Letter from the Deputy Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina transmitting to the Court the answer of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the question put by the Vice-President

MEl 12 2006 2:0SPM HP LASERJET 3200
p. 1

VAN DEN BIESEN BOESVELD

ADVOCATEN

SARPHATPI LAZA
Rhijnspoorplein 22, 1018 TX AMSTERDAM

Telefoon +31 (0)20 568 29 29, Telefax +31 (0)20 568 29 25
e-mail: [email protected]
www.vandenbiesenboesveld.nl

PHONVAN DEN BIESEN
To the Registrar of the
International Courtof Justice ROBBERTBOESVELD

Mr. Philippe Couvreur BONDINE KLOOSTRA
ANITA NUBOER
PeacePalace
Camegieplein 2 ELSEWEIJSENFELD

2517 KJ DEN HAAG

By telefax: +31 70 3649928

Nr. of pages: 4

Amsterdam, 12 May 2006

Re :Bosnia an d Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro

Dear Sir,

In response to Question 1. of the Vice-President of the Court, addressed to both Parties at the

end ofthe session of9 May 2006, I am instructed by Bosnia's Agent to submit the following

observations to the Court.

The relevant passages of the documents attached to Question 1.read as follows:

"In the light of the fact that Serbia and Montenegro had existed as independent States
before the creation ofYugoslavia, and in view of the fact that Yugoslavia continued

the international legal personality these States, the Republic of Macedonia respects

the state continuityf the Federal Republic ofYugoslavia. [... ]
The Parties agree to resolve their mutuai claims on grounds of succession to the for­

mer Yugoslavia by agreement." 1

1FRY /Macedonia

lEDEREAANSPRAI<ELUKHEIO15BEPERKTTOT HET BEOII.ACDAT IN HET OESBETREFFENDCEEVALONDER ONZE BEICRDT UITBETAALDLUKHEIDSVERZEKERW
ANY LIABlliTY SHALL BELIMITED T0 THE At..IOUNTWHICH 15PAIDUNDERTHE FIRM'SPROFESSIONALLIASILITYPOUCY IN THE MATTERCONCERNEOMEl 12 2006 2:0SPM HP LH5~~J~I ~~uu p.~

VAN DEN BIESEN BOESVELD
ADVOCATEN

Bosnia andHerzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro
11 May1006
Page 2 of 4

"Proceeding from the historical fact that Serbiaand Montenegroexisted as independ­
ent States before the creation ofYugoslavia, and bearingin mind the fact that Yugo­

slavia has continuedthe international legal personalityofthese States, the Republicof
Croatia notes theexistenceofthe State continuity of the Federal Republic ofYugosla­

via."2

"Bosnia and Herzegovina acceptsthe State continuityof the Federal Republic of
3
Yugoslavia."

Ail of these documents do reflect the developing relationsbetweenthe various independent
States that emerged from the fonner Yugoslavia The Macedoniandocuments date fromafter

the Preliminary Objections-OralPleadings, but from beforethe Court'sJudgment of 11July
1996, while the Croatian and Bosnian documentswere agreedupon between the respective

Parties a:fterthat Ju.dgment.Wedowant to draw the Court'sattention to the fact thatthe FRY

1 Bosnia Document was made known within the UN by the Chargéd'affaires ofYugoslavia,
i.e. the FRY, which formedat the time -and rernainedsince-the regular UN practice.

The documents also showthat Yugoslaviaretained its views on State continuity as expressed

in the Declaration of thejoint session of the Assemblyof the SFRY,the National Assembly
of the Republic of Serbia and the Assemblyof the RepublicofMontenegro of 27 April 1992,

as also expressed in the Note sent to the Secretary-Generalof the United Nations by Yugosla­

via's representative at thUnited Nations on 27 April1992, whichnote states among other
things:

"Under the Constitution,on the basis of the continu.ingpersonality of Yugoslaviaand

the legitimatedecisionsby Serbiaand Montenegroto continue to live together in
Yugoslavia,the SocialistFederal Republic ofYugoslavia is transfonned into theFed­

eral Republicof Yugoslavia,consistingof the Republicof Serbia and the Republicof

Montenegro. Strictlyrespectingthe continuity of the internationalpersonality of
Yugoslavia,the Federal Republicof Yugoslaviashall continueto fulfil all the rights

conferred to, and obligationsassumed by, the SocialistFederal Republic of Yugoslac
via in internationalrelations, includingits membershipin ail international organiza­

tions and participationin internationaltreaties ratifiedor acceded to by Yugoslavia.

The Federal RepublicofYugoslavia, as a founding memberofthe United Nations,ac­
knowledges its full commitmentto the world Organization,the United Nations Charter

and to the Conferenceon Securityand Cooperationin Europe(CSCE), as its founding

2FRY 1Croatia
3FRY 1Bosnia and HerzegovinaMEl 12 2006 2:09PM HP LASERJET 3200 p.3

VAN DEN BIESEN BOESVELD
ADVOCATEN

Bosnia andHerzegovinav.SerbiaandMontenegro
11 May2006
PageJ of 4

participating state and to all CSCE documents, in particular the Helsinki Final Act and
4
the Charter of Paris. "

The documents attached to the Vice-President's question also show that Yugoslavia's position
regarding continuity was in effectnot barred by the other three, respective, Parties, while ail

Parties agreed that the format for upcoming negotiations on the "legacy" of the SFRY would

be:

"The Parties agree to resolve their mutual daims on grounds of succession to the for­

mer Yugoslavia by agreement." (Macedonia);

"The Contracting Parties are agreed to resolve the issue of the succession of the So­

cialist Federal Republic ofYugoslavia on the basis of the rules of international law on
succession of States and through agreement." (Croatia);

and

"Bath sides agree to resolve issues of succession on the basis of the rules of interna­
tional law on succession of States and by agreement." (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

The Court knows that, as Counsel for Bosnia and Herzegovina observed, the FRY bad pre­
sented the continuity position during the course of our proceedings to the Court on which the

Court, then, based itseLfreaching its 11 July 1996 Judgment 5.Likewise the FRY, at the time,­

outside theCour tontinuously presented this position toits counterparts who also acted on
this basis.

Although Respondent bas, during the recent Oral Pleadings, taken the stance that the continu­
ity position was wrong, at the same time itwas stressed by various CoW1Selfor the Respon­

dent that the continuity position was "not implausible" and "plausible" 6.Certainly, this posi­

tion was not only plausible, but from a legal perspective perfectly possible, regardless of the
circumstances that the other States emerging from the former Yugoslavia -politically- would

have desired otherwise. The situation reflected in the documents attached to Question 1.re­

flects precisely the situation Counsel for Bosnia referred to when he stated:

<<End'autres termes, il eût étépossible que le vent tournât et que la communauté in­

ternationale- qui n'avait pris aucune mesure d'expulsion ou de suspension de la You-

4 UN Doc. A/46/91S,Anex I, page 2.
sCR 2006/36, pages 12-IJ, paras. 29-32 (Pellet)
6 CR 2006/13, page. 30, para. 3.46 (Varady) and CR 2006/44, page 43, para 2.50 (Zimmermann).Ml:.l J.C.c.uuo c.;u;;:Jrn

VAN DEN BIESEN BOESVELD
ADVOCATEN

Bosnia and Herzegavina v. Serbia and Montemgro
12 May2006 Page 4 of 4

goslavie des Nations Unies- se résignât à sa réintégrationdans 1'intégralitéde ses

droits au sein de l'Organisation, car ilétaitpossible aussi que les autresEtats succes­
seurs de l'ex-Yougoslavie (la RFSY) lui reconnaissent le statut de continuateur[ ... ] »7

The main thing is that,as appears from the documents attached to Question 1,the FRY, Ma­
cedonia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina conducted their respective, bilateral, relations

also on the given state continuity of the FRY, as did the Court while reaching its 1996 Judg­
ment, on the basis ofthe position firmly maintained by the FRY itself. This situation cannot

be Wldone and is not undone, retroactively, by the FRY's admission to the United Nations on

1 November 2000, which admission was based upon a request of the FRY submitted to the
Secretary General on 27 October 2000.

Please,accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest esteem,

nvan den Biesen,

D puty Agent ofBosnia and Herzegovina
before the International Court of Justice

; CR2006/37, page 35, para. 7 (Pellet)