t bemg thus extended By letters of 21 August 2001, the Fust
Secretary of the Court m charge of Informatton Matters, actmg Regtstrar,
mformed the Parttes that the Prestdent had extended to 3 December 2001 the
ttme-hmtt for the fihng by Bosma and Herzegovma of tts wntten observattons

6 On 3 December 2001, wlthm the time-hmtt thus extended, Bosma and

Herzegovma filed m the Regtstry tts wntten observations on the admtsstbthty
of the FRY's Apphcatton
7 By a Jetter of 26 December 2001, the Agent of the FRY, refernng to
Article 99, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, requested the Court to afford
the Parties a further opportumty of presentmg thetr vtews m wntten form on
the admtsstbihty of the Application By a letter of 21 January 2002, the Agent
of Bosma and Herzegovma mformed the Court that his Government was not
m favour of a second round of wntten pleadmgs

6 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 10

Bya letter of 1March 2002, the Regtstrar mformed the Parties of the Court's
dectslûn that a second round of wntten pleadmgs was not necessary
8 Smce the Court mcluded upon the Hench no JUdgeof the nattonahty of
elther of the Parttes, each Party proceeded to exerctse the nght conferred by
Arttcle 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute to choose a JUdgead hoc to s1t m the
case, the FRY chose Mr VoJmDtmttnjevtéand Bosma and Herzegovma chose
Mr Sead Hod:ZiéBy a letter dated 9 Apnl 2002 and recetved m the Regtstry on

6 May 2002, Mr Hod:bémformed the Court that he w1shedto restgn from h1s
dutles, Bosma and Herzegovma destgnated Mr Ahmed Mahwu to s1tm h1s
stead
9 After ascertammg the vtews of the Parties, the Court dectded, pursuant to
Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, that coptes of the wntten obser­
vatiOnsof Bosma and Herzegovma and the documents annexed thereto should
be made accessible to the pubhc on the openmg of the oral proceedmgs
10 Pubhc heanngs were held on 4, 5, 6 and 7 November 2002, dunng wh1ch
the Court beard the oral arguments and rephes of

For the FRY Mr Tibor Varady,
Mr Vlad1mu DJené,
Mr Andreas Zimmermann
For Bosma and Herzegovma Mr Sak1b Soft1é,
Mr Phon van den B1esen,
Mr Alam Pellet

11 In Its Apphcatwn, the followmg requests were made by the FRY
"For the reasons advanced above the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta
requests the Court to adJudge and declare that

there 1sa new fact of such a character as to lay the case open to reviSIOn
under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court
Furthermore, Apphcant ISrespectfully askmg the Court to suspend pro­
ceedmgs regardmg the ments of the case untii a declSlon on th1sApphca­
tion Is rendered "

12 In tts wntten observatiOns, the followmg submtsswn was made by
Bosma and Herzegovma

"In consideratiOn of the foregomg, the Government of Bosma and
Herzegovma requests the Court to adJudge and declare that the Apph­
catton for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996, subm1tted by the
Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavia on 23 Apnl 2001, ts not admiSSible"
13 At the oral proceedmgs, the followmg final submtsstons were presented
by the Parties

On behalf of the Government of the FR Y,
at the heanng of 6 November 2002

"For the reasons advanced m 1tsApphcatton of23 Apnl2001 and m 1ts
pleadmgs dunng the oral proceedmgs held from 4 to 7 November 2002,
the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta respectfully requests the Court to
adjudge and declare
that there are newly dtscovered facts of such a character as to lay the

11July 1996Judgment open to revtston under Article 61 of the Statute
of the Court , and

7 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 11

that the ApplicatiOnfor Revision of the Federal Repubhc of Yugo­
slavJaIStherefore admiSSible"

On behalf of the Government of Bosma and Herzegovma,
at the hearmg of 7 November 2002

"In consideratiOnof ali that has been submitted by the representatives
of Bosmaand Herzegovmam the wntten and oral stages of these proceed­
mgs, Bosma and Herzegovma requests the Court to adjudge and declare
that the ApplicatiOnfor Rev1s10nof the Judgment of 11 July 1996, sub­
mltted by the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslav1aon 23 Apnl 2001, ISnot
admissible"

* * *

14 In tts ApplicatiOn for revlSlon of the 1996 Judgment the FRY rehes
on Article 61 of the Statute, whtch prov1des as follows

"1 An applicatiOn for revlSlon of a JUdgment may be made only
when 1t1sbased upon the d1scovery of sorne fact of such a nature as
to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the Judgment was g!Ven,
unknown ta the Court and also to the party clatmmg reviSion,
always provided that such Ignorance was not due to negligence

2. The proceedmgs for rev1ston shall be opened by a JUdgment of
the Court expressly recordmg the extstence of the new fact, recog­
mzmg thâ.Ithas such a character as ta lay the case open to revlSlon,
and declanng the apphcatton admissible on this ground
3 The Court may reqmre prevwus comphance w1th the terms of
the Judgment before Itadmlts proceedmgs in revtston

4 The apphcatton for reviston must be made at latest withm s1x
months of the dtscovery of the new fact
5 No apphcation for revtsion may be made after the lapse of ten
years from the date of the Judgment "

15 Article 61 prov1des for revisiOn proceedmgs to open With a Judg­
ment of the Court declanng the apphcatwn adm1sstble on the grounds
contemplated by the Statute, Article 99 of the Rules makes express provt­
ston for proceedmgs on the ments If, m 1tsfirst JUdgment, the Court has
declared the apphcatwn adm1sstble

Thus the Statute and the Rules of Court foresee a "two-stage pro­
cedure" (Applzcatwn for Revzswn and Interpretatwn of the Judgment of
24 February 1982 m the Case concernmg the Contmental She1f(Tums1al
Ltbyan Arab Jamahmya) (TunlSia v Ltbyan Arab Jamahmya), Judg­
ment, 1 C J Reports 1985, p 197, para 8) The first stage of the pro­
cedure for a request for revlSlon of the Court's judgment should be

"hm1ted to the question of admisstbihty of that request" (tbtd , para. 10).
16 Therefore, at this stage the Court's dectston ts hmited to the gues­
hon whether the request satisfies the cond1ttons contemplated by the
Statute Under Article 61 of the Statute, these conditiOns are as follows

(a) the apphcatton should be based upon the "dtscovery" of a "fact",

8 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 12

(b) the fact, the discovery of whtch ts rehed on, must be "of such a

nature as to be adeclSlvefactor",
(c) the fact should have been "unknown" to the Court and ta the party
claimmg revisiOnwhen the Judgment was gtven,
(d) Ignorance of thts fact must not be "due ta neghgence", and
(e) the apphcatwn for revtston must be "made at latest wtthm stx
months of the discovery of the new fact" and before ten years have
elapsed from the date of the Judgment

17 The Court observes that an application for revlSion ts admtssible
only tf each of the condttlons latd down m Article 61 ts satisfied If any
one of them ts not met, the apphcatwn must be dtsmtssed
The Court will begm by ascertammg whether there ts here a "fact"
which, although m existence at the date of Its Judgment of Il July1996,
was at that time unknown bath to the FRY and to the Court

* *
18 In this regard, m tts Application for revision of the Court's Judg­
ment of 11July 1996, the FRY contended the followmg

"The admtsswn of the FRY ta the Umted NatiOns as a new
Member on 1 November 2000 IScertamly a new fact Itcan also be
demonstrated, and the Apphcant submits, that thts new fact ts of
such a nature as to be a declSlve factor regardmg the question of
JUnsdtctwn rat10nepersonae over the FRY

After the FRY was admttted as a new Member on 1 November
2000, dilemmas concermng 1ts standmg have been resolved, and tt

bas become an uneqmvocal fact that the FRY dtd not contmue the
personahty of the SFRY, was not a Member ofthe Umted NatiOns
before 1November 2000, was not a State party to the Statute, and
was not a State party ta the Genoc1de ConventiOn ...
The admtsswn of the FRY to the Umted Nattons as a new Mem­
ber clearsambtguttles and sheds a dtfferent hght on the Issue of the
membership of the FRY m the Umted Nattons, m the Statute and m
the Genoctde Convention."

The FRY further stated that, accordmg to the official hstmg of 8 Decem­
ber 2000, "Yugoslavza" had been hsted as a Member of the Umted
Nations smce 1 November 2000 and that "the explanatory note makes 1t
clear that thzzsa reference to the FR Y" The FRY concluded that "this
1sa new fact of such a nature to be a declSlvefactor, unknown to both
the Court and to the Apphcant at the ttme when the Judgment of 11July
1996 was gtven"
19. In tts oral pleadmgs, the FRY dtd not mvoke tts admisston to the
Umted NatiOns rn November 2000 as a deciSIVe"new fact", withm the
meamng of Article 61 of the Statute, capable of foundmg 1tsrequest for

revisiOnof the 1996 Judgment. The FRY clatmed that this admisston "as

9 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 13

a new Member" as well as the Legal Counsel's letter of 8 December 2000
mvltmg tt, accordmg to the FRY, "to take treaty actwns tf tt wtshed to
become a party to treattes to whtch the former Yugoslavm was a party"

were

"events whtch revealed the followmg two declSlvefacts
(1} the FRY was not a party to the Statute at the ttme of the Judg­
ment, and
(2) the FRY dtd not remam bound by Article IX of the Genoqde
ConventiOn contmumg the personahty of the former Yugo­
slavta"

Itts on the hasts of these two "facts" that, m tts oral argument, the FRY

ulttmately founded tts request for revtston
20 The FRY further stressed at the heanngs that these "newly dtscov­
ered facts" had not occurred subsequently to the Judgment of 1996 In
thts regard, the FRY states that "the FRY never argued or contemplated
that the newly dtscovered fact would or could have a retroactive effect"

21 For tts part, Bosma and Herzegovma mamtams the followmg

"there ts no 'new fact' capable of 'laymg the case open' to revtston
pursuant to Article 61, paragraph 2, of the Court's Statute nelther
the admtsswn of Yugoslavm to the Umted Natwns whtch the apph­
cant State presents as a factf thts kmd, or m any event as bemg the
source of such a fact, nor tts allegedly new situation vts-à-vts the
Genoctde Conventwn constltute facts of that kmd"

22 In short, Bosma and Herzegovma submJts that what the FRY

refers to as "facts" are "the consequences of a fact, whtch ts and can
only be the admtsswn of Yugoslavta to the Umted Natwns m 2000" It
states that "Article 61 of the Statute of the Court reqmres that the
fact was 'when the Judgment was gtven, unknown to the Court and also
to the party clatmmg revtston'" and that "thts tmphes that the fact m
questwn actually dtd extst 'whenthe JUdgmentwas gtven'" Accordmg to
Bosma and Herzegovma, the FRY "ts regardmg tts own change of post­
bon (and the ensumg consequences) as a new fact" Bosma and Herze­
govma concludes that thts "'new fact' ts subsequent to the Judgment
whose revtswn ts sought" ltnotes that the alleged new fact can have "no
retroactive or retrospective effect"

23 Bosma and Herzegovma further adds that the FRY ts merely rely­
mg on a "new 'perceptwn' of the facts of 1993m the hght of those whtch

took place m 2000 and 2001" Bosma and Herzegovma submtts that a
"perception" ts not a fact and that "m any event, the 'perceptwn' of
Yugoslavta's new sttuatwn wtth respect both to the Umted Natwns and

10 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 14

to the 1948 [Genocide] Conventton, occurred subsequently to the Judg­
ment under challenge"

* *
24 Before turnmg to the exammahon of the "facts" whtch the FRY
has rehed upon m tts p1eadmgsm order to JUStlfythe revlSionof the 1996
Judgment, the Court wtll recount the background to the case wtth a vtew

to provtdmg the context for the contenttonsof the FRY.

*

25. In the early 1990sthe SFRY, made up ofBosma and Herzegovma,
Croatla, Macedoma, Montenegro, Serbm and S1ovema, began to break
up On 25 June 1991 Croaba and Slovema both declared mdependence,
followed by Macedoma on 17 September 1991 and Bosma and Herze­
govma on 6 March 1992. On 22 May 1992, Bosma and Herzegovma,
Croatta and Slovema were admitted as Members to the Umted Nattons,
as was the former Yugoslav Repubhc of Macedonm on 8 Apn11993

26 On 27 Apnl 1992 the "participants of the JOint sessiOn of the
SFRY Assemb1y,the Nattonal Assembly of the Repubhc of Serbm and
the Assemb1y of the Repubhc of Montenegro" adopted a declaratton,
statmg m pertment parts·

"The representatives of the people of the Republzc of Serbza and
the Repubhc of Montenegro,

Expressmg the will of the cttlzens of theu respective Repubhcs to
stay m the common state of Yugoslavia,

Wish to state m this DeclaratiOn their views on the baste, tmme­
dtate and lastmg obJectives of the pohcy of thelf common state, and
on Its relattons wtth the former Yugos1av Repubhcs

1 The Federal Repubhc ofYugoslavm, contmumg the state, mter­

nattonallegal and pohttcal personahtyf the Socmhst Federal Repub­
hc ofYugoslavta, shall stnctly abide by ali the commttments that the
SFR of Yugoslavm assumed mternattonally,

Remammg bound by ail obhgatwns to mternatwnal orgamza-
tlons and mstltutwns whose member tt IS " (Umted Nattons
doc A/46/915, Ann II)

11 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 15

27 An official Note of the same date from the Permanent MissiOn of
Yugoslavta to the Umted Nattons, addressed to the Secretary-General of
the Umted Natwns, stated mter allathat

"The Assembly of the Soctahst Federal Repubhc ofYugoslavm, at
Its sessiOnheld on 27 Apnl 1992, promulgated the ConstitutiOn of
the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavia Under the ConstitutiOn, on the
basisof the contmumg personahty of Yugoslavm and the legthmate

decistons by Serbta and Montenegro to contmue to hve together m
Yugoslavta, the Socmhst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm IStrans­
formed mto the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta, conststmg of the
Repubhc of Serbta and the Repubhc of Montenegro

Stnctly respectmg the contmmty of the mternatwnal personahty
ofYugoslavm, the Federal Repubhc ofYugoslavm shall contmue to
fulfil all the nghts conferred to, and obhgatwns assumed by, the
Socmhst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta m mternatwnal relatiOns,
mcludmg Its membershtp m all mternatwnal orgamzatwns and
participatiOn m mternattonal treattes rattfied or acceded toby Yugo­

slavm." (Umted NatiOns doc A/46/915, Ann 1)

28 On 19 September 1992, the Secunty Council adopted resolutiOn
777 (1992) whiChread as follows

"The Secunty Councd,

Reaffirmmg tts resolutiOn 713 (1991) of25 September 1991and ali
subsequent relevant resolutiOns,
Conszdermg that the state formerly known as the Sociahst Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslavta has ceased ta exist,

Recallmg m partlcular resolutiOn 757 (1992) whtch notes that 'the
clatm by the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavia (Serbta and Monte­
negro) ta contmue automatlcally the membership of the former
Socmhst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm m the Umted Natwns
has not been generally accepted',

1 Consulers that the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta (Serbta and

Montenegro) cannat contmue automahcally the membershtp of the
former Socmhst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslav1a m the Umted
Natwns, and therefore recommends to the General Assembly that 11
dectde that the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta (Serbia and Monte­
negro) should apply for membershtp m the Umted Nations and that
It shall not participate m the work of the General Assembly,

2 Deczdes to constder the matter agam before the end of the

12 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 16

mam part of the forty-seventh sesswn of the General Assembly "

(Umted Natwns doc S/RESI777)
29 On 22 September 1992 the General Assembly adopted resolutwn

47/l, accordmg to whtch
"The General·Assembly,

Havmg rece1ved the recommendatwn of the Secunty Counctl of
19 September 1992 that the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm (Serb1a
and Montenegro) should apply for membersh1p m the Umted

Nations and that tt shall not partlctpate m the work of the General
Assembly,
1 Cons1ders that the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm (Serbm and

Montenegro) cannat contmue automattcally the membershtp of the
former Soctahst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm m the Umted
Natwns, and therefore dectdes that the Federal Repubhc of Yugo­
slavm (Serbm and Montenegro) should apply for membershtp m the
Umted Natwns and that ttshall not parttc1pate m the work of the
General Assembly,

2 Takes note of the mtenhon of the Secunty Counctl to cons1der
the matter agam before the end of the mam part of the forty-seventh
sesswn of the General Assembly" (Umted Natwns doc A/RES/
47/1.)

30 On 25 September 1992, the Permanent Representahves of Bosma
and Herzegovma and Croatta addressed a letter to the Secretary-General,

m whtch, w1th reference to Secunty Counctl resoluhon 777 (1992) and
General Assembly resolution 47/1, they stated the1r understandmg as fol­
lows "at th1smoment, there 1sno doubt that the Socmhst Federal Repub­
hc of Yugoslavta ts not a member of the Umted Natwns any more At
the same tlme, the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslav1a 1sclearly not yet a
member " They concluded that "the flag flymg m front of the Umted

Natwns and the name-plaque beanng the name 'Yugoslavta' do not rep­
resent anythmg or anybody any more" and "kmdly request[ed] that [the
Secretary-General] prov1de a legal explanatory statement concernmg the
questions ratsed" (Umted Natwns doc A/47/474)

31 In response, on 29 September 1992, the Under-Secretary-General

and Legal Counsel of the Umted Natwns addressed a letter to the
Permanent Representatives of Bosma and Herzegovma and Croatta, m
wh1ch he stated that the "constdered v1ewof the Umted Nations Secre­
tanat regardmg the practlcal consequences of the adoption by the
General Assembly of resolutwn 47/1" was as follows.

"Wrule the General Assembly has stated uneqmvocally that the
Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta (Serbta and Montenegro) cannat

automattcally contmue the membershtp of the former Socmhst Fed-

13 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 17

eral Repubhc ofYugoslavta in the Umted Natwns and that the Fed­
eral Repubhc of Yugoslav1a (Serbta and Montenegro) should apply
for membersh1p m the Umted Natwns, the only pract1cal conse­
quence that the resolutiOn draws ts that the Federal Repubhc of
Yugoslavta (Serbta and Montenegro) shall not partzczpate m the
work of the General Assembly ltts clear, therefore, that representa­
tives of the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm (Serbta and Montene­

gro) can no longer partzczpatem the work of the General Assembly,
tts substdtary organs, nor conferences and meetmgs convened by tt

On the other band, the resolutiOn netther termmates nor suspends
Yugoslav1a's membershzp m the Orgamzatwn Consequently, the
seat and nameplate remam as before, but m Assembly bodies repre­
sentattvesf the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta (Serbta and Mon­
tenegro) cannatslt behmd the s1gn'Yugoslav1a' Yugoslav mtssrons
at Umted Nattons Headquarters and offices may contmue to func­
tlon and may rece1veand ctrculate documents At Headquarters, the
Secretanat wtll contmue to fly the flag of the old Yugoslavm as tt 1s
the last flag of Yugoslavta used by the Secretanat The resolutton
does not take away the nght of Yugoslav1a to parttctpate m the
work of organs ether than Assembly bodtes The admtsswn to the
Umted Nations of a new Yugoslavra under Article 4 of the Charter
w1ll termmate the situatiOn created by resolution 47/1 " (Umted
Nations doc A/47/485, emphasts added m the ongmal)

32 On 29 Apnl 1993, the General Assembly, upon the recommenda­
tlon contamed m Secunty Councll resolution 821 (1993) (couched m
terms s1mllarto those of Secunty Counctl resolution 777 (1992)), adopted
resolution 47/229 m whrch 1t decrded that "the Federal Repubhc of
Yugoslav1a(Serbta and Montenegro) [should] not partlctpate m the work
of the Econom1c and Sacral Counc1l"

*
33 The Court recalls that between the adoptiOn of General Assembly
resolutwn 47/1 of 22 September 1992 and the admtsswn of the FRY to
the Umted Natwns on 1 November 2000, the legal posttlon of the FRY
remamed complex, as shown by the followmg examples

34 By a resolution of 20 December 1993 relatmg to the s1tuatwn m
Bosma and Herzegovma, the General Assembly reaffirmed 1tsresolutiOn
47/1 of 22 September 1992, and urged "Member States and the Secre­
tanat m fulfilhng the spmt of that resolution to end the de facto workmg
status of the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta (Serbta and Montenegro)"

(Umted Nattons doc A/RES/48/88, para 19)

14 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 18

35 Dunng this penod, refernng to the terms of Secunty Council
resolutwn 777 (1992) and General Assembly resolutwn 47/1, Bosma and
Herzegovma, Croatla, Slovema and the former Yugoslav Repubhc of
Macedoma consistently obJected to the FRY's clatm that ltcontmued the
State and the mternational legal and pohttcal personahty of the former
SFRY In particular, they disagreed that the FRY was a Member of the
Umted Natwns and a party to the multilateral treatles to wh1ch the
former Yugoslavia was a party

36 It was m this context that, followmg the suggestiOn made by the
Representative of Bosma and Herzegovma at the 18th and 19th Meetmgs
of States Parties to the Internatwnal Covenant on Ctvtl and Pohtical
Rtghts, and a vote thereon, the FRY was excluded from parbcipatmg m
the said meetmgs (Umted NatiOns doc CCPR/SP/SR 18, p 3, Umted

Natwns doc. CCPR/SP/SR 19,p 8) However, m explanahon of his deci­
sion to vote m favour of exclusiOnat the 18th meetmg held on 16 March
1994, the representative of Belgmm, speakmg on behalf of the States
members of the European Umon that were parties to the ConventiOn,
and supported by the representatives of Austraha and Iceland, the latter
on behalf of the Nordtc countnes, "said that the vote of the delegatiOns
concerned was without preJUdiceto thetr positiOn regardmg the status of
the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta (Serbta and Montenegro) vzs-à-vcs
the Covenant or the other mternatwnal obhgatwns of the former Soctal­
IStFederal Repubhc of Yugoslavia" Those delegatiOns"were of the vtew
that the Federal Repubhc ofYugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) should
abide by the obligations ansmg under the Covenant" (Umted NatiOns
doc CCPR/SP/SR 18)
37 In response to these protests, the FRY, claimmg that ttcontmued

the mternatwnal legal personahty of the former Yugoslavm, at ali
times mamtamed the vtew that tts membership m the Umted Nattons
and 1ts status as a State party to mternatwnal treatles were not affected
by the adoption of Secunty Councii resolutwn 777 (1992) and General
Assembly resolution 47/1

38 Accordmg to the Enghsh text of the "Summary of Practtce of the
Secretary-General as Deposttary of Multilateral Treatles", prepared by
the Treaty SectiOnof the Office of Legal AffaiTS,whtch was pubhshed at
the begmnmg of 1996,

"89 A special difficulty arose upon the adoptiOn of resolutiOn
4711 of 22 September 1992, by whtch the General Assembly con­
sidered that the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavia (Serbta and Mon­
tenegro) could not contmue automatlcally the membership of

the former Sociahst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta m the Umted
Natwns and therefore decided that the Federal Repubhc of Yugo­
slavm (Serbm and Montenegro) should apply for membershtp
m the Umted NatiOns and that It should not partictpate m the work

15 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 19

of the General Assembly, the resolutiOnwas mterpreted by the Secre­
tanat to apply to substdrary organs of the General Assembly, as

well as conferences and meetmgs convened by tt Consequently, the
Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavra (Serbm and Montenegro), was not
mvtted to partrctpate m conferences convened by the Assembly
(e g, the World Conference on Human Rtghts). However, this
was wrthout effect on the capactty of the Federal Repubhc of
Yugoslavta (Serbta and Montenegro) to parbctpate m treattes,
mcludmg those deposrted wtth the Secretary-General

297 In the absence of provtstons which set specifie condttwns
for successton or whtch otherw1se restnct successwn, the Secretary­

General lSgmded by the participatiOn clauses of the treattes as well
as by the general pnnciples govermng theparticipatiOn of States (see
chap. V) The mdependence of the new successor State, which then
exerctses Its sovereignty on Its terntory, ts of course without effect
as concerns the treaty nghts and obhgattonsof the predecessor State
as concerns tts own (remammg) terntory Thus, after the separatton
of parts of the terntory of the Umon of Soviet Soctahst Repubhcs
(whtch became mdependent States), the Umon of Soviet Sociahst
Repubhcs (as the Russian FederatiOn) contmued to extst as a pre­
decessorState, and ail Its treaty nghts and obligations contmued m
force m respect of Its terntory The same apphes to the Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslav1a(Serbta and Montenegro), wh1chremams as
the predecessorState upon separat10n of parts of the terntory of the

former Yugoslav1a General Assembly resolutiOn47/1 of 22 Septem­
ber1992, to the effect that the Federal Repubbc ofYugoslavm could
not automatically contmue the membership of the former Yugosla­
via m the Umted Nattons (see para 89 above), was adopted wtthm
the framework of the Umted NatiOns and the context of the Charter
of the Umted Natwns, and not as an mdicabon that the Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslavra was not to be constdered a predecessor
State" (Umted Natwns doc. ST/LEG/8)

39 Subsequently, the Secretanat pubhshed an errata to the Enghsh
textof the satd "Summary of Practice" With regard to paragraph 89 of
the Enghsh text, the last sentence was thus replaced by the followmg

"However, thts ts wtthout effect on the capactty of the Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslavta (Serbta and Montenegro) to partictpate
m treatres depostted with the Secretary-General subject to any
deCISiontaken by a competent organ representmg the mtematronal

16 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 20

commumty of States as a whole or by a competent treaty organ
with regard to a partlcular treatyr conventwn" (Umted Natwns
doc ST/LEG/7/Rev 1)

With regard to paragraph 297 of the Enghsh text of the Summary,
m response to obJectwns raised by certam States (see Umted NatiOns
docs A/50/910-S/1996/231, A/51/95-S/1996/251, A/50/928-S/1996/263,
A/50/930-S/1996/260), the Secretanat deleted ali reference to the FRY
and changed the text to read as follows

"In the absence of provisions whtch set spectficconditions for suc­
cessiOnor whtch otherwtse restnct successton, the Secretary-General
ISgmded by the participatiOn clauses of the treattes as weli as by the
general prmctples governmg the partlctpatwn of States (seechapV)
The mdependence of the new successor State, whtch then exerctses

tts soveretgnty on tts terntory, ts without effect on the treaty nghts
, and obhgattons of the predecessor State m tts own (remammg) ter­
·ntory Thus, after the separation of parts of the terntory of the
Umon of Soviet Soctahst Repubhcs (which became mdependent
States), the Russmn Federation contmued ali treaty nghts and
obhgatwns of the predecessor State" (Umted Natwns doc
ST/LEG/7/Rev 1)

The changes set out m the above-mentwned errata, mcludmg those
relatmg to paragraphs 89 and 297, were directly mcorporated mto the
French text of the Summary pubhshed m 1997

40 The General Framework Agreement for Peace m Bosma and
Herzegovma was mitialled m Dayton, Ohw, on 21 November 1995 and
stgned by theParties m Pans on 14 December 1995 By the terms of thts
Agreement, the FRY and Bosma and Herzegovma agreed to "recogmze
each other as sovereign mdependent States wtthm thetr mternatwnal bor­
ders" and to "comply fully wtth the provisions concernmg human nghts

set forth m Chapter One of the Agreement at Annex 6" Thts Annex,
entitled "Agreement on Human Rights" had appended to tt a hst of trea­
tles, mcludmg the Genocide ConventiOn (Umted Nattons doc A/50/790-
S/1995/999)
41 The FRY depostted a declaration recogmzmg the compulsory JUns­
dictlon of the Internatwnal Court of Justice, dated 25 Apnll999, wtth the
Secretary-General On 30 Apnl 1999 the Secretary-General tssued a
Deposttary Notification mformmg Member States that the "above action
was effected on 26 Apn11999" (C N 311 1999TREATIES-1)

42 On 27 May 1999, the Permanent Representatives of Bosma and
Herzegovma, Croatm, Slovema and the former Yugoslav Repubhc of
Macedoma sent a letter to the Secretary-General, questtomng the vahdity

of the depostt of the declaratiOn recogmzmg the compulsory JUnsdtctwn

17 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 21

of the Intematwnal Court of Justice by the FRY (Umted Nations
doc A/53/992)
43 On 3 June 1999, the Permanent Representatives of Bosma and
Herzegovma, Croatla, Slovema and the former Yugoslav Repubhc of
Macedoma addressed a letter to the Prestdent of the Secunty Counctl,
statmg

"We wtsh that thts letter be understood as our permanent obJeC­
tion to the groundless assertwn of the Federal Repubhc of Yugo­
slavm (Serbm and Montenegro), whtch has also been repudtated by
the mternahonal commumty, that tt represents the contmmty of our
common predecessor, and thereby contmues to enJOYIts status m
mternattonal orgamzatwns and treaties" (Umted Nattons doc.
S/1999/639)

44 In the Umted NatiOns publication of 2002 ent1tled "Multilateral
treattes deposJted wJth the Secretary-General, Status as at 31 December
2001", the situatton dunng the penod after the adoptwn of Secunty
Counctl resolutwn 777 (1992) of 19 September 1992 ts charactenzed as
follows

"General Assembly resolutwn 47/1 dtd not spectficallyaddress the
questiOn of the status of e1ther the former Yugoslavta or of Yugo­
slavJa wtth regard to multtlateral treatles that were depos1ted wlth
the Secretary-General The Legal Counsel took the v1ew m this
regard that the Secretary-General was not m a positiOn, as deposJ­
tary, etther to reJectto d1sregard the clatm of Yugoslavta that 1t
contmued the legal personahty of the former Yugoslavm, absent any

dectswn to the contrary eJther by a competent organ of the Umted
Natwns duectmg htm m the exerctse of hts deposttary functwns, or
by a competent treaty organ created by a treaty, or by the contract­
mg States to a treaty duectmg him m the exercise of h1sdepositary
functions w1th regard to that parttcular treaty, or by a competent
organ representative of the mternatwnal commumty of States as a
whole on the general tssue of contmuity and dtscontmmty of state­
hood to whtch the cla1mof Yugoslavta gave nse

Consistent w1th the clatm of Yugoslavm to contmue the mter­
natwnal legal personahty of the former Yugoslavm, the Secretary­
General, as deposttary, contmued to hst treaty actwns that had been
performed by the former Yugoslavm m status hsts m the present pub­
hcatwn, usmg for that purpose the short-form name 'Yugoslavta',
whtch was used at that tJme to refer to the former Yugoslavta
Between 27 Apnl 1992 and 1 November 2000, Yugoslavta under­
took numerous treaty actions wtth respect to treattes depostted wtth
the Secretary-General Consistent wtth the clatm of Yugoslavm to

18 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 22

contmue the mternabonal legal personahty of the former Yugosla­
vm, these treaty actwns were also hsted m status hsts agamst the
name 'Yugoslav1a'.Accordmgly, the Secretary-General, as deposi­

tary, d1d not make any d1fferentiatwn m the present pubhcatwn
between treaty actwns that were performed by the former Yugosla­
vm and those that were performed by Yugoslavm, bath categones of
treaty actions bemg hsted agamst the name 'Yugoslavm'" (Umted
Natwns doc ST/LEG/SER E/20 )

*
45 The Court constders that to the above account of the FRY's spe­
cial sttuatwn that extsted between September 1992 and November 2000,
should be added certam detatls concermng the Umted NatiOns member­

ship dues and rates of assessment set for the FRY dunng that same
penod In General Assembly resolution 43/223 of 21 December 1988
("Scale of assessments for the apporhonment of the expenses of the
Umted Natwns"), the rate of assessment for the SFRY for 1989, 1990
and 1991was fixed at 0 46 percent The rate of assessment for the SFRY
for 1992, 1993 and 1994 as estabhshed m 1991 was to be 0 42 percent
(General Assembly resolution 46/221 of 20 December 1991)
46 On 23 December 1992,the General Assembly, on the recommenda­
twn of the Ftfth Commtttee, dectded to adopt the recommendatwns of the
Commtttee on Contnbutwns w1th respect to the rates of assessment of
Member States contamed m paragraphs 51 to 64of the report of the Com­
mtttee on Contnbutwns (Umted Natwns doc A/47/11) Paragraph 63
of thiS report sttpulated that the rates of assessment for Bosma and
Herzegovma, Croatta and Slovema for 1993 and 1994 should be 0 04,

0 13 and 0 09 percent respecttvely lt was further stated that "for 1992,
these States shou1d pay seven twelfths of these rates, and thetr actual
assessment should be deducted from that of Yugoslavta for that year"
(para 64 of the Report) By resolutwn 48/223 of 23 December 1993, the
General Assembly determmed that the rate of assessment of the former
Yugoslav Repubhc of Macedoma, admttted to membersh1p m the Umted
Nattons m 1993, should be 0 02 per cent and that Its 1993 assessment
should be deducted from that of the FRY. The General Assembly also
dectded that the rateof assessment of the former Yugoslav Repubhc of
Macedoma should be deducted from that of the FRY for 1994
47 As a consequence of the above-mentwned declSlons regardmg the
rate of assessment for Bosma and Herzegovma, Croatla, Slovema and the
former Yugoslav Repubhc of Macedoma, the rate of assessments for the
contnbutwn of the FRY to the regular budget of the Umted Nattons for

the years 1995, 1996and 1997was determmed to be 0 Il, 0 1025and 0 10
percent respecttvely (General Assembly resolutwn 49/19 Bof 23 Decem­
ber 1994) By General Assembly resolution 52115A, the rate of assess-

19 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 23

ment of the FRY for the years 1998, 1999and 2000 was determmed to be
0 060, 0 034 and 0 026 per cent respecbvely
48 On 23 December 2000, the General Assembly by lts resolutiOn
55/SE dectded that "the rate of assessment for the Federal Republtc of
Yugoslavta, admttted to membership of the Umted Nattons on l Novem­
ber 2000, should be 0 026 per cent for the year 2000" The resolutiOn
spectfied that thts assessment should be taken mto account asscella­
neous mcome m accordance with regula ton 5 2 (c) of the Fmanctal
RegulatiOns and Rules of the Umted NatiOns", deahng with the "contn-
butwns of new Member States"

*

49 Followmg natwnal electiOns on 24 September 2000, Mr Kostu­
ntca was elected Prestdent of the FRY On 27 October 2000, Prestdent
Kostumca sent a letter to the Secretary-General requestmg admtsswnf
the FRY to membershtp m the Umted Natwns, m the followmg terms

"In the wake of fundamental democratie changes that took place
m the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslav1a, m the capac1ty of President,
I have the honour to request thedmisswn of the Federal Repubhc
of Yugoslavta to membership m the Umted Nattons m hght of the
ImplementatiOn of Secunty Counctl resolutiOn 777 (1992)" (Umted
Nations doc N55/528-S/2000/1043 )

50 On 31 October 2000, the Secunty Council (pursuant to the recom­
mendattons made m the Report of the Comm1ttee on the Admtsswn of
New Members concermng the apphcatwn of the FRY for admtsston m
the Umted Natwns), "recommend[ed] to the General Assembly that the
Federal Repubhc ofYugoslav1a be admttted to membersh1pm the Umted
Natwns" (Umted NattOns doc S/RES/1326) On 1 November 2000, the
General Assembly adopted resolution 55/12, whtch reads as follows

"The General Assembly,
Havmg recezved the recommendatwn of the Secunty Counctl of
31 October 2000 that the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta should be
admltted to membershtp m the Umted Natwns,

Havmg conszdered the apphcatwn for membershtp of the Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslavm,
Decedes to admit the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta to member-
shtp m the Umted NattOns "

The admtssion of the FRY to membership of the Umted Nattons on
1 November 2000 put an end to Yugoslavia's suc genereposition wtthm
the Umted NattOns The President of the General Assembly, on behalf of
the Assembly, "welcomed the Federal Repubhc ofYugoslavJa as a Mem-

20 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 24

ber of the Umted Nattons" Other speakers emphastzed the fact that the
FRY was entenng the Umted Nattons famtly on equal terms wtth the
other Repubhcs of the former SFRY The representative of France who
bad mtroduced the draft resolutiOn stated m parttcular that "a hmtus of
etght years [was] about to end" (see Umted Natwns doc A/55/PV 48,
pp 26-34)

51 On 8 December 2000, the Under-Secretary-General, the Legal
Counsel, sent a letter to the Mtmster for Foretgn Affatrs of the FRY,
readmg m pertment parts
"Followmg [the admtsswn of the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta
to the Umted Nations on 1 November 2000], a revtew was under­
taken of the multilateral treattes depostted wtth the Secretary­
General, m relation to many of whtch the former Soctahst Federal

Repubhc of Yugoslavta (the SFRY) and the Federal Repubhc of
Yugoslavta (FRY) had undertaken a range of treaty actwns

lt1sthe Legal Counsel's v1ewthat the Federal Repubhc of Yugo­
slavm should now undertake treaty actiOns, as appropnate, m rela­
tion to the treatles concerned, tf 1tsmtentwn ts to assume the rele­
vant legal nghts and obhgatwns as a successor State" (Letter by the
Legal Counsel of the Umted NatiOns (Apphcatwn of Yugoslavta,
Ann 27))

52 At the begmnmg of March 2001, a notificatiOn of accessiOnto the
Genoctde ConventiOn by the FRY was depostted wtth the Secretary­
General of the Umted NatiOns The notificatiOn of accesswn by Yugo­
slavm was dated 6 March 2001 and read as follows

"WHEREASthe Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm had declared
on Apnl 27, 1992,that 'the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta, con­
tmumg the State, mternattonallegal and pohtJcal personahty of the
Soctahst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm, shall stnctly abtde by ali
the commttments that the Socmhst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta
assumed mternatwnally',

WHEREAtShts contentwn of contmmty also mcluded the assump­
tion that the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta contmued the member­
shtp m the Umted NatiOns of the Socmhst Federal Repubhc of
Yugoslavm,

WHEREAtS he contentiOn and assumptton of contmmty was event­
ually not accepted by the Umted Nations nor was tt accepted by
other successor States of the Soctahst Federal Repubhc of Yugosla­
vta, and thus tt produced no effects,

FuRTHERMORE th,ts s1tuatton became finally clanfied on Novem-

21 APPLICATIO FNRREVISIO(N JUDGMENT) 25

ber 1, 2000, when the Federal Repubhc of Yugos1avmwas accepted
as a new member State of the Umted Nations,

Now tt has been estabhshed that the Federal Repubhc of Yugo­
slavta has not succeeded on Apnl 27, 1992,or on any later date, to
treaty membershtp, nghts and obhgattons of the Socmhst Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslavm m the Convention on the PreventiOn and
Pumshment of the Cnme of Genoctde on the assumpt10n of con­

tmued membershtp m the Umted NatiOns and contmued state,
mternatwnal legal and pohttcal personahty of the Soctahst Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslavta,

THEREFORE 1,am submittmg on behalf of the Government of the
Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm this notificatiOn of accessiOnto the
Convention on the PreventiOn and Pumshment of the Cnme of
Genocide, m pursuance of Arttcle XI of the said ConventiOn and
with the followmg reservation on Article IX of the satd Convention
'The Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm does not constder Itself bound
by Article IX of the ConventiOn on the PreventiOn and Pumshment

of the Cnme of Genocide and, therefore, before any dispute to
which the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm ISa party may be vahdly
submitted to the JUrtsdictwn of the International Court of Justice
under this Article, the specifie and exphctt consent of the FRY ts
reqmred m each case '"
On 15 March 2001, the Secretary-General, actmg m his capacity as
depositary, Issued a DepositaryotificatiOn (C N 1642001TREATIES-
1), mdicatmg that the accessiOnof the FRY to the 1948 ConventiOn on

the Prevention and Pumshment of the Cnme of Genocide "was effected
on 12 March 2001" and that the Convention would "enter mto force for
the FRY on 10 June 2001"
53 The Government of Croatm, on 18 May 2001, and the Presidency
of Bosma and Herzegovma, on 27 December 2001, objected to the
deposit of the mstrument of accessiOnby the FRY, on the basis that as
one of the successor States to the former SFRY, It was already bound
by the Genocide ConventiOn The two States also objected to the FRY's
reservation In this regard Croatia stated that It was "mcompatib1e with
the object and purposeof the Convention" whereas Bosma and Herzego­
vma stated that It was made severa! years after 27 Apn1 1992, "the day
on which the FRY became bound to the Genocide Convention m Its
entirety" On 2 Apnl 2002, the Government of Sweden mformed the Sec­
retary-General that It considered the FRY to be one of the successor
States to the SFRY "and, as such, a Party to the Convention from the
date of entermg mto force of the ConventiOn for the Soctahst Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslavm" Therefore, the Government of Sweden consid­
ered the FRY's reservation "as havmg been made too late and thus null
and v01d" (Multilateral Treaties deposited with the Secretary-General at

22 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 26

http //untreaty un org) To date there has been no further reactton from
States parties to the Genoctde ConventiOn

*

54 The Court also constders that, m order to complete the contextual
background, tt ts necessary to recall the proceedmgs leadmg up to the
dehvery of the Judgment of Il July 1996,as weil as the passages m that
Judgment relevant to the present proceedmgs
55 On 20 March 1993, the Govemment of Bosma and Herzegovma
filed m the Regtstry of the Court an Apphcatwn mstttutmg proceedmgs
agamst the FRY m respect of a dtspute concermng alleged vtolattons of
the Convention on the PreventiOn and Pumshment of the Cnme of
Genoctde The Apphcatwn mvoked Article IX of the Genoctde Conven­
tiOnas the hasts of the JUnsdtctton of the Court
56 On 20 March 1993,tmmedtately after the fihng of tts Apphcatwn,
Bosma and Herzegovma submttted a request for the mdtcatton of provt­
swnal measures under Article 41 of the Statute On 1 Apnl 1993, Yugo­
slavta submttted wntten observations on Bosma and Herzegovma's
request for proviSional measures m whtch tt, m tum, recommended the
Court to order the apphcatwn of provtstonal measures to Bosma and

Herzegovma
57 By an Order dated 8 Apnl 1993, the Court mdtcated certam pro­
vtstonal measures wtth a vtew to theprotectiOn of nghts under the Geno­
ctde ConventiOn In thts Order the Court, referrmg to Secunty Counctl
resolution 777 (1992), General Assembly resolutiOn 47/l and the Legal
Counsel's letter of 29 September 1992, statedmter alta the followmg

"18 Whereas, whde the solution adopted ts not free from legal
dtfficulttes, the question whether or not Yugoslavta ts a Member of
the Umted Nattons and as such a party to the Statute of the Court ts
one whtch the Court does not need to determme defimttvely at the
present stage of the proceedmgs,
19 Whereas Article 35 of the Statute, after provtdmg that the
Court shall be open to the parties to the Statute, contmues
'2 The condtttons under whtch the Court shall be open to
other States shall, subject to the spectal provtstons contamed m
treattes m force, be latd down by the Secunty Counctl, but m no
case shall such condtttons place therties m a posttton of mequal­
tty before the Court',

whereas the Court therefore constders that proceedmgs may vahdly
be mstttuted by a State agamst a State whtch ts a party to such a
spectal provisiOnm a treaty m force, but ts not party to the Statute,
and mdependently of the condtttons latd down by the Secunty

23 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 27

Councd m 1ts resolutiOn 9 of 1946 (cf S S 'Wtmbledon', 1923,
PC 1 J, Senes A, No 1, p 6), whereas a comprom1ssory clause m
a multilateral conventiOn, such as Article IX of the Genocide Con­
vention rebed on by Bosma-Herzegovma m the present case, could,
m the v1ewof the Court, be regarded pnma fac1eas a spectal pro­
VISIOncontamed ma treaty m force, whereas accordmgly tf Bosma­
Herzegovma and Yugoslav1a are both parttes to the Genocide Con­
ventiOn, disputes to wh1chArticle IX apphes are m any event pnma
fac1ew1thm the JunsdictiOn ratwne personae of the Court " (Applt­
catwn of the Conventwn on the Preventwn and Pumshment of the

Cnme of Genoctde (Bosma and Herzegovma v Yugoslavta), ProVl­
swnal Measures, Order of 8 Apn/1993, 1 C J Reports 1993, p 14)

The Court further referred to the fact that "both Parties to thecase
correspond[ed] to parts of the terntory of the former Soctahst Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslav1a" (!C J Reports 1993, p 15, para 21), wh1ch
s1gnedthe Genocide Convention and depos1ted 1tsmstrument of ratifica­
tion w1thout reservatiOn The Court also referred to the DeclaratiOn of
27 Apnl 1992 adopted on behalf of the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta
at the hme of 1tsproclamation as weil asto the official Note of the same
date from the Permanent Mission of Yugoslavta to the Umted Nations,

addressed to the Secretary-General, and to the Notice of SuccessiOn
transm1tted by Bosma and Herzegovma on 29 December 1992 to the
Secretary-General of the Umted NatiOns, the deposltary of the Geno­
CideConventiOn The Court then concluded as follows

"Whereas Article IX of the Genocide ConventiOn, to wh1chboth
Bosma-Herzegovma and Yugoslavta are parties, thus appears to the
Court to afford abas1son wh1chthe JUnsdichon of the Court m1ght
be founded to the extent that the subJect-matter of the dispute
relates to 'the mterpretatwn, applicatiOn or fulfilment' of the Con­
ventiOn, mcludmg disputes 'relatmg to the responsibihty of a State
for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated m article III' of
the ConventiOn" (1 C J Reports 1993, p 16,para 26)

58 On 27 July1993, Bosma and Herzegovma subm1tted a new request
for the mdicatiOn ofprovlSlonal measures On 10 August 1993, Yugosla­
via also submltted a request for the mdicatiOn of provlSlonal measures,

and, on 10 and 23 August 1993, 1tfiled wntten observatiOns on Bosma
and Herzegovma's new request
59 By an Order dated 13 September 1993, the Court reaffirmed the
measures md1cated m 1ts Order of 8 Apnl 1993 and declared that those
measures should be Immediately and effectlvely 1mplemented In that
Order of 13 September 1993 the Court confirmed that Itbad pnma fac1e
JUnsdichon m the case on the bas1sof Article IX of the Genocide Con­
ventiOn (Appltcatwn of the Conventwn on the Preventwn and Pumshment

24 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 28

of the Cnme of Genoctde (Bosma and Herzegovma v Yugoslavta), Pro­
vtswnal Measures, Order of 13 September 1993, 1 C J Reports 1993,
p 338, para 25, p 342, para 36)
60 On 15 Apnl 1994 Bosma and Herzegovma filed Its Memonal
Withm the time-hmit fixed for the fihng of the Counter-Memonal, the
FRY, referrmg to Article 79, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, ratsed
prehmmary objectiOns concernmg, respectively, the admissibility of the
ApplicatiOn and the junsdictwn of the Court to entertam the case
61 The Court rendered Its Judgment on the prelimmary objectiOns
rmsed by the FRY on Il July 1996 In the reasonmg of the Judgment, the
Court came to the conclusiOn that both Parties were bound by the Con­

ventiOnwhen the Application was filed
62 With regard to the FRY, the Court stated the followmg

"The proceedmgs mstltuted before the Court are between two
States whose terntones are located withm the former Socmlist Fed­
eral Republic of Yugoslavm That Republic signed the Genocide
Convention on Il December 1948 and deposited Its mstrument of
ratification, Without reservation, on 29 August 1950 At the time of
the proclamatiOn of the Federal Republic ofYugoslavia, on 27 Apnl
1992, a formai declaration was adopted on Its behalf to the effect
that

'The Federal Republic of Yugoslavm, contmumg the State,
mternatwnal legal and political personality of the Socialist Fed­
eralRepublic ofYugoslavta, shall stnctly abide by ali the commit­
ments that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia assumed
mternationally '

This mtention thus expressed by Yugoslavta to remam bound by
the mternabonal treabes to which the former Yugoslavia was party
was confirmed m an officmlNote of 27 Apnl 1992from the Perma­
nentMissiOnof Yugos1avtato the Umted Nattons, addressed to the

Secretary-General The Court observes, furthermore, that It has not
been contested that Yugoslavm was party to the Genocide Conven­
tion Thus, Yugoslavta was bound by the provlSlons of the Conven­
tion on the date of the filing of the Application m the present case,
namely, on 20 March 1993" (Appltcatwn of the Conventwn on the
Preventwn and Pumshment of the Cnme of Genoctde (Bosma and
Herzegovma v Yugoslavw), Prehmmary Objectwns, Judgment,
1 C J Reports 1996 (II), p 610, para 17)

With regard to Bosma and Herzegovma, the Court, refernng to the
Notice of SuccessiOnof 29 December 1992 and the Secretary-General's
Depositary Notification of 18March 1993,noted that Bosma and Herze­
govina became a Member of the Umted NatiOns on 22 May 1992 and

from that date, by virtue of Article XI of the Genocide Convention,
"Bosma and Herzegovma could thus become a party to the ConventiOn"

25 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 29

(/ C J Reports 1996 (II), p 611, para 19) The Court further observed
that

"Bosma and Herzegovma could become a party to the Conven­
tion through the mechamsm of State successiOn Moreover, the Sec­
retary-General of the Umted Nations constdered that thts bad been
the case, and the Court took note of thts m tts Order of 8 Apnl 1993
(Appilcatwn of the Conventwn on the Preventwn and Pumshment of
the Cnme of Genoctde, ProvlSlonal Measures, I C J Reports 1993,

p 16, para 25)" (I C J Reports 1996 (II), p 611, para 20)
Refernng to tts Advtsory Optmon of 28 May 1951 concernmg Reserva­
twns to the Conventwn on the Preventwn and Pumshment of the Cnme of
Genoctde, the Court hkewtse noted that

"'The object and purpose of the Genoctde ConventiOn tmply that
tt was thetention of the General Assembly and of the States whtch
adopted tt that as many States as posstble should partictpate The
complete exclusiOn from the ConventiOn of one or more States
would not only restnct the scope of tts apphcatwn, but would
detract from the authontyof the moral and humamtanan pnnctples
whtch are tts hasts (IC J Reports 1951, p 24 )" (/ C J Reports
1996 (II), p 612, para 22)

The Court concluded as follows

"Whether Bosma and Herzegovma automatically became party to
the Genoctde ConventiOn on the date of tts accessiOn to mdepen­
dence on 6 March 1992,or whether tt became a party as a result -
retroactive or not - of tts Notice of SuccessiOnof 29 December
1992,at ali events tt was a party to tt on the date of the fihng of tts
Apphcat10n on 20 March 1993" (I C J Reports 1996 (II), p 612,
para 23)

63 In the operative part of tts Judgment the Court, havmg rejected the
prehmmary objectiOns ratsed by the FRY, found that "on the hasts of
Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Pumshment of the
Cnme of Genoctde, tt has junsdtctton to adjudtcate upon the dtspute"
and that "the Apphcatwn filed by the Repubhc of Bosma and Herze­
govma on 20 March 1993 ts admtsstble"

*
64 Followmg the 1996 Judgment on the prehmmary objectiOns, the
FRY filed a Counter-Memonal on 22 July 1997, m whtch tt submttted
counter-clatms By an Order dated 17 December 1997, the Court found

that those counter-clatms came wtthm the junsdtctwn of the Court and
as such were admtsstble Bosma and Herzegovma and Yugoslavta filed
thetr Reply and Rejomder on 23 Apnl 1998 and 22 February 1999
respecttvely By a letter dated 20 Apnl 2001 and recetved m the Regtstry

26 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 30

on 23 Apnl 2001, the Agent of the FRY mformed the Court that his
Government mtended to withdraw Its counter-claims No obJeCtiOn
havmg been rmsed by Bosma and Herzegovma m this regard, the
President of the Court, by his Order o10 September 2001, placed on the

record the withdrawal by the FRY of the counter-claims submltted
by It m Its Counter-Memonal On 4 May 2001, the FRY submitted to
the Court a document entitled "Imtiative to the Court to reconsider ex
officw JUnsdiction over Yugoslavm"

* *
65 The Court will now examme whether the FRY rehes on facts
which fall Withmthe terms of Article 61 of the Statute
66 As recalled above (see paragraph 19), the FRY clmms that the

facts which existedat the time of the 1996 Judgment and upon the dis­
covery of which Its request for revlSlon of that Judgment ISbased "are
that the FRY was nota party to the Statute, and that It dinot remam
bound by the Genocide Convention contmumg the personahty of the
former Yugoslavia" ltargues that these "facts" were "revealed" by Its
admiSSionto the Umted NatiOns on 1 November 2000 and by the Legal
Counsel's letter of 8 December 2000

67 The Court would begm by observmg that, under the terms of Ar­
ticle61,paragraph 1,of the Statute, an application for revision of a Judg­
ment may be made only when It IS"based upon the discovery" of sorne

fact which,"when the Judgment was given", was unknown These are the
charactenstics which the "new" fact referred to m paragraph 2 of that
Article must possess Thus both paragraphs refer to a fact existmg at the
time when the Judgment was given and discovered subsequently A fact
which occurs severa! years after a Judgment bas been g1venISnot a "new"
fact w1thmthe meanmg of Article 61, th1sremams the case urespectlve of
the legal consequences that such a fact may have
68 In the present case, the admiSSIOnof the FRY to the Umted
Nations occurred on 1 November 2000, weil after the1996 Judgment
The Court concludes accordmgly, that that admiSSioncannot be regarded
as a new fact w1thm the meanmg of Article 61 capable of foundmg a
request forrev1s10nof that Judgment
69 In the final versiOnof 1tsargument, the FRY daims that 1tsadm!s­

swn to the Umted Natwns and the Legal Counsel's letter of 8 December
2000 Slmply"revealed" two facts which bad ex1stedm 1996 but bad been
unknown at the time that 1twas not then a party to the Statute of the
Court and that 1twas not bound by the Genocide ConventiOn

In advancmg th1s argument, the FRY does not rely on facts that
ex1stedm 1996 In reahty, It bases 1tsApphcatwn for revlSlonon the legal
consequences wh1ch1tseeks to draw from facts subsequent to the Judg­
ment wh1ch It1saskmg to have rev1sed Those consequences, even sup-

27 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 31

posmg them to be estabhshed, cannot be regarded as facts wtthm the
meanmg of Article 61 The FRY'sargument cannot accordmgly be upheld
70 Furthermore the Court notes that the admtsswn of the FRY to
membershtp of the Umted NatiOns took place more than four years after

the Judgment whtch tt ts seekmg to have revtsed At the time when that
Judgment was gtven, the sttuatwn obtammg was that created by General
Assembly resolution 4711 In thts regard the Court observes that the dtf­
ficulhes whtch arose regardmg the FRY's status between the adoption of
that resolutiOn and tts admtsston to the Umted NatiOns on 1 November
2000 resulted from the fact that, although the FRY's clatm to contmue
the mternatwnal legal personahty of the Former Yugoslavta was not
"generally accepted" (see paragraph 28 above), the prectse consequences
of thts sttuatwn were determmed on a case-by-case hasts (for example,
non-parttctpahon m the work of the General Assembly and ECOSOC
and m the meetmgs of States parties to the InternatiOnal Covenant on
CIVlland Pohtical Rtghts, etc )
Resolution 47/1 dtd not mter alta affect the FRY's nght to appear

before the Court or to be a party to a dtspute before the Court under the
conditions latd down by the Statute Nor dtd tt affect the posttton of the
FRY m relatiOn to the Genoctde Convention To "termmate the sttua­
tlon created by resolutiOn 47/1", the FRY had to submtt a request for
admtsswn to the Umted Nattons as had been done by the other Repub­
hcs composmg the SFRY Ali these elements were known to the Court
and to the FRY at the hme when the Judgment was gtven Nevertheless,
what remamed unknown m July 1996 was tf and when the FRY would
apply for membershtp m the Umted Nattons and tf and when that appli­
cation would be accepted, thus termmatmg the situation created by Gen­
eral Assembly resolution 47/1

71 The Court wtshes to emphastze that General Assembly resolutiOn
55/12 of 1 November 2000 cannot have changed retroactively the su1
genens posttton whtch the FRY found ttself m vts-à-vts the Umted

NatiOns over the penod 1992 to 2000, or tts posthon m relation to the
Statute of the Court and the Genoctde ConventiOn Furthermore, the
letterof the Legal Counsel of the Umted Nattons dated 8 December
2000, cannot have affected the FRY's posttion m relation to treahes

The Court also observes that, m any event, the satd letter dtd not con­
tam an mvttatwn to the FRY to accede to the relevant conventiOns, but
rather to "undertake treaty actions, as appropnate, as a successor
State"
72 lt follows from the foregomg that tt has not been estabhshed that
the request of the FRY ts based upon the dtscovery of "sorne fact" whtch
was "when the JUdgment was giVen,unknown to the Court and also to
the party clatmmg revlSlon" The Court therefore concludes that one of
the conditions for the admtsstbthty of an apphcation for reviSIOnpre­

scnbed by paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the Statute has not been satisfied

28 APPLICATIO FORREVISION (JUDGMENT) 32

73 Article 61 of the Statute lays down further reqmrements wh1ch an
application for revJSJonof a Judgment must satisfy m order to be admis­
Sible However, the Court recalls that "once It IS established that the
request for revisiona1lsto meet one of the conditiOns for admissibility,
the Court 1snot reqmred to go further and mvestigate whether the other
conditiOns are fulfilled(Appbcatwn for Rev1swn and Interpretatwn of

the Judgment of24 February 1982 m the Case concernmg the Contmental
Shelf (TumsiaiLJbyan Arab Jamahmya) (Tumsw v Llbyan Arab Jama­
hmya), Judgment, 1 C J Reports 1985, p 207, para 29) In the present
case, the Court has concluded that no facts w1thm the meanmg of
Article 61 of the Statute have been d1scovered smce 1996 The Court

therefore does not need to address the Issue of whether the other reqmre­
ments of Article 61 of the Statute for the admJssJbJlityof the FRY's Appli­
cation have been satisfied
74 The FRY's ApplicatiOn for revJSJonmust accordmgly be reJected

* * *
75 For these reasons,

THECouRT,

By ten votes to three,
Fmds that the ApplicatiOn subm1tted by the Federal Repubhc of

Yugoslav1a for revJSJon,under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court, of
the Judgment giVenby the Court on 11 July 1996, ISmadmJSsJb1e
IN FAVOUR PrestdentGmllaume, Vzce-PreszdenShi, JudgesRanJeva,Herc­
zegh, Koroma, Parra-Aranguren, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby,
Judge ad hoc Mah10u,

AGAINST Judges Vereshchetm,Rezek, Judge ad hoc Dimitnjevié

Done m French and m Enghsh, the French text bemg authontative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this th1rd day of February, two thousand
and three, m three copies, oneof wh1ch will be placed m the archives of
the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of the Federal

Republic ofYugoslavJa and the Government ofBosma and Herzegovma,
respectively

(S1gned) Gilbert GUILLAUME,

President
(S1gned) Philippe COUVREUR,

Reg1strar

Judge KoROMAappends a separate opm10n to the Judgment of the

29 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 33

Court, Judge VERESHCHETIN appends a dtssentmg opm10n to the Judg­

ment of the Court, Judge REZEK appends a declaratiOn to the Judgment
of the Court, Judge ad hocDIMITRIJEVIC appends a dtssentmg optmon to
the Judgment of the Court, Judge ad hoc MAHIOU appends a separate
optmon to the Judgment of the Court

(InrttalledGG
(Inrtza/led) Ph C

30

Bilingual Content

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFST ORDONNANCES

DEMANDE EN REVISION DE L'ARRÊT
DU 11JUILLET 1996EN L'AFFAIRE RELATIVE
À L'APPLICATION DE LA CONVENTION POUR
LA PRÉVENTION ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME

DE GÉNOCIDE (BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE c
YOUGOSLAVIE), EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES
(YOUGOSLAVIc BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE)

ARRÊT DU 3 FÉVRIER 2003

2003

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONSND ORDERS

APPLICATIONFOR REVISIONOF THE JUDGMENT
OF 11 JULY 1996 IN THE CASE CONCERNING
APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE
PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME
OF GENOCIDE (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

v.YUGOSLAVIA), PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
(YUGOSLA VIA v BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA)

JUDGMENT OF 3 FEBRUARY 2003 Mode officiel de citatiOn
Demande en revlSlon de l'arrêtdu 11 ;uzllet 1996 en l'affmre relatzve
à l'ApplicatiOn de la conventùm pour la préventiOnet la répressiOn
du cnme de génocide(Bosme-Herzégovme c Yougoslavie), exceptiOns
préltmmaires (gos/avŒc Bosme-Herzégovme), arrêt,CI J Recueil
2003, 7

omc ciatan Î'
Applzcatzonfor Revzszonofthe'Judgment of 11 July 1996 m the Case con­
cermng Apphcatwn of the ConventiOn on the Prevention and Pumsh­
ment of the Cnme ofGenoc1de (Bosma and HerzevYugoslavia),
Prehmmary Objections ( Yugoslavw v Bosma and Herzegovma), Judg-
ment.fC J. Reports 2p 7,

''

N° de vente·
ISSN 0074-4441
Sales number862
ISBN 92-1-070968-3 3 FÉVRIER 2003

ARRÊT

DEMANDE EN REVISION DE L'ARRÊT DU 11 JUILLET 1996
EN L'AFFAIRE RELATIVE À L'APPLICATION
DE LA CONVENTION POUR LA PRÉVENTION
ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE
(BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE c YOUGOSLAVIE),
EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES

(YOUGOSLAVIE c BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE)

APPLICATION FOR REVISION OF THE
JUDGMENT OF Il JULY 1996 IN THE CASE CONCERNING
APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION
AND RUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
(BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA v YUGOSLAVIA),

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
(YUGOSLAVIA v BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA)

3FEBRUARY 2003

JUDGMENT 7

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

2003 ANNÉE 2003
3 fevner
Rôl0 géneral
TI 122 3 février2003

DEMANDE EN REVISION

DE L'ARRÊT DU Il JUILLET 1996
EN L'AFFAIRE RELATIVE À L'APPLICATION

DE LA CONVENTION POUR LA PRÉVENTION
ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE

(BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE c. YOUGOSLAVIE),
EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES

(YOUGOSLAVIE c BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE)

Articl61 du Statut - Demande en revlSlon -These des PartŒsquantà
l'existence d'un «fmt»qu1, bŒn qu'exzstant à la date du prononce de
l'arrêtde la Cour le 11 JUil1996, etazt à ce moment 1gnore tant de la
RFY que de la Cour - Questwn de savozr sz la RFY s'appuze sur des
fazts entrant dans les prevzswns de /'61tdu Statut - Caractères que
doit revêt un jall «nouveau» au sens de l'arti61 - Admzsswn de la
RFY à l'Orgamsatwn des Natwns Umes ayant eu lzeu bzen après l'arrêtde
1996 et ne pouvant êtreconszdécomme un tel Jazt nouveau- Requêteen
revzswn de la RFY fondée sur les conséquencesJUrtdlquesque celle-cz entend
tzrer de fmts posténeurs a J'arrêConséquencesen questwn ne pouvant,
àles supposer établies,êtreregardees comme desfazts au sens de l'artzele61 -
Sltuatwn créeepar la résolut4711de l'Assembléegénéraled22 septembre
1992 - Suuatwn sm genens de la RFY connue de celle-ct et de la Cour au
JOUrdu prononce de l'arrêtde 1996 - Résolutwn 55112 de l'Assemblée
généraledur' novembre 2000 ne pouvant avozr rétroactivementmodifiécette
s1tuatwn sm genens - Lettre du consetller JUridiqueen date du 8 décembre
2000 ne pouvant avozr modifie le statut de la RFY à l'egard des trmtes -
Absence de decouverte <<d'falt» qut, «avant le prononcé de l'arrêt,étmt
mconnu de la Cour et de la Partze qu1 demande la revzswn»Nul besom

d'exammer s1 les autres condltwns de recevabzl!téprévuesa l'arttcle 61 sont
remplzes

4 7

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

YEAR 2003
3 February
General List
3 February 2003 No 122

APPLICATION FOR REVISION

OF THE JUDGMENT OF 11JULY 1996
IN THE CASE CONCERNING APPLICATION OF

THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

(BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA v. YUGOSLAVIA),
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

(YUGOSLA VIA v BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA)

Artzcle61 of the StatutAppl!catwnfor revzswn-Partzes'arguments asto
whether therlSa ''fact" whzch. although znexzstence at the date of the Court's
Judgment of 11 July 1996, was at thal tzme unknown bath to the FRY and to the
Court - Whether the FR Y relzes on facts whzchfall wzthm the terms of Ar­
ttel61 of the Statu tCharacterzsttcs whtch a "new" fact wlthm the meamng
of Articl61 must possess - Admtsswn of the FR Y ta the Umted Natwns
occurred weil after the 1996 Judgment and cannat be regarded as such a new
fact- FRY's Appllcatwnfor revtswn zsbased on the legal consequences whzch
llseeks to draw from facts subsequent to the JudgmThose consequences
cannat, even supposmg them to be establzshed, be regarded as facts
meanmg of Article 61Sltuatlon created by General Assembly resolutwn 47/1
of 22 September 1992 - Sm genens posztwn of the FRY was known to the
Court and to the FR Yen the 1996 Judgment was gzven General Assembly
resolutwn 55/12f1 November 2000 cannat have changed retroactzvelsmthzs
genens posztwn - Legal Counsel's letter of 8 December 2000 cannat have
affected the Y'sposztwn m relatwn to treatzeLack of d1scovery of "sorne
fact" whzch was "when the judgment was gzven, unknown to the Court and also
to the party clazmmg revzswn" - No need to examme whether the other
requzrementsof Article 61 have been sallsfied

48 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

ARRÊT

Presents M GUILLAUME préstdent,M Sm, vtce-préstdentMM RANJEVA,
HERCZEG!iK , oROMAV, ERESHCHETIPN A,RRA-ARANGURE RE,zEK,AL­
KHASAWNEHB ,uERGENTHALE,LARABY ,uges, MM DtMITRIJEVIC,
MAHIOU,]Uges ad hoc, M CouvREUR, greffier

En l'affarre de la demande en revtswn de l'arrêtdu Il Jmllet 1996,

entre

la République fédéralede Yougoslavre,
représentéepar
M Ttbor Varady, S J D (Harvard), conserller Jundtque pnncrpal au mmr­

stere fedéral des affarres étrangeres de la République fedérale de Yougo­
slavre, professeur deott à l'Umverstté d'Europe centrale de Budapest et
à l'Umverstté Emory d'Atlanta,
comme agent,
M Vladtmtr DJenc, LL M (Mtchtgan), conseiller aupres du nnmstre des

affatres étrangeres de laublique federale de Yougoslavie,
comme coagent,
M Andreas Ztmmermann, LL M (Harvard), professeur de drmt à l'Umver­
sttéde Ktel, dtrecteur de l'Institut Walther-Schuckmg,

comme consetl et avocat,
M lan Brownhe, C B E , Q C , F B A , membre de la Commrsswn du drmt
mternatwnal, membre du barreau d'Angleterre, professeur émente de
drmt mternatwnal pubhc (charre Chrchele) à l'Umversrte d'Oxford,

comme conselller,
M DeJan Ukropma, Attorney a Novr Sad,
M Robm Getss, assrstant à l'Instrtut Walther-Schuckmg de l'UmvefSltéde
Ktel,
M Marko Mrcanovté, LL M (Umversrté de New York),
M SlavoiJub Cane, conseiller à l'ambassade de la République fédéralede

Yougoslavie a La Haye,
M. Mtodrag Panceskt, premrer secrétatre à l'ambassade de la République
fédéralede Yougoslavre à La Haye,
comme assrstants,

et

la Bosme-Herzégovme,
representée par
M Sakrb Softlé,

comme agent;
M Phon van den Bresen, van den Btesen Advocaten, Amsterdam,

comme agent adJomt,

5 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 8

JUDGMENT

Present Pres1dent GuiLLAUME, V1ce-Pres1dent SHI, Judges RANJEVA,
HERCZEGH K,oROMA,VERESHCHETI PA,RRA-ARANGURE RE,zEK,AL­

KHASAWNEH B,uERGENTHAE L, ARABY ,udges ad hoc DIMITRIJEVIC,
MAHIOU, Reg1straCouvREUR

In the case concermng the Appbcatwn for revlSlon of the Judgment of
11July 1996,

between
the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta,

represented by
Mr Ttbor Varady, S J D (Harvard), Ch1ef Legal Adv1ser at the Federal
M1mstry of Foretgn AffairS of the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslav1a, Pro­
fessor of Law at the Central European Umverstty, Budapest, and Erriory
Umverstty, Atlanta,

as Agent,
Mr Vladtmlr DJenc, LL M (M1chtgan), Adv1serto 'theMtmster for Foreign
Affa1rsof the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm,

as Co-Agent,
Mr Andreas Znnmermann, LL M (Harvard), Professor of Law, Umvers1ty
of Kiel, Duector of the Walther-Schuckmg Inshtute,

as Counsel and Advocate,
Mr lan Brownhe, C B E , Q C , F B A , member of the Internatwnal Law
Comnusswn, member of the Erighsh Bar, Ementus Ch1chele Professor of
Pubhc InternatiOnal Law, Umvers1ty of Oxford,
as Adv1ser,

Mr DeJan Ukropma, Attorney from Novt Sad,
Mr Robm Ge1ss,Asststant at the Walther-Schuckmg Instltute, Umverstty of
Ktel,
Mr Marko Mtcanovté, LL M (New York Umvers1ty),
Mr Slavoljub Cane, Counsellor of the Embassy of the Federal Repubhc of
Yugoslav1a m The Hague,
Mr Mwdrag Panèesk1,F1rstSecretary of the Embassy of the Federal Repub­
hc of Yugoslavta m The Hague,

as Assistants,
and

Bosma and Herzegovma,

represented by
Mr Saktb Softlé,
as Agent,

Mr Phon van den B1esen,van den B1esenAdvocaten, Amsterdam,
as Deputy Agent,

59 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

M Alam Pellet, professeur à I'Umversttéde Pans X-Nanterre, membre et
ancten présidentde la Commtsswn du drmt mternatwnal,

comme consetl et avocat,
M Antome Olhvter,
M Wtm Muller,

comme consetls,

LACouR,

amst composee,

après dehbéréen chambre du consetl,

rend l'arrêtsu1vant
1 Le 24 avnl2001, la Républiquefédéralede Yougoslavie (ct-apres dénom­
méela «RFY))) a déposeau Greffe de la Cour une requêtemtroducttve d'ms­
tance datee du 23 avnl2001, dans laquelle, se réferantà l'arttcle 61 du Statut de
la Cour, elle pnmt celle-ctde revtser l'arrêtrendu le 11JUillet 1996en l'affaue
relative a l'Appl!catwn de la conventwn pour la preventwn et la répresswn

du cnme de genoc1de(Bosme-Herzégovme c Yougos/av1e), exceptzons prelimi­
naires (CI J Recuez/1996 (II), p 595)
2 Conformement au paragraphe 2 de l'article 40 du Statut, la requêtea été
Immédiatementcommumquee à la Bosme-Herzegovme par legreffieret, confor­
mémentau paragraphe 3 de cet arttcle, tous les Etats admts à ester devant la
Cour ont étémformésde la requête
3 Par lettres du 26 avnl2001, le greffier a aviséles Parties que la Cour avatt
fixéau 30 septembre 2001 la date d'exptratton du délaipour le dépôt par la
Bosme-Herzégovmedes observatiOns écntes sur la recevabthtéde la requête
v1séesau paragraphe 2 de l'article 99 du Règlement de la Cour
4 Conformement au paragraphe 1de l'article 53 de son Règlement, la Cour,
après s'êtrerensetgnéeauprès des Parties, a fait drmt le 6 août 2001 à la
demande de la Republique de Croatie tendant à ce que lm sment commumqués
des exemplalfes des pteces de procédureet documents annexés
5 Par lettre du 2 août 2001, l'agent de la Bosme-Herzegovme a pne la Cour
de reporter au1erdecembre 200lla date d'expiratwn du délaipour le dépôtpar
son gouvernement de ses observatiOns ecntes Par lettre du 17 août 2001,

l'agent de la RFY a fait savoir à la Cour que son gouvernement ne voyait pas
d'objection a ce que ce délaisoit amsi prorogé Par lettres en date du 21 août
2001, le premier secrétaire chargé de I'mformatwn, greffier en exercice, a
mformé les Parties que le préstdentavait reporte au 3 décembre2001 la date
d'expiratiOn du délatpour le dépôtpar la Bosme-Herzégovmede ses observa­
twns écntes
6 Le 3 décembre2001, dans le délaiamst prorogé,la Bosme-Herzegovme a
déposéau Greffe ses observatwns écntessur la recevabthtéde la requêtede la
RFY
7 Par lettre du 26 décembre2001, l'agent de la RFY, se référantau para­
graphe 3 de l'article 99 du Règlement, a pnéla Cour de donner aux Parties la
posstbihtéde présenterune nouvelle fms leurs vues, par écnt,sur la recevabilité
de la requête Par lettre du 21Janvier 2002, l'agent de la Bosme-Herzégovmea
mforme la Cour que son gouvernement n'etatt pas favorable à un second tour
de procédureécnte

6 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 9

Mr Alam Pellet, Professorat the Umverslty of Pans X-Nanterre, member

and former Chatrman of the Internatwnal Law Commtsston,
as Counsel and Advocate,

Mr Antome Olltvter,
Mr Wtm Muller,
as Counsel,

THE CouRT,

composed as above,

after dehberatwn,

delzvers the followmg Judgment

1 On 24Apnl2001, the Federal Repubhc ofYugoslavta (heremafter referred
to as the "FRY") filed m the Regtstry of the Court an Apphcatwn dated
23 Apnl 2001 mstttutmg proceedmgs, whereby, refernng to Article 61 of the
Statute of the Court, tt requested the Court to revtse the Judgment dehvered by
tt on 11July 1996 m the case concernmg Applzcatwn of the Conventwn on the
Preventwn and Pumshment of the Cnme of Genoczde (Bosma and Herzegovma
v Yugoslavza), Prelzmmary Ob;ectwns (/ C J Reports 1996 (//), p 595)
2 Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Apphcatton was
forthwlth commumcated by the Regtstrar of the Court to Bosma and Herze­
govma, and m accordance wtth paragraph 3 of that Article, ali States entitled
to appear before the Court were nottfied of the Apphcatwn
3 By letters of 26 Apnl 2001, the Regtstrar mformed the Parties that the
Court bad fixed 30 September 2001 as the tlme-hmtt for the fi1mgby Bosma

and Herzegovma oftts wntten observatiOns on the admtsstbthty of the Apphca­
tlon contemplated by Article 99, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court
4 Pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, a request by
the Republtc of Croatla for the pleadmgs and annexed documents to be made
avatlable tottwas granted on 6 August 2001 after the vtews of the Parttes bad
been ascertamed
5 By a letter of 2 August 2001, the Agent of Bosma and Herzegovma
requested the Court to extend to 1 December 2001 the ttme-hmtt for the fihng
by bts Government of tts wntten observatiOns By a Ietter of 17 August 2001,
the Agent of the FRY mformed the Court that bts Government dtd not abJect
to thts ttme-hm!t bemg thus extended By letters of 21 August 2001, the Fust
Secretary of the Court m charge of Informatton Matters, actmg Regtstrar,
mformed the Parttes that the Prestdent had extended to 3 December 2001 the
ttme-hmtt for the fihng by Bosma and Herzegovma of tts wntten observattons

6 On 3 December 2001, wlthm the time-hmtt thus extended, Bosma and

Herzegovma filed m the Regtstry tts wntten observations on the admtsstbthty
of the FRY's Apphcatton
7 By a Jetter of 26 December 2001, the Agent of the FRY, refernng to
Article 99, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, requested the Court to afford
the Parties a further opportumty of presentmg thetr vtews m wntten form on
the admtsstbihty of the Application By a letter of 21 January 2002, the Agent
of Bosma and Herzegovma mformed the Court that his Government was not
m favour of a second round of wntten pleadmgs

610 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

Par une lettre datéedu 1ermars 2002, le greffier a mforméles Parties que la
Cour avatt est1méqu'un second tour de procédureecnte n'etait pas nécessaire
8 La Cour ne comptant sur le s1egeaucun JUgede la nattonahté des Parties,
chacune d'elles s'est prévaluedu drmt que lm confère le paragraphe 3 de l'ar­
ticle 31 du Statut de procéderà la désignationd'un Juge ad hoc pour siégeren
l'affaire la RFY a dés1gnéM VoJm DimltnJeviéet la Bosme-Herzegovme
M Sead Hodiié Par une lettre datéedu 9 avnl 2002et reçue au Greffe le 6 mai
2002, M Hodziéa fait savmr à la Cour qu'tl entendmt dem1ssmnner de ses
fonctiOns, la Bosme-Herzégovmea désigneM Ahmed Mahwu pour stégera sa
place
9 Aprèss'êtrerenseignéeauprèsdes Parties, la Cour a decide, en applicatiOn
du paragraphe 2 de l'article 53 du Règlement,de rendre accesstblesau pubhc, à

l'ouverture de la procédureorale, des exemplmres des observatiOns ecntes de la
Bosme-Herzégovmeet des documents annexésauxdttes observatwns
10 Des audtences publiques ont ététenues les4, 5, 6 et 7 novembre 2002,au
cours desquelles ont étéentendus en leurs plaidomes et reponses
Pour la RFY M Ttbor Varady,
M Vladtmir DJené,
M Andreas Ztmmermann

Pour la Bosme-Herzégovme M Sakib Softté,
M Phon van den Btesen,
M Alam Pellet
11 Dans la requête,les demandes ct-après ont éteformulees par la RFY

«Pour les mottfs exposésct-dessus, la République féderalede Yougo­
slavie pne la Cour de d1reet JUger
qu'Il existe un fatt nouveau de nature à appeler une reviSion de l'arrêt

conformément aux d1sposthons de l'article 61 du Statut de la Cour
Le demandeur pne en outre respectueusement la Cour de sursemr à sta­
tuer sur le fond tant qu'elle ne se sera pas prononcee sur la presente
demande»

12 Dans ses observations écntes,la concluston ct-aprèsa étéformulee par la
Bosme-Herzegovme ·
«En considératiOnde ce qm précède,le Gouvernement de la Bosme­
Herzégovmepne la Cour de due et JUger que la requêteen revlSlon de
l'arrêtu IlJUillet1996mtrodmte par la Repubbque fédéralede Yougo­
slavie le 23 avnl 2001 n'est pas recevable ))

13 Dans la procédure orale, les conclusiOns finales c1-apresont étépresen­
téespar les Parties

Au nom du Gouvernement de la RFY.
a l'audience du 6 novembre 2002
«Pour les motifs énoncésdans sa requêtedu 23 avnl 2001 et dans ses

platdomes lors de la procedure orale tenue du 4 au 7 novembre 2002, la
Républiquefédéralede Yougoslavie pne respectueusement la Cour de dzre
et JUger
qu'li y a eu découvertede fatts de nature à donner ouverture a la revi­
siOnde l'arrêtdu Il JUillet1996conformémenta l'article 61 du Statut
de la Cour , et

7 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 10

Bya letter of 1March 2002, the Regtstrar mformed the Parties of the Court's
dectslûn that a second round of wntten pleadmgs was not necessary
8 Smce the Court mcluded upon the Hench no JUdgeof the nattonahty of
elther of the Parttes, each Party proceeded to exerctse the nght conferred by
Arttcle 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute to choose a JUdgead hoc to s1t m the
case, the FRY chose Mr VoJmDtmttnjevtéand Bosma and Herzegovma chose
Mr Sead Hod:ZiéBy a letter dated 9 Apnl 2002 and recetved m the Regtstry on

6 May 2002, Mr Hod:bémformed the Court that he w1shedto restgn from h1s
dutles, Bosma and Herzegovma destgnated Mr Ahmed Mahwu to s1tm h1s
stead
9 After ascertammg the vtews of the Parties, the Court dectded, pursuant to
Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, that coptes of the wntten obser­
vatiOnsof Bosma and Herzegovma and the documents annexed thereto should
be made accessible to the pubhc on the openmg of the oral proceedmgs
10 Pubhc heanngs were held on 4, 5, 6 and 7 November 2002, dunng wh1ch
the Court beard the oral arguments and rephes of

For the FRY Mr Tibor Varady,
Mr Vlad1mu DJené,
Mr Andreas Zimmermann
For Bosma and Herzegovma Mr Sak1b Soft1é,
Mr Phon van den B1esen,
Mr Alam Pellet

11 In Its Apphcatwn, the followmg requests were made by the FRY
"For the reasons advanced above the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta
requests the Court to adJudge and declare that

there 1sa new fact of such a character as to lay the case open to reviSIOn
under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court
Furthermore, Apphcant ISrespectfully askmg the Court to suspend pro­
ceedmgs regardmg the ments of the case untii a declSlon on th1sApphca­
tion Is rendered "

12 In tts wntten observatiOns, the followmg submtsswn was made by
Bosma and Herzegovma

"In consideratiOn of the foregomg, the Government of Bosma and
Herzegovma requests the Court to adJudge and declare that the Apph­
catton for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996, subm1tted by the
Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavia on 23 Apnl 2001, ts not admiSSible"
13 At the oral proceedmgs, the followmg final submtsstons were presented
by the Parties

On behalf of the Government of the FR Y,
at the heanng of 6 November 2002

"For the reasons advanced m 1tsApphcatton of23 Apnl2001 and m 1ts
pleadmgs dunng the oral proceedmgs held from 4 to 7 November 2002,
the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta respectfully requests the Court to
adjudge and declare
that there are newly dtscovered facts of such a character as to lay the

11July 1996Judgment open to revtston under Article 61 of the Statute
of the Court , and

7Il DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

que la demande en revtston de la Républiquefédéralede Yougoslavie
est de ce fmt recevabl>>
Au nom du Gouvernement de la Bosme-Herzégovme,
à l'audience du 7 novembre 2002

«Au vu de l'ensembledes éléments exposép sar les représentants de la
Bosme-Herzegovme lors des phases écnte et orale de cette affatre, la
Bosme-Herzegovme pne la Cour de due et JUger que la demande en
revlSlonde l'arrêtduIl JUillet1996 mtrodmte par la Republique féderale
de Yougoslavie le 23 avnl 2001 est Irrecevable »

* * *

14 Dans sa demande en revtston de l'arrêtde 1996, la RFY mvoque
l'articl61 du Statut, aux termes duquel
« 1 La revlSlonde J'arrêtne peut êtreéventuellementdemandéeà

la Cour qu'en raison de la découverted'un fatt de nature à exercer
une mfluence decisive et qm, avant Je prononcé de l'arrêt,était
mconnu de la Cour et de la partie qm demande la reviSion,sans qu'tl
y mt, de sa part, faute à l'tgnorer
2 La procédurede reviSions'ouvre par un arrêtde la Cour cons­
tatant expressémentl'existencedu fait nouveau, lm reconnaissant les
caractères qm donnent ouverture à la revtston, et déclarant de ce
chef la demande recevable
3. La Cour peut subordonner l'ouverture de la procédureen revi­

Sion à l'exécutwnpréalablede l'arrêt
4 La demande en rev1s10ndevra êtreforméeau plus tard dans le
délaide six mms après la découvertedu fait nouveau
5. Aucune demande de reviswn ne pourra êtreforméeaprèsl'expi­
ratton d'un déla1de dix ans à dater de l'arrêt»
15. Aux termes de l'article 61 du Statut, la procédure en revision

s'ouvre par un arrêtde la Cour déclarant la requêterecevable pour les
motifs env1sagéspar le Statut, l'arttcle99 du Règlement de la Cour pré­
VOitexpressémentune procédure sur le fond au cas où, dans son premier
arrêt,la Cour aurait déclaréla requêterecevable
Le Statut et le Règlement de la Cour orgamsent ams1une «procédure
en deux temps» (Demande en revtswn et en znterprétatwn de l'arrêtdu
24 févrŒr1982 en l'affazre du Plateau contmental (TunlSle/Jamahtriya
arabe libyenne) (Tunzsze c Jamahznya arabe llbyenne), arrêt, C 1 J
Recueil 1985, p 197,par 8) Dans un premter temps, la procedure rela­

tlve a la demande en revlSlond'un arrêtde la Cour dott être«hmtté[e]à
la question de sa recevabthté» (zbzd,par 10).
16 La déctstonde la Cour dOit donc, à ce stade, se hmlter à laques­
tion de savou SIla requêtesatisfait aux condttlons prévuespar le Statut
Selon l'article61 du Statut, ces condtttons sont les smvantes

a) la demande dott êtrefondéesur la «découverte» d'un «falt»,

8 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 11

that the ApplicatiOnfor Revision of the Federal Repubhc of Yugo­
slavJaIStherefore admiSSible"

On behalf of the Government of Bosma and Herzegovma,
at the hearmg of 7 November 2002

"In consideratiOnof ali that has been submitted by the representatives
of Bosmaand Herzegovmam the wntten and oral stages of these proceed­
mgs, Bosma and Herzegovma requests the Court to adjudge and declare
that the ApplicatiOnfor Rev1s10nof the Judgment of 11 July 1996, sub­
mltted by the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslav1aon 23 Apnl 2001, ISnot
admissible"

* * *

14 In tts ApplicatiOn for revlSlon of the 1996 Judgment the FRY rehes
on Article 61 of the Statute, whtch prov1des as follows

"1 An applicatiOn for revlSlon of a JUdgment may be made only
when 1t1sbased upon the d1scovery of sorne fact of such a nature as
to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the Judgment was g!Ven,
unknown ta the Court and also to the party clatmmg reviSion,
always provided that such Ignorance was not due to negligence

2. The proceedmgs for rev1ston shall be opened by a JUdgment of
the Court expressly recordmg the extstence of the new fact, recog­
mzmg thâ.Ithas such a character as ta lay the case open to revlSlon,
and declanng the apphcatton admissible on this ground
3 The Court may reqmre prevwus comphance w1th the terms of
the Judgment before Itadmlts proceedmgs in revtston

4 The apphcatton for reviston must be made at latest withm s1x
months of the dtscovery of the new fact
5 No apphcation for revtsion may be made after the lapse of ten
years from the date of the Judgment "

15 Article 61 prov1des for revisiOn proceedmgs to open With a Judg­
ment of the Court declanng the apphcatwn adm1sstble on the grounds
contemplated by the Statute, Article 99 of the Rules makes express provt­
ston for proceedmgs on the ments If, m 1tsfirst JUdgment, the Court has
declared the apphcatwn adm1sstble

Thus the Statute and the Rules of Court foresee a "two-stage pro­
cedure" (Applzcatwn for Revzswn and Interpretatwn of the Judgment of
24 February 1982 m the Case concernmg the Contmental She1f(Tums1al
Ltbyan Arab Jamahmya) (TunlSia v Ltbyan Arab Jamahmya), Judg­
ment, 1 C J Reports 1985, p 197, para 8) The first stage of the pro­
cedure for a request for revlSlon of the Court's judgment should be

"hm1ted to the question of admisstbihty of that request" (tbtd , para. 10).
16 Therefore, at this stage the Court's dectston ts hmited to the gues­
hon whether the request satisfies the cond1ttons contemplated by the
Statute Under Article 61 of the Statute, these conditiOns are as follows

(a) the apphcatton should be based upon the "dtscovery" of a "fact",

812 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

b) le fait dont la découverteest mvoquéedmt être«de nature à exercer

une mfluence décisive»,
c) ce fait doit, avant leprononcéde l'arrêt,avou étémconnu de la Cour
et de la partie qm demande la revisiOn,
d) Ii ne dmt pas y avmr eu «faute» à Ignorer le fmt en questiOn, et
e) la demande en revision dmt avmr été«formée au plus tard dans le
délatde SIXmms aprèsla découverte'du fmt nouveau» et avant l'expi­
ration d'un délmde dix ans à dater de l'arrêt

17 La Cour observe qu'une requêteen revlSlon ne peut êtreadmtse
que st chacune des conditiOns prévues à l'articl61 est remplie St l'une
d'ellesfait défaut,la requêtedmt êtreécartée
La Cour commencera par rechercher s'Ii existe en l'occurrence un
«fatt» qm, bten qu'existant à la date du prononcé de son arrêt du
11 JUille1996, étmtà ce moment tgnorétant de la RFY que de la Cour

* *
, 18 A cet égard,la RFY, dans sa requêteen revision de l'arrêtde la
Cour du 11 JUillet1996,affirme ce qm smt

«Il est mcontestable que l'admtsswn de la RFY à l'Orgamsatwn
des NatiOns Umes le 1ernovembre 2000 en tant que nouvel Etat
Membre constitue un fait nouveau Il est égalementposstble de mon­
trer que ce fmt nouveau est de nature à exercer une mfluence décisive
sur la question de la compétence de la Cour ratwne personae à
l'égardde la RFY et telle est la thèsedu demandeur
L'admtsswn de la RFY le 1ernovembre 2000en tant que nouveau
Membre a resolu les difficultésconcernant son statut etlest désor­

maiSpatent que la RFY n'assurait pas la contmmtéde la personna­
htéJundique de la RFSY, n'étaitpas Membre de I'Orgamsatwn des
NatiOns Umes avant le 1ernovembre 2000, et n'étaitpas un Etat par­
tie au Statut non plus qu'à la conventiOn sur le génoctde
L'admiSSIOnde la RFY à l'Orgamsatwn des NatiOns Umes en
tant que nouveau Membre lève les ambtgmtés et Jette un nouvel
éclairagesur sa quahté de Membre de l'Orgamsatwn des Nations
Umes et de partie au Statut et à la conventiOn sur le génocide»

La RFY affirme en outre que, sur la hste offictelleétabliele 8 décembre
2000, la «Yougoslavie» figure en tant que Membre admts depms le
1er novembre 2000 et que «la note expbcallve md1que clazrement que
l'appellatwn dés1gnela RFY» Elle conclut qu'«Ii s'agit là d'un fait nou­
veau de nature a exercer une mfluence decisive, mconnu de la Cour et du
demandeur lors du prononcé de l'arrêtdu 11JUillet 1996»

19 Dans ses platdomes, la RFY n'a pas mvoqué son admissiOn à
l'Orgamsatton des Nattons Umes en novembre 2000comme étantle «fait
nouveau» déclSlf,au sens de l'article61 du Statut, de natureà fonder sa

demande en revtsion de l'arrêtde 1996 Elle a soutenu que cette adm1s-

9 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 12

(b) the fact, the discovery of whtch ts rehed on, must be "of such a

nature as to be adeclSlvefactor",
(c) the fact should have been "unknown" to the Court and ta the party
claimmg revisiOnwhen the Judgment was gtven,
(d) Ignorance of thts fact must not be "due ta neghgence", and
(e) the apphcatwn for revtston must be "made at latest wtthm stx
months of the discovery of the new fact" and before ten years have
elapsed from the date of the Judgment

17 The Court observes that an application for revlSion ts admtssible
only tf each of the condttlons latd down m Article 61 ts satisfied If any
one of them ts not met, the apphcatwn must be dtsmtssed
The Court will begm by ascertammg whether there ts here a "fact"
which, although m existence at the date of Its Judgment of Il July1996,
was at that time unknown bath to the FRY and to the Court

* *
18 In this regard, m tts Application for revision of the Court's Judg­
ment of 11July 1996, the FRY contended the followmg

"The admtsswn of the FRY ta the Umted NatiOns as a new
Member on 1 November 2000 IScertamly a new fact Itcan also be
demonstrated, and the Apphcant submits, that thts new fact ts of
such a nature as to be a declSlve factor regardmg the question of
JUnsdtctwn rat10nepersonae over the FRY

After the FRY was admttted as a new Member on 1 November
2000, dilemmas concermng 1ts standmg have been resolved, and tt

bas become an uneqmvocal fact that the FRY dtd not contmue the
personahty of the SFRY, was not a Member ofthe Umted NatiOns
before 1November 2000, was not a State party to the Statute, and
was not a State party ta the Genoc1de ConventiOn ...
The admtsswn of the FRY to the Umted Nattons as a new Mem­
ber clearsambtguttles and sheds a dtfferent hght on the Issue of the
membership of the FRY m the Umted Nattons, m the Statute and m
the Genoctde Convention."

The FRY further stated that, accordmg to the official hstmg of 8 Decem­
ber 2000, "Yugoslavza" had been hsted as a Member of the Umted
Nations smce 1 November 2000 and that "the explanatory note makes 1t
clear that thzzsa reference to the FR Y" The FRY concluded that "this
1sa new fact of such a nature to be a declSlvefactor, unknown to both
the Court and to the Apphcant at the ttme when the Judgment of 11July
1996 was gtven"
19. In tts oral pleadmgs, the FRY dtd not mvoke tts admisston to the
Umted NatiOns rn November 2000 as a deciSIVe"new fact", withm the
meamng of Article 61 of the Statute, capable of foundmg 1tsrequest for

revisiOnof the 1996 Judgment. The FRY clatmed that this admisston "as

913 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÈT)

swn «en quahté de nouveau Membre» amsi que la lettre du consedler
Jundlque du 8 décembre 2000 l'mv1tant, selon elle, «à procéderaux for­
malitésreqmses pour adhéreraux traitésauxquels l'ex-Yougoslavie était

partie» sont des

«événementsqm ont révélé deux faits décisifs
1) la RFY n'étaitpas partie au Statut au moment de l'arrêt,et

2) la RFY ne demeurait pas béepar l'article IX de la conventiOn sur
le génocideen contmuant d'assumer la personnalitéJund1que de
l'ex-Yougoslavie»

C'est sur ces deux «faits» que la RFY a en définitivefondésa demande
en revlSlon à l'audience
20. La RFY a égalementsouhgnéà l'audience que ces «faits nouvel­
lement découverts»n'ont pas eu heu aprèsle prononcéde l'arrêtde 1996
A cet égard,elle affirme que <daRFY n'aJamais prétendum mêmeconsi­
déréque le fmt nouvellement découvertaura1t ou pourrait avmr un effet
retroactif»
21 La Bosme-Herzégovmeaffirme pour sa part ce qm smt

«Iln'y a pas de «fait nouveau» susceptible de «donner ouverture» à
la revlSlonen application de l'article 61, paragraphe 2, du Statut de
la Cour m l'admiSSionde la Yougoslavie aux Natwns Umes que
l'Etat requérant présentecomme un fmt de ce genre ou en tout cas
comme étant à l'ongme d'un tel fait, m sa situatiOn prétendument
nouvelle vis-à-vis de la conventiOn sur le génocide ne constituent
de tels fa1»s

22 En résumé,la Bosme-Herzégovme soutient que ce que la RFY

appelle des «faits» sont «les conséquences d'un fait, qm n'est et ne
peut êtreque l'admtsston de la Yougoslavie aux Natwns Umes, en
2000» Elle affirme qu'aux termes de «l'article 61 du Statut de la Cour
le fmt dmt, «avant le prononcé de l'arrêt,[avmr été]mconnude la Cour
et de la partie qui demande la revisiOn»» et que «cecttmphque que le
fait en questiOn mt effectivement existé«avant le prononcé de l'arrêt»»
Selon la Bosme-Herzégovme,la RFY «voit dans son propre changement
de position (et dans ses conséquences)un fmt nouveau» Elle en conclut
que ce ««fatt nouveau» est posténeur à l'arrêtdont la reviSion est
demandée» La Bosme-Herzégovme observe que le fmt nouveau dont
l'existence est alléguéene sauratt avotr «aucun effet rétroactif ou rétro­
spectif» '
23 La Bosme-Herzégovme aJoute que la RFY se fonde simplement
sur une ««perceptiOn» nouvelle des faits de 1993à la lum1èrede ceux qm

sesont prodmts en 2000et 2001».La Bosme-Herzégovmesoutient qu'une
«perceptiOn>>n'est pas un fait et qu'«en toute hypothèse la «perception»
de la nouvelle sltuahon de la Yougoslavie vis-a-VIsdes Natwns Umes

10 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 13

a new Member" as well as the Legal Counsel's letter of 8 December 2000
mvltmg tt, accordmg to the FRY, "to take treaty actwns tf tt wtshed to
become a party to treattes to whtch the former Yugoslavm was a party"

were

"events whtch revealed the followmg two declSlvefacts
(1} the FRY was not a party to the Statute at the ttme of the Judg­
ment, and
(2) the FRY dtd not remam bound by Article IX of the Genoqde
ConventiOn contmumg the personahty of the former Yugo­
slavta"

Itts on the hasts of these two "facts" that, m tts oral argument, the FRY

ulttmately founded tts request for revtston
20 The FRY further stressed at the heanngs that these "newly dtscov­
ered facts" had not occurred subsequently to the Judgment of 1996 In
thts regard, the FRY states that "the FRY never argued or contemplated
that the newly dtscovered fact would or could have a retroactive effect"

21 For tts part, Bosma and Herzegovma mamtams the followmg

"there ts no 'new fact' capable of 'laymg the case open' to revtston
pursuant to Article 61, paragraph 2, of the Court's Statute nelther
the admtsswn of Yugoslavm to the Umted Natwns whtch the apph­
cant State presents as a factf thts kmd, or m any event as bemg the
source of such a fact, nor tts allegedly new situation vts-à-vts the
Genoctde Conventwn constltute facts of that kmd"

22 In short, Bosma and Herzegovma submJts that what the FRY

refers to as "facts" are "the consequences of a fact, whtch ts and can
only be the admtsswn of Yugoslavta to the Umted Natwns m 2000" It
states that "Article 61 of the Statute of the Court reqmres that the
fact was 'when the Judgment was gtven, unknown to the Court and also
to the party clatmmg revtston'" and that "thts tmphes that the fact m
questwn actually dtd extst 'whenthe JUdgmentwas gtven'" Accordmg to
Bosma and Herzegovma, the FRY "ts regardmg tts own change of post­
bon (and the ensumg consequences) as a new fact" Bosma and Herze­
govma concludes that thts "'new fact' ts subsequent to the Judgment
whose revtswn ts sought" ltnotes that the alleged new fact can have "no
retroactive or retrospective effect"

23 Bosma and Herzegovma further adds that the FRY ts merely rely­
mg on a "new 'perceptwn' of the facts of 1993m the hght of those whtch

took place m 2000 and 2001" Bosma and Herzegovma submtts that a
"perception" ts not a fact and that "m any event, the 'perceptwn' of
Yugoslavta's new sttuatwn wtth respect both to the Umted Natwns and

1014 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

d'une part, [et}de la conventiOn [sur le génoctde]de 1948 d'autre part,
serait,de toute mamère, posténeure à l'arrêtdont la revlSlonest deman­
dée»

* *
24 Avant de passer à l'examen des «faitS)) sur lesquels la RFY s'est
appuyéedans ses platdomes aux fins de JUStifierla revision de l'arrêtde
1996, la Cour commencera par rappeler les circonstances de la présente
affmre, en vue de replacer les prétentions de la RFY dans leur contexte

*
25. Au debut des annéesquatre-vmgt-dtx, la RFSY, constituéede la
Bosme-Herzégovme,de la Croatte, de la Macédome,du Monténégro,de
la Serbie et de la Slovéme,commença à sedésmtégrerLe 25JUin1991,la
Croatie et la Slovémedéclarèrentl'une et l'autre leur mdépendance,sm­
vies par la Macédomele 17septembre 1991et par la Bosme-Herzegovme

le 6 mars 1992 Le 22 mat 1992, la Bosme-Herzégovme,la Croatie et la
Slovémefurent admises en quahté de Membres de l'Orgamsatwn des
Nations Umes Il en fut de mêmele 8 avnl 1993 pour l'ex-République
yougoslave de Macédome
26 Le 27avnl 1992,les«partlctpants à la sesswn commune de lAssem­
bléede la République fédérativesoctahste de Yougoslavie, de l'Assem­
blee nationale de la Républiquede Serbte et de l'Assembléede la Répu­
blique du Monténégro))adoptèrent une déclaratiOn,dont les passages les
plus pertments en l'espècesont les sutvants
«Les représentantsdu peuple de la Républiquede SerbŒet de la
Répub!zquedu Monténégro,

Expnmant la volontédes cttoyens de leurs republiques respectives
de demeurer au sem de l'Etat commun de Yougoslavie,

Souhattent expnmer [dans la présentedéclaration}leurs vues sur
les obJeCtifsfondamentaux, tmmédtatset à long terme de la pohttque
de leur Etat commun, amst que sur ses relatiOns avec les anciennes
répubhquesyougoslaves.

l La Répubhque fédéralede Yougoslavie, assurant la contmuité

de l'Etat et de la personnalitéJUrtdiqueet pohtlque mternatwnale de
la Republique fédérativesoctahste de Yougoslavie, respectera stnc­
tement tous les engagements que la Répubhque fédérativesocialiste
de Yougoslavie a pns à l'échelonmternattonal,

Restant béepar toutes ses obligatiOns vts-à-vts des orgamsatwns
et mstttutwns mternattonales auxquelles elle appartient» (Natwns
Umes, doc A/46/915, annexe II)

11 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 14

to the 1948 [Genocide] Conventton, occurred subsequently to the Judg­
ment under challenge"

* *
24 Before turnmg to the exammahon of the "facts" whtch the FRY
has rehed upon m tts p1eadmgsm order to JUStlfythe revlSionof the 1996
Judgment, the Court wtll recount the background to the case wtth a vtew

to provtdmg the context for the contenttonsof the FRY.

*

25. In the early 1990sthe SFRY, made up ofBosma and Herzegovma,
Croatla, Macedoma, Montenegro, Serbm and S1ovema, began to break
up On 25 June 1991 Croaba and Slovema both declared mdependence,
followed by Macedoma on 17 September 1991 and Bosma and Herze­
govma on 6 March 1992. On 22 May 1992, Bosma and Herzegovma,
Croatta and Slovema were admitted as Members to the Umted Nattons,
as was the former Yugoslav Repubhc of Macedonm on 8 Apn11993

26 On 27 Apnl 1992 the "participants of the JOint sessiOn of the
SFRY Assemb1y,the Nattonal Assembly of the Repubhc of Serbm and
the Assemb1y of the Repubhc of Montenegro" adopted a declaratton,
statmg m pertment parts·

"The representatives of the people of the Republzc of Serbza and
the Repubhc of Montenegro,

Expressmg the will of the cttlzens of theu respective Repubhcs to
stay m the common state of Yugoslavia,

Wish to state m this DeclaratiOn their views on the baste, tmme­
dtate and lastmg obJectives of the pohcy of thelf common state, and
on Its relattons wtth the former Yugos1av Repubhcs

1 The Federal Repubhc ofYugoslavm, contmumg the state, mter­

nattonallegal and pohttcal personahtyf the Socmhst Federal Repub­
hc ofYugoslavta, shall stnctly abide by ali the commttments that the
SFR of Yugoslavm assumed mternattonally,

Remammg bound by ail obhgatwns to mternatwnal orgamza-
tlons and mstltutwns whose member tt IS " (Umted Nattons
doc A/46/915, Ann II)

1115 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

27 Dans une note officiellede la missiOnpermanente de la Yougosla­

VIeauprès de I'Orgamsatwn des NatiOns Umes, datéedu mêmeJOUret
adressee au Secretaire généraldes Nations Umes, Il fut notamment mdi­
quéque
«L'Assembléede la Répubhque fédérativesocmiiste de Yougosla­
VIe,à la sessiOnqu'ellea tenue 27 avnl 1992, a promulguéla Cons­
titutiOn de la République fédéralede Yougoslavie Aux termes de la

Constitution, et compte tenu de la contmmtéde la personnalitéde la
Yougoslavie et des décisiOnslégitimesqu'ont pnses la Serbie et le
Monténégrode contmuer à VIvreensemble en Yougoslavie, la Répu­
blique fédérativesocialiste de Yougoslavie devient la République
fédéralede Yougoslavie, composéede la Républiquede Serbie et de
la République du Monténégro
Dans le stnct respect de la contmmté de la personnalité mterna­
tlonale de la Yougoslavie, la République fédéralede Yougoslavie
contmuera à exercer tous les drOits conférésà la République fédéra­
tive soc1ahste de Yougoslavie et à s'acqmtter de toutes les obliga­
tionsassumees par cette dermèredans les relatiOns mternatwnales, y
compns en ce qm concerne son appartenance à toutes les orgamsa­

twns mternatwnales et sa participatiOn à tous les trartésmternatiO­
naux que la Yougoslavie a ratifiés ou auxquels elle a adhéré.»
(Natwns Umes, doc N46/915, annexe 1)
28 Le 19 septembre 1992, le Conseil de sécuntéadopta la résolutiOn
777 (1992), qm se ht comme suit

«Le Conse1lde sécunté,

Réaffirmant sa résolution 713 (1991) du 25 septembre 1991 et
toutesles résolutwnsconsécutivespertmentes,
Considérant que l'Etat anténeurement connu comme la Répu­
blique fédérativesoctaiiste de Yougoslavie a cesséd'exister,

Rappelant en particulier sa résolutio757 qut note que «l'affirma­
bon de la République fédérativede Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monté­
négro), selon laquelle elle assure automatiquement la contmmté de
l'ancienneRépublique fédérativesocmhste de Yougoslavie comme
Membre de I'Orgamsabon des NatiOns Umes n'a pas étégénérale­
ment acceptée»,

1 Constdère que la Républiquefédérativede Yougoslavie (Serbie
et Monténégro)ne peut pas assurer automatiquement la contmmté
de la qualitéde Membre de l'ancienne République fédérativesocia­
listee Yougoslavie aux NatiOns Umes et par conséquent recom­
mande à l'Assembléegénéralede déciderque la République fédéra­
tive de Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro)devrait présenter une
demande d'adhésiOnaux Nations Umes et qu'elle ne participera pas
aux travaux de l'Assembléegénérale
2 Déc1de de reconsidérer laquestiOn avant la fin de la partie pnn-

12 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 15

27 An official Note of the same date from the Permanent MissiOn of
Yugoslavta to the Umted Nattons, addressed to the Secretary-General of
the Umted Natwns, stated mter allathat

"The Assembly of the Soctahst Federal Repubhc ofYugoslavm, at
Its sessiOnheld on 27 Apnl 1992, promulgated the ConstitutiOn of
the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavia Under the ConstitutiOn, on the
basisof the contmumg personahty of Yugoslavm and the legthmate

decistons by Serbta and Montenegro to contmue to hve together m
Yugoslavta, the Socmhst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm IStrans­
formed mto the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta, conststmg of the
Repubhc of Serbta and the Repubhc of Montenegro

Stnctly respectmg the contmmty of the mternatwnal personahty
ofYugoslavm, the Federal Repubhc ofYugoslavm shall contmue to
fulfil all the nghts conferred to, and obhgatwns assumed by, the
Socmhst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta m mternatwnal relatiOns,
mcludmg Its membershtp m all mternatwnal orgamzatwns and
participatiOn m mternattonal treattes rattfied or acceded toby Yugo­

slavm." (Umted NatiOns doc A/46/915, Ann 1)

28 On 19 September 1992, the Secunty Council adopted resolutiOn
777 (1992) whiChread as follows

"The Secunty Councd,

Reaffirmmg tts resolutiOn 713 (1991) of25 September 1991and ali
subsequent relevant resolutiOns,
Conszdermg that the state formerly known as the Sociahst Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslavta has ceased ta exist,

Recallmg m partlcular resolutiOn 757 (1992) whtch notes that 'the
clatm by the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavia (Serbta and Monte­
negro) ta contmue automatlcally the membership of the former
Socmhst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm m the Umted Natwns
has not been generally accepted',

1 Consulers that the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta (Serbta and

Montenegro) cannat contmue automahcally the membershtp of the
former Socmhst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslav1a m the Umted
Natwns, and therefore recommends to the General Assembly that 11
dectde that the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta (Serbia and Monte­
negro) should apply for membershtp m the Umted Nations and that
It shall not participate m the work of the General Assembly,

2 Deczdes to constder the matter agam before the end of the

1216 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

cipale de la quarante-septième session de l'Assemblée générale »
(Natwns Umes, doc S/RES/777)

29 Le 22 septembre 1992, l'Assemblée généraleadopta sa résolu­
tiOn 47/1, disposant notamment que

«L'Assemblée générale,

Ayant reçu la recommandatiOn du Conseil de sécunté,en date du
19 septembre 1992, selon laquelle la République fédérativede You­
goslavie (Serbte et Monténégro) devrait présenter une demande
d'admiSSion àl'OrgamsatJon des Nations Umes et ne participera pas
aux travaux de l'Assembléegénérale,

1 Conszdèreque la Répubhque fédérativede Yougoslavie (Serbte
et Monténegro) ne peut pas assumer automatiquement la [contmmté
de la] quahté de Membre de l'Orgamsatwn des Natwns Umes à la
place de l'ancienne Répubhque fédérativesociahste de Yougoslavie

et, par conséquent, décideque la Répubhque fédérativede Yougo­
slavie(Serbie et Monténégro) devrait présenter une demande
d'admiSSion à l'Orgamsatwn et qu'elle ne participera pas aux tra­
vaux de l'Assembléegénérale,
2 Prend acte de l'mtentwn du Conseil de sécuntéde reconsidérer
la question avant la fin de la partie pnncipale de la quarante­
septième sesswn de l'Assembléegénérale » (Natwns Umes, doc N

RES/47/1)
30 Le 25 septembre 1992, les représentants permanents de la Bosme­

Herzégovme et de la Croatie adressèrent une lettre au Secrétmregénéral,
dans laquelle, se référaàtla résolutiOn777 (1992) du Conseil de securité
età la résolution 47/1 de l'Assembléegénérale,Ils expnmment le pomt de
vue commun smvant «Il est actuellement mcontestable que la Repu­
blique fédérativesocialiste de Yougoslavie n'est plus membre de l'Orgam­
satlondes Natwns Umes D'autre part, tl est clatr que la République fedé­
ratlve de Yougoslavie n'est pas encore membre» Ils estimaient en

concluswn que «le drapeau flottant en face de l'Orgamsatton des Nations
Umes et la plaque portant le nom «Yougoslavie>>ne représent[ment]plus
nen ou plus personne» et pnaient le Secrétairegenéralde «bien voulou
[leur] donner une exphcatwn JUrtdique au sujet des questiOns soulevées
plus haut» (Natwns Umes, doc N47/474).
31 En réponse, le secrétaue généraladJomt, consetller JUridique de

l'Orgamsatwn, adressa le 29 septembre 1992 une lettre aux représentants
permanents de la Bosme-Herzégovme et de la Croatie, dans laquelle tl
mdiqualt que «la positiOn réfléchiedu Secrétanat de l'Orgamsatwn des
Natwns Umes en ce qm concerne les conséquences pratiques de l'adop­
tion par l'Assembléegénéralede la résolutwn 47/1»était la smvante:

«SI l'Assembléegénéralea déclarésans éqmvoque que la Répu­
blique fédérativede Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro)ne pouvmt
pas assurer automatiquement la contmmté de la quahté de Membre

13 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 16

mam part of the forty-seventh sesswn of the General Assembly "

(Umted Natwns doc S/RESI777)
29 On 22 September 1992 the General Assembly adopted resolutwn

47/l, accordmg to whtch
"The General·Assembly,

Havmg rece1ved the recommendatwn of the Secunty Counctl of
19 September 1992 that the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm (Serb1a
and Montenegro) should apply for membersh1p m the Umted

Nations and that tt shall not partlctpate m the work of the General
Assembly,
1 Cons1ders that the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm (Serbm and

Montenegro) cannat contmue automattcally the membershtp of the
former Soctahst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm m the Umted
Natwns, and therefore dectdes that the Federal Repubhc of Yugo­
slavm (Serbm and Montenegro) should apply for membershtp m the
Umted Natwns and that ttshall not parttc1pate m the work of the
General Assembly,

2 Takes note of the mtenhon of the Secunty Counctl to cons1der
the matter agam before the end of the mam part of the forty-seventh
sesswn of the General Assembly" (Umted Natwns doc A/RES/
47/1.)

30 On 25 September 1992, the Permanent Representahves of Bosma
and Herzegovma and Croatta addressed a letter to the Secretary-General,

m whtch, w1th reference to Secunty Counctl resoluhon 777 (1992) and
General Assembly resolution 47/1, they stated the1r understandmg as fol­
lows "at th1smoment, there 1sno doubt that the Socmhst Federal Repub­
hc of Yugoslavta ts not a member of the Umted Natwns any more At
the same tlme, the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslav1a 1sclearly not yet a
member " They concluded that "the flag flymg m front of the Umted

Natwns and the name-plaque beanng the name 'Yugoslavta' do not rep­
resent anythmg or anybody any more" and "kmdly request[ed] that [the
Secretary-General] prov1de a legal explanatory statement concernmg the
questions ratsed" (Umted Natwns doc A/47/474)

31 In response, on 29 September 1992, the Under-Secretary-General

and Legal Counsel of the Umted Natwns addressed a letter to the
Permanent Representatives of Bosma and Herzegovma and Croatta, m
wh1ch he stated that the "constdered v1ewof the Umted Nations Secre­
tanat regardmg the practlcal consequences of the adoption by the
General Assembly of resolutwn 47/1" was as follows.

"Wrule the General Assembly has stated uneqmvocally that the
Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta (Serbta and Montenegro) cannat

automattcally contmue the membershtp of the former Socmhst Fed-

1317 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

de l'ancienne Répubhque fédérativesociahste de Yougoslavte à
l'Orgamsatton des Nations Umes et que la Répubhque fédérativede
Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro)devrait présenterune demande
d'admission à l'Orgamsation, l'umque conséquencepratique de cette
résolutiOnest que la Répubhque fédérativede Yougoslavie (Serbie et
Monténégro)ne part1c1perapas aux travaux de l'Assembléegéné­
rale. Il est donc clair que les représentants de la République fédéra­
tiVede Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro)ne peuvent plus partzcz­
per aux travaux de l'Assembléegénérale et de sesorganes subsidiaires,
m aux conférenceset réumonsorgamséespar celle-ci

D'un autre côté,la résolutiOnne met pas fin à l'appartenancede la
Yougoslavie à l'Orgamsatton et ne la suspend pas En conséquence,
le stègeet la plaque portant le nom de la Yougoslavie subsistent, mais
dans les organes de l'Assembléeles représentants de la République
fédéralede la Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro)ne peuvent occu­
per la place réservéeà la «Yougoslavie» La misston de la Yougo­
slavie auprès du Siègede l'Orgamsatton des NatiOns Umes amsi que
les bureaux occupéspar celle-ctpeuvent poursmvre leurs activités,Ils
peuvent recevmr et distnbuer des documents Au Siège,le Secrétanat
contmuera de hisserledrapeau de l'ancienne Yougoslavie, car c'estle
dernier drapeau que le Secrétanat att connu La résolutiOnn'enlève
pas à la Yougoslavie le drmt de participer aux travaux des organes

autres que ceux de l'Assemblée L'admission à l'Orgamsatlon des
NatiOns Umes d'une nouvelle Yougoslavte, en vertu de l'article 4 de
la Charte, mettra fin à la situatiOn crééepar la résolutwn 47/1 »
(Natwns Umes, doc A/47/485, les ttahques sont dans l'ongmal)
32 Le 29 avnl 1993,l'Assembléegénerale,suivant la recommandatiOn
figurant dans la résolutton821 (1993)du Conseil de sécunté(formuléeen
des termes similaires à ceux de la résolutwn 777 (1992) du Conseil de

sécunté),adopta la résolutiOn47/229, dans laquelle elle décidaque «la
Républiquefedérativede Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro)ne partici­
pera[It] pas aux travauxdu Conseil économiqueet social»

*

33 La Cour rappelle que, entre l'adoptwn de la résolution 4711 de
l'Assembléegénérale,le 22 septembre 1992, et l'admission de la RFY à
l'Orgamsatton des Natwns Umes, le 1ernovembre 2000, la Situation JUri­
dique de la RFY étattcomplexe, comme le montrent les exemples SUI­
vants.
34 Par une résolutwnen date du 20 décembre1993relative à la Situa­
tion en Bosme-Herzégovme, l'Assembléegénéraleréaffirma sa résolu­
tion 47/l du 22 septembre 1992 et demanda mstamment «aux Etats
Membres et au Secrétanat, dans l'espnt de laditerésolutiOn,de mettre fin
à la partictpatiOn de fait de la Républiquefédérativede Yougoslavie (Ser­
bie et Monténégro) aux travaux de l'Orgamsabon» (Nattons Umes,

doc A/RES/48/88, par 19)

14 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 17

eral Repubhc ofYugoslavta in the Umted Natwns and that the Fed­
eral Repubhc of Yugoslav1a (Serbta and Montenegro) should apply
for membersh1p m the Umted Natwns, the only pract1cal conse­
quence that the resolutiOn draws ts that the Federal Repubhc of
Yugoslavta (Serbta and Montenegro) shall not partzczpate m the
work of the General Assembly ltts clear, therefore, that representa­
tives of the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm (Serbta and Montene­

gro) can no longer partzczpatem the work of the General Assembly,
tts substdtary organs, nor conferences and meetmgs convened by tt

On the other band, the resolutiOn netther termmates nor suspends
Yugoslav1a's membershzp m the Orgamzatwn Consequently, the
seat and nameplate remam as before, but m Assembly bodies repre­
sentattvesf the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta (Serbta and Mon­
tenegro) cannatslt behmd the s1gn'Yugoslav1a' Yugoslav mtssrons
at Umted Nattons Headquarters and offices may contmue to func­
tlon and may rece1veand ctrculate documents At Headquarters, the
Secretanat wtll contmue to fly the flag of the old Yugoslavm as tt 1s
the last flag of Yugoslavta used by the Secretanat The resolutton
does not take away the nght of Yugoslav1a to parttctpate m the
work of organs ether than Assembly bodtes The admtsswn to the
Umted Nations of a new Yugoslavra under Article 4 of the Charter
w1ll termmate the situatiOn created by resolution 47/1 " (Umted
Nations doc A/47/485, emphasts added m the ongmal)

32 On 29 Apnl 1993, the General Assembly, upon the recommenda­
tlon contamed m Secunty Councll resolution 821 (1993) (couched m
terms s1mllarto those of Secunty Counctl resolution 777 (1992)), adopted
resolution 47/229 m whrch 1t decrded that "the Federal Repubhc of
Yugoslav1a(Serbta and Montenegro) [should] not partlctpate m the work
of the Econom1c and Sacral Counc1l"

*
33 The Court recalls that between the adoptiOn of General Assembly
resolutwn 47/1 of 22 September 1992 and the admtsswn of the FRY to
the Umted Natwns on 1 November 2000, the legal posttlon of the FRY
remamed complex, as shown by the followmg examples

34 By a resolution of 20 December 1993 relatmg to the s1tuatwn m
Bosma and Herzegovma, the General Assembly reaffirmed 1tsresolutiOn
47/1 of 22 September 1992, and urged "Member States and the Secre­
tanat m fulfilhng the spmt of that resolution to end the de facto workmg
status of the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta (Serbta and Montenegro)"

(Umted Nattons doc A/RES/48/88, para 19)

1418 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

35 Durartt cette periode, s'appuyant sur les termes de la résolutwn 777
(1992) du Conseil de sécuntéet de la résolutwn4711de l'Assembléegéné­
rale, la Bosme-Herzégovme, la Croatie, l'ex-Répubhque yougoslave de

Macédome et la Slovémes'opposèrent systématiquement à l'affirmatiOn
de la RFY selon laquelle celle-ci assurait la contmulté de l'Etat et de la
personnahté JUridique et pohhque mternatlonale de l'ex-RFSY Elles
refusèrent en particuher que la RFY pUisse êtreconsidéréecomme
Membre de l'Orgamsatwn des NatiOns Umes et partie aux traitésmulti­
lateraux auxquels avait étépartie l'ex-Yougoslavie
36 C'est dans ce contexte que, à la smte d'une propositwn faite par le
représentant de la Bosme-Herzégovmeaux 18eet 19e séancesdes Etats
parties au pacte mternatwnal relatif aux drmts civilset politiques, et à la
smte d'un vote sur cette propositiOn, la RFY fut exclue de la participa­
tion aux travaux de la réumon (Nattons Umes, doc. CCPR/SP/SR 18,
p 3, Nations Umes, doc CCPR/SP/SR 19, p 8) ToutefOis, lors de la
18eséance,tenue le 16mars 1994,le représentant de la Belgique, prenant
la parole pour une explicatiOn de vote au nom des Etats membres de

l'Umon européenneparties à cet mstrument, et recevant l'appUIdu repré­
sentant de l'Austrabe et de la représentante de l'Islande - cette dermère
s'expnmant au nom des pays nordiques-, ((dit que le vote des déléga­
tionsconcernees ne [pouvait] préjugerde leur positiOn en ce qm concerne
le statut de la Répubhque fédérativede Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténé­
gro) vis-à-vis du pacte ou des autres obhgatwns mternatwnales de l'ex­
République fédérativesoctahste de YougoslaVIe» Ces délégatwnsétaient
«d'avis que la Répubhque fédérativede Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monté­
négro) [devatt] respecter les obhgatwns résultant du pacte» (Natwns
Umes, doc CCPR/SP/SR 18)
37 En réponseà ces protestatwns, la RFY, estimant qu'elle assurait la
coq.tmmte de la personnalite JUridiquemternatwnale de l'ex-Yougoslavie,
affirma constamment le pomt de vue selon lequel son appartenance à
l'OrgamsatiOn des Nattons Umes et sa quahtéd'Etat partie à des traités
mternatwnaux n'avatent pas étéaffectées par l'adoptwn de la résolu­
hon 777(1992) du Consetl de sécuritéet de la résolutiOn47/1 de l'Assem­

bléegénérale
38 Selon l'éditiOnanglaise du «Précis de la pratique du Secrétaire
gêneraien tant que dépositairede trmtésmultilatéraux», préparéepar la
sectwn des trattésdu bureau des affaues JUridiqueset pubhéeau débutde
1996,

«89 Un problème spécmla surgi lors de l'adoptiOn de la résolu­
tion 47/1 de l'Assembléegénéraleen date du 22 septembre 1992 par
laquelle l'Assembléea considéréque la République fédérativede
Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro)ne pouvait pas assumer auto­
matiquement la quahté de Membre de l'Orgamsabon des NatiOns
Umes et a par conséquent décidéque la République fedérative de
Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro)devrait présenterune demande
d'admissiOnà l'OrganisatiOn et qu'elle ne participerait pas aux tra-

15 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 18

35 Dunng this penod, refernng to the terms of Secunty Council
resolutwn 777 (1992) and General Assembly resolutwn 47/1, Bosma and
Herzegovma, Croatla, Slovema and the former Yugoslav Repubhc of
Macedoma consistently obJected to the FRY's clatm that ltcontmued the
State and the mternational legal and pohttcal personahty of the former
SFRY In particular, they disagreed that the FRY was a Member of the
Umted Natwns and a party to the multilateral treatles to wh1ch the
former Yugoslavia was a party

36 It was m this context that, followmg the suggestiOn made by the
Representative of Bosma and Herzegovma at the 18th and 19th Meetmgs
of States Parties to the Internatwnal Covenant on Ctvtl and Pohtical
Rtghts, and a vote thereon, the FRY was excluded from parbcipatmg m
the said meetmgs (Umted NatiOns doc CCPR/SP/SR 18, p 3, Umted

Natwns doc. CCPR/SP/SR 19,p 8) However, m explanahon of his deci­
sion to vote m favour of exclusiOnat the 18th meetmg held on 16 March
1994, the representative of Belgmm, speakmg on behalf of the States
members of the European Umon that were parties to the ConventiOn,
and supported by the representatives of Austraha and Iceland, the latter
on behalf of the Nordtc countnes, "said that the vote of the delegatiOns
concerned was without preJUdiceto thetr positiOn regardmg the status of
the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta (Serbta and Montenegro) vzs-à-vcs
the Covenant or the other mternatwnal obhgatwns of the former Soctal­
IStFederal Repubhc of Yugoslavia" Those delegatiOns"were of the vtew
that the Federal Repubhc ofYugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) should
abide by the obligations ansmg under the Covenant" (Umted NatiOns
doc CCPR/SP/SR 18)
37 In response to these protests, the FRY, claimmg that ttcontmued

the mternatwnal legal personahty of the former Yugoslavm, at ali
times mamtamed the vtew that tts membership m the Umted Nattons
and 1ts status as a State party to mternatwnal treatles were not affected
by the adoption of Secunty Councii resolutwn 777 (1992) and General
Assembly resolution 47/1

38 Accordmg to the Enghsh text of the "Summary of Practtce of the
Secretary-General as Deposttary of Multilateral Treatles", prepared by
the Treaty SectiOnof the Office of Legal AffaiTS,whtch was pubhshed at
the begmnmg of 1996,

"89 A special difficulty arose upon the adoptiOn of resolutiOn
4711 of 22 September 1992, by whtch the General Assembly con­
sidered that the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavia (Serbta and Mon­
tenegro) could not contmue automatlcally the membership of

the former Sociahst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta m the Umted
Natwns and therefore decided that the Federal Repubhc of Yugo­
slavm (Serbm and Montenegro) should apply for membershtp
m the Umted NatiOns and that It should not partictpate m the work

1519 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

vaux de l'Assembléegénérale,les dispositions de cette résolutiOnont
étémterprétéespar le Secrétanat comme s'appliquant égalementaux
organes subsidiaires de l'Assembléegénéraleet aux conférenceset
réumonsconvoquéespar elle et la République fédérativede Yougo­
slavie (Serbie et Monténegro) n'a donc pas etémv1téeà participer
aux conférencesconvoquéespar l'Assemblée(par exemple la confé­
rence mondmle sur les dr01tsde l'homme) Ma1sle dr01t de la Répu­
bhque fédérativede Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro)de devenir
partie à des traités,parmi lesquels ceux déposésauprès du Secrétaire
general, n'étaitpas affecté

297 En l'absence de dispositions précisant les condltwns de la
successwn ou restreignant d'une autre mamère la possibilitéde suc­
ceder, le Secretaue généralsuit les clauses de participation des traltés
amsi que les pnnc1pes générauxrégissantla partiCipatiOn des Etats
(v01rchap V) L'mdépendancedu nouvel Etat successeur, qm exerce
désormais la souverametésur son ternt01re, est naturellement sans
effet quant aux drmts et obhgatwns d'ongme conventiOnnelle de
l'Etat prédécesseure rapportant à ce qm lm reste de son ternt01re
Amst, après la séparatwn de parties du ternto1re de l'Umon des
Répubhques soctahstes soviétiques(qm ont acqms le statut d'Etats
mdépendants), l'Umon des Républiques soctahstes soviétiques a
contmué (sous le nom de FédératiOnde Russie) à exister en tant
qu'Etat prédécesseur,et tous ces drolts et obhgations d'ongme

conventiOnnelle sont demeurésvalables à l'égardde son terntmre Il
en va de mêmede la Republique fédérativede Yougoslavie (Serbie et
Monténégro), qu1 demeure l'Etat prédécesseuraprès séparatiOnde
parties du ternt01re de l'ex-Yougoslavie. La resolut10n 47/1 de
l'Assembléegénéraleen date du 22 septembre 1992, aux termes de
laquelle la Répubhque fédérativede Yougoslavie ne pouvait pas
assumer automatiquement la contmmté de la quahtéde Membre de
l'Orgamsat10n des Natwns Umes de l'ex-Yougoslavie (votr para­
graphe 89 ci-dessus), fut adoptéedans le cadre de l'Orgamsatwn des
Natwns Umes et dans le contexte de la Charte de l'Orgamsatwn des
Natwns Umes, et non pour mdiquer que la Républtquefédérativede
Yougoslavie ne devait pas êtreconsidéréecomme un Etat prédéces­
seur» [Traductwn par le Greffe de l'édztwnanglazse du document
desNatzons Umes ST/LEG/8]

39 Par la smte, le Secrétanat pubha une séne d'errata à l'édition
anglatse du «Précisde la pratique du Secrétairegénérab>C'est amsi que,
dans cette édition,la dernièrephrase du paragraphe 89 fut remplacéepar
la phrase smvante

«Mais le drmt de la Répubhque fédérativede Yougoslavie (Serbie
et Monténégro)de devemr partie aux traités déposésauprès du
Secrétauegénéraln'est pas affecté,sauf décistonpnse par un organe
compétentreprésentant la communautéinternatiOnale des Etats dans

16 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 19

of the General Assembly, the resolutiOnwas mterpreted by the Secre­
tanat to apply to substdrary organs of the General Assembly, as

well as conferences and meetmgs convened by tt Consequently, the
Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavra (Serbm and Montenegro), was not
mvtted to partrctpate m conferences convened by the Assembly
(e g, the World Conference on Human Rtghts). However, this
was wrthout effect on the capactty of the Federal Repubhc of
Yugoslavta (Serbta and Montenegro) to parbctpate m treattes,
mcludmg those deposrted wtth the Secretary-General

297 In the absence of provtstons which set specifie condttwns
for successton or whtch otherw1se restnct successwn, the Secretary­

General lSgmded by the participatiOn clauses of the treattes as well
as by the general pnnciples govermng theparticipatiOn of States (see
chap. V) The mdependence of the new successor State, which then
exerctses Its sovereignty on Its terntory, ts of course without effect
as concerns the treaty nghts and obhgattonsof the predecessor State
as concerns tts own (remammg) terntory Thus, after the separatton
of parts of the terntory of the Umon of Soviet Soctahst Repubhcs
(whtch became mdependent States), the Umon of Soviet Sociahst
Repubhcs (as the Russian FederatiOn) contmued to extst as a pre­
decessorState, and ail Its treaty nghts and obligations contmued m
force m respect of Its terntory The same apphes to the Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslav1a(Serbta and Montenegro), wh1chremams as
the predecessorState upon separat10n of parts of the terntory of the

former Yugoslav1a General Assembly resolutiOn47/1 of 22 Septem­
ber1992, to the effect that the Federal Repubbc ofYugoslavm could
not automatically contmue the membership of the former Yugosla­
via m the Umted Nattons (see para 89 above), was adopted wtthm
the framework of the Umted NatiOns and the context of the Charter
of the Umted Natwns, and not as an mdicabon that the Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslavra was not to be constdered a predecessor
State" (Umted Natwns doc. ST/LEG/8)

39 Subsequently, the Secretanat pubhshed an errata to the Enghsh
textof the satd "Summary of Practice" With regard to paragraph 89 of
the Enghsh text, the last sentence was thus replaced by the followmg

"However, thts ts wtthout effect on the capactty of the Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslavta (Serbta and Montenegro) to partictpate
m treatres depostted with the Secretary-General subject to any
deCISiontaken by a competent organ representmg the mtematronal

1620 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

son ensemble ou par un organe de traitécompétent à l'égardd'un
traité ou d'un accord particulie>>(Vmr Natwns Umes, doc ST/
LEG/8)

Quant au paragraphe 297 de l'éditionanglaise du précis,en réponseaux
obJeCtiOnssoulevéespar un certam nombre d'Etats (votr Natwns Umes
doc A/501190-S/1996/231A , /51/95-S/1996/251,A/50/928-S/1996/263,A/50/
930-S/1996/260), le SecrétarÙlty supimma toute référenceà la RFY et
en modifia le texte comme smt

«En l'absence de dispositwns précisantles conditions de la succes­
swn ou restreignant d'une autre mamèrela possibilitéde succéder,le
Secrétatregénéralsmt les clauses de participatiOn des traités amsi
que les pnncipes générauxrégissantla participatiOn des Etats (vmr
chap V) L'mdépendance du nouvel Etat successeur, qm exerce
désormatsla souverameté sur son terntmre, est naturellement sans

effet sures drmts et obligations d'ongme conventionnelle de l'Etat
prédécesseurse rapportant à ce qm lm reste de son terntmre Amsi,
après la séparation de parties du terntmre de l'Umon des Répu­
bliques soctahstes soviétiques(qm ont acqms le statut d'Etats mdé­
pendants), la Fédérattonde Russte a conservétous lesdrmts et obhga­
tiOns d'ongme conventiOnnelle de l'Etat prédécesseur» (Vmr
Nattons Umes, doc. ST/LEG/8.)

Les modifications mdiquées dans la séne d'errata susmentionnée, y
compns celles afférentesaux paragraphes 89 et 297, furent dtrectement
mcorporéesdans l'édttwnfrançaise du précis,publiéeen 1997 (Natwns
Umes, doc ST/LEG/8)
40 L'accord-cadre généralpour la pmx en Bosme-Herzégovme fut
paraphé à Dayton (Ohio) le 21 novembre 1995et s1gnépar les Parties à
Pans le 14 décembre1995 Aux termes de cet accord, la RFY et la Bos­
me-Herzégovme convenaient de «se reconna[ître] l'une l'autre comme
Etats mdependants souverams à l'mténeurde leurs frontières mternatw­
nales» et d'apphquer «entièrement les disposittons relatives aux drmts de
l'homme énoncéesau titre premier de l'annexe 6» de l'accord Cette
annexe, mtttulee «Accord relatif aux drmts de l'homme», contenait en
appendice une hste de trattés,dont la convention sur legénocide(NatiOns
Umes, doc A/501790-S/1995/999)
41 La RFY deposa par la suite auprès du Secrétmre généralune
déclaratwn, datée du 25 avnl 1999, reconnmssant la Jundictwn obliga­
toire de la Cour mternattonale de Justice Le 30 avnl 1999, le Secrétaue

généralémitune notification en tant que déposttatre,mformant les Etats
Membres que «l'actiOn susmentiOnnéea[vatt] étéeffectuéele 26 avnl
1999» (C N 311 1999TREATIES-1)
42 Le 27 mm 1999,dans une lettre adresséeau Secrétatregénéral,les
représentants permanents de la Bosme-Herzégovme,de la Croatie, de la
Slovémeet de l'ex-Républiqueyougoslave de Macédome muent en cause
la validite du depôt, par la RFY, de la déclaratiOnreconnatssant la JUn-

17 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 20

commumty of States as a whole or by a competent treaty organ
with regard to a partlcular treatyr conventwn" (Umted Natwns
doc ST/LEG/7/Rev 1)

With regard to paragraph 297 of the Enghsh text of the Summary,
m response to obJectwns raised by certam States (see Umted NatiOns
docs A/50/910-S/1996/231, A/51/95-S/1996/251, A/50/928-S/1996/263,
A/50/930-S/1996/260), the Secretanat deleted ali reference to the FRY
and changed the text to read as follows

"In the absence of provisions whtch set spectficconditions for suc­
cessiOnor whtch otherwtse restnct successton, the Secretary-General
ISgmded by the participatiOn clauses of the treattes as weli as by the
general prmctples governmg the partlctpatwn of States (seechapV)
The mdependence of the new successor State, whtch then exerctses

tts soveretgnty on tts terntory, ts without effect on the treaty nghts
, and obhgattons of the predecessor State m tts own (remammg) ter­
·ntory Thus, after the separation of parts of the terntory of the
Umon of Soviet Soctahst Repubhcs (which became mdependent
States), the Russmn Federation contmued ali treaty nghts and
obhgatwns of the predecessor State" (Umted Natwns doc
ST/LEG/7/Rev 1)

The changes set out m the above-mentwned errata, mcludmg those
relatmg to paragraphs 89 and 297, were directly mcorporated mto the
French text of the Summary pubhshed m 1997

40 The General Framework Agreement for Peace m Bosma and
Herzegovma was mitialled m Dayton, Ohw, on 21 November 1995 and
stgned by theParties m Pans on 14 December 1995 By the terms of thts
Agreement, the FRY and Bosma and Herzegovma agreed to "recogmze
each other as sovereign mdependent States wtthm thetr mternatwnal bor­
ders" and to "comply fully wtth the provisions concernmg human nghts

set forth m Chapter One of the Agreement at Annex 6" Thts Annex,
entitled "Agreement on Human Rights" had appended to tt a hst of trea­
tles, mcludmg the Genocide ConventiOn (Umted Nattons doc A/50/790-
S/1995/999)
41 The FRY depostted a declaration recogmzmg the compulsory JUns­
dictlon of the Internatwnal Court of Justice, dated 25 Apnll999, wtth the
Secretary-General On 30 Apnl 1999 the Secretary-General tssued a
Deposttary Notification mformmg Member States that the "above action
was effected on 26 Apn11999" (C N 311 1999TREATIES-1)

42 On 27 May 1999, the Permanent Representatives of Bosma and
Herzegovma, Croatm, Slovema and the former Yugoslav Repubhc of
Macedoma sent a letter to the Secretary-General, questtomng the vahdity

of the depostt of the declaratiOn recogmzmg the compulsory JUnsdtctwn

1721 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

dictwn obhgatmre de la Cour mtemationale de Justice (Natwns Umes,
doc A/53/992)
43 Le 3 JUin 1999, les représentants permanents de la Bosme-Herzé­
govme, de la Croatie, de la Slovémeet de l'ex-Répubhqueyougoslave de
Macédome adressèrent une lettre au président du Conse1l de sécunté,

dans laquelle Ils md1quaient ce qm smt
«Nous souhaitons que la présente lettre smt considéréecomme
l'expresswn d'une objectwn permanente à l'allégatiOnsans fonde­
ment de la République fédéralede Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténé­

gro), allégatwnrejetéeauss1par la communautémternatwnale, selon
laquelle elleonstitue le contmuateur de notre prédécesseurcommun
etJOUità ce btre du statut de celm-c1dans les mstltutions mterna­
ttonales et à l'égarddes traités » [Traductwn par le Greffe du docu­
ment des Natwns Umes S/1999/639 j

44 Dans la pubhcatwn des Nations Unies mtitulée «Traités multila­
térauxdéposésauprès du Secrétauegénéral;étatau 31 décembre2001»,
la SituatiOnau cours de la pénodesuivant l'adoptiOnde la résolution777
(1992) du Conseil de sécuritédu 19 septembre 1992est amst décnte

«La résolutiOn47/1 de l'Assembléegénéralene traitait pas spéci­
fiquement de la questiOn du statut de l'ex-ugoslavie m de celm de
laYougoslavie à l'égarddes traitésmultilatéraux déposésauprès du
Secrétairegéneral A ce sujet, le consetller JUridique a étéd'avts que
le Secrétairegénéral,en sa qualité de déposttaue, n'étaiten mesure
m de reJeter, m de ne pas temr compte de la revendication de la You­
goslavieselon laquelle celle-ct assurait la contmmte de la personna­
lité jundtque de l'ex-Yougoslavie, en l'absence d'une déciston
contraire pnse smt par un organe compétent de l'Orgamsatwn des
Nattons Umes le gmdant dans l'exercicede ses fonctwns de déposi­
taire, sott par un organe compétentcréé par traité,smt par les Etats
contractants à un traitéle gu1dant dans l'exercicede ses fonctwns de

dépositaire en ce qm concerne ce traité particulier, smt par un
organe compétentreprésentatifde la communautémternatwnale des
Etats dans son ensemble au sujet de la question généralede la contt­
nmté et de la non-contmmté de la qualité d'Etat suscitéepar la
revendtcatton de la Yougoslavie
Comme smte à la revendtcatwn de la Yougoslavie selon laquelle la
Yougoslavie assure la contmuité de la personnalité jundique mter­
natwnale de l'ex-Yougoslavie, le Secrétairegénéral,en sa qualitéde
déposttaue, a contmué d'mclure les formalités effectuéespar l'ex­
yougoslavie dans les hstes qui figurent dans la présentepublication,
employant à cette fin le nom abrégéde «Yougoslavie», utilisé à
l'époque pour déstgnerl'ex-Yougoslavie. Entre le 27 avnl1992 et le
1ernovembre 2000, la Yougoslavie a effectuéde nombreuses forma­

litésse rapportant à des trattésdéposésauprès du Secrétauegénéral.

18 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 21

of the Intematwnal Court of Justice by the FRY (Umted Nations
doc A/53/992)
43 On 3 June 1999, the Permanent Representatives of Bosma and
Herzegovma, Croatla, Slovema and the former Yugoslav Repubhc of
Macedoma addressed a letter to the Prestdent of the Secunty Counctl,
statmg

"We wtsh that thts letter be understood as our permanent obJeC­
tion to the groundless assertwn of the Federal Repubhc of Yugo­
slavm (Serbm and Montenegro), whtch has also been repudtated by
the mternahonal commumty, that tt represents the contmmty of our
common predecessor, and thereby contmues to enJOYIts status m
mternattonal orgamzatwns and treaties" (Umted Nattons doc.
S/1999/639)

44 In the Umted NatiOns publication of 2002 ent1tled "Multilateral
treattes deposJted wJth the Secretary-General, Status as at 31 December
2001", the situatton dunng the penod after the adoptwn of Secunty
Counctl resolutwn 777 (1992) of 19 September 1992 ts charactenzed as
follows

"General Assembly resolutwn 47/1 dtd not spectficallyaddress the
questiOn of the status of e1ther the former Yugoslavta or of Yugo­
slavJa wtth regard to multtlateral treatles that were depos1ted wlth
the Secretary-General The Legal Counsel took the v1ew m this
regard that the Secretary-General was not m a positiOn, as deposJ­
tary, etther to reJectto d1sregard the clatm of Yugoslavta that 1t
contmued the legal personahty of the former Yugoslavm, absent any

dectswn to the contrary eJther by a competent organ of the Umted
Natwns duectmg htm m the exerctse of hts deposttary functwns, or
by a competent treaty organ created by a treaty, or by the contract­
mg States to a treaty duectmg him m the exercise of h1sdepositary
functions w1th regard to that parttcular treaty, or by a competent
organ representative of the mternatwnal commumty of States as a
whole on the general tssue of contmuity and dtscontmmty of state­
hood to whtch the cla1mof Yugoslavta gave nse

Consistent w1th the clatm of Yugoslavm to contmue the mter­
natwnal legal personahty of the former Yugoslavm, the Secretary­
General, as deposttary, contmued to hst treaty actwns that had been
performed by the former Yugoslavm m status hsts m the present pub­
hcatwn, usmg for that purpose the short-form name 'Yugoslavta',
whtch was used at that tJme to refer to the former Yugoslavta
Between 27 Apnl 1992 and 1 November 2000, Yugoslavta under­
took numerous treaty actions wtth respect to treattes depostted wtth
the Secretary-General Consistent wtth the clatm of Yugoslavm to

1822
DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

Comme smte à la revendicatwn de la Yougoslavie selon laquelle la
Yougoslavie assure la contmmté de la personnalité JUndique mter­
nationale de l'ex-Yougoslavie, ces formalités ont également étém­
cluses dans les listes au regard de la désignatiOn«Yougoslavie». En

conséquence, le Secrétaire général,en sa quahté de dépositaire, n'a
fait aucune différencedans la présente publicatiOn entre les formali­
téseffectuéespar l'ex-Yougoslavie et les formalités effectuéespar la
Yougoslavie, les deux catégones de formalités apparaissant dans les
hstesau regard de la désignatiOn«Yougoslavie» »(Nations Umes,
doc ST/LEG/SER E/20.)

*

45 La Cour relèvequ'à cette descnptwn de la situatiOn particulière de
la RFY entre septembre 1992 et novembre 2000 Il convient d'aJouter un
certam nombre de préclSionsconcernant les contnbutwns au budget des

Natwns Umes et les quetes-parts correspondantes fixéespour la RFY
pour cette mêmepénode Dans la résolutiOn43/223 de l'Assembléegéné­
raledu 21 décembre 1988 («Barème des quotes-parts pour la répartitiOn
des dépenses de l'Orgamsatwn des Natwns Umes»), la quete-part de la
RFSY pour 1989, 1990 et 1991 fut fixéeà 0,46% Pour 1992, 1993 et
1994, sa quote-part fut fixée en 1991 à 0,42% (résolution 46/221 de

l'Assembléegénérale du 21 décembre 1991)
46 Le 23 decembre 1992, l'Assembléegénérale,sur recommandatiOn
de la Cmqmème Commission, décidad'adopter les recommandations du
comité des contnbutwns concernant les quetes-parts des Etats Membres
telles qu'elles figuraient paragraphes 51 à 64 du rapport de ce comité
(NatiOns Umes, doc A/47/11) Le paragraphe 63 du rapport proposait de

fixerà 0,04%, 0,13% et 0,09% les quotes-parts respectives de la Bosme­
Herzegovme, de la Croatie et de la Slovémepour 1993et 1994 Il étaitpar
ailleurs préciséque, «pour 1992, ces Etats devraient payer sept douzièmes
de leur quote-part et [que] leursntnbutwns serment dédmtesde celle de
la Yougoslavie» (par 64 du rapport) Par sa résolutiOn 48/223 du
23 décembre 1993, l'Assembléegéneraledécidade fixer à 0,02% la quote­
part de l'ex-Republique yougoslave de Macédome, admise à l'Orgamsa­

tlon des NatiOns Umes en 1993, précisant que, pour cette mêmeannee
1993, la quote-part en question devrait êtredéduite de celle de la RFY
L'Assemblée générale décida également que la quote-part de l'ex­
République yougoslave de Macédome serait dédmte de celle de la RFY
pour 1994
47 En conséquence des déc1s1onsprécitéesconcernant les quotes-parts

pour la Bosme-Herzégovme, la Croatie, la Slovéme et l'ex-République
yougoslave de Macédome, les quotes-parts pour le calcul des contnbu­
ttons de la RFY au budget ordmaue de l'Orgamsatwn des Natwns Umes
pour les années 1995, 1996 et 1997 furent fixéesà 0,11 %, 0,1025% et
0,10% respectivement (résolutiOn 49/19 B de l'Assemblée généraledu

23 décembre 1994) Par la résolution 52/15 A de l'Assembléegénérale,la

19 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 22

contmue the mternabonal legal personahty of the former Yugosla­
vm, these treaty actwns were also hsted m status hsts agamst the
name 'Yugoslav1a'.Accordmgly, the Secretary-General, as deposi­

tary, d1d not make any d1fferentiatwn m the present pubhcatwn
between treaty actwns that were performed by the former Yugosla­
vm and those that were performed by Yugoslavm, bath categones of
treaty actions bemg hsted agamst the name 'Yugoslavm'" (Umted
Natwns doc ST/LEG/SER E/20 )

*
45 The Court constders that to the above account of the FRY's spe­
cial sttuatwn that extsted between September 1992 and November 2000,
should be added certam detatls concermng the Umted NatiOns member­

ship dues and rates of assessment set for the FRY dunng that same
penod In General Assembly resolution 43/223 of 21 December 1988
("Scale of assessments for the apporhonment of the expenses of the
Umted Natwns"), the rate of assessment for the SFRY for 1989, 1990
and 1991was fixed at 0 46 percent The rate of assessment for the SFRY
for 1992, 1993 and 1994 as estabhshed m 1991 was to be 0 42 percent
(General Assembly resolution 46/221 of 20 December 1991)
46 On 23 December 1992,the General Assembly, on the recommenda­
twn of the Ftfth Commtttee, dectded to adopt the recommendatwns of the
Commtttee on Contnbutwns w1th respect to the rates of assessment of
Member States contamed m paragraphs 51 to 64of the report of the Com­
mtttee on Contnbutwns (Umted Natwns doc A/47/11) Paragraph 63
of thiS report sttpulated that the rates of assessment for Bosma and
Herzegovma, Croatta and Slovema for 1993 and 1994 should be 0 04,

0 13 and 0 09 percent respecttvely lt was further stated that "for 1992,
these States shou1d pay seven twelfths of these rates, and thetr actual
assessment should be deducted from that of Yugoslavta for that year"
(para 64 of the Report) By resolutwn 48/223 of 23 December 1993, the
General Assembly determmed that the rate of assessment of the former
Yugoslav Repubhc of Macedoma, admttted to membersh1p m the Umted
Nattons m 1993, should be 0 02 per cent and that Its 1993 assessment
should be deducted from that of the FRY. The General Assembly also
dectded that the rateof assessment of the former Yugoslav Repubhc of
Macedoma should be deducted from that of the FRY for 1994
47 As a consequence of the above-mentwned declSlons regardmg the
rate of assessment for Bosma and Herzegovma, Croatla, Slovema and the
former Yugoslav Repubhc of Macedoma, the rate of assessments for the
contnbutwn of the FRY to the regular budget of the Umted Nattons for

the years 1995, 1996and 1997was determmed to be 0 Il, 0 1025and 0 10
percent respecttvely (General Assembly resolutwn 49/19 Bof 23 Decem­
ber 1994) By General Assembly resolution 52115A, the rate of assess-

1923 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRE'.T)

quote-part de la RFY pour les années 1998, 1999 et 2000 fut fixéeà
0,060%, 0,034% et 0,026% respectivement

48 Le 23 décembre 2000, l'Assembléegénérale,par sa résolution
5515 E, «décid[a]que la quote-part de la République fédéralede Yougo­
slavie,m a{vmt]étéadmise à l'Orgamsahon le 1ernovembre 2000, sera[It]
égaleà 0,026 p 100 pour l'année2000» La résolutiOnprécisaitque cette
quote-part serait comptabiliséeen tant que «recettes dtverses conformé­
ment à l'ahnéac) de l'article 52 du règlementfinancier de I'Orgamsat10n
des Nattons Umes», dtspositlon visant les «contnbuttons dues par les
nouveaux Etats Membres»

*

49 A la smte des électiOnstenues le 24 septembre 2000, M Kostumca
fut élupresident de la RFY Le 27 octobre 2000, le présidentKostumca
adressa au Secretatre généralune lettre demandant l'admissiOn de la
RFY en tant que Membre de l'Orgamsatwn des NatiOns Umes, dans les
termes smvants

«Après l'évoluttondémocratique fondamentale qut s'est prodmte
en Républiquefédéralede Yougoslavie, j'at l'honneur, en ma quahté
de préstdent, de demander l'admiSSion de la République fédérale
de Yougoslavie à l'Orgamsatwn des Natwns Umes, comme smte à
la résolutiOn777 (1992) du Conseil de sécunté » (NatiOns Umes,
doc A/55/528-S/2000/1043)

50 Le 31 octobre 2000, le Conseil de sécunté(smvant en cela les
recommandatiOns formuléesdans le rapport du comité d'admisston de
nouveaux Membres concernant la demande d'admiSSIOnà l'Orgamsatwn
des Nattons Umes de la RFY) ~~recomman d[l'ajsembléegénérale
d'admettre laRépubliquefédéralede Yougoslavie en quahté de Membre
de l'Orgamsation des Natwns Umes» (NatiOns Umes, doc S/RES/1326)
Le l'" novembre 2000, l'Assembléegénéraleadopta la résolutiOn55/12,
qm se ht comme smt

«L'Assembléegénérale,
Ayant examméla recommandatiOn du Conseil de sécunte,en date
du 31 octobre 2000, tendantàce que la Répubhque fédéralede You­

goslaviesmt admtse à l'OrgamsatiOn des NatiOns Umes,
Ayant exammé la demande d'admissiOn présentéepar la Répu­
blique fédéralede Yougoslavie,

Décided'admettre la Républiquefédéralede Yougoslavie à l'Orga-
msahon des Nattons Umes.»
L'admissiOnde la RFY le 1ernovembre 2000 comme Membre de l'Orga­
msatlon des Nattons Umes a mts fin à la sttuatwsu1genens de la You­
goslavie au sem de l'Orgamsatwn Le prestdent de l'Assembléegénérale

souhaita, au nom de l'Assemblée,«la bienvenue à la Républiquefédérale

20 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 23

ment of the FRY for the years 1998, 1999and 2000 was determmed to be
0 060, 0 034 and 0 026 per cent respecbvely
48 On 23 December 2000, the General Assembly by lts resolutiOn
55/SE dectded that "the rate of assessment for the Federal Republtc of
Yugoslavta, admttted to membership of the Umted Nattons on l Novem­
ber 2000, should be 0 026 per cent for the year 2000" The resolutiOn
spectfied that thts assessment should be taken mto account asscella­
neous mcome m accordance with regula ton 5 2 (c) of the Fmanctal
RegulatiOns and Rules of the Umted NatiOns", deahng with the "contn-
butwns of new Member States"

*

49 Followmg natwnal electiOns on 24 September 2000, Mr Kostu­
ntca was elected Prestdent of the FRY On 27 October 2000, Prestdent
Kostumca sent a letter to the Secretary-General requestmg admtsswnf
the FRY to membershtp m the Umted Natwns, m the followmg terms

"In the wake of fundamental democratie changes that took place
m the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslav1a, m the capac1ty of President,
I have the honour to request thedmisswn of the Federal Repubhc
of Yugoslavta to membership m the Umted Nattons m hght of the
ImplementatiOn of Secunty Counctl resolutiOn 777 (1992)" (Umted
Nations doc N55/528-S/2000/1043 )

50 On 31 October 2000, the Secunty Council (pursuant to the recom­
mendattons made m the Report of the Comm1ttee on the Admtsswn of
New Members concermng the apphcatwn of the FRY for admtsston m
the Umted Natwns), "recommend[ed] to the General Assembly that the
Federal Repubhc ofYugoslav1a be admttted to membersh1pm the Umted
Natwns" (Umted NattOns doc S/RES/1326) On 1 November 2000, the
General Assembly adopted resolution 55/12, whtch reads as follows

"The General Assembly,
Havmg recezved the recommendatwn of the Secunty Counctl of
31 October 2000 that the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta should be
admltted to membershtp m the Umted Natwns,

Havmg conszdered the apphcatwn for membershtp of the Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslavm,
Decedes to admit the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta to member-
shtp m the Umted NattOns "

The admtssion of the FRY to membership of the Umted Nattons on
1 November 2000 put an end to Yugoslavia's suc genereposition wtthm
the Umted NattOns The President of the General Assembly, on behalf of
the Assembly, "welcomed the Federal Repubhc ofYugoslavJa as a Mem-

2024 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

de Yougoslavte en tant que Membre à part ent1èrede l'Orgamsatwn des
Natwns Umes» D'autres orateurs ont mts l'accent sur le fmt que la RFY
étaitentree dans la famille des Nations Umes sur un pred d'égahtéavec
les autres Républiquesde l'ex-RFSY. Pour sa part, le représentant de la

France, qm avait présentéle proJet de résolutiOn,mdrqua notamment
qu'<mneparenthèse de hmt ans [allait] pouvorr se refermer» (vorr Natwns
Umes, doc N55 PV 48, p 29-37)
51 Le 8 décembre2000, le secrétatregénéraladjomt, conseiller JUn­
dtque de l'Organrsatwn, adressa une lettre au mmrstre des affatres étran­
gèresde la RFY, dont les passages pertinents sont les smvants
«A la smte de [l'admtsswn de la Répubhque fédéralede Yougo­

slavie àl'Orgamsatton des Nations Umes le 1ernovembre 2000], tl a
étéprocédéà un examen des trartésmultilatéraux déposésauprès du
Secretaue general au sujet d'un grand nombre desquels l'ancienne
Répubhque fédérativesoctahste de Yougoslavie (RFSY) et la Répu­
blique fédéralede Yougoslavie (RFY) ont accomph dtverses forma­
litésconventwnnelles
De l'avts du conserller JUridique, la Répubhque fédéralede You­
goslavie devrait mamtenant accomplir les formalités conventiOn­
nelles,s'ty a heu, st elle entend farre valmr les drmts et assumer les
obligations qm lm revtennent, en quahté d'Etat successeur, au titre
des traitésen cause » (Lettre du conseiller JUndtque de l'Orgamsa­
hon des NatiOns Umes (requêtede la Yougoslavie, annexe 27))

[Traductwn du Greffe.]
52 Au débutdu mots de mars 2001, une nohficahon d'adhéstonà la
conventiOn pour la préventton et la répressiOndu cnme de génoctdefut
deposee aupres du Secretaue general de l'Orgamsatton des Natwns Umes
par la RFY Cette notificatiOn, datéedu 6 mars 2001, étaitamst libellée

« Conszdérant que la Républiquefédéralede Yougoslavte avait fait
savorr, par une déclaratiOnen date du 27 avnl 1992, que <daRépu­
blique fédérattvede Yougoslavie, assurant la contmmté de l'Etat et
de la personnahté JUndique et pohttque mternatwnale de la Répu­
blique féderattve sociahste de Yougoslavie, respectera stnctement
tous les engagements que la Républiquefédérattvesocmhste de You­
goslavte apns à l'échelonmternatwnal»,

Conszdérant qu'en prétendant assurer cette conUnmté la Répu­
bhque fédéralede Yougoslavie pensmt égalementassurer la contt­
nmté en qualité de Membre de l'Orgamsatwn des Natwns Umes
de la République fédérativesocmhste de Yougoslavte,
Considérant que, par la smte, cette prétentwnet cepostulat concer­
nant la contmmtén'ont été acceptésm par l'Orgamsatwn des Nattons
Umes, m par les autres Etats successeurs de la Républiquefédérative

sociahste de Yougoslavie, et qu'Ils étaient de ce fmt dépourvus
d'effets,
Conszdéranten outre que la situatiOn a finalement étéclanfiéele

21 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 24

ber of the Umted Nattons" Other speakers emphastzed the fact that the
FRY was entenng the Umted Nattons famtly on equal terms wtth the
other Repubhcs of the former SFRY The representative of France who
bad mtroduced the draft resolutiOn stated m parttcular that "a hmtus of
etght years [was] about to end" (see Umted Natwns doc A/55/PV 48,
pp 26-34)

51 On 8 December 2000, the Under-Secretary-General, the Legal
Counsel, sent a letter to the Mtmster for Foretgn Affatrs of the FRY,
readmg m pertment parts
"Followmg [the admtsswn of the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta
to the Umted Nations on 1 November 2000], a revtew was under­
taken of the multilateral treattes depostted wtth the Secretary­
General, m relation to many of whtch the former Soctahst Federal

Repubhc of Yugoslavta (the SFRY) and the Federal Repubhc of
Yugoslavta (FRY) had undertaken a range of treaty actwns

lt1sthe Legal Counsel's v1ewthat the Federal Repubhc of Yugo­
slavm should now undertake treaty actiOns, as appropnate, m rela­
tion to the treatles concerned, tf 1tsmtentwn ts to assume the rele­
vant legal nghts and obhgatwns as a successor State" (Letter by the
Legal Counsel of the Umted NatiOns (Apphcatwn of Yugoslavta,
Ann 27))

52 At the begmnmg of March 2001, a notificatiOn of accessiOnto the
Genoctde ConventiOn by the FRY was depostted wtth the Secretary­
General of the Umted NatiOns The notificatiOn of accesswn by Yugo­
slavm was dated 6 March 2001 and read as follows

"WHEREASthe Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm had declared
on Apnl 27, 1992,that 'the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta, con­
tmumg the State, mternattonallegal and pohtJcal personahty of the
Soctahst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm, shall stnctly abtde by ali
the commttments that the Socmhst Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta
assumed mternatwnally',

WHEREAtShts contentwn of contmmty also mcluded the assump­
tion that the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta contmued the member­
shtp m the Umted NatiOns of the Socmhst Federal Repubhc of
Yugoslavm,

WHEREAtS he contentiOn and assumptton of contmmty was event­
ually not accepted by the Umted Nations nor was tt accepted by
other successor States of the Soctahst Federal Repubhc of Yugosla­
vta, and thus tt produced no effects,

FuRTHERMORE th,ts s1tuatton became finally clanfied on Novem-

2125 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

1ernovembre 2000,lorsque la Répubhque fedéralede Yougoslavte a
étéadmtse comme nouvel Etat Membre de l'Orgamsation des
Natwns Umes,

Mamtenant qu'tl est étabh que la Répubhque fedéralede Yougo­
slavie n'a succédm le 27 avnl 1992m à aucune autre date ulténeure
à la Républiquefédérativesocmhste de Yougoslavie en sa quahté de
partie à la convention pour la préventionet la répresswndu cnme de
génoctdeet dans ses droits et obhgatwns découlantde cette conven­
tion en postulant qu'elle aurait contmue d'êtreMembre de l'Orgam­
satwn des NatiOns Umes et qu'elle auratt assuré la contmmté de
l'Etat et de la personnahtéJUndique et pohttque mternatwnale de la
République fédérativesoctahste de Yougoslavie,

En conséquence,Je présente au nom du Gouvernement de la
République fédéralede Yougoslavie cette nottficatwn d'adhésiOnà
la conventiOn pour la préventiOnet la répressiOndu cnme de géno­
ctde, en apphcatwn de l'article XI de ladtte conventiOn et avec la
réservesmvante à son article IX «La Répubhque fédéralede You­
goslavte ne se constdère pas héepar l'article IX de la convention
pour la préventwn et la répressiondu cnme de génoctde,c'est pour­
qum, pour qu'un dtfférendauquel la République fédéralede You­
goslavie est partie pmsse êtrevalablement soumts à la Cour mterna­
twnale de Justice en vertu dudtt article, son consentement spéctfique
et exprèsestnécessairedans chaque cas »» [Traductwn du Greffe j

Le 15mars 2001, le Secrétairegénéral,agtssant en sa capacttéde dépo­
sttmre, émit une notificatiOn dépositaire (C N 1642001TREATIES-1),
dans laquelletl eta1tmdtque que l'adhesion de la RFY a la conventiOn de
1948 pour la préventiOnet la répressiOndu cnme de génocideavatt «été
effectuéele 12 mars 2001» et que la convention «entrera[lt] en vtgueur
pour la RFY le 10 JUin 2001».
53 Le Gouvernement de la Croatie, le 18mat 2001, et la Présidencede
la Bosme-Herzegovme, le 27 décembre2001,firent objection au dépôtde

l'mstrument d'adhésiOnpar la RFY en mvoquant le fatt que cette der­
mère,en tant que l'un des Etats successeurs de l'ex-RFSY, étaitdéJàhée
par la conventiOn sur le génoctde Les deux Etats objectèrent égalementà
la réservede la RFY A cet égard, la Croatie affirma que cette réserve
etait «Incompatible avec l'objet et le but de la convention», la Bosme­
Herzégovmeaffirmant qu'elle avatt étéformulée «plusieurs annéesaprès
le 27 avnl 1992, date à laquelle la République fédéralede Yougoslavie
[était]devenue héepar l'mtégrahtédes dispositions de la conventiOn» Le
2 avnl 2002, le Gouvernement suédOismforma le Secretaire généralqu'tl
considerait la RFY comme l'un des Etats successeurs a la RFSY et, en
tant que tel, comme partie à la conventiOn à compter de la date d'entrée
en vigueur de cette dermère pour la RFSY et que, des lors, le Gouverne­
ment suédmsconsidérait que, la réservede la RFY «ayant étéformulée

trop tard, elle[était]entachéede nullité» (Trattésmulttlatéraux déposés

22 APPLICATIO FNRREVISIO(N JUDGMENT) 25

ber 1, 2000, when the Federal Repubhc of Yugos1avmwas accepted
as a new member State of the Umted Nations,

Now tt has been estabhshed that the Federal Repubhc of Yugo­
slavta has not succeeded on Apnl 27, 1992,or on any later date, to
treaty membershtp, nghts and obhgattons of the Socmhst Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslavm m the Convention on the PreventiOn and
Pumshment of the Cnme of Genoctde on the assumpt10n of con­

tmued membershtp m the Umted NatiOns and contmued state,
mternatwnal legal and pohttcal personahty of the Soctahst Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslavta,

THEREFORE 1,am submittmg on behalf of the Government of the
Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm this notificatiOn of accessiOnto the
Convention on the PreventiOn and Pumshment of the Cnme of
Genocide, m pursuance of Arttcle XI of the said ConventiOn and
with the followmg reservation on Article IX of the satd Convention
'The Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm does not constder Itself bound
by Article IX of the ConventiOn on the PreventiOn and Pumshment

of the Cnme of Genocide and, therefore, before any dispute to
which the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavm ISa party may be vahdly
submitted to the JUrtsdictwn of the International Court of Justice
under this Article, the specifie and exphctt consent of the FRY ts
reqmred m each case '"
On 15 March 2001, the Secretary-General, actmg m his capacity as
depositary, Issued a DepositaryotificatiOn (C N 1642001TREATIES-
1), mdicatmg that the accessiOnof the FRY to the 1948 ConventiOn on

the Prevention and Pumshment of the Cnme of Genocide "was effected
on 12 March 2001" and that the Convention would "enter mto force for
the FRY on 10 June 2001"
53 The Government of Croatm, on 18 May 2001, and the Presidency
of Bosma and Herzegovma, on 27 December 2001, objected to the
deposit of the mstrument of accessiOnby the FRY, on the basis that as
one of the successor States to the former SFRY, It was already bound
by the Genocide ConventiOn The two States also objected to the FRY's
reservation In this regard Croatia stated that It was "mcompatib1e with
the object and purposeof the Convention" whereas Bosma and Herzego­
vma stated that It was made severa! years after 27 Apn1 1992, "the day
on which the FRY became bound to the Genocide Convention m Its
entirety" On 2 Apnl 2002, the Government of Sweden mformed the Sec­
retary-General that It considered the FRY to be one of the successor
States to the SFRY "and, as such, a Party to the Convention from the
date of entermg mto force of the ConventiOn for the Soctahst Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslavm" Therefore, the Government of Sweden consid­
ered the FRY's reservation "as havmg been made too late and thus null
and v01d" (Multilateral Treaties deposited with the Secretary-General at

2226 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

auprès du Secrétaue général,http //untreaty un org) A ce Jour, Il n'y a
pas eu d'autres réacttons émanant d'Etats parttes à la convention sur le
génoctde

*

54 Afin de parachever cette présentation du contexte factuel de
l'affatre, laour estime également nécessatre de rappeler la procédure
ayant condmt au prononcé de l'arrêtdu Il JUillet 1996 amst que les pas­
sages de celm-ct pertments aux fins dela présente espèce
55 Le 20 mars 1993, le Gouvernement de la Bosme-Herzégovme a
déposéauprès du Greffe de la Cour une requêtemtroductlve d'mstance

contre la RFY dans le cadre d'un dtfférendconcernant des allégations de
vtolatwns de la conventiOn sur la prévention et la répressiOndu cnme de
génoctde La requêtemvoque comme base de compétence de la Cour
l'article IX de la convention sur le génoctde
56 Le 20 mars 1993, Immédtatement après le dépôt de sa requête,la
Bosme-Herzégovme présenta une demande en mdtcatwn de mesures
conservatOires en vertu de l'artt41edu Statut Le 1eravnl 1993,la You­

goslavte a présentédes observations écntes sur la demande de mesures
conservatoires de la Bosme-Herzégovme, dans lesquelles elle aàson tour
recommandé à la Cour d'mdiquer des mesures conservatOires

57 Par une ordonnance en date du 8 avnl 1993, la Cour, après avoir
entendu les Parttes, mdiqua certames mesures conservatotres à l'effet de

protéger les droits conférésar la convention sur le génocide Dans cette
ordonnance, la Cour, se référantà larésolution 777 (1992)du Consetl de
sécunté,à la résolutiOn 47/1 de l'Assemblée généraleet à la lettre du
conseiller Jundtque en date du29 septembre 1992, s'est notamment expn­
méecomme smt

« 18 Constdérant que, st la solution adoptée ne laisse pas de sus­
ctter des dtfficultésridiques, la Cour n'a pas à statuer defimtlve­
ment au stade actuel de la procédure sur la questiOn de sav01r st la
Yougoslavte est ou non membre de l'Orgamsatlon des NatiOns Umes
et, à ce titre, partte au Statut de la Cour,
19 Considérant que l'articl35 du Statut, après av01r dtsposéque

la Cour est ouverte aux parties au Statut, poursmt
«2 Les conditions auxquelles elle est ouverte aux autres Etats
sont, sous réserve des dispositions particulières des traités en
vigueur, régléespar le Consetl de sécunté,et, dans tous les cas,

sans qu'Il pmsse en résulter pour les parties aucune mégahté
devant la Cour»,
qu'en conséquence la Cour estime qu'une mstance peut êtrevalable­
ment mtrodmte par un Etat contre un autre Etat qm, sans êtrepartie
au Statut, est partie à une telle dtsposttlon parttcuhère d'un tratté en

vigueur,et ce mdépendamment des condittons régléespar le Conseil

23 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 26

http //untreaty un org) To date there has been no further reactton from
States parties to the Genoctde ConventiOn

*

54 The Court also constders that, m order to complete the contextual
background, tt ts necessary to recall the proceedmgs leadmg up to the
dehvery of the Judgment of Il July 1996,as weil as the passages m that
Judgment relevant to the present proceedmgs
55 On 20 March 1993, the Govemment of Bosma and Herzegovma
filed m the Regtstry of the Court an Apphcatwn mstttutmg proceedmgs
agamst the FRY m respect of a dtspute concermng alleged vtolattons of
the Convention on the PreventiOn and Pumshment of the Cnme of
Genoctde The Apphcatwn mvoked Article IX of the Genoctde Conven­
tiOnas the hasts of the JUnsdtctton of the Court
56 On 20 March 1993,tmmedtately after the fihng of tts Apphcatwn,
Bosma and Herzegovma submttted a request for the mdtcatton of provt­
swnal measures under Article 41 of the Statute On 1 Apnl 1993, Yugo­
slavta submttted wntten observations on Bosma and Herzegovma's
request for proviSional measures m whtch tt, m tum, recommended the
Court to order the apphcatwn of provtstonal measures to Bosma and

Herzegovma
57 By an Order dated 8 Apnl 1993, the Court mdtcated certam pro­
vtstonal measures wtth a vtew to theprotectiOn of nghts under the Geno­
ctde ConventiOn In thts Order the Court, referrmg to Secunty Counctl
resolution 777 (1992), General Assembly resolutiOn 47/l and the Legal
Counsel's letter of 29 September 1992, statedmter alta the followmg

"18 Whereas, whde the solution adopted ts not free from legal
dtfficulttes, the question whether or not Yugoslavta ts a Member of
the Umted Nattons and as such a party to the Statute of the Court ts
one whtch the Court does not need to determme defimttvely at the
present stage of the proceedmgs,
19 Whereas Article 35 of the Statute, after provtdmg that the
Court shall be open to the parties to the Statute, contmues
'2 The condtttons under whtch the Court shall be open to
other States shall, subject to the spectal provtstons contamed m
treattes m force, be latd down by the Secunty Counctl, but m no
case shall such condtttons place therties m a posttton of mequal­
tty before the Court',

whereas the Court therefore constders that proceedmgs may vahdly
be mstttuted by a State agamst a State whtch ts a party to such a
spectal provisiOnm a treaty m force, but ts not party to the Statute,
and mdependently of the condtttons latd down by the Secunty

2327 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

de sécuntédans sa résolutiOn9 (1946) (vmr Vapeur Wimbledon,
1923, CP J 1 sérte A no 1, p 6), que, de l'av1sde la Cour, une
clause comprom1sso1red'une conventiOn multilatérale, telle que l'ar­
ticle IX de la convention sur le génocide, mvoqué par la Bosme­
Herzégovmeen l'espèce,pourrait être considéré ertma Jactecomme

une dispositiOn particulière d'un tra1téen v1gueur, qu'en consé­
quence, s1la Bosme-Herzégovmeet la Yougoslavie sont toutes deux
parties à la conventiOn sur le génoc1de,les différends auxquels
s'applique l'article IX relèventen tout étatde caprtmaJacte de la
compétence ratwne personae de la Cour »(Appltcatwn de la conven­
twn pour la préventwn et la répresswndu crtme de génoctde(Bosme­
Herzégovme c Yougoslavte), mesures conservatotres, ordonnance du
8avnl 1993, C 1J Recuetl 1993, p 14)

La Cour poursmva1t en rappelant que «les deux Parties à [l']mstance
correspond[ ment] à des parties du terntmre de l'ex-Républiquefédérative
socialiste de Yougoslavie» (C 1 J Recuet/1993, p 15, par 21), laquelle
ava1ts1gnéla conventiOn sur le génoc1deet déposéson mstrument de rati­

ficatiOn sans l'assortir d'aucune réserve La Cour renvoyait également à
la déclaratiOndu 27avnl 1992adoptéeau nom de la RFY au moment de
sa proclamatiOn, à une note offic1elleadresséele mêmeJOUrpar la mis­
siOn permanente de la Yougoslavie auprès des NatiOns Umes au Secré­
taire général,ams1 qu'à une notification de successiOn transmise par la
Bosme-Herzégovmele29décembre1992au Secrétairegénéraldes Nat1ons
Umes, dépositaire de la conventiOn sur le génoc1deLa Cour en conclut

«Considérant que l'articleIX de la convention sur le génocide,à la­
quelle la Bosme-Herzégovmeet la Yougoslavie sont parties, semble
ams1, de l'av1s de la Cour, constituer une base sur laquelle la
compétencede la Cour pourrait êtrefondée,pour autant que l'objet
du différenda trait à «l'mterprétation, l'applicatiOn ou l'exécutiOn»
de la convention, y compns les différends«relat1fsà la responsabilité

d'un Etat en matière de génocideou de l'un quelconque des autres
actes énumérésa l'article III» de la convention » (C 1J Recuetl
1993, p 16, par 26)

58 Le 27 JUillet 1993, la Bosme-Herzégovme présenta une nouvelle
requêteen md1cat10n de mesures conservatOires Le 10 août 1993, la
Yougoslav1e déposa elle aussi une requête en md1cation de mesures
conservatoires et, les 10et 23 août 1993,déposaitdes observations écntes
sur la nouvelle demande de la Bosme-Herzégovme
59 Par ordonnance en date du 13 septembre 1993,la Cour réaffirma
les mesures qu'elle ava1t md1quéesdans son ordonnance du 8 avnl 1993
et déclara que celles-cl devalent être1mmédmtement et effectivement
m1sesen Œuvre Dans cette mêmeordonnance, la Cour confirma qu'elle
éta1tprtma Jacte compétente en l'affaire sur la base de l'article IX de la

conventiOn sur le génoc1de (Appltcatwn de la conventwn pour la préven-

24 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 27

Councd m 1ts resolutiOn 9 of 1946 (cf S S 'Wtmbledon', 1923,
PC 1 J, Senes A, No 1, p 6), whereas a comprom1ssory clause m
a multilateral conventiOn, such as Article IX of the Genocide Con­
vention rebed on by Bosma-Herzegovma m the present case, could,
m the v1ewof the Court, be regarded pnma fac1eas a spectal pro­
VISIOncontamed ma treaty m force, whereas accordmgly tf Bosma­
Herzegovma and Yugoslav1a are both parttes to the Genocide Con­
ventiOn, disputes to wh1chArticle IX apphes are m any event pnma
fac1ew1thm the JunsdictiOn ratwne personae of the Court " (Applt­
catwn of the Conventwn on the Preventwn and Pumshment of the

Cnme of Genoctde (Bosma and Herzegovma v Yugoslavta), ProVl­
swnal Measures, Order of 8 Apn/1993, 1 C J Reports 1993, p 14)

The Court further referred to the fact that "both Parties to thecase
correspond[ed] to parts of the terntory of the former Soctahst Federal
Repubhc of Yugoslav1a" (!C J Reports 1993, p 15, para 21), wh1ch
s1gnedthe Genocide Convention and depos1ted 1tsmstrument of ratifica­
tion w1thout reservatiOn The Court also referred to the DeclaratiOn of
27 Apnl 1992 adopted on behalf of the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta
at the hme of 1tsproclamation as weil asto the official Note of the same
date from the Permanent Mission of Yugoslavta to the Umted Nations,

addressed to the Secretary-General, and to the Notice of SuccessiOn
transm1tted by Bosma and Herzegovma on 29 December 1992 to the
Secretary-General of the Umted NatiOns, the deposltary of the Geno­
CideConventiOn The Court then concluded as follows

"Whereas Article IX of the Genocide ConventiOn, to wh1chboth
Bosma-Herzegovma and Yugoslavta are parties, thus appears to the
Court to afford abas1son wh1chthe JUnsdichon of the Court m1ght
be founded to the extent that the subJect-matter of the dispute
relates to 'the mterpretatwn, applicatiOn or fulfilment' of the Con­
ventiOn, mcludmg disputes 'relatmg to the responsibihty of a State
for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated m article III' of
the ConventiOn" (1 C J Reports 1993, p 16,para 26)

58 On 27 July1993, Bosma and Herzegovma subm1tted a new request
for the mdicatiOn ofprovlSlonal measures On 10 August 1993, Yugosla­
via also submltted a request for the mdicatiOn of provlSlonal measures,

and, on 10 and 23 August 1993, 1tfiled wntten observatiOns on Bosma
and Herzegovma's new request
59 By an Order dated 13 September 1993, the Court reaffirmed the
measures md1cated m 1ts Order of 8 Apnl 1993 and declared that those
measures should be Immediately and effectlvely 1mplemented In that
Order of 13 September 1993 the Court confirmed that Itbad pnma fac1e
JUnsdichon m the case on the bas1sof Article IX of the Genocide Con­
ventiOn (Appltcatwn of the Conventwn on the Preventwn and Pumshment

2428 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

twn et la répresswndu cnme de génocide (Bosme-Herzégovme c You­
goslavie), mesures conservatOires, ordonnance du 13 septembre 1993,
C 1 J Recueil 1993, p 338, par 25, p 342, par 36)
60 Le 15 avnl 1994, la Bosme-Herzégovme déposa son mémmre
Dans le délaipresent pour le dépôtde son contre-mémmre, la RFY, se
référantau paragraphe 1 de l'article 79 du Règlement, présenta des
exceptions prélimma1resportant, respectivement, sur la recevabilitéde la
requêteet sur la compétencede la Cour pour connaître de l'affaire
61 La Cour a rendu son arrêtsur les exceptiOns prélimma1resde la
RFY le IlJUillet1996 Dans les motifs de son arrêt,la Cour est parvenue
à la conclusiOnque, au moment du dépôtde la requête,les Part1esétalent
l'une et l'autreiéespar la conventiOn
62 Concernant la RFY, la Cour s'est ams1expnmée

«L'mstance mtrodmte devant la Cour oppose deux Etats dont le

terntoue est s1tuéà l'mténeur de l'ex-Républiquefédérativesocia­
liste de Yougoslavie Celle-ci a signéla convention sur le génoc1dele
Il décembre 1948 et a déposéson mstrument de ratificatiOn, sans
réserves,le 29 août 1950 Lors de la proclamatiOn de la République
fédérativede Yougoslavie, le 27 avnl 1992, une déclaratiOnformelle
a étéadoptéeen son nom, aux termes de laquelle

«La République fédérativede Yougoslav1e, assurant la conti­
nmtéde l'Etat et de la personnalitéJUridique et politique mterna­
tionale de laRépubliquefédérativesocialiste de Yougoslavie, res­
pectera stnctement tous les engagements que la République fédé­
rative socialiste de Yougoslavie a pnsà l'echelon mternatwnal »
L'mtent10nams1expnméepar la Yougoslavie de demeurer liéepar

les traitésmternatwnaux auxquels éta1tpartie l'ex-Yougoslavie a été
confirméedans une note officielledu27 avnl1992 adresséeau Secré­
taue généralpar la miSSionpermanente de la Yougoslavie auprès des
Nations Umes La Cour observe en outre qu'1ln'a pas étécontesté
que la Yougoslavie soitpartie à la conventiOn sur le génocide Ams1,
la Yougoslavie éta1tliéepar les dispositions de la convention à la
datedu dépôtde la requêteen la présenteaffaire, le 20 mars 1993 »
(Appllcatwn de la conventwn pour la préventwn et la répresswn du
cnme de génoc1de(Bosme-Herzégovme c Yougoslavie), exceptwns
préllmmmres, arrêt, C 1J Recuell/996 (Il), p 610, par 17)

Concernant la Bosme-Herzégovme,la Cour, se référantà la notifica­
tion de successiOndu 29 décembre1992ams1qu'à la notificatiOn en tant
que dépos1ta1redu Secrétairegénéralen date du 18mars 1993,a notéque
la Bosme-Herzégovme était devenue Membre de l'Orgamsatlon des

Natwns Umes le 22 mat 1992 et que, dès cette date, en vertu de l'ar­
ticle XI de la conventiOn sur le génoc1de,«la Bosme-Herzégovmepouvait

25 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 28

of the Cnme of Genoctde (Bosma and Herzegovma v Yugoslavta), Pro­
vtswnal Measures, Order of 13 September 1993, 1 C J Reports 1993,
p 338, para 25, p 342, para 36)
60 On 15 Apnl 1994 Bosma and Herzegovma filed Its Memonal
Withm the time-hmit fixed for the fihng of the Counter-Memonal, the
FRY, referrmg to Article 79, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, ratsed
prehmmary objectiOns concernmg, respectively, the admissibility of the
ApplicatiOn and the junsdictwn of the Court to entertam the case
61 The Court rendered Its Judgment on the prelimmary objectiOns
rmsed by the FRY on Il July 1996 In the reasonmg of the Judgment, the
Court came to the conclusiOn that both Parties were bound by the Con­

ventiOnwhen the Application was filed
62 With regard to the FRY, the Court stated the followmg

"The proceedmgs mstltuted before the Court are between two
States whose terntones are located withm the former Socmlist Fed­
eral Republic of Yugoslavm That Republic signed the Genocide
Convention on Il December 1948 and deposited Its mstrument of
ratification, Without reservation, on 29 August 1950 At the time of
the proclamatiOn of the Federal Republic ofYugoslavia, on 27 Apnl
1992, a formai declaration was adopted on Its behalf to the effect
that

'The Federal Republic of Yugoslavm, contmumg the State,
mternatwnal legal and political personality of the Socialist Fed­
eralRepublic ofYugoslavta, shall stnctly abide by ali the commit­
ments that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia assumed
mternationally '

This mtention thus expressed by Yugoslavta to remam bound by
the mternabonal treabes to which the former Yugoslavia was party
was confirmed m an officmlNote of 27 Apnl 1992from the Perma­
nentMissiOnof Yugos1avtato the Umted Nattons, addressed to the

Secretary-General The Court observes, furthermore, that It has not
been contested that Yugoslavm was party to the Genocide Conven­
tion Thus, Yugoslavta was bound by the provlSlons of the Conven­
tion on the date of the filing of the Application m the present case,
namely, on 20 March 1993" (Appltcatwn of the Conventwn on the
Preventwn and Pumshment of the Cnme of Genoctde (Bosma and
Herzegovma v Yugoslavw), Prehmmary Objectwns, Judgment,
1 C J Reports 1996 (II), p 610, para 17)

With regard to Bosma and Herzegovma, the Court, refernng to the
Notice of SuccessiOnof 29 December 1992 and the Secretary-General's
Depositary Notification of 18March 1993,noted that Bosma and Herze­
govina became a Member of the Umted NatiOns on 22 May 1992 and

from that date, by virtue of Article XI of the Genocide Convention,
"Bosma and Herzegovma could thus become a party to the ConventiOn"

2529 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

donc devemr partie à la convention» (CI J Recuerl 1996 (II), p 611,
par 19) La Cour a en outre relevéque
«la Bosme-Herzégovmepouvatt devenu partie à la conventiOn par
l'effetdu mécamsmede la successiOnd'Etats Du reste, le Secrétatre
généraldes NatiOns Umes a constdéréque tel avatt étéle cas, et la

Cour en a pns note dans son ordonnance du 8 avnl 1993 (Applzca­
twn de la conventwn pour la préventwn et la répresswn du cnme
de génoc1de,mesures conservatoires, CI J Recuell 1993, p 16,
par 25)» (CI J Recuel/1996 (Il}, p 611, par 20)
Se référantà son avts consultatif du 28 mat 1951afférentaux Réservesà
la conventwn pour la préventwn et la répresswndu cnme de génoc1de, elle

a égalementconstaté ce qut smt
««L'objet et le but de la conventiOn sur le génoctdetmphquent
chez l'Assembléegénéraleet chez les Etats qut l'ont adoptéel'mten­
tion d'y vou parttctper le plus grand nombre posstble d'Etats

L'excluston complète de la convention d'un ou de plusteurs Etats,
outre qu'elle restremdratt le cercle de son apphcatwn, seratt une
attemteà l'autontédes pnnctpes de morale et d'humamtéqut sont à
sa base» (CI J Recuer/1951, p 24 )»(CI J Recuer/1996 {II),
p 612, par 22)
La Cour a conclu en ces termes

«Que la Bosme-Herzégovmesmt devenue automatiquement partie
à la convention sur le génoctdeà la date de son accesston à l'mdé­
pendance le 6 mars 1992, ou qu'elle le smt devenue par l'effet -
rétroactifou non - de sa notificatiOnde successiOndu 29 décembre
1992,en tout étatde cause, elle y étattpartte à la date du dépôtde sa
requête,le 20mars 1993 »(CI J Recuer/1996 (II), p 612, par 23)

63 Dans le dtsposttif de son arrêt,la Cour, après avmr reJetéles
exceptions préhmmatressoulevéespar la RFY, a dtt qu'elle avatt compé­
tence «sur la base de l'arttcle IX de la conventiOn pour la préventiOnet la
répressiOndu cnme de génoctde,pour statuer sur le dtfférend»et que «la
requêtedéposéepar la Répubhque de Bosme-Herzégovmele 20 mars

1993 [étatt]recevable»

*

64 A la sutte de l'arrêtde 1996 sur les exceptions préhmmatres, la
RFY a déposéle 22JUillet1997un contre-mémoue dans lequel elle pré­
sentait des demandes reconventionnelles Par ordonnance en date du
17 décembre1997, la Cour a Jugéque ces demandes reconventionnelles
relevatent de la compétencede la Cour et étatentrecevables comme telles
La Bosme-Herzégovmeet la Yougoslavie ont déposérespectivement leur
réphque et leur duphque le 23 avnl 1998 et le 22 févner 1999 Par une

26 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 29

(/ C J Reports 1996 (II), p 611, para 19) The Court further observed
that

"Bosma and Herzegovma could become a party to the Conven­
tion through the mechamsm of State successiOn Moreover, the Sec­
retary-General of the Umted Nations constdered that thts bad been
the case, and the Court took note of thts m tts Order of 8 Apnl 1993
(Appilcatwn of the Conventwn on the Preventwn and Pumshment of
the Cnme of Genoctde, ProvlSlonal Measures, I C J Reports 1993,

p 16, para 25)" (I C J Reports 1996 (II), p 611, para 20)
Refernng to tts Advtsory Optmon of 28 May 1951 concernmg Reserva­
twns to the Conventwn on the Preventwn and Pumshment of the Cnme of
Genoctde, the Court hkewtse noted that

"'The object and purpose of the Genoctde ConventiOn tmply that
tt was thetention of the General Assembly and of the States whtch
adopted tt that as many States as posstble should partictpate The
complete exclusiOn from the ConventiOn of one or more States
would not only restnct the scope of tts apphcatwn, but would
detract from the authontyof the moral and humamtanan pnnctples
whtch are tts hasts (IC J Reports 1951, p 24 )" (/ C J Reports
1996 (II), p 612, para 22)

The Court concluded as follows

"Whether Bosma and Herzegovma automatically became party to
the Genoctde ConventiOn on the date of tts accessiOn to mdepen­
dence on 6 March 1992,or whether tt became a party as a result -
retroactive or not - of tts Notice of SuccessiOnof 29 December
1992,at ali events tt was a party to tt on the date of the fihng of tts
Apphcat10n on 20 March 1993" (I C J Reports 1996 (II), p 612,
para 23)

63 In the operative part of tts Judgment the Court, havmg rejected the
prehmmary objectiOns ratsed by the FRY, found that "on the hasts of
Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Pumshment of the
Cnme of Genoctde, tt has junsdtctton to adjudtcate upon the dtspute"
and that "the Apphcatwn filed by the Repubhc of Bosma and Herze­
govma on 20 March 1993 ts admtsstble"

*
64 Followmg the 1996 Judgment on the prehmmary objectiOns, the
FRY filed a Counter-Memonal on 22 July 1997, m whtch tt submttted
counter-clatms By an Order dated 17 December 1997, the Court found

that those counter-clatms came wtthm the junsdtctwn of the Court and
as such were admtsstble Bosma and Herzegovma and Yugoslavta filed
thetr Reply and Rejomder on 23 Apnl 1998 and 22 February 1999
respecttvely By a letter dated 20 Apnl 2001 and recetved m the Regtstry

2630 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

lettre datéedu 20 avnl2001 et reçue au Greffe le 23 avnl 2001,l'agent de
la RFY a mforméla Cour que son gouvernement entendatt retuer ses

demandes reconventiOnnelles La Bosme-Herzégovme n'ayant soulevé
aucune obJeCtiOnà cet égard,le présidentde la Cour, par ordonnance du
10septembre 2001,a pns acte du retrait par la RFY des demandes recon­
ventiOnnellesqu'elleavait présentéesdans son contre-memotre Le 4 mai
2001, la RFY a soumts à la Cour un document mtltulé«Initiative pré­
sentée à la Cour aux fins d'un réexamenex officw de sa compétence»

* *
65 La Cour exammera mamtenant la questwn de savou SIla RFY
s'appUiesur des faits entrant dans les prévlSlonsde l'article 61 du Statut
66 Comme cela a étérappeléplus haut (votr paragraphe 19), la RFY
affirme que les faits qut extstatent au moment du prononcé de l'arrêt

de 1996et sur la découvertedesquels se fonde sa demande en revlSionde
l'arrêten questwn étaientque «la RFY n'était pas partie au Statut et .
ne demeuratt pas héepar la convention sur le génocideen assurant la
contmmtéde la personnahté de l'ex-Yougoslavie» Elle soutient que ces
«fatts» ont été«révélés» par son admtsston à l'Orgamsatwn des Natwns
Umes le 1ernovembre 2000 amst que par la lettre du conseiller JUrtdtque
en date du 8 décembre2000
67 La Cour relevera tout d'abord que, aux termes du paragraphe 1de
l'article 61 du Statut, la reviston d'un arrêtne peut êtredemandéequ'«en
ratson de la découverte» d'un fatt qut, «avant le prononcé de l'arrêt»,
étattmconnu Tels sont les caractères que dmt revêtule fatt «nouveau»
vtséau paragraphe 2 du mêmearticle. Ces deux paragraphes font donc
réference à un falt préexistantau prononcé de l'arrêtet découvert ulté­
rieurement Un fait qm se prodmt plusteurs annéesaprès le prononcé

d'un arrêtn'est pas un fatt «nouveau» au sens de l'article 61, tl en
demeure amst quelles que sotent lesconséquences JUridiquesqu'un tel fait
peut avou
68 Dans la présenteespèce,l'admission de la RFY à l'Orgamsatwn
des Nattons Umes a eu heu le 1ernovembre 2000, bien apres l'arrêtde
1996 La Cour en conclut que cette admiSSionne sauratt êtreconsidérée
comme un falt nouveau, au sens de l'article 61, susceptible de fonder une
demande en revtsmn dudlt arrêt
69 Ausst bien, la RFY, dans le dernier état de son argumentation,
prétend-elleque son admissiOn à l'Orgamsatwn des Nattons Umes et la
lettre du conseillerJUridique du 8 décembre 2000 auraient simplement
«révélé» deux faits existant dès 1996,mats inconnus à l'époque,à savon
qu'elle n'étaitpas alors partie au Statut de la Cour et n'étaitpas héepar

la conventwn sur le génocide
Ce faisant, laRFY ne se prévaut cependant pas de fatts extstant en
1996 Elle fonde en réahtésa requêteen revtsion sur les conséquences
JUndtques qu'elleentend tuer de fatts posténeursà l'arrêtdont la revtswn
est demandée Ces conséquences, à les supposer étabhes,ne sauratent être

27 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 30

on 23 Apnl 2001, the Agent of the FRY mformed the Court that his
Government mtended to withdraw Its counter-claims No obJeCtiOn
havmg been rmsed by Bosma and Herzegovma m this regard, the
President of the Court, by his Order o10 September 2001, placed on the

record the withdrawal by the FRY of the counter-claims submltted
by It m Its Counter-Memonal On 4 May 2001, the FRY submitted to
the Court a document entitled "Imtiative to the Court to reconsider ex
officw JUnsdiction over Yugoslavm"

* *
65 The Court will now examme whether the FRY rehes on facts
which fall Withmthe terms of Article 61 of the Statute
66 As recalled above (see paragraph 19), the FRY clmms that the

facts which existedat the time of the 1996 Judgment and upon the dis­
covery of which Its request for revlSlon of that Judgment ISbased "are
that the FRY was nota party to the Statute, and that It dinot remam
bound by the Genocide Convention contmumg the personahty of the
former Yugoslavia" ltargues that these "facts" were "revealed" by Its
admiSSionto the Umted NatiOns on 1 November 2000 and by the Legal
Counsel's letter of 8 December 2000

67 The Court would begm by observmg that, under the terms of Ar­
ticle61,paragraph 1,of the Statute, an application for revision of a Judg­
ment may be made only when It IS"based upon the discovery" of sorne

fact which,"when the Judgment was given", was unknown These are the
charactenstics which the "new" fact referred to m paragraph 2 of that
Article must possess Thus both paragraphs refer to a fact existmg at the
time when the Judgment was given and discovered subsequently A fact
which occurs severa! years after a Judgment bas been g1venISnot a "new"
fact w1thmthe meanmg of Article 61, th1sremams the case urespectlve of
the legal consequences that such a fact may have
68 In the present case, the admiSSIOnof the FRY to the Umted
Nations occurred on 1 November 2000, weil after the1996 Judgment
The Court concludes accordmgly, that that admiSSioncannot be regarded
as a new fact w1thm the meanmg of Article 61 capable of foundmg a
request forrev1s10nof that Judgment
69 In the final versiOnof 1tsargument, the FRY daims that 1tsadm!s­

swn to the Umted Natwns and the Legal Counsel's letter of 8 December
2000 Slmply"revealed" two facts which bad ex1stedm 1996 but bad been
unknown at the time that 1twas not then a party to the Statute of the
Court and that 1twas not bound by the Genocide ConventiOn

In advancmg th1s argument, the FRY does not rely on facts that
ex1stedm 1996 In reahty, It bases 1tsApphcatwn for revlSlonon the legal
consequences wh1ch1tseeks to draw from facts subsequent to the Judg­
ment wh1ch It1saskmg to have rev1sed Those consequences, even sup-

2731 DEMANDE EN REVISION (ARRÊT)

regardéescomme des fatts au sens de l'article 61 L'argumentatiOn de la
RFY ne peut par smte êtreretenue

70 En outre la Cour relèveraque l'admtsswn de la RFY en tant que
membre de l'ONU a eu heu plus de quatre annéesaprès le prononcéde
l'arrêtdont elle solhctte la revtston Or, au moment où cet arrêta été
rendu, la situatiOn qm prévalaitétaitcelle créépar la résolutiOn4711de
l'AssembléegénéraleA cet égard,la Cour observera que les difficultés
concernant lestatut de la RFY, survenues entre l'adoptiOnde cette résolu­
tion et l'admtSSIOde la RFY à l'ONU le 1ernovembre 2000,découlaient
de la circonstance que, mêmest la prétentiOnde la Yougoslavie à assurer
la contmmté de la personnahté JUndtque mternatwnale de la RFSY
n'étattpas «généralementacceptée»(votr paragraphe 28 ct-dessus), les
conséquencespréctsesde cette sttuatlon (telles que la non-parttctpatton
aux travaux de l'Assembléegénéraleou du Consetl économtqueet soctal
et aux réumonsdes Etats parttes au pacte mternatlonal relatif aux drotts
ctvtls et pohttques, etc) étatentdéterrnméesau cas par cas

La résolutiOn4711ne portatt notamment pas attemte au droit de la
RFY d'esterdevant la Cour ou d'êtrepartte à un dtfférenddevant celle-ct
dans les condtttons fixéespar le Statut Elle ne touchatt pas davantage à
la sttuatlon de la RFY au regard de la convention sur le génoctde Pour
«mettr[e] fin à la sttuatton crééepar la résolutiOn47/1», la RFY devait
présenterune demande d'admtsston à I'Orgamsatlon des NatiOns Umes
comme l'avaient fatt les autres Répubhquescomposant la RFSY Tous
ces élémentsétaientconnus de la Cour et de la RFY au JOurdu prononcé
de l'arrêt Ce qm toutefots demeuratt mconnu en JUillet 1996 était la
réponse à la questiOn de savotr st et quand la RFY présenteratt une
demande d'admtsston à I'Orgamsatwn des NatiOns Umes et st et quand
cette demande serait accuetlhe, mettant amst un terme à la sttuatwn créée
par la résolutiOn47/1 de l'Assembléegénérale
71 La Cour tient en outre à souhgner que la résolutiOn55112de
l'Assembléegénérale en date du 1ernovembre 2000ne peut avotr rétroac­

tivement modtfiéla sttuattonsuz genens dans laquelle se trouvatt la RFY
vts-à-vts de I'Orgamsatwn des Nattons Umes pendant la pénode 1992-
2000,m sa sttuatwn à l'égarddu Statut de la Cour et de la conventton sur
le génoctde En outre, la lettre du consetller JUndtque de I'Orgamsatwn
des Nattons Umes en date du 8 décembre2000 ne peut avotr modifiéle
statut de la RFY à l'égarddes trattés
La Cour relèveégalementque, en tout état de cause, cette lettre ne
comportait pas, à l'mtentton de la RFY, d'mvttatwn à adhérer aux
conventions pertmentes, mats plutôt à «accomphr les formahtésconven­
tionnelles, s'tl y a heu,en quahtéd'Etat successeur»
72 Il découlede ce qm précèdequ'tl n'a pas étéétabhque la requête
de la RFY reposerait sur la découverte«d'un fatt» qut, «avant le pro­
noncéde l'arrêt,étaitmconnu de la Cour et de la Partie qm demande la
revtswn » La Cour en conclut que l'une des condtttons de recevabthté
d'une demande en revtston presentes au paragraphe 1 de l'arttcle 61 du

Statut n'est pas sattsfatte

28 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 31

posmg them to be estabhshed, cannot be regarded as facts wtthm the
meanmg of Article 61 The FRY'sargument cannot accordmgly be upheld
70 Furthermore the Court notes that the admtsswn of the FRY to
membershtp of the Umted NatiOns took place more than four years after

the Judgment whtch tt ts seekmg to have revtsed At the time when that
Judgment was gtven, the sttuatwn obtammg was that created by General
Assembly resolution 4711 In thts regard the Court observes that the dtf­
ficulhes whtch arose regardmg the FRY's status between the adoption of
that resolutiOn and tts admtsston to the Umted NatiOns on 1 November
2000 resulted from the fact that, although the FRY's clatm to contmue
the mternatwnal legal personahty of the Former Yugoslavta was not
"generally accepted" (see paragraph 28 above), the prectse consequences
of thts sttuatwn were determmed on a case-by-case hasts (for example,
non-parttctpahon m the work of the General Assembly and ECOSOC
and m the meetmgs of States parties to the InternatiOnal Covenant on
CIVlland Pohtical Rtghts, etc )
Resolution 47/1 dtd not mter alta affect the FRY's nght to appear

before the Court or to be a party to a dtspute before the Court under the
conditions latd down by the Statute Nor dtd tt affect the posttton of the
FRY m relatiOn to the Genoctde Convention To "termmate the sttua­
tlon created by resolutiOn 47/1", the FRY had to submtt a request for
admtsswn to the Umted Nattons as had been done by the other Repub­
hcs composmg the SFRY Ali these elements were known to the Court
and to the FRY at the hme when the Judgment was gtven Nevertheless,
what remamed unknown m July 1996 was tf and when the FRY would
apply for membershtp m the Umted Nattons and tf and when that appli­
cation would be accepted, thus termmatmg the situation created by Gen­
eral Assembly resolution 47/1

71 The Court wtshes to emphastze that General Assembly resolutiOn
55/12 of 1 November 2000 cannot have changed retroactively the su1
genens posttton whtch the FRY found ttself m vts-à-vts the Umted

NatiOns over the penod 1992 to 2000, or tts posthon m relation to the
Statute of the Court and the Genoctde ConventiOn Furthermore, the
letterof the Legal Counsel of the Umted Nattons dated 8 December
2000, cannot have affected the FRY's posttion m relation to treahes

The Court also observes that, m any event, the satd letter dtd not con­
tam an mvttatwn to the FRY to accede to the relevant conventiOns, but
rather to "undertake treaty actions, as appropnate, as a successor
State"
72 lt follows from the foregomg that tt has not been estabhshed that
the request of the FRY ts based upon the dtscovery of "sorne fact" whtch
was "when the JUdgment was giVen,unknown to the Court and also to
the party clatmmg revlSlon" The Court therefore concludes that one of
the conditions for the admtsstbthty of an apphcation for reviSIOnpre­

scnbed by paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the Statute has not been satisfied

2832 DEMANDE ENREVISIO(N ARRÊT)

73 L'article 61 du Statut énonced'autres conditiOns que dmt remphr
une demande en revisiOnd'un arrêtpour êtrerecevable La Cour rappelle

cependant que, «dès lors qu'Il est étabh que la demande en revtston ne
rempht pas l'une desconditwns de recevabilité prévues,la Cour n'a pas a
aller plus lmn et se demander stles autres sont satisfait(Demande en
revzswn et en mterprétatwn de t'arrêtdu 24 févner 1982 dans l'affmre du
Plateau contmental (Tumste/Jamahmya arabe hbyenne) (Tumsze c Jama­
hzrzya arabe lzbyenne), arrêt,C 1 J Recue!l 1985,p. 207, par 29) En
l'espèce,la Cour a conclu qu'aucun fmt entrant dans les prévisions de
l'article 61 du Statut n'avatt étédécouvertdepms 1996 Pomt n'est donc
besom pour elle de s'mterroger sur la questwn de savmr st les autres
condlttons de recevabthtéde la requêtede la Yougoslavie telles qu'elles
découlentde l'article 61 du Statut sont remplies

74 La requêteen revision de la RFY dmt partant êtrereJetée

* * *
75 Par ces motifs,

LACouR,

Par dix voix contre trms,
Du que la requêteen revtsion de l'arrêtrendu par la Cour le Il Jmllet
1996, déposéepar la République fédéralede Yougoslavte en vertu de
l'article 61 du Statut de la Cour, est trrecevable

POUR M Guillaume, pres1dentM Sh1,v1ce-prestdentMM RanJeva,Herc­
zegh, Koroma, Parra-Aranguren, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby,
juges,M Mah10u, juge ad hoc,
CONTRE MM Vereshchetm,Rezek, ;uges, M DrmrtnJevré ;,ge ad hoc

Falt en françms et en anglats, le texte françats faisant fat, au Palats de
la Paix, à La Haye, le trots févrierdeux mtlle trms, en trois exemplaires,
dont l'un restera déposéaux archives de la Cour et les autres seront
transmis respectivement au Gouvernement de la Répubhque fédéralede
Yougoslavie et au Gouvernement de la Bosme-Herzégovme

Le président,

(Szgné) Gtlbert GUILLAUME

Le greffier,
(Szgné) Philippe COUVREUR

M leJuge KoROMA JOmt à l'arrêtl'exposéde son opimon md!Vlduelle,

29 APPLICATIO FORREVISION (JUDGMENT) 32

73 Article 61 of the Statute lays down further reqmrements wh1ch an
application for revJSJonof a Judgment must satisfy m order to be admis­
Sible However, the Court recalls that "once It IS established that the
request for revisiona1lsto meet one of the conditiOns for admissibility,
the Court 1snot reqmred to go further and mvestigate whether the other
conditiOns are fulfilled(Appbcatwn for Rev1swn and Interpretatwn of

the Judgment of24 February 1982 m the Case concernmg the Contmental
Shelf (TumsiaiLJbyan Arab Jamahmya) (Tumsw v Llbyan Arab Jama­
hmya), Judgment, 1 C J Reports 1985, p 207, para 29) In the present
case, the Court has concluded that no facts w1thm the meanmg of
Article 61 of the Statute have been d1scovered smce 1996 The Court

therefore does not need to address the Issue of whether the other reqmre­
ments of Article 61 of the Statute for the admJssJbJlityof the FRY's Appli­
cation have been satisfied
74 The FRY's ApplicatiOn for revJSJonmust accordmgly be reJected

* * *
75 For these reasons,

THECouRT,

By ten votes to three,
Fmds that the ApplicatiOn subm1tted by the Federal Repubhc of

Yugoslav1a for revJSJon,under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court, of
the Judgment giVenby the Court on 11 July 1996, ISmadmJSsJb1e
IN FAVOUR PrestdentGmllaume, Vzce-PreszdenShi, JudgesRanJeva,Herc­
zegh, Koroma, Parra-Aranguren, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby,
Judge ad hoc Mah10u,

AGAINST Judges Vereshchetm,Rezek, Judge ad hoc Dimitnjevié

Done m French and m Enghsh, the French text bemg authontative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this th1rd day of February, two thousand
and three, m three copies, oneof wh1ch will be placed m the archives of
the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of the Federal

Republic ofYugoslavJa and the Government ofBosma and Herzegovma,
respectively

(S1gned) Gilbert GUILLAUME,

President
(S1gned) Philippe COUVREUR,

Reg1strar

Judge KoROMAappends a separate opm10n to the Judgment of the

2933 DEMANDE ENREVISIO(NARRÊT)

M le Juge VERESHCHETJIO Nint à l'arrêtl'exposéde son opiniOn diSSI­
dente, M leJuge REZEKJOintune déclaratiOnà l'arrêt,M leJuad hoc
DIMITRIJEVJ Cintà l'arrêtl'exposéde son opiniOn dissidente, M leJUge
ad hocMAHIOU JOintà l'arrêtl'exposéde son opiniOn Ind1v1duelle

(Paraphé) G G

(Paraphé) Ph C

30 APPLICATION FOR REVISION (JUDGMENT) 33

Court, Judge VERESHCHETIN appends a dtssentmg opm10n to the Judg­

ment of the Court, Judge REZEK appends a declaratiOn to the Judgment
of the Court, Judge ad hocDIMITRIJEVIC appends a dtssentmg optmon to
the Judgment of the Court, Judge ad hoc MAHIOU appends a separate
optmon to the Judgment of the Court

(InrttalledGG
(Inrtza/led) Ph C

30

Document file FR
Document Long Title

Judgment of 3 February 2003

Links