Preliminary objections

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website X YouTube LinkedIn
Press Release
Unofficial
No. 2024/74
12 November 2024
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Azerbaijan v. Armenia) The Court finds that it has jurisdiction on the basis of Article 22 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to entertain the Application filed by Azerbaijan

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website X YouTube LinkedIn
Summary
Unofficial
Summary 2024/10
12 November 2024
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Azerbaijan v. Armenia) Summary of the Judgment of 12 November 2024
I. INTRODUCTION (PARAS. 22-28)

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website X YouTube LinkedIn
Press Release
Unofficial
No. 2024/73
12 November 2024
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v. Azerbaijan) The Court finds that it has jurisdiction on the basis of Article 22 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to entertain the Application filed by Armenia

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website X YouTube LinkedIn
Summary
Unofficial
Summary 2024/9
12 November 2024
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v. Azerbaijan) Summary of the Judgment of 12 November 2024
I. INTRODUCTION (PARAS. 31-37)

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE TLADI
Jurisdiction ratione temporis — Interpretation of Article 22 of the Convention — Applicability of other relevant rules and principles of international law under Article 31 (1) (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties —Reciprocity — Non-retroactivity  Concept of erga omnes partes not undermined by Judgment.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CLEVELAND
Jurisdiction ratione temporis — Admissibility — Standing — Obligations erga omnes partes — Non-retroactivity — Reciprocity — State responsibility — Inter-State complaint process.
Armenia’s objection raises question of admissibility and standing — Court has jurisdiction to hear the claims — CERD compromissory clause contains no limitation ratione temporis — No issue of retroactivity was presented.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CHARLESWORTH
Jurisdiction ratione temporis  Distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility  Qualification of the first preliminary objection as one of legal standing.
The applicability of CERD to pre-existing disputes  The need for explicit limitations in order to rule out pre-existing disputes from a treaty’s temporal scope  The general rule on pre-existing disputes otherwise being covered by a treaty’s temporal scope.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE IWASAWA

DECLARATION OF JUDGE YUSUF
Disagreement with the approach and conclusion of the Court on jurisdiction ratione temporis  It is neither about (non-)retroactivity of treaty obligations nor about erga omnes partes obligations  Article 22 of CERD contains no limit to the scope of jurisdiction ratione temporis  Obligations arise for Armenia from the date it became bound by CERD  Any alleged breach after such date attributable to Armenia would fall within CERD  As a State party Azerbaijan is entitled to invoke CERD for any such breach by Armenia.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE TOMKA
First preliminary objection of the Respondent  Reasons for vote in favour of subparagraph 1 of the operative clause of the Judgment  Absence of limitation ratione temporis in Article 22 of the Convention  Principle of non-retroactivity irrelevant in the present case  Standing of the Applicant real crux of the matter  Applicant has no standing to invoke the responsibility of the Respondent for acts alleged to have occurred in the 1993-1996 period  Therefore, claims based on those acts are inadmissible.
I. INTRODUCTION