Declaration of intervention of Germany

 
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION UNDER ARTICLE 63 
OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

2 August 2024 
 
In the case of  

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

(UKRAINE v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION) 



2 
To the Registrar, International Court of Justice, the undersigned being duly
authorized by the Government of Germany: 
1. On behalf of the Government of Germany, I have the honour to submit to
the Court a Declaration of Intervention pursuant to Article 63 paragraph 2 of the
Statute of the Court in the merits phase of the Case concerning The Allegations of
Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation). 
2. Article 82, paragraph 5, of the Rules of the Court provides that a declaration
of a State’s desire to avail itself of the right of intervention conferred upon it by
Article 63 of the Statute shall specify the case and the convention to which it relates
and shall contain: 
(a) particulars of the basis on which the declarant State considers itself a party
to the convention; 
(b) identification of the particular provisions of the convention the
construction of which it considers to be in question; 
(c) a statement of the construction of those provisions for which it contends;
(d) a list of documents in support, which documents shall be attached. 

3. Those matters are addressed in sequence below, following some preliminary 
observations.
I. Preliminary Observations
4. By this present Declaration, Germany informs about its desire to avail itself
of the right to intervene in the merits phase of the present case, a right which is
conferred upon it by Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute. This Court has 
recognized that Article 63 confers a “right” of intervention
1
. The Court has also 
underlined that an intervention “is limited to submitting observations on the
construction of the convention in question and does not allow the intervenor, which
does not become a party to the proceedings, to deal with any other aspect of the case
before the Court; and whereas such intervention cannot affect the equality of the
Parties to the dispute”.
2


1
Haya de la Torre (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 76; Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab 
Jamahiriya), Application for Permission to Intervene, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1981, p. 13, para. 21.   
2
Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6 February 2013, I.C.J. 
Reports 2013, p. 3, at p. 9, para. 18.   
3 
5. Consistent with the restricted scope for interventions under Article 63 of
the Statute, Germany will solely present its interpretation of the relevant Articles of
the Genocide Convention in line with customary rules of interpretation as reflected
in Articles 31-33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
3
. Neither the
present Declaration of Intervention nor a later intervention can, therefore, in any
way be construed as having implications with regard to Germany’s position on
factual or legal aspects covered in the case at hand that are going beyond the specific
aspects covered in Germany’s intervention. In particular, Germany wishes to stress
that presenting an interpretation regarding genocidal intent must not in any way be
construed as implicitly acknowledging the existence of any genocidal action.  
6. In its intervention of 1 September 2022, Germany had focused solely on
Article IX of the Convention relating to the jurisdiction of the Court. With the
present Declaration of Intervention Germany informs of its intent to intervene in
the merits phase of the case on the interpretation of Article II of the Convention, 
while reserving the right to also comment on Article III of the Convention.

II. Basis on which Germany is Party to the Convention
7. Germany deposited its instrument of ratification to the Genocide
Convention in accordance with its Article XI on 9 October 1954
4
and it accordingly
entered into force for Germany by virtue of its Article XIII ninety days thereafter.
Germany has entered no reservations to the Convention and remains a Party to the
Convention.

III. Provisions of the Convention in Question in the Case (Merits) 
8. Germany wishes to share with the Court its interpretation of Article II of
the Convention, which it considers relevant for the merits of the case and which 
reads:
“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial
or religious group, as such: 

3
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Judgment of 
22 July 2022, p. 31, para. 87: “The Court will have recourse to the rules of customary international law on treaty interpretation as 
reflected in Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969”; see also Application of the International 
Convention On the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Preliminary Objections, 
Judgment of 4 February 2021, p. 24, para. 75 with further references.   
4
See Annex B to this Declaration. 
4 
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” 
9. Article II of the Convention contains the definition of genocide. Germany
contends that on the interpretation of the elements of genocide there is pertinent
case law of the Court that is well-established. 
10. In particular, in order for genocide to occur, there is a requirement to
establish both that genocidal acts listed in Article II (including certain mental
elements) have occurred as well as that they were committed with a (specific) 
genocidal intent.
5

11. Genocidal intent, often referred to as specific intent or dolus specialis, means 
the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, the group to which the victims belong
as such. It is to be distinguished from other motives or reasons the perpetrator may
have. It is not sufficient if members of the group are targeted because they belong to
that group, in other words because of the presence of a discriminatory intent. It is
rather required to establish a different intention that clearly goes beyond
discriminatory intent and great care must be taken in finding in the facts a sufficiently
clear manifestation of any genocidal intent.
6

12. In turn, the fact that civilian casualties occurred during the course of an 
armed conflict is not per se evidence of genocidal action or genocidal intent.
13. Where direct evidence for specific intent is absent, the Court has 
determined that “in order to infer the existence of dolus specialis from a pattern of
conduct, it is necessary and sufficient that this is the only inference that could
reasonably be drawn from the acts in question”.
7

14. Thereby, the Court has long recognized that claims against a State 
involving charges of exceptional gravity must be proved by evidence that is fully 

5
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina 
v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (I), p. 43, at pp. 121-122, paras. 186-189.   
6
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina 
v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (I), p. 43, at pp. 121-122, paras. 187, 189.   
7
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment, I.C.J. 
Reports 2015, p. 3, at p. 67, para. 148.   
5 
conclusive. The Court requires that it be fully convinced that allegations made in the
proceedings, that the crime of genocide or the other acts enumerated in Article III
have been committed, have been clearly established. The same standard applies to
the proof of attribution for such acts.
8

IV. Documents in Support of the Declaration  
15. The following is a list of the documents in support of this Declaration,
which documents are attached hereto 
Annex A: Letter from the Registrar sent pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 1,
of the Court’s Statute; 
nstrument
Annex B: I
of Accession of the Federal Republic of Germany to the 
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; 
it is hereby certified that the documents attached in the Annexes to this 
Declaration are true copies of the originals.

V. Conclusion
16. On the basis of the information set out above, Germany informs about
its desire to avail itself of the right conferred upon it by Article 63 paragraph 2 of the
Statute to intervene in the proceedings brought by Ukraine against the Russian
Federation in this case.
17. Germany reserves the right to amend or supplement this Declaration of
Intervention in the course of written and oral observations and by filing a further
declaration with the Court.
18. The government of Germany has appointed the undersigned as Agent 
for the purposes with this Declaration, together with Dr. Wiebke Rückert, Director
for Public International Law, Federal Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of
Germany and Mr Edgar Alfred Gansen, Deputy Ambassador of the Federal Republic
of Germany to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Co-Agents. The Registrar of the
Court may channel all communication through them at the following address: 
Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in the Netherlands
Groot Hertoginnelaan 18-20
NL-2517 EG Den Haag 


8
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina 
v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (I), p. 43, at p. 129, para. 209.   
6 


Respectfully submitted, 


Tania von Uslar-Gleichen
Agent of the Government of Germany 

COUR INTERNATIONALE
INTERNATIONAL COURT
DE JUSTtCE
OF JUSTICE
COUR INTERNATIONALE
DE JUSTICE
INTERNATIONAL COURT
OF JUSTICE 
156413
156413 
30 March 2022
30 March 2022 
I have the honour to refer to my letter (No, 156253) dated 2 March 2022 informing your 
I have the honour to refer to my letter (No. 156253) dated 2 March 2022 informing your 
4 
Government that, on 26 February 2022, Ukraine filed in the Registry of the Court an Application 
instituting proceedings against the Republic of the Russian Federation in the case conceming 
Government that, on 26 February 2022, Ukraine filed in the Registry of the Court an Application
instituting proceedings against the Republic of the Russian Federation in the case concerning 
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of 
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of 
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). A copy of the Application was appended to that letter. 
The text of the Application is also available on the website of the Court (www.ici-cii.org).
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). A copy of the Application was appended to that letter.
The text of the Application is also available on the website of the Court (www.icj-cij.org). 
Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court provides that:
Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court provides that: 
[wjhenever the construction of a convention to which States other than those concemed 
in the case are parties is in question, the Registrar shall notify all such States forthwith”.
[whenever the construction of a convention to which States other than those concerned
in the case are parties is in question, the Registrar shall notify all such States forthwith. 
Fürther, under Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court:
Further, under Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court: 
“Whenever the construction of a convention to which States other than those 
"Whenever the construction of a convention to which States other than those 
concemed in the case are parties may bc in question within the meaning of Article 63, 
concerned in the case are parties may be in question within the meaning of Article 63, 
paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Court shall consider what directions shall be given to the 
paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Court shall consider what directions shall be given to the 
Registrar in the matter.”
Registrar in the matter. 
On the instructions of the Court, given in accordance with the said provision of the Rules of 
On the instructions of the Court, given in accordance with the said provision of the Rules of 
Court, I have the honour to notify your Government of the following.
Court, I have the honour to notify your Government of the following. 
In the above-mentioned Application, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishmem 
In the above-mentioned Application, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment 
of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter the “Genocide Convention”) is invoked both as a basis of the 
Court’s Jurisdiction and as a substantive basis of the Applicant’s Claims on the merits. In particular, 
the Applicant seeks to found the Court’s Jurisdiction on the compromissory clause contained in 
Article IX of the Genocide Convention, asks the Court to declare that it has not committed a genocide 
as defined in Articles II and 111 of the Convention, and raises questions concerning the scope of the 
duty to prevent and punish genocide under Article 1 of the Convention. It therefore appears that the 
construction of this Instrument will be in question in the case.
of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter the "Genocide Convention) is invoked both as a basis of the
Court's jurisdiction and as a substantive basis of the Applicant's claims on the merits. In particular,
the Applicant seeks to found the Court's jurisdiction on the compromissory clause contained in
Article IX of the Genocide Convention, asks the Court to declare that it has not committed a genocide
as defined in Articles II and lll of the Convention, and raises questions concerning the scope of the
duty to prevent and punish genocide under Article I of the Convention. It therefore appears that the
construction of this instrument will be in question in the case. 
./.
[Letter to the States parties to the Genocide Convention 
[Letter to the States parties to the Genocide Convention
(except Ukraine and the Russian Federation)] 
(except Ukraine and the Russian Federation)]
Palais de la Paix, Camegieplein 2 
Peace Palace, Camegieplein 2
2517 KJ La Haye - Pays-Bas 
2517 KJ The Hague - Netherlands
Telephone:+31 (0) 70 302 23 23
- Facsimile : +31 (0) 70 364 99 28 
Telephone: -r31 (0) 70 302 23 23 - Telefax: +31 (0) 70 364 99 28
Site Internet: www.icj-cij.org
Website: www.icj-cij.org
Palais de la Paix, Camnegieplein 2
2517 KJ La Haye - Pays-Bas
T&l~phone : +31 (0) 70 302 23 23 - Facsimile : +31 (0) 70 364 99 28
Site Internet : www.icj-cij.org 
Peace Palace, Camegieplein 2
2517KJ The Hague - Netherlands
Telephone: +31 (0) 70 302 23 23 - Telefax: +31 (0) 70 364 99 28
Website: www.icj-cij.org 
COUR INTERNATIONALE
COUR INTERNATIONALE 
INTERNATIONAL COURT
INTERNATIONAL COURT 
DE JUSTICE
OE JUSTICE 
OF JUSTICE
OF JUSTICE 
Your country is included in the list of parties to the Genocide Convention. The present Jetter 
should accordingly be regarded as the notification contemplated by Article 63, paragraph 1, of the 
Statute. I would add that this notification in no way prejudges any question ofthe possible application 
of Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute, which the Court may later be called upon to determine in 
Your country is included in the list of parties to the Genocide Convention. The present letter
should accordingly be regarded as the notification contemplated by Article 63, paragraph I, of the
Statute. I would add that this notification in no way prejudges any question of the possible application
of Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute, which the Court may later be called upon to determine in 
this case.
this case. 
Accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. 
Philippe Gautier 
Philippe Gautier 
Registrar
Registrar 
-2-
-2­ 
DER PRASIDENT
DER BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND
DER PRASIDENT 
DER PRASIDENT 
DER BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND 
DER BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND 
Beitrittserkla rung
Beitrittserkl~rung 
Beitrittserklarung 
Im Namen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland erklare ich hiermit,
Im Namen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland erklare ich hiermit, 
Im Namen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland erklare ich hiermit, 
da6 die Bundesrepublik Deutschland der am 9. Dezember 1948
da~ die Bundesrepublik Deutschland der am 9. Dezember 1948
von der Vollversammlung der Vereinten Nationen angenommenen 
von der Vollversammlung der Vereinten Nationen angenommenen
daG die Bundesrepublik Deutschland der am 9. Dezember 1948
von der Vollversammlung der Vereinten Nationen angenommenen 
Konvention ither die Verhatung und Bestrafung
des Volkermordes
Konvention iiber die Verhiitung und Bestrafung 
Konvention ~ber die Verhiitung und Bestrafung
des V~lkermordes 
des V olkennordes 
beitritt.
beitritt. 
beitritt. 
Bonn, den 9 Ok-t,
Bonn, den 9. Ot. 
1954
Bonn, den 9. Ol::.-L. 1954 
1954 
Der Bundesprasident
Der Bundespr~sident 
Der Bundesprasiqent 
--f,,,__.- ·-
­ 
t ~f.4' 
de.hl& 
Der Bundeskanzler
Der Bundeskanzler 
Der Bundeskanzler 
und Bundesminister des Auswartigen
und Bundesminister des Ausw~rtigen 
und Bundesminister des Auswartigen 
f 
/ 
/ 
t 
(I