InternationalCourtofJustice
CASECONCERNING APPLICATIONOFTHECONVENTION ON
THEPREVENTIONANDPUNISHMENT OFTHECRIME OF
GENOCJ.DE
(BOSNIAANDHERZEGOVINA vYUGOSLAVIA)
INITIATIVE
TOTHECOURTTORECONSIDEREX OFlFICIO
JURISDICTIONOVERYUGOSLA VIA
4 May2001A. SHORTSUMMARYOF THE RELIEFSOUGHT
AND OF THE GROUNDS FORRELIEF ...............................
B. BACKGROUNDANDSEQUENCE
OF THE RELEVANTFACTS ..............................................
The cessationof the SFRY,and coursesof actiontaken
by successorStatesin orderto acquireor confm statehood .............
International responsesto the FRY'Sclaimto continuit.................
Membershipduespaidto the United Nations ..............................
Theissue ofcontinuityandthe membershipof the FRYin treaties ...14
The issuesof continuity andof thestandingof the FRY
in theUnited Nationsand in internationaltreaties,
as they havearisenbeforethis Court...............................7.......
Continuedlackof clarityand continuedlack
of conclusivefactsegardingthe statusof theFRY ........................
i Conclusiveclarification ofthe standing ofFRYe
in theUnited Nations anin international trea.........................
4
C. ARTICLE IXOFTHE GENOCIDECONVENTIONWAS
THE ONLY POSSIBLEGROUNDFOR JURlSDlCTlON
OVERTHE FRY -AND NEWFACTS HAVEBROUGHT
EVIDENCETO THE EFFECTTHAT THIS BASIS
HASNOT EXISTED ...........................................1.............
C.1New facts have put inta different contextthe issue
ofjurisdiction under ArtiIXeof the Genocide Convention.........1.
C.2Absence of alternativebases ofjurisdiction
over thFRY rationaepersonae..................................2.............
The FRY has not become a parîyto the Statute
on ground of Article 93(2)of the UN Charte.................3....
Jurisdiction over tFRY couldnot havebeen
establishedon ground of Article 35 (2)of the Stat.........3...
Even under a most extensivereading of Article 35(2),
consideringthe facts of this case,jurisdiction over
the FRYcannot be establishedon ground of
"special provisions containedin treaties in f.............3....
C.3Before newfacts emerged,a genuine dilemma
existedregarding the standingof tFRY ..................................
11.D . ADMlSSlBlLlTY OFTHIS INITIATIVE ON GROUND
OFTHE PRINCIPLETHATTHE ISSUEOF
JURlSDlCTlON REMAINSREVIEWABLEAT
ANY MOMENTDURING THE PROCEEDINGS ............50........
E. CONCLUSION .........................................5..........
....
LISTOFANNEXES .........................................57.........
................... A. ShortSummaryof the ReliefSoughtand of the
Groundsfor Relief
1. In its Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case Concerning the
Avplication of the Convention on the Prevention andPunishment of the
Crime of Genocide, dealing with preliminary objections,the Court found
that it had jurisdiction rationaepersonae over Yugoslavia on ground of
ArticleIX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide. This ruling was explained in paragraph 17 of the
Judgment. Paragraph 41 Statesthat the Court was unable to uphold any
additionalbasis ofjurisdiction other than the one providedby ArIXclof
the saidConvention.
In this Submission the Govenunent of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (hereinafter: "theFRY") argues that this honored Court did not
have and doesnot havejurisdictionover Yugoslaviainthe Case Concerning
the Applicationof the Conventionon the Preventionand Punishment ofthe
Crimeof Genocide (hereinafter:Bosnia-Herzegovinav. Yugoslavia").
2. The FRY shall argue that this submission is admissible on the
followingground:
the issue of jurisdiction remains reviewable ex oficio
throughoutthe wholeproceedings.
3. The FRY shall argue that there are three clear and conclusive
reasons which lead to the conclusion that this honored Court has no
jurisdiction over theFRYin thepresent case:
1a) The FRY was not a Member of the United Nations on 20
March 1993 when the Applicationof the Republic of Bosnia
and Herzegovina was filed, or at any later moment up to the
Judgmentof 11July 1996was rendered (nor was it a Member
thereafier,until 1November2000);
b) The FRY was nota State party to the Statute of this Court
on 20 March 1993,or at any later date until the Judgment of
11 July 1996 was rendered (nor was it a Member thereafter,
until 1 November 2000). Also, the FRY never submitted a
declaration in pursuance to Article 35 of the Statute and in
accordancewith the Resolutionof the Secwity Council of 15
October 1946, which declaration could have represented a
basis for jurisdiction over thFRY as a non-party to the
Statute.
c) The FRY was not a contractingpartyto the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(hereinafter:"the Genocide Convention")on either 20 March
1993, or at any later moment up to the rendering of the
Judgmentof 11JuIy 1996.(Norhasit been a Contracting State
thereafter, up to this date.) Accordingto ArticXI of the
Genocide Convention, it is only open to Members of the
United Nations, or to non-Member States to which an
invitationto sign or accedehas been addressed by the General
Assembly.The FRY was nota Member of the United Nations
until 1 November 2000, and itnever received an invitation
2fromthe GeneralAssemblyto signor accede.Furthermore,the
FRY never accepted ArticlIX of the Genocide Convention.
(The FRY did send a notification of accessio8 March
2001,whichhas not yetbecomeeffectiv-andwhichmakes a
reservationtoArticleK.) B. Background andSequence of the Relevant
Facts
Thecessationof the SFRY, andcoursesof actiontakenby
successorStates in orderto acquireorconfirmstatehood
4. During 1992 the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(hereinafter: SFRY) ceased to exist. Former republics of the SFRY took
differentcoursesof action endeavoringto acquireor codirm statehood.The
former Governmentof the FRY insisted on continuityand asserted that it
continued the statehood and personality of the SFRY. Before 27 October
2000, the FRY did not seek admissionto the United Nations, and did not
give notificationsof accessionto treaties,therdid it give notifications of
succession to the treaties ratified by the SFRY (as other successor States
did).The FRY asserted instead, thatit was a Memberof the UnitedNations
automatically(continuingthemembershipof the SFRY), and suggestedthat
it alsocontinued treatymembershipof the SFRYautomatically.The former
Government of the FRY stressed repeatedly that thFRY (consisting of
Serbiaand Montenegro)continuedthe statehoodof the SFRY from which
otherrepublicshad seceded.
5. This was f~st stated in a ~eclaration' sent to the General
Assemblyof the UnitedNations.This Declarationwas adopted on27 April
1992 at a joint session of the Assembly of the SFRY: the National 4 -
1See the text of the Declaration in Annex 1.
2
At that time, it was contested whether the SFRY and its National Assembly still
existed.
4 Assemblyof the Republicof Serbia, and the Assembly of Montenegro. In
the text it wasindicatedthat this was a Declarationof "the representatives
of the peopleof the Republicof Serbiaand the Republicof Montenegro" -
.- at the end of the text, "the participantsof thejoint session" were identified
as signatories. The opening sentence of this Declaration stresses that the
citizensof Serbia and Montenegro expressedtheir common will 'Io stay in
the common state of Yugoslavia". Theunderlying political idea which
conditioned the opinions expressed in the Declaration was clearly the
perceptionthat Yugoslavia continuedto exist, that the FRY was the same
State asthe SFRY,andcontinued the identityof the SFRY.
The purpose of the Declaration was to state the views of the
participantson policy objectives.As stressed in the introductory part of the
Declaration:
"Remainingstrictlycommitted tothepeacejùl resolution of the
Yugoslav crisis, wish to state in this Declaration their views on the
basic, immediateand lasting objectivesof thepolicy of their common
state, and itsrelationswith theformer YugoslavRepublics. "
The frst "view" statedwas the one which was cited and relied upon
by the Courtin itsJudgmentof 11July 1996:
"The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, continuing the State,
internationallegal andpolitical personality of the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia,shall strictly abide by al1the commitments
that theSFR of Yugoslaviaassumedintemationally ".
TheDeclarationwasbroughttothe attentionof the United Nationsby
a Note. The sender was identified as "PermanentMission of the SocialistFederal Republic of Yugoslavia (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)". The
Notestressesthatunder thenewlypromulgatedConstitution
"[o]nthe basisof thecontinuingpersonalityof Yugoslaviaand
the legitimatedecisionsbySerbiaand Montenegroto continueto live
together in Yugoslavia,the SocialistFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia
istransformedinto theFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia,consistingof
theRepublicof SerbiaandtheRepublicofMontenegro."
This Note considerstheFRY to be a foundingMember of the United
~ations.
The postulateof continuitywas consistentlymaintainedandreiterated
by the former Governent of the FRY.
6.Otherformer republicsof the SFRY adopteda different approach,
seeking admission to the United Nations and to other international
organizationsas new States.The approach taken by Bosnia-Herzegovina,
andby otherformerrepublicswiththeexceptionof Serbiaand Montenegro,
resulted in their UN membership.Bosnia-Herzegovinawas admitted to the
UnitedNations asa new Memberon 22May 1992.~
At the sametirne, these former republics- and specificallyBosnia-
Herzegovina - contested the assertion that the FRY continued the
Note dated27 April1992 fromthePermanentMissionof Yugoslaviato theUnited
NationsaddressedtotheSecretary-Genel,NDoc. Al461915(Annex2).
4 SecurityCouncil resolution755 (1992) and GeneralAssembly resolution46/237
(Annex3).membership of the SFRY in the United Nations and in other international
organizations, and contested that theFRY sustained the international
standing, rïghts and obligations of the SFRY on the assumption of
continuiîy.
To cite an example,whenthe standingofthe FRYbecame an issuein
the GeneralAssemblyof the UnitedNations, in the debate which preceded
GeneralAssemblyresolution 4711 (1992),Mr. Sa~irbej,the Representative
of Bosnia-Herzegovina stressed:
"[tlhe fonner Socialist FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia has
ceased to exist. Serbia and Montenegroare not legally entitled to
succeed to theposition of thefonner Socialist Federal Republicof
Yugoslavia.Thisis applicableto thisbodyas well as to othersimilar
internationalorganizations.
The =Y's claim to continuity was consistently denied by other
successor States of the former SFRY. To citeust one more example, on
28 October 1996, the Permanent Representatives of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia wrote a letter to the Secretary-General,
in which they once again challenged the concept of continuity and
automatic succession of the FRY, and contested that the FRY could
become a Member of the United Nations otherwise but by seeking
admission as other successor States did. After refemng to Security
Council resolution 77711992 of 19 September 1992, the Permanent
Representativesassertedthat:
UNDoc.AI47PV.7, atp.156(Annex4).
7 "Al1 States that have emerged from the dissolution of the
fonner Socialist FederaE Republicof Yugoslavia,which has ceasedto
exist are equal successorStates. ne FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro) also has to follow the procedure for
admission of new MemberStates to the UnitedNations which would
enable the Organization to make its judgment on whether the
conditions set out in Article 4 of the Charterof the UnitedNations
are met.
Internationalresponsesto theFRY'S claim to continuity
7. The clairn of UN membership on the assumption of continuity
advanced by Yugoslavia was met by a mixed response. On 19 September
1992, the Security Council adopted its resolution 777, in which it was
stated:
"Considering that the State fonnerly known as the Socialist
Federal Republicof Yugoslaviahasceasedto exist,
Recalling in particular its resolution 757(1992) which notes
that 'the claim by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro)to continueautornaticallythe membershipof thefonner
Socialist Federal Republicof Yugoslaviain the United Nationshas
not been generallyaccepted',
--- -- - - -- - -
UNDoc. A/51/56 -4SI19961885 (Annex5).
8 1.Considers that the Federal Republicof Yugoslavia (Serbia
and Montenegro) cannot continue automatically the membership of
the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United
Nations; and therefore recommendsto the General Assembly that it
decide that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro) should applyfor membershipin the UnitedNations and
that it shall notparticipate inthe workof the GeneralAssembly;
2. Decides to consider the matter again before the end of the
mainpart of the foriy-seventh sessionof the GeneralAssembly. "7
Security Council resolution 777 (1992) is obviously an argument
against continuity, but not without some vagueness. ( It recalls that
Yugoslavia's continuityclaim "has not generally been accepter, and
decidesthat the matterwillbe consideredagain.)
Resolution 47/1 (1992) of the General Assembly of 22 September
1992 statesthat the GeneralAssembly:
"Considers that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia
and Montenegro) cannot continue automaticallythe membership of
the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United
Nations; and therefore decides that the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia(Serbiaand Montenegro)should applyfor membership in
the UnitedNations and that it shall notparticipate in the work of the
GeneralAssembly;
7Seethe fulltext in Ann6. Takes noteof the intentionof theSecuri~ Councilto consider
the matteragain beforethe endof themainpart of theforty-seventh
sessionofthe Genefa1Assernbly"'
This resolution representsagaina strongargumentagainstcontinuity.
At the same time, however, not consistent with the logic of the basic
positiontaken (thFRY will only become a Memberof the United Nations
after it applies and gets admitted), the consequence whichis spelled out
("shallnot participate the work of the GeneralAssembly")is limitecl;it is
much more narrow than what would follow from the elementary fact that
the FRY is simply not yet a Member of the United Nations. Some further
uncertaïntyis createdby taking noteof the intentionof the SecurityCouncil
to reconsiderthematter.
8.The uncertaintiesand dilemmasbecame evenmore pronouncedin
the light of further developments.O29 April1993 the General Assembly
adoptedresolution47f229in whichthe Assemblydecided that "theFederal
Republicof Yugoslavia(SerbiaandMontenegro)shallnotparticipate inthe
workof the Economicand Social ~ouncil"~.This measure does not make
much sense on the assumption that the FRY never was a Member of the
United Nations; it looks more like the suspension of certain rights of a
Member. (If the FRY were not a Member of the United Nations, it could
ipsofacto notparticipatein any oftheUN organs.)
Some other measures and decisions gave (at least arguably) even
some direct support to the contentions of theFRY - and added to the
*SeethefulltextinAnnex7
SeeAnnex8.intricacyof the matter.In a letter of the Under-Secretary-Generaland Legal
Counsel of the United Nations to the Permanent Representatives to the
United Nations of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, it was
stated in
connectionwith GeneralAssemblyresolution4711that:
"On the other hand, the resolution neither terminates nor
suspends Yugoslavia's membership in the Organization.
Consequently the seat and nameplate rernain as before, but in
Assembly bodies representatives of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cannot sit behind the sign
'Yugoslavia'. ~i~oslavmissionsat UnitedNations Headquarters and
ofices may continue to jùnction and may receive and circulate
documents,At Headquarters, the Secretariat willcontinue to fly the
jlag of the old Yugoslavia as it is the lastjlag of Yugoslavia used by
the Secretariat."'O (This letter is reproduced in more detail in this
Submission in paragraph 15, presenting portions as they were cited
bythe Courtin its Orderof 8April 1993.)
Furthennore, even after the adoption of Security Council resolution
777 and GeneralAssemblyresolution4711(1992),the Secretâry-Generalas
depositary of multilateraltreaties, listedYugoslaviawithout anyfootnotes
or explanations." One could possibly explain the reference to Yugoslavia
in two ways - neitherwhich is really satisfactory.This could be a reference
'OUNDoc.Al47148A 5n,nex.Seethefulltextof this letterin Annex9.
" See e.g. the annualreport frothe yearin whichthe Judgmentwas rendered,in
"Multilateral reatiesDepositedwiththeSecretary-General, Stas at31 December
1996",atp. 3, UNDoc. ST/LEG/SER.E/lS (Annex10).
11to the former SFRY, but this interpretation would be most difficult to
reconcile with Security Council resolution 777 of 19 September 1992 in
which it was clearly stated that the SFRY ceased to exist. In the
understanding of the FRY, the designation "Yugoslavia" had a different
meaning, it was a reference to the FRY - but this understanding also
encounters difficulties, sincethe GeneralAssemblyresolution 47/1 referred
to above, States that 'me Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro)cannot continue automaticallythe membership of the former
SocialistFederal Republicof Yugoslaviain theUnitedNations".
What added to the confusion (and offered added support to the
position taken by the FRY) was the fact that the list of conventions
deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in which
there was a reference to "Yugoslavia" as a Party, included not only
conventions regarding which treaty action was taken by the SFRY, but
also conventions regarding which treaty action was taken after April
1992by the FRY.~~
The complex and unresolved nature of the whole matter prompted
initiativesto seekn advisory opinionfrom the Court, but no such request
was ever submitted.13
l2See Annex 11 - "List of Conventionsdeposited with the Secretary-Generalof the
United Nations to which Yugoslavia is a signatory or participant", athows
those treatyactions which wereidentifiedby the Secretary-Generalas treaty actionsof
"Yugoslavia",and which were undertakenafterSFRY was dissolved and after the * _
FRY wasforrned.
l3For exarnple,duringthe meetingof theGeneralAssemblyof 22 September Mr.2,
Nyaky~suggestedonbehalfofthe UnitedRepublicofTanzaniato refer the matterof the
standingof theRY to the International Courtof Justaneadvisory opinion. See
UN Doc.A/47/PV.7,at p. 177(Annex12). Membershipduespaidto theUnited Nations
9. Another indication supporting the FRY'S claim to continued
membership (and creating dilemmas) could be found in the circumstance
- thatmembershipdues wererequestedby the UnitedNations, and paidto the
United Nations by the FRY. On 22 December 1997, for example, the
General Assemblyadopted resolution521215on "Scaleof assessments for
the apportionmentof the expenses of the United Nations". This resolution
startswiththe followingintroduction:
"Reconnizing theobligationofMemberStatesunderArticle 17
of the Charter of the United Nations to bear the expenses of the
Organizationas apportionedby theGeneralAssembly, "
"Yugoslavia" was on the list of Member States among which
apportionment was made. The contributions expected fiom Yugoslavia
were: 0.060 for 1998, 0.034 for 1999, and 0.026 for 2000.14The only
practically possible addressee of this duty of paying membership
contributionsfor 1998-2000 wasthe FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia.
Furthemore, specificrequests were sent to the representatives of the
FRY for paymentof membershipdues,'' such dues were indeed paid by the
FRY, and receipt vouchers were issuedconfirming payment made by the
Govemmentof theFRY.'~
14See General Assembly resolution52/21- the text of this resolution is prasented
Annex 13.
l5See letters of the UN Secretary-Generalrequesting membershipdues in 1994, 1995,
1996,1997, and1998(Annex14).
l6 See, for example the receipt voucher confirming the payment made by the
GovernmentoftheFRYin theamountof US $588 476 - valuedate 16September 1998
(Annex15).
13 Theissueofcontinuityandthe membershipofthe FRY in
treaties
10.Controversiesand dilemmaswere extendedto treaty membership
of theFRY as well after Apri1992.Bosnia-Herzegovina(together with
Croatia and Slovenia)continuously argued that theFRY could not be
regarded as a partyto treaties because tFRY could not automatically
continue the legal personality of the SFRY, and becausFRYhe had not
fonnally succeededtothe treaties.This logicextendstoreaties to which
the SFRYwas a party,andto whichto FRY didnot succeedor accedeby a
proper notification. The argument was raisin particular in connection
with humanrights treaties.
11.To give an illustrationofthe argument,in itsAide Mémoireof 14
January 1994, the Permanent Mission of Croatiato the United Nations
stressed:
"Sincethesu-called "FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia"(Serbia
and Montenegro) has not notified the Secretary General of its
successiontu the InternationalConventionon theEliminationof al1
Fonns of RacialDiscriminationas oneof the successorStatesof the
fumer SFRY,itcannotbe consideredasoneof theparties tothe said
convention. Therefore,asa non-pa- the said delegation has no
righttuparticipateat thefifieenth meetingof theState Parties tu the
International Conventioon the Eliminationof Al1Foms of Racial
Discrimination.17
l7UN Doc.CERDISPl51,atp. 3 (Ann16).
14 12.As a result of such initiatives and actionFRYthwas bmed
from attending meetings of States parties to treaties. This pattern can be
demonstratedon many examples.During the 18" Meeting of States parties
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 16 March
1994, according to the minutes of the MeetingMr. Sa~irbej moved on
behalf oBosnia-Herzegovinaandproposed "[t]hatthe Stateparties should
decide that the FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia(Serbia and Montenegro)
should notarticipateinthe workof theMeetingof theStatesparfies to the
Covenant."'*
This proposal was supported by Mr. Türk, the representative of
Slovenia,who arguedthat:
"[tlhe Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro)continuedto asserttheautomaticcontinuiîyof thelegal
personalityof thefomer SocialistFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia, a
Statethatadceasedto exist.Thisassertionhad been disputedby the
other successor Statesand by othermembers of the international
community. Under the circumstances, the Federal Republic of
Yugoslaviawas aîtempting to tak advantage of the international
treaties and concems of the international communityfor human
rightsto buttressits assertionof automaticcontinuiîyof thefomer
SocialistFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia.Slovenia believedthatsuch
an assertionshouldbe rejected,andfor that reasonhe wouldsupport
theproposa1ofBosnia andHerzego~ina."'~
l8UN Doc.CCPR/SP/SR. a18.3,para2.(Annex17).
l9Ibidematp.3para.3.
15 Mr. MateSie,the representativeof Croatiaaddedthat:
"If the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro)wishedto beconsideredapartyto the Covenant,it must
nohfy the Secretary-General, in his capacity as depositary of
internationaltreaties,of its successionas oneof the successor States
of theformer SocialistFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia. Currently it
was not a party thereto,and thus had no rightto participate in the
Meeting. "'O
After thesearguments,Bosnia-Herzegovina'sproposal to exclude the
FRY from the Meeting was adopted by 51 votes for, 1 against and 20
ab~tentions.~'
13.This sequenceof argumentsandeventswasrepeated on a number
of occasions. During the 19" Meeting of the States Parties to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Mr. MiiiC, the
representative of Bosnia-Herzegovina proposed that "the State Parties
should decide that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro)shouldnotparticipatein the workof the meeting of the States
Parties to the ~ovenant"'~. This proposa1 was endorsed and Mer
explainedbythe representativeof Croatia (Mr. MateGe)who statedthat the
FRY "[hjad not notijîed the Secretary-General,in his capacity as the -
. .
20Ibidem,atp.6,para.21.
21Ibidem,atp.7,para.23.
22
UN Doc. CCPRISPISR. 19(9December 1994),atp.3 (Annex18).
16 depositary of international treaties,of its accession to the Covenant. That
State therefore,shouldnot be allowed toparticipate in the meetings of State
parties.JJ23The motion of Bosnia-Herzegovina was adopted, and the FRY
... was barred fiom parti~ipation.~~ Consistent with denial of membership, the
FRY informed the HumanRights Committee that it would refuse to submit
its fourth periodic repo~-t.25
Theissuesofcontinuityandof thestandingoftheFRYin the
UnitedNations and ininternationaltreaties, astheyhave arisen
beforethisCourt
14. This Court was also confronted with the predicament of mixed
signals when facing the issue of the membership of the FRY in the United
Nations and the questionas to whether it was a State partyto the Statute of
the Court and to the GenocideConvention. At the time when this Court
rendered its Order regarding the Request for the Indication of Provisional
23Ibidem, atp.4.
The same argument was advancedby bot, Bosnia-Herzegovinaand Croatia on other
occasions as well.Forexample,in Croatia'saide-mémoiresent to be circulated at the
13" Meeting of the State Parties to theICCPR, Croatia stressed:"Since the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia(SerbiaandMontenegro)hm not notified the Secretary-General
of its succession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rightsof
the successorStates of thefonner SocialistFederal Republic of Yugoslavia,it cannotbe
considered to be a party to the said Covenant. Therefore, as a non-pany, the said
delegation has no right to participate inthe thirteenth meeting of States parties to the
International Covenanton CivilandPoliticalRights.
SeeUN.Doc. CCPRlSP/40,atp. 3 (Annex19)
24UNDOC.CCPR/SP/SR.19,atp. 8 (Annex18).
2sReportof the HumanRightsCornmittee,UN Doc.A150140,para. 53 (Annex20).
17Measures on 8April 1993- just as at the time of the Judgment of 11 July
1996 - it was commongroundthat the FRY did not seek acceptanceto the
membership of either the United Nations, or to the Statute, or to the
Genocide on vent ion.^^
The FRY vigorouslycontested the jurisdiction of the Court, but did
so onother grounds,withoutraising theissue oftheFRY'Smembershipand
standing.
15.This Courthad facedand recogd theseissuesin its Orderof8
Apd 1993 dealing with provisional rneasures. Since with respect to
provisional measurestherewas no need to take a conclusive position,the
Courtintroduceditsconsiderationsonjurisdictionbystatininparagraph14:
"Whereason a requestfor provisional measuresthe Court
need not, before decidiagwhether or not tu indicate them,finally
satisfyitselfthat ithassuchjurisdictiononthemeritsof thecas...7
The dilemmas regarding jurisdiction rationae personae were
investigated in paragraph 15 of the Order. It was obsemed that the
Application stated that both Bosnia-Herzegovin'aand the FRY were
members of the United Nations andof the Statute,but added at the same
time that continuityof thFRY with the SFRY (the assumption on which
the FRY based itsclaimfor membership) "hasbeenvigorously contestedby
the entireinternationalcommunity".
26The FRY didnot applyfor UNmembershipuntil27October 2000;8oMarch 2001
theFRY presenteda Notificationof Accessionto the Conventionon the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genoc-dwithareservation on ArtIXl(see Annex
28). In the followingparagraphsthe Court scrutinizedvanous acts of the
United Nationsin order to cl- the question of (contuiued or other)
membershipof Yugoslaviain the United Nations and to the Statute. The
persisting dilemmawas convincinglyrnirroredin the letter of the Under-
Secretary General and Legal Counsel of the United Nations of 29
September 1992addressedto the PermanentRepresentatives tothe United
Nations of Bosnia-Herzegovinaand Croatia. Relevant parts of this Letter
cited inthe Orderreadas follows:
"Whilethe GeneralAssemblyhasstated unequivocally that the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cannot
automatically continue the membership of the former Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations and that the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) should
apply for membership in the United Nations, the only practical
consequencethat the resolutiondraws is that the FederalRepublic of
Yugoslavia(SerbiaandMontenegro) shall notparticipate in the work
of the GeneralAssembly.It isclear, therefore,that representatives of
the FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia(Serbia and Montenegro) can no
longerparticipate inthe work of the GeneralAssembly, its subsidiary
organs,norconferencesandmeetingsconvened byit.
On the other hund, the resolution neither teminates nor
suspends Yuguslavia'smembershipinthe Organization.Consequently,
the seat and nameplate remin as before, but in Assembly bodies
representatives of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia cannot sit
behind the sign "Yugoslavia". Yugoslav missions at the United
Nations Headquartersand ofices may continue tofunction and may receive and circulatedocuments.At Headquurters,the Secretariatwill
continue to fly theflag of the old Yugoslavia as it is the last flag
Yugoslaviaused bythe Secretariat, Theresolutiondoes not takeaway
the rightof Yugoslavia topam-cipatein theworkof organs other than
Assembly bodies. The admission to the United Nations of a new
Yugoslaviaunder Article 4 of the Charterwill tenninate the situation
createdby resolution 47/1."27
Considering the complex and rather controversial indications, the
Court founditmore appropriatenotto adopta conclusivepositionregarding
the FRY'Scontinued membershipin the United Nations and standingas a
partyto the Statute, and formulatedthe following conclusion in paragraph
18 of the Order (following the citation fiom the letter of the Under-
SecretaryGeneral):
"Whereas, while the solution adopted is not free from legal
dificulties, the question whether or not Yugoslavia is a Member of
the UnitedNations and as such a party to the Statute of the Court is
one which the Court does not need to detennine defnitively at the
present stage ofproceedings, "28
(In the following section,considering the optiondescribed in Mcle
35 of the Statute - and staying within the ambit of prima faciae
considerations - the Court investigated another possible basis for
27UN Doc. Al47148 5as cited in paragraph17 of the Court Order8Apnl 1993
(1993ICJReports3, atpp.13-14).
28Court Orderof8April 1993(1993ICJReports3, atp. 14)
20 jurisdiction, and noted that "whereas accordingly if Bosnia-Herzegovina
and Yugoslavia are both parties to the Genocide Convention, disputes to
L '
whichArticle IX appliesare in any eventprima faciaewithinthejurisdiction
.- rationae personaeof the Court;
The FRY believes that it is fair to Say that given the quite
unprecedented complexities and controversies regarding the issue of the
membership of the FRY in international organizations andto international
treaties,the Court wasnot in a position to concludein its Order whether the
membership (or the lackof membership) of the FRY in the United Nations
and inrelevant treaties, wasan establishedfact.
16. In the Judagmentof 11 July 1996, dealing with the issue of
juxisdictionovertheFRYrationaepersorme- andfacinga situationwhichwas
stillnotclanfied - the Court reliedon the Declarationof FRY Goveniment
in whichthe assumptionof continuitywas asserted. In paragraph 17 of the
Jud,pent, theCourtfirstestablishedthatthe GenocideConventionwassigned
and ratifiecby theSFRY, and then establisheda link,adding that the FRY
adoptedaforma1declarationon 27Apd 1992totheeffectthat:
"The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; continuing the State,
internationallegal and political personality of the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia,shal2strictly abide by al1commiiments that
the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia assurned
intemationally."'O
29bidem m.
30Citationfrom paragra17ofthe 11July1996Judagmen (1996ICJReports 595,atp.
610).
21 Followingthe samelineof argument,the Court observes:
"This intentionthusexpressedby Yugoslaviato remain bound
by the international treatiesto which theformer Yugoslavia wasa
paw was confirmedin an ofJicialNote of 27 April 1992from the
PemuznentMissionof Yugoslaviato the UnitedNations,addressed tu
theSecretaryGeneral. "
To this, a supporiingobservationwas added: "The Court observes,
furthemore, that it has no?been contestedthat Yugoslaviawas a Party to
theGenocideConvention. " This observationwasnot developedfurther, and
itwas not positedas apossibleindependentbasisofjurisdiction.
It may be true that the conceptof continuity was never explicitly
articulatedby the Courtitself,but it is also true that the Cowt relied exactly
on declarations stressing the assumption of continuity in determining
jurisdiction rationaepersonae over theFRY. It may not be crystal cleâr
what impact does the position of the Court has on the former FRY
Govemment's claim regârding continuity; it is absolutely clear, however,
that the hypothesis thattheFRY was g~ a Memberof the United Nations,
and that it was net a Member State to the Statute or to the Genocide
Convention, was not perceivedand was not recognized as a fact by either
the FRY or by the Courtuntiland at the tirne when 11 July 1996Judgment
wasrendered.
Continuedlackofclarityand continued lackof conclusivefacts
regardingthe statusof theFRY
17.Controversiesand conflictingsignals continued after the 11 July
1996 Judgment as well. To cite just one example, on 8 December 1999,
22three successor States of the SFRY (Bosnia-Herzegovina,Croatia, and
Slovenia) joined by Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco,Qatar and Saudi
Arabia, submitted a draft resolution with the endeavor to clam the
ambiguous positionof the FRY in the sense of denying the proposition of
continuity. The subrnitted proposa1 explains that "the abbreviated name
'Yugoslavia' as used by the United Nations, refers only to the former
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". According to this draft
resolution,theGeneralAssembly should declarethatit
"1.Considers that, as a consequence of its dissolution, the
former Socialist FederalRepublic of Yugoslaviaceased to exist as a
legalpersonali~ and that none of itsfive equal successor States can
beprivileged to continue itsmembershipinthe UnitedNations;
2. Requests the Secretary General to take al1 the necessary
steps to ensure that the administrativepractice of the Secretariat is
fully brought into line with the provisions of the present resolution
and other relevant Securiîy Council and General Assembly
resolutions by the end of the fifty-fourth session of the General
Assembly. ""
Had theissue been settled one way or the other, it would have been
easyto endorseor to discardthis Draft resolutionwhich proposes to accept
al1consequencesof the propositionthatthere wasno continuity.Instead, the
EU suggested thatthe States submittingthe proposa1should "refrain from
tabling theirdraftresolution." In explaining this position, citing "serious
31SeeUNDoc.A154fL.62(Annex21)
23legal andpoliticaldifficulties,"tEU submits thatsuch a resolution "takes
a piecemeal approachto the questionthat was onpurpose s~s~ended."~~
Conclusiveclarificationwasonceagainpostponed.
Conclusiveclarificationofthestandingof the FRY in the United
Nations and in internationaltreaties
18.The consistentand repeatedendeavorsof the former Governent
of theFRY to gainaccess to the United Nations and toother international
organizations, as well as to treaty membership on the assumption of
continuity, remained by and large without success. There were some
residual membership rights in the United Nations, there were continued
references to "Yugoslavia" in various Listings(which may have plausibly
beeninterpretedin more thanone way,includingthe interpretationthat this
was a reference to theFRY).)~ In other words, the FRY'S claim that it
remained a member of international organizationsand treaties ''continuhg
the State,internationallegal andpoliticalpersonalityof the SocialistFederal
Republicof Yugoslavia"didreceivesome encouragement,there were some
positive signals, but no conclusive acceptance. What followed were
dilemmas and controversies around membership rights,but practically no
asswedmembershiprights proper.
In this situation, the new Govemment of Yugoslavia took the only
remahhg course of action. On 27 October 2000, President KoStunica
32Seethe texofanon-papercirculatedbytEU, in Annex22.
33Seeparabraphs -above.
24addresseda letter to the SecretaryGeneralrequesting admissionof the FRY
to the membershipof the United Nations.%In thisletterPresidentKoStunica
refers to Security Council resolution 77735which describes the lack of
unanirnityand cerîaintyregardingthe FRY'Sclaimof continuity("theclaim
by theFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia/SerbiaandMontenegro/to continue
automaticallythe membershipof theformer SocialistFederal Republic of
Yugoslaviain the United Nations has not been generally accepted"), and
whichResolutionsuggeststhatthe FRY shouldapplyfor membershipin the
United Nations.
The course of action which the United Nations followed was that
establishedby Article 4 of the UN Charter and by Arhcle 134 of the Rules
of Procedure of the General Assembly, providedfor acceptance of new
Members.
Following the procedureestablishedby Article4 of the UN Charter,
the request of the FRY reached the Security Council Committee on the
Admission of New Members, andthis Committee recommended to the
SecurityCouncil the adoptionof a resolution which would recommendthe
admissionof ~u~oslavia.'~Upon recommendationof the SecurityCouncil,
the General Assembly decidedon 1 November 2000 to admit the FRY to
membershipof the UnitedNations."
34SeeAnnex23.
35SeeAmex 6.
36UNDOCS ./2000/1051(Annex24).
37See SecurityCouncilresolution1326 (2000)andGeneralAssembly resolut55/12
(Annex25).
25 19. The decision of the General Assembly of 1 November 2000
finallydismissed the dilemmas and uncertainties, and puan end to the
theory that theFRY may have been a Member of the United Nations
before 1 November 2000 "continuing the State, international legal and -
political personality of the SFRY". A new fact took shape. The FRY
became a new Member of the United Nations(clearly implying that it was
not a Member earlier).
After theFRY was admitted as a new Member on 1 November
2000, the dilemmas were resolved, and a period ended in which
contradictory indications allowed different interpretations. It was not
veiled anymore, but became an unequivocal fact that theFRY did not
continue the personality of theSFRY, and was not a Member of the
United Nations before 1 November 2000. According to the most recent
(updated 18 December 2000) List of Member States published by the
United Nations, "Yugoslavia" appears as a Member State, the date of
admissionindicatedis 1November2000.
An explanatorynoteStates:
"TheSocialist Federal Republic of Yugoslaviawas an original
Member of the UnitedNations, the Charterhaving been signed on its
behalf on 26 June 1945 and ratified19 October 1945, until its
'_
dissolutionfollowing the establishmentand subsequent admission as
new members of Bosnia andHerzegovina, Croatia, the Republic of
Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was admitted as a
Member of the UnitedNations by General Assembly resolution
A/RES/55/12of 1November2000. "38
(The very same explanatory note is added after Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Croatia,SloveniaandMacedonia.)
20. Following admission,by a letter of the Legal Counsel of the
United Nations of 8 December 2000,3~the FRY was invited to decide
whether or not to assume nghts and obligations of the former SFRY in
internationaltreaties.In thisletter,theLegal CounselStates:
"It is the Legal Counsel'sview that the Federal Republic of
Yugoslaviashould now undertaketreaty actions,as appropriate,in
relationto the treatiesconcemed, if its intention is to assume the
relevantlegalrightsandobligationsas a successorState. "
Thus in December 2000 the FRY cameto a position to choose
whether to succeed and confm, or whether not to succeed and not to
confm treatyactionsoftheformerSFRY.
21. On 8March 2001 as a new Member of the United Nations, the
FRY sent to the Secretary Generalof the United Nationsa Notification of
Accession to the Convention on thePrevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide inpursuancewith Article XI of the saids on vent ion.^'
--
38See www.un.ordOve~iew/unmember (.htex26).
39See Annex27.
See Annex28.
27This Notification includes a reservation on ArtIX. The text of the
Notificationreadss follows:
NOTIFICATION OF ACCESSION TO THE CONVENTION
ON THE PREVENTlON AND PUNZSHMENT OF THE
CRIMEOFGENOCIDE(1948)
WHEREAS theFederalRepublic of Yugoslavia had declared
on Apd 27, 1992, that "the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
continuingthe State, intemational legal andpolitical personalityof
the SocialistFederal Republic ofYugoslavia,ll stnctly abide by
al1thecommitrnentsthattheSocialistFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia
assumedinternationally",
WHEREAS this contention of continuity also included the
assumption that theFederal Republic of Yugoslavia continuedthe
membershipin the UnitedNations of theSocialistFederal Republic
of Yugoslavia,
WHEREASthe contention and assumptionof continuity was
evenîuallynot acceptedbythe UnitedNations,nor was it acceptedby
other successor States of the Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia,andthus itproducedno effects,
FURTHERMORE this situation becamefinally clarijied on
November 1, 2000 when the Federal Republicof Yugoslavia was
acceptedas a new memberStateof the UnitedNations,
28 NOW it has been established that the FederalRepublic of
Yugoslaviahas not succeededon April27,1992, or on any later date,
to treaty rnembership,rights and obligationsof the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia in the Convention on the Prevention and
Puaishrnentof the Crimeof Genocideon theassumption of continued
rnembershipin the UnitedNations and continuedstate, international
legal and political personali~)of the Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia,
THEREFORE, I am submittingon behalf of the Governmentof
the Federal Republic of Yugoslaviathis notification of accession tu
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide,inpursuance ofArticle XI of the sard Conventionand with
thefollowing reservationonArticle IX of the said Convention: "The
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia dues not consider itself bound by
ArticleIX of the Conventionon the Preventionand Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide, and, therefore, before any dispute tu which the
FederalRepublic of Yugoslaviais aparty may be validlysubmittedtu
the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this
Article, the specific and explicit consent of the FRY is required in
7
each case.
(Signedby GoranSviZanoviCM , inisterofForeignAfairs)
In a note of 21 March2001, the Secretary-General confiinned the
receipt of the instrument of accession senby the Govenunent of the FRY.
The note of the Secretary-GeneralStates: --
"The above instrument was deposited with the Secretary-
Generalon 12March2001, thedate ofthisreceipt.
-?
Due note has been taken of the reservationcontained in the
instrument.
In accordancewith Article X111(3),the Conventionwill enter
intoforce for Yugoslaviaon the ninetiethdayfollowing the date of
deposiiof the instrument,i.e.,onIOJune2001."41
41See thefulltextof theNote oftheSecretary-GenerailnAnnex29.
30 C. ArticleIX of the GenocideConventionwas the
onlypossiblegroundforjurisdictionover the FRY
-and new facts havebrought evidenceto the effect
that thisbasishasnot existed.
C.lNewfactshaveputintoa differentcontexttheissueof
jurisdictionunderArticlIX ofthe GenocideConvention
22. The FRY submitsthat new factsjus*this Inititiativefor an ex
oficio reconsiderationof the issue of jurisdiction FRYr rationae
personae.The admission of the FRY to the United Nations asa new
Member on 1 November 2000 is certainly a new fact. It can also be
demonstratedand theFRY submits,thatthis new fact is of such aasature
to be a decisive factor regarding the question of jurisdiction rationae
personaeover theFRY.
After the FRY wasadmittedas a new Member on 1November2000,
dilemmasconcerningits standinghave been resolved,and it has become an
unequivocalfactthat the FRYdid not continuethe personalityof the SFRY,
wasnot a Memberof the UnitedNationsbefore 1November 2000, was not
a State party to the Statute, and was not a State party to the Genocide
Convention.Since membershipin the United Nations, combined withthe
statusof apartyto the Statuteandto the GenocideConvention(includingits
ArticleIX)represent theonly basis on whichjurisdiction over theFRY was
assumed,and could be assumed,the disappearance of this assumption and
31the proof of the disappearance of this assumption are clearly of such a
nature to be a decisive factor regarding jurisdiction ovFRYthe- and
requirea revisionofthe Judgmentof 11July1996.
-.
The admission of thFRY to the United Nations as a new Member
clears ambiguitiesand shedsifferentlight onthe issueof the membership
of the FRY in the United Nations, in the Statuand in the Genocide
Convention. Since the 11 July 1996 Judgment based jurisdiction on one
ground(ArticleIX of the GenocideConvention),new facts which show that
the FRY was not andcould not have been bound by Article IX of this
Convention, are decisive.
C.2Absenceof alternativebasesofiurisdictionoverthe FRY
rationaepersonae
23. This isaninitiativetoreconsiderthe issueofjurisdiction over the
FRY ratiome personae, whichjuisdiction wasfound to exist on ground of
ArticleIX of the Genocide Convention.In this initiative FRY further
submitsthatjurisdictionoverthFRY could nothave been asserted without
UN membershipandwithoutthe FRY being a StatePartyto the Statute and
to the GenocideConventionat the tirne of the 11July 1996Judgment. The
FRY also asserts that no alternative basis existed or could have existed.
i-
Theoretically, there are two bases which couldserve as a precondition for
thejurisdiction of the Courtto be extended to a non-Member of the United
Nations or a non-partyto thetatute. These are sipArticle 93(2) of the
United Nations Charterandin Articl35(2)of the Statuterespectively. The FRY shall demonstrate that under the circumstances of the case it is
. , absolutely clear that neither of these two grounds could have justified
jurisdiction over the FRY.
The FRY hasnotbecome a partyto the Statuteongroundof
Article93(2) of theUN Charter
24. It is generally understood that the International Court of Justice is
open to the States which are parties to the Statute (Article 35(1) of the
Statute). Article3(1) of theUN Charter States thaallMembers of the
United Nations are ipsofacto parties to the Statute. Accordingly, States
which are not Member States of the United Nations are not Member States
to theStatute (or, at least not automatically). Article 93(2) provides one
possible way in which a non-Memberof the United Nations may become a
pariyto the Statute, andit also specifiesthe requisite conditions:
"A State which is not a Member of the United Nationsmay
become a pars, to theStatuteof theInternationalCourtof Justiceon
conditionsto be detenninedin each case by the GeneralAssembly
upontherecommendation oftheSecun9 Council. "
It is uncontested that FRY never applied to become a partyto the
Statute underArhcle 93(2)of the Charter,and it is also uncontested that the
Security Council and the General Assembly never had such a claim or
initiative onheir agenda. Accordingly, it is obvious that the FRY did not
become a Member State of the Statute under Article 93(2) of the UNCharter and jurisdiction could not have been asserted over the FRY by
relianceon Article93(2).
Jurisdictionoverthe FRY could not havebeenestablishedon
groundof Article 35 (2)ofthe Statute
25. Accordingto Article35(2):
"The conditions under which the Court shall be open to other
States [i.e.States which arenot partiesto the Statute]shall, subject to
the specialprovisions contained in treaties inforce, be laid down by
the Securiîy Council, but in no case shall such conditions place the
parties inaposition of inequalitybefore theCourt. "
This provisionis quite clear.Accessis in principlepossible toa State
which is not a party to the Statute,but only on conditions laid down by the
Security Council, and subject to special provisions containedin treaties in
force.
The Securiîy Council laid down appropriate conditions and
procedures in its Resolution of 15 October 1946." Section (1) of the
ResolutionStates:
"The International Court of Justice shall be open to a State
which is not a parîy to the Statute of the Intemational Court of
Justice, upon thefollowing condition, namely, that such State shall
previously have deposited with the Registrar of the Court a
declaration by which it accepts the jurisdiction of the Court, in
- -
4'SeeAnnex 30. accordance withtheCharter of the UnitedNations and withtheterms
and subject tu the conditionsof the Statuteand Rules of theCourt,
andundertakes tucornplyingoodfaith withthedecisionor decisions
of the Courtand tu accept al1the obligationsof a Mernberof the
UnitedNations underArticle94oftheCharter."
The resolution specifies furcherthat such a declaration may be
particular (accepting the jurisdiction in one particular case) or general
("accepting the jwisdiction generally in respect of all disputes or of a
particularclass of disputeswhich havealready arisen or which may arise in
the future").It is also added that a Sîate when making a declaration in
pursuance ofthe SecurityCouncil resolution of15October 1946andunder
Article 35(2) of the Statute,may also in accordance with Article 36 of the
Statuterecognize as compulsorythejurisdictionof the Couri.
It is perfectly clear that Article 35(2) and the Security Council
resolutionof 15 October 15 1946 onlyprovides for explicit declarations as
a vehiclethrough which thejurisdiction of the Court maybeextendedto a
non-party to the Statute. Moreover, the content of such declarations is
predetennined, and so is their fonn (submission to the Registrar). This
means that only such party behavior i.e. such party declarations which are
identified by the Security Council as a sufficient condition, may bring a
party within the Court's scope of authority. Other party conduct - like
bringing a claim, defending or not defending a claim, submitting a
counterclaim, raising or not raising an objection - are without consequence
and cannotyieldjurisdiction overapartywho is not a partyto the Statute. The FRY never deposited with the Registrar of the Court any
declaration within the meaning of Article 35(2) of the Statute and
complying with the 15 October 1946 Security Council Resolution. No
declaration whatsoever (complying or non-complying with the Security
Council resolution) concerningjurisdiction over tFRY was deposited
beforetheJudgmentof 11Julywasrendered.
26. On 25 April1999,theformer Governmentof the FRY submitted
a declarationregardingjurisdiction. Thetext of theDeclarationreads:
"Iherebydeclarethatthe Govemmentof the Federal Republic
of Yugoslaviarecognizes,inaccordancewithArticle 36,paragraph2
of the Statute of the InternationalCourt of Justasecompulsas)
ipsofacto and without special agreement, in relation to any other
State accepting the same obligation, that is on condition of
reciprociîy,thejunsdiction of thesaid Courtin al1disputesarisingor
which may ariseafter thesignatureof thepresent Declaration,with
regard to the situationsorfacts subsequentto this signature, except
in cases where the parties have agreed or shall agree to have
recourse to another procedure or another method of pacifie
settlement. The present Declaration does not apply tu disputes
relatingto questionswhich,under internationallaw,fa11exclusively
withinthejurisdictionof theFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia,as well
as to territorial disputes. Theaforesaidobligationis accepted untilsuch tirneas notice
maybegivento terminatetheacceptance. '"
It is clear that this Declarationcannot be regarded as a declaration
made within the meaning of A.rticle35(2) and it cannot possibly have any
bearingon this casefor thefollowingreasons:
a) It is not a declarationmade in pursuance of Article5(2) of the
Statute and Security Council resolution of 15 October 1946. Instead of
makinga declarationas a Sîatewhichis not a Partyto the Statute and wants
to avail itself access to the Court, the former Government of the FRY
purportedto use an opportunitywhichis only open to parties to the Statute.
The declaration was made under and with explicit reference to Article
36(2) of the Statute on the assumption that theFRY was a partyto the
Statute.
b) Supposingthat the Declarationof 25 April 1999produced effects,
it could not have had effects on this case because of the terms of the
Declaration itself. By its own terms the Declaration clearly restricts its
applicationto disputesarisingafter the signatureof the Declaration (which
means after 25 April 1999),and to "situations or facts subsequent to this
signature" (i.e. situations and facts emerging after 25 April 1999.)
Furthermore,the acceptanceofjurisdictionin the Declarationis conditioned
by reciprocity- and this requirement is not satisfied regarding Bosnia-
Herzegovina.
43See"Multilaterl reatiesDepositedwiththeSecretary-GenStatusas at30 April
1999" atpp. 1& 28, UN Doc.ST/LEG/SER.E (/nnex31).
37 27. To summarize: The Declaration of 25 April 1999 is not a
declarationmade under Article35(2)of the Statutein pursuance of whicha
non-partyof the Statute could possiblyinvoke thejurisdiction of the Court.
Whateverthe nature of theDeclarationis, it is withouteffects in the present
case. Evenif it had effectsotherwise,these effects are clearly restricted by
the termsof theDeclarationitself to future disputesandfuture events,andit
couldnothave anyeffectson the Bosnia-Herzegovinav. Yugoslaviacase.
Evenunder amostextensivereading ofArticle35(2) c,nsidering
thefactsof thisCase, jurisdictionovertheFRY cannotbe
establishedon ground of"specialprovisionscontained intreaties
inforce"
28. In its Order of April8, 1993 conceming the Request for the
Indicationof ProvisionalMeasures,the Court mentionsanotherconceivable
basis on which jurisdiction could be assumed over a non-party to the
Statute.In paragraph 19 of this Order after citing Articl35(2) of the
Statute,the Courttook thefollowingposition:
"whereasthe Court thereforeconsidersthatproceedingsmayvalidly
be institutedbya State againsta State whichis a Party to such a special
provision in a treaty in force, but is not a party to the Statute, and
independentlyof the conditionslaid down by the Securiiy Councilin its
resolution9 of1946...".
The Court found that the compromissoryclause of Article IX of the
GenocideConventioncould be regardedprimafaciae as a relevant "special
provision containedin a treaty in force". Takingas a possible assumptionthat both Bosnia-Herzegovina and Yugoslavia could beM parties to the
Genocide Convention including its Article LX,the Court concluded that
"[dlisputestu which ArticlelX applies areinanyment prima faciaewithin
thejurisdictionrationaepersonaeoftheCourt. "
This interpretation of Article 35(2) could conceivably aIlow
jurisdiction rationae personaeover the FRY even withoutthe FRY being a
Memberof the United Nationsand a partyto the Statute (assurningthat the
FRY could have become a ContractingParty of the Genocide Convention
othenvise).One hasto bear in mind,however,that the fmdings of the Court
in its Order areprima faciae fmdingsand they are indicated as such, thus
they are reviewable and they are not conclusive.Furthemore, the wording
isnotunconditional.Moreover,the FRYrespectfullysubmitsthe contention
that: a)this interpretationesbeyond themeaning of Article 35(2), and b)
even if this interpretation were the correct one, it cannot result in
jurisdictionrationaepersonaeoverthe FRYgiventhe facts of the case.
29. The FRY submits that a treaty provision cannotin itself provide
for access to the Court to a non-Member of the Statute without such
elementaryconditions as thoseprovidedin Security Council resolution 9of
1946. A partywhich is not a Member of the United Nations and is not a
partyto the Statute is not bound, for example,by Article 94(1) of the UN
Thelanguageof the Courtis: "whereasaccordinglyif (emphasis suppBosnia-
HerzegovinaandYugoslaviaarebothpartiesto the GenocideConvention,disputesto
whichArticleIX appliesarein anyeventprimafaciae withinthejurisdictionrationae
personaeoftheCourt;"1993ICJReports3, atp14.Charter whichobliges each Member of the United Nationsto comply with
the decision of the Court in any case to whichit is a party. It is exactly for
these reasons that Security Council resolution 9 of 1946 specified the
elementsof a declarationwhich may result in jurisdictionover a non-party
to the tat tu te .^rthemore, the principle of equalityof the parties is one
of the most pervasive principles underlyingprocedurebefore any court. In
order to safeguard this principle between Stateswhich are parties to the
Statute and States which are not, Article 35(2) stressesthat the conditions
laid down by the Security Councilshall in no caseplace the parties in a
position of inequalitybefore the Court. It is evidentthat inequality would
emergeif someparties to proceedingsbefore the Courtwould not be bound
by conditions which parties to the Statute already accepted. The
International Court of Justice was established by the UN Charter "as the
principaljudicial organ of the United Nations" (Article1 of the Statute).It
can only adjudicate disputes involvingStates whichare Member States of
the UnitedNations,or States whichhave acceptedconditions laid down by
organsof the UnitedNations.
30. Thereferenceto "specialprovisionsoftrehes in force" shouldbe
understood in the context of the drafting history of the Statute. A
convincing explanation was provided by Sh. Roseme. He recds that
45In order to safeguard equality,the resolution makes it clear that that declaration of
acceptancehas to specify thatit wasmade "in accordancewiththe Charterof the United < -
Nations,and with the terms and subjectto the conditionsof the StatuteandRules of the
Court, and undertalcesto comply in good faiwith the decisioordecisions of the
Courtand to acceptal1the obligationsof a Member of theUnitedNationsunder Article
94of the Charter".Article 35 (2) of the Statute contains the same provision as the
corresponding provision of the Permanent Court (with only one word
changed in order to bring the English text in line with the ~rench)."
Roseme continuesby observing that:
"The expression in paragraph 2 of the Statute of the
Permanent Court subject to special provisions of treaties in force
apparently was intendedtu refertu thePeace Treaties afer the First
World War. Theycontainedseveralprovisions givingthe Pemnent
Courtjurisdiction over disputesarisingj?om them, and they were in
force before that Statute was adopted.Article 35paragraph 2, made
itpossiblefor litigation tu takeplace with theformer enemy Powers
despite thefact that at the time the Protocol was adopted, they were
not qualified tu become parties tothat instrument.Accordingly, 'in
force' meant that the treaty had tu be inforce on the date of entry
into force of the Statute of the Pemulnent Court (taken as 1
September1921). ""
He reiteratesthe samepoint laterin thetextby stressing:
"Since no change of substance was introduced in 1945, the
words subject tu the special provisions of treaties in force in the
present Statute should be interpretedmeaning treaties that were in
force on the date when the Statute entered into force, that is 24
October1945. "48
46SH. ROSENNE,The Law and Practiceof theInternationalCourt 1920-1996,Volume
IIat p. 628.
47
ROSENNE,Op. cit.,at p. 629.
48ROSENNE,Op. ci?.,at p. 630. Thatthe phrase"treatiesin force" wasintendedto have a limited
meaningwas also confbmedby JudgesAnzilotti and ~uber." During the
discussionon theRevisionof theRulesof the PermanenC t ourt(Eleventh
Session-Twenty-Second Meeting),therecordStatesthatAnzilottistressed:
"[dhe peace treaties in certain cases imposed the Court's
jurisdiction on the central States,.in other cases these States had
beengiven the right of themselves institutinproceedings beforethe
Court.Thatbeing so, to allow the Councilto imposeother conditions
would amount to modifying the peace treaties, which could not be
done.Theclausein questionhadin mindthepeacetreaties. "
Anzilottiaddedthat
"[tlhere is a reason which made it impossible to read the
clauseas coveringeverythingexceptspecialagreements:for itwould
be dijYlcultto understand why a privileged position should be
accorded, for instance to Turkey and Russia, supposing that,
tomorrow, they were to corne before the Court under a treaty
concludedbetweenthem. "'O
PresidentHuberagreedwithAnzilottiandstatedthat
"[t]heexceptionstatedinArticle35 could onlybe intendedto
coversituationsprovided forby the treatiesofpeace.'7s1
49See PCU, SeriesD, (Acts andDocuments Concerning e rganizationof tCourt,
No.2 -Add),atpp. 104-106.
PCIJSeriesD,No.2 (Add.),atp. 105.
51PCIJSeriesD No 2 (Add.),atp. 106.
42 31. Even if one were to adopt, for argument's sake, a broader
interpretationofArtic35(2),andevenifjuxisdictioncouldbe assumedovera
non-partyto theStatuteon groundof ArticleIX of the GenocideConvention
only,thiscouldnotjus* jurisdictionrationapersonaeoverthe FRY.
After 1November2000itbecameclearthat the FRY didnot continue
theSFRY'smembershipin the UnitedNations,anddid not become party to
the treatieswhichwereratified by the SFRY.Accordingly, theFRYdid not
continuethe membershipof the SFRY in the Genocide Convention either.
Moreover, accordingto Article XI of the Genocide Convention, theFRY
couldnot have becomea partyto the GenocideConventionwithout being a
Member of the United Nations, or without having received a special
invitationof the General Assembly.The prohibition ofgenocidemay very
well be a principlewhich must not be disregardby anyone, but this does
not necessarily mean that the specific provisions of the Convention are
automaticallybinding, andit certainly does not mean that the procedural
stipulationsof the Genocide Convention(likethat of ArtiIX)are binding
without specific acceptance.
The FRY expressed its intention to becomeaparty to the Genocide
Conventiononly in its Notificationof Accessionon ground of Mcle XI(3)
of the Convention(whichprovidesfor newaccessions).This did not happen
beforethe 11July 1996Judgment was rendered;this happened on 8 March
2001.The documentsof accession were receivedby the Secretary-General
on 12March2001. Due note has been takenof the reservahon containedin
the instrumentof accession. The Secretary-Generalinfonned the FRY that
the Conventionwill enterinto forceregardingthFRY on 10June 2001. Accessionhas no retroactive effect.Even ifit had a retroactive effect,
thiscannot possibly encompass the compromissoryclause in ArticlIX of
the Genocide Convention, becausethe FRY neveracceptedArticleIX,
andthe FRY'Saccessiondid notencompassArticle IX. What the FRY
did accept is the Genocide Convention without Article IX. In its
Notification of Accession theFRY made an unequivocal reservation to
Article K. (There are a si@cant number of parties to the Genocide
Convention,which acceptedthe Convention withreservationon ArticlIX.
Today - after some countries withdrew their reservation - Yugoslavia
belongs to a group of 16 countries which made the reservation, and have
rnaintainedthisreservationto this date.52)Thereservationmadeby tFRY
reads:
"The FederalRepublicof Yugoslaviadoes not consider itself
bound by Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and, therefore, before any
disputetu which the FederalRepublicof Yugoslaviais a paw rnay
validly be submittedto thejuridiction ofthe International Courtof
JusticeunderthisArticle,thespeczjicandexplicitconsentof theFRY
isrequiredin eachcase."
It clearly follows that even if one were to adopt an extensive
interpretationof Article 35(2) theStatute includingtreaties which came
into force after the adoption of the Statand,even if Article IX of the
52
Algeria, Argentina,Bahrain,Bangladesh,China, India,Malaysia,Morocco, Rwanda,
Singapore, Spain,the UnitedStates of America,Venezuela,VietNam-andthe
FRY.Genocide Convention could be considered as one of such "special
provisionsconained in treaties in force", the jurisdiction of the Court
could not be based on this "special provision"because itwas never
acceptedby the FRY.
It foilowsthat:
32.The fact thatthe FRY gained admissionto the UnitedNations on
1November2000 as a new Member (insteadof continuhg the membership
of the SFRY since April 1992) put the issue of jurisdiction rationae
personae over Yugoslaviain an entirely different perspective and context.
The assumption of the continued membershipin the United Nations and
continued status as party to the Genocide Convention, which came to
expressionin the Declaration of the former Governmentof tFRY, was
critical, because there was no other assumption which could justify
jurisdictionovetheFRY rationaepersorne.
The newfactshave brought conclusive clarificato the effect that:
a) The FRY was not a Member of the United Nations before 1
November2000.
b) The FRY did not become a partyto the Statute on ground of
Article93(2), or onany otherground beforethe Judgmentof 11 Jul1996
wasrendered,or atanylaterdate before 1November2000. c) TheFRY was not and is not a contractingpartyto the Genocide
Convention. (It is expected to become aartyon 10 June 2001 with a
-
reservationto ArticK.)
Furthermore, theFRY did not become at any time subject to the
jurisdictionofthe Court ongroundof Article35(2)of the Statute.
The assumption of a continued membership of the FRY and
continued standing as a party to the Statute and to the Genocide
Convention (continuing the membership and the standing the of the
SFRY) were the only assumptions on which jurisdiction rationae
personae over the FRY could have been based. A fact which gives
decisive evidence of the reversalthisassumption is thereforeclearly
a decisivefactor.
C.3Before new facts emerged, a ~enuinedilemmaexisted
reaarding the standing ofthFRY
33. The fact that the FRY was admittedto the United Nations as a
new State on1November 2000,was obviouslyunknown to both the Court
andto theFRY at thetimeof the 1996Judgment.
Inour case, this new fact becomes relevant in the following way.
.-
There wasa genuinedilemmaasto whetherthe FRY did or did notcontinue
the membership of the SFRY in the United Nations and thestatus of the
SFRY aspartyto the Statuteandto the GenocideConvention.This dilemma
wasresolvedby the newfact of admissionofthe FRYto the UnitedNationsas a new State, and by accessionof thFRY to the Genocide Convention,
again as a new State.The new fact- clearlyunknown earlie- has become
decisivebecauseit confirmeda differentresolutionof the dilemm- not the
one whichserved as an assumptionin the Judgment.
34. For the sake of argument, tFRY wants to demonstrate that the
dilemma was a legitimate one, the position taken by theFRY regarding
continuity with the SFRY was not a frivolous one, or one based on
negligence. The FRY was consistent in asserting this position which was
conoborated by some facts andcircumstances,while it was challenged by
some other factsand circumstances.All facts and circumstancesrelating to
the issueof continuitywerea matter of public record, equaily accessible to
the Court and to the parties.re are no facts or circumstanceswhich the
FRY would have, or could have withheld, since the issue was that of the
international recognitionof the FRY'Sclaim on continuity with tSFRY.
The essence of the matter is that, before the status oFRYhewas finally
clarified,these facts and citcumstancesdid allow different conclusions, and
the possible solutions wer- in the words of the Court - "not free from
legal difficultie~".~~
53Bosnia and Herzegovinv.Yugoslavia,Requestfor the Indicationof Provisional
Measures,OrderoftheCourtof8 Apri1993paragraph18.
47 35.The concept ofcontinuityadvancedby the former Governmentof
the FRY proved to be wrong, but it was notimplausibleand it was not the
product of manipulation. To the contrary, since the FRY arduously
contestedthe jurisdiction of the Court,it wouldhave beeinits interest to
show that the FRY did not continuethe membership of the SFRY in the
United Nations and did not continue automatically to be a pxty to the
Statuteandto the GenocideConvention.
The sequence of events proved that the assumption of continuity
eventuallyfailed.Butit hasto be saidthat it wasa principledpositionwhich
had at least some support in facts. The mked signals coming f?om the
United Nations and fkomthe internationalcommunity(see paragraphs 8-9)
gave reasons to theFRY to persist and to expect that the inconsistencies
would eventually be resolved in favor of the proposition of continuity.
Yugoslavia maintainec lomelimitedparticipationin the work of the United
Nations, the Yugoslav flag was kept in &ont of the United Nations
Headquarters,Yugoslaviawas sa listed as a Member to treaties of which
the Secretary General is a depositary. Interpreting the listing of
"Yugoslavia"as a referenceto theFRY (in spiteof the fact that the General
Assembly and the Secui-ïty Council did not adopt the proposition of
continuity),was certainly not less logical thanthe understanding that this
reference continuesthe membershipof a Statewhich undeniably ceased to
exist. Seeking of payment by the United Nations and actual payment of
membershipduesby the FRY could not havebeen discarded as a symbolic
gesturetowardsthe (non-existing)SFRY. The expectations of the FRY were not met. But the dilemmas
persisted until 1 November 2000 when it became clear thFRY became a
new Member of the United Nations and that it was not a Member before.
Afterthe letter of the Legal Counsel of 8 Decem8e2000'~it also became
clear and confiied that the FRY was not a Member of the treaties on
ground of the fact that they were ratifed by the SFRY, but could gain
access to these treaties asnew State, by notifications of succession or
accession.
54SeeAnnex27. D. Admissibilityof this lnitiativeon Ground of the
Principlethat the Issue of Jurisdiction Remains
ReviewableAt Any MomentDuring the
Proceedings
36. Interimjudgments - like the one on preliminary objections- are
by their naturemore readily reviewablethan finaljudgments. Moreover, the
issue of jurisdictio- which is particularly sensitive in disputes between
States -cannot be settled (or forfeited) by timing.The Court may return to
this issue anythe, upon initiative, or proprio motu. In thICAO Council
A~eal casethe Court emphasized:
"lt is certainlytu be desiredthat objectionsto thejurisdiction
of the Coun should beput forward as preliminary objectionsfor
separatedecisions inadvanceof the proceedingson the merits. The
Court must, however,alwaysbe satisfiedthat it hasjurisdiction, and
must ifnecessarygo intothatmarierpropriomotu."55
/ /
Describing a situation which is identicalto the one in our case,
Schwarzenbergerstresses:
"If in the interlocutory judgment the Court affims its
jurisdiction butsubsequently,fin& that it lacksjurisdiction, it would
be contraryto thejus aequum characterof the relationsbetweenthe
55See AppealRelatingtotheJurisdiction of theICAOCouncil (Indiav. Pakistan),1972
ICJReports45, at p. 52.
50 Court and the parties to treat the judgment on jurisdiction as
irreversible"56
Further on, Schwarzenbergergives even more emphasis to the same
point:
"Inthe absence ofthe requisitejurisdiction,anyproceedings before
the Courtare ultra viresanda nullity.Thusirrespectiveof whethertheduty
is expresslystated, it is incumbenton the Courtto examineex officio this
conditiosinequanon ofifsactivities. "57
To recapitulate: the principle is that "The Court must. ....lways be
satisfied that it has jurisdiction, must if necessary go into that matter
proprio
37. The FRY wantsto add the following.In this moment,three cases
are pending before the court involving Yugoslaviaas a party.In addition to
this case, these are the Case Concernin~ Lerrality of the Use of Force
(Yugoslavia v. Belgium, Canada,France, Gennany, Italy,Netherlands,
Portugal and the United Kingdom), and another Case Conceming the
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide (Croatiav. Yugoslavia). (Technically, the number of
56 G.SCHWARZENBERGER, InternationaLaw as Applied by InternationaCourts
andTribunals,London1986,VolumeIV,atpp. 447-448.
''Op. cit511.
58Av~ealrelatinp.otheJuisdictionof theICA0 Council(Indiav. Pakistan),1972 ICJ
Reports45, atp.52.
51cases is ten, consideringthat the cases against eight NATO countries are
administered as separate cases.) In all cases remedy is being sought on
i
ground of the Genocide Convention. In al1 cases jurisdiction rationae
personaeregardingthe FRY is at issue; and in al1 cases the cluster of facts
on ground of which this issue has to be scrutinizedis the same. All these
casesare still pending.The principlesof consistencyand of equal treatment
wouldbe severelyimpaired,if in one of thesecases animportantelementof
the clusterof facts were tobe separatedand disregarded;or, in other words,
ifin some casesthe standingof Yugoslaviawere considered in the light of
the (now)clanfieclposition of the FRY in the United Nations,while in one
case the context of the investigationwere artificially reduced to omit this
fact. E. Con clusion
38. Until the date of the 11 July 1996 Judgment, the FRY never
declared,indeed never even suggestedthat it would be bound by treaties
otherwise than on the assumption of continuing the personality of the
SFRY. As one of the successor StatesofSFRY, theFRY had an option
to jointreatieby a notificationof succession,but it did not dTheo.
FRY, likeanyotherState,alsohadanoptiontojoitnreatiesby notifications
ofaccession,butfailedto doso.
39. On 1November2000,the FRY becamea Member of the United
Nationsas a newState. Thereby,it alsobecamea party tothe Statuteofthe
Court. On 8 March 2001 the FRY submitted to the Secretary-Generala
notificationseekingaccessionto the Genocide Conventionwith reservation
to Article IX. After yearsof confiictingsignals fiom various actors and
indicationswhich never becameconclusive,it becme clear ththeFRY
didnotcontinuethe membershipoftheSFRY in theUnited Nations,neither
didit continuethestatusoftheSFRYas a StaPartyto theStatueand as a
Statepartyto the Genocide ConventiConsequently,it also becameclear
that from the moment theFRYwasconstitutedon 27 Apd 1992,until 1
November2000, theFRYwas nota Memberof the UnitedNations, itwas
not a Stateparty to theStatanduntil8 March2001it did not accede to
membershipof theGenocideConvention (When it disubmit a notification
ofaccession,ididsowithoutacceptingArticleIX).
53 -
40. This sequence of changes is clearly demonsirated in official
records. Until December 2000, official listings of the United Nations
includedYugoslaviaasan originalMember,withmembership statu5since
24 October 1945, and without explaining whether the designation
"Yugoslavia" was or was not a reference totheFRY. This fact maybe
did not compel, but it certainly allowed the interpreraton according to
which the designation 'Yugoslavia" camto refer to the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia,rather than to the SocialistFederalRepublic of Yugoslavia
(which had ceasedtoexist).This interpretat-supportedby someevents,
challengedby others -allowed conclusionsaccordingto which the FRY
continuedthe membershipof the SFRY in theUnitedNations,and thatthe
FRY continued the status of theSFRY as a party to the Genocide
Convention. This interpretation(or elementsof this interpretation)fomed
theunderlyingassumptionof the 11July1996Judgment.
Today, according to theofficia1listing of 8 December 2000, the
designation("Yugoslaviay'i)s theme,however'Yugoslavia"is listedas
a Membersince1 November 2000 -and the explanatorynote des it
clear that this is a referenceto the FRY.This ia new fact ofsuch a
natureto be a decisivefactor,unknowntboththeCourt and tothe FRYat
the time when the Judgment of 11 July 1996was given. The issue of
jurisdictionoverYugoslavirationaepersonueisputinto a whollydifferent
perspective,and an ex officioreinvestigationof this issue bas become
compelling. F. Subrnissions
For the reasons advanced above the Federal Republic of
Yugoslaviarequeststhe Courttoadjudgeanddeclarethat:
this CourthasnojurisdictionovertheFRY rationaepersonae.
Furthemore, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is respectfull.
asking the Courtto suspendproceedingsregardingthe merits of the Case
untila decisionon this Initrendered
/gz7
4 May2001 ProfessorTibVarady
Agentof the FederalRepublic
ofYugoslavia List ofAnnexes
Annex 1
UN Doc. A/46/915, AnnexIIDeclaration adoptedon 27 April 1992 at a
joint session of the Assemblyof the SFRY, the National Assembly of the
Republicof Serbia,andthe Assemblyof Montenegro.
Annex2
UNDoc.A/46/915,Annex1:Notedated27 April1992fromthePermanent
Mission of Yugoslaviato the United Nationsaddressed to the Secretary-
General.
Annex3
UN Doc. S/RES/755 (1992): Security Councilresolution 755 (1992) and
UNDocA/RES/46/237:GeneralAssemblyresolution46/237(1992).
Annex4
UN Doc.N47PV.7: General Assembly,Provisional verbatimrecord of the
7fimeeting,22 September1992.
Annex5
UN Doc. Al51156 4 S/1996/885:Letter dated 28 October 1996 fiom the
PermanentRepresentativesof Bosniaand Herzegovina,Croatia,themer
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia andSlovenia tothe United Nations
addressedto the Secretary-General.
Annex6
UNDoc.S/RES/777(1992):SecurityCouncilresolution777 (1992).Annex7
UN Doc. AlRESl4711:General Assemblyresolution47/1 (1992).
Annex8
UN Doc. A/RES/47/229:General Assemblyresolution471229(1993).
UN Doc. Al471485, Annex: Letter dated 29 September 1992 from the
Under-Secretary-Genertl,e Legal Counsel, addressed to the Permanent
Representatives ofsnia and Herzegovina and Croatia to the United
Nations.
Annex10
UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.E/15: "Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the
Secretary-General,tus asat 31December 1996".
Annex 11
"List of Conventions deposited withthe Secretary-Generalof the United
Nations to whichYugoslaviais a signatory or participUNt"dataom
base.
Annex12
UN Doc. AJ47PV.7: General Assembly,Provisionalverbatimrecord ofthe
7" meeting,2 September1992.
Annex13
UN Doc. A/RES/52/215:General Assemblyresolution52/215(1997).
58Annex14
Letters of the UN Secretary-Generalrequesting membershipdues in 1994,
1995,1996,1997, and 1998.
Annex15
Receipt Voucher confirmingthe payment made by the Governxnentof the
FRY, value date 16September 1998.
Annex16
UN Doc. CERDlSPl51: Note verbal dated 14 January 1994 from the
Permanent Mission of the Republic of Croatia to the United Nations
addressedto the Secretary-General.
Annex17
UN Doc. CCPR/SP/SR.18:CCPR,Summaryrecord of the 18" meeting,16
March 1994.
Annex18
UN Doc. CCPWSPISR.19:CCPR, Summaryrecord of the 19" meeting, 8
September1994.
Annex19
UN Doc. CCPRfSPl40: Note verbal dated 15 March 1994 f?om the
Permanent Mission of the Republic of Croatia to the United Nations
addressedto the Secretary-General.
Annex20
UN Doc.A/50/40:ReportoftheHuman RightsCornmittee.
59Annex21
UN DOC.A/54/L.62: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Jordan, Kuwait,
Malaysia, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Slovenia: draft reso-ution
''Theequality of al1five successor States to the former Socialist Federal
Republicof Yugoslavia".
Annex22
EU Non Paper relating to the Draft resolution contained in UN doc.
Ai541L.62.
Letterdated 27 October 2000 from Resident KoStunicato the Secretary
General requesting admissionof FRY to the membershipof the United
Nations.
Annex24
UN Doc. S/2000/1051:Report of the Codttee on the Admissionof New
Members concerningthe applicationof the Federd Republic of Yugoslavia
for admissionto membershipnthe United Nations.
Annex25
UN Doc. SmES11326(2000): SecurityCouncilresolution1326(2000)and
UNDoc. A/RES/55/12:GeneralAssemblyresolution55/12(2000).
Annex26
Listof MemberStatesofthe UnitedNations,updated 18December2000. Annex27
Letter of the Legal Counselof the United Nations8dDecember2000
and Non Paper on Admissionof the FederalRepublicof Yugoslaviato the
J United Nations on 1 November:Implicationsfor Treaties Deposited with
the Secretary-General.
Annex28
Notification of Accession to the Convention on the Revention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, dated March2001andtransmittedon 8 March 2001.
Anna 29
Note dated 21 March 2001 from the Secretary-General confirming the
receiptof theinstrumentofaccessionsentbythe GovernmentoftheRY.
Annex30
UN Doc. S/RES/9(1946): SecurityCouncilresolution9 (1946).
Annex31
UN Doc. ST/LEGISER.E/lï: "Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the
Secretary-General,Statusasat30 April 1999".
"Initiative to the Court to Reconsider Ex Officio Jurisdiction over Yugoslavia"