Foreign &
ComrnonweaItb
OtEce
17Januar y0U3
e-mail:Michael.WundQfco.gov,uk
His ExcellencyMsPhili@pe Couvreur
Registrar
Intefnatiod Courtof Justice
PeaoePnla'ce
2517KJTheHague
TheNetherlands .,
Sir,
1have thehonour loreferto thecaseconcerning Legalit)of Use ofForce (YugosIcwia v
Unite d ingdom) and toyour Ietteof 30December 2002, transmittingthe FederalRepublic
ofYugoslavia's written statementofitsobswvations andsubmissionson the United
Kingdom's Miminary Objections. I
In theparticularand somewhat unusualcircumstances ofthis case,the United Kingdom
wishes to make the foIlw~ingobservationson theFederalRepublic ofYugos2aviaYs written
statement dated 18December 2002-
(i) The United Kingdom regardspoint (a)in thewrittenstatement asamounting
to acceptance of thefirstsubmissioninthe United Kingdom's Preliminary Objections
ofJune 2000, iethattheFederalRepublicofYugoslavia was notqualified tobring
these proceedings, becauseitwas not aparty to the Statutofthe Courtn,orotherwise
entitledto institute proceedingsbefare the CourThe Cou1-taccordingly lacked
jurisdictionrntiorrpersonae, as explained in detail in Part3 ofUnited Kingdom's
Preliminary Objections. Itisclear from its writtstatement thattheFederal
Republic ofYugoslavia does not seekto argue (norcould it)thatthisdefect has been
remedied by thesubsequent admissionof the Federal Republicof Yugoslavia to the
United Nations. Thispoint issufficientodispose ofthe whole case,whether
jurisdictionwas claimed originalluponthe OptionalClause, orupon the Genocide
Convention, orupon anyothertitle.
As forpoint (b)inthewritten statement,it inow clear thatthe Federal
(ii)
Republic of Yugoslavia no'tonger seeksta relyupon Article IXof theGenocide
Convention as atitlof jurisdiction. Foits parttheUnited Kingdom maintains that
there could in anyeventbe nojurisdictionbased on Article IXsince theapplication
does not raisea drsputerelatingtotheinterpretationapplicalionor fulfilment othe
Conventioll. This issuewas considered indetailin Part5 ofthe United Kingdom's
Pre timinaryObjections. .(iii) Whateve thepositionmight beinotherproceedings ,tisclearthatinthe
proceedingsagainsttheUnitedKingdom (andindee the sevenotherNATO
Manbem), theFederalRepublicofYugoslavianolongerccintends tha the Courthas
jurisdictiounder anyof theinstnunentonwhichit hashithertasoughttofound
jvrisdictionNor does theFed4 Republic ofYugoslavis aeekto advance any
alternativebasiforthejurisdictiooftheCourt 'OR thecontmy*the effect ofthe
writtefi statemeisthat-thFedad RepublicofYugoslaviaconcedes that thCourt
has nojurisdictioninthpresentcase.
Therefore,forthemasons advancedin'itPrelimhq Objectionsand inthepresentletter,
andha~g regard tothe written etateinenthe FederalRepublic oYugoslnvia'da ted
December 2002, 'thUnitedKingdomrequests theCourtto adjudgeand declarethatitlacks
jutisdictionover€heclaim broughtagainsttheUnited Kingdom by theFederal Republicof
Yugoslavia ancUm thatShoseclaimsareinadmissible.In thedternativeiftheCourt
concludes thatby itswritten statemeof1 8December 2002, thFederalRepublic of
Yugoslavia has effectiveinformed theCourt thaitishatgoing onwith theproceedings
(articl89 oftheRulesof Court)theUnitedKingdomhereby statethatithas noobjection
o
to thediscontinuanceqftheproceedings.
Accept, Sirthe assuranceof my highest cumideration.
M C Wood
[Agent oftheGovernment oftheUnitedKingdomof
GreatSritainandNorthernkland) .
Letter of the Agent of the United Kingdom