Public sitting held on Wednesday 25 August 1993, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding

Nor+- Corr-IQ~
Uncorrectecl

InternationalCourt Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THE HAGUE La HAYE

Public sitting

held on Wednesday 25 August 1993, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,

President Sir Robert Jemings presiding

in the case concerningthe Application of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishnt of the Crime of Genocide

(Bosnia and Herzegovinav. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Hontenegro))

Requesl for the Indication of Provisional Beasures

Ho 2

VERBATIM RECORD

Audience publique

tenue le mercredi 25 août 1993, à 10 heures,au Palais de la Paix,

sous la présidence de sir Robert Jemings, Président

en 2'affaire relative à Z8Applicationde la convention pour
la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide

(Bosnie-~erzégovinec. Yougoslavie (Serbie et Honténégro))

Demandes en indication de mesures conservatoires

COMPTE RENDUPresent:

President SirRobertJennings
Vice-PresidentOda
JudgesSchwebel
Bedjaoui
Ni
Evensen
Tarassov
Guillaume
Shahabuddeen
Aguilar Mawdsley
Weeramantry
Ajibola
Herczegh

Judges ad hoc Lauterpacht
Kreca

RegistrarValencia-Ospinaprésents:

Sir RobertJennings, Président
M. Oda, Vice-Président
MM. Schwebel
Bedjaoui

Ni
Evensen
Tarassov
Guillaume
Shahabuddeen
AguilarMawdsley
Weeramantry
Ajibola,juges
Herczegh,juges

Lauterparcht,
Kreca,juges ad hoc

M. Valencia-Ospina, GreffierThe Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is represented
by: :

H. E. Mr. MuhamedSacirbey, Ambassadorand Permanent Representative
of Bosniaand Herzegovina to theUnitedNations;

Mr. FrancisA. Boyle,Professor of InternationaLlaw,

as Agent;

Mr. Phonvan denBiesen, Advocate,

Mr. KhawarQureshi, Barrister E,ngland,

as Advocates and Counsel;

Mr. Marc Weller,Assistant Lecture in Law,University of Cambridge,
SeniorResearchFellow ofSt. Catharine's College, Cambridge,

as Counsel.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Elontenegro))is represented by:

Mr. RodoljubEtinski,Professorat the Schoolof Law,Novi Sad
(Yugoslavia),

Mr. DjordjeLopicic(LL.C.),Chargéd'affaires a.i. of the Embassy
of the FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia to theNetherlands,

as Agents;

Mr. ShabtaiRosenne, Advocatf eromJerusalem(Israel),

Mr. MiodragMitic (LL.C.),ChiefLegalAdviserof the Federal
Ministryof Foreign Affairs,

as Counsel and Advocates.Le Gouvernement de la osn nie-Herzégoviene$ représenté par:

S. Exc.M. Muhamed Sacirbey, ambassade etrreprésentantpermanent
de la osn nie-Herzégoviauprèsde liOrganisatiod nes
NationsUnies,

M. Francis A.Boyle,professeur de droit international,

comme agent;

M. Phonvan den Biesen, avocat,

M. KhawarQureshi,avocat,

comme avocats et conseils;

M. Marc Weller,Assistant Lecturer in &aw àl'université de
Cambridgeet Senior Research Fellowbf St. Catharinets College,

Cambridge,

comme conseil.

Le Gouvernement de la ~é~ublique fédérative de Yougoslavie (Serbie et
Monténégro) est représenté par:

M. RodoljubEtinski,professeur du cadre permanen t la Faculté de
droit,Novi Sad(Yougoslavie),

M. DjordjeLopicic(LL.C.),chargé d'affaire a.i. de l'ambassade de
la République fédérativ de YougoSla~ieaux Pays-Bas,

comme agents;

M. Shabtai Rosenne, avoca at barreau deJerusalem(Israel),

M. MiodragMitic (LL.C.),conseiller jpridiqu en chef duministère
fédéraldes affaires étrangères,

comme conseils et avocats. The PRESIDENT: Pleasebe seated. The sittingis open.

The Courtmeets today, pursuantto Article74, paragraph3, of the

Rulesof Court,to hear the observations of the Partiesto the case

concerning Application of the Conventionon the Prevention and

Punishment of theCrime of Genocide (Bosniaand HerzegovinaV.

Yugoslavia (Serbia and ~ontenegro))on a requestfor the indication of

provisional measuresunderArticle41 of the Statuteof the Court

presentedby the Republio cf Bosniaand Herzegovinaon 27 July 1993,and

a similar request presente dy the Republicof Yugoslavia(Serbia and

Montenegro) on 9 August1993.

The proceedingsin the case wereinstitutedby the Republic of

Bosnia and Herzegovin (towhich 1 shall refer, for convenienc as,

Bosnia-Herzegovina againstthe Republic of Yugoslavia(Serbiaand

Montenegro)(to be referredto as Yugoslavia),by an Application filedon

20 March 1993,invokingas basisof jurisdiction the 1948 Conventioonn

the Preventionand Punishment of the Crimeof Genocide. On the samedate

Bosnia-Herzegovina filed a request for indicationof provisional

measures; and in written observation presentedon 1 April 1993

Yugoslavia alsorecomrnende thatprovisionalmeasuresbe ordered. Ban

Orderdated 8 April 1993, the Court,afterhearing the Parties,ordered I

certain provisional measures which, however,nw otredenticalwith

thoseaskedfor byeither Party.

Sincethemakingof thatOrder,each ofthe Partieshas availed

itselfof the right conferreb dy Article31, paragraph3, of theStatute

of the Court,to choosea judge ad hoc to sit in the case,inasmuchas

the Courtincludesupon the Benchno judgeof thenationality of theParties. Bosnia-Herzegovina h chosenMr. Elihu Lauterpacht,C.B.E.,

Q.C.,Directorof the Research Centre for InternationalLaw, University

of Cambridge;Yugoslaviahas chosenMr. MilenkoKreca, formerly

Professorof International Law and AssociateDean,Belgrade School of Law.

Before proceeding further,1 shall inviteJudgesLauterpachtand

Kreca to make the solemndeclarationrequiredby Articles 20 and 31 of

the Statuteof the Court. They willdo so in the orderof precedence

laid dom by Article7, paragraph3, of the Rules of Court,i.e., first

JudgeLauterpacht, thenJudgeKreca. 1 shallrequestal1 presentto

standwhile the declarations aremade. JudgeLauterpacht.

JudgeLAUTERPACHT: 1 solemnlydeclarethat 1 will performmy duties

and exercisemy powersas judgehonourably, faithfully, impartial and

conscientiously.

The PRESIDENT: JudgeKreca.

JudgeKRECA: 1 solemnlydeclarethat 1 will performmy dutiesand

exercisemy powersas judgehonourably, faithfully, impartial and

conscientiously.

The PRESIDENT: Pleasebe seated.

1 place on record thesolemndeclarations just madeby

JudgeLauterpachtand JudgeKreca,and declarethem duly installedas

judges ad hoc in the case concemingApplication of the Convention on

the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocideosnia and

Herzegovinav. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)).

When the second requestby Bosnia-Herzegovinfaor the indicationof

provisional measurewsas received,it was myduty as President "to fix a

date for a hearingwhich willafford thePartiesan opportunityof beingrepresented at it" as prescribedby Article74, paragraph3, of the

Rulesof Court. Takingal1 the circumstances intoaccount,1 fixedtoday

as the date for thehearing,and was unableto accedeto representations

by Bosnia-Herzegovina tht ate date bealteredto an earlierday.

It was howeveralsourged byBosnia-Herzegovin that the Court

could,and in thiscase should, indicate provisional measures without a

hearingat whichthe otherPartycouldbe represented, notwithstanding

the termsof Article74, paragraph3, of the Rules. This contention was

basedon Article75, paragraph 1, of the Rulesof Court, whichprovides

that

"The Courtmay at any time decideto examine
proprio motuwhetherthe circumstances of the case require
the indication ofprovisional measure whichoughtto be taken
or compliedwith by any or al1 of the parties."

A similarcontention had beenmade byBosnia-Herzegovin aat thetime

of its original requesf tor provisional measureon 20 March 1993. The

Parties wereinformedby letterof 24 March 1993that the Court had

considered the matterand ruledas follows:

"TheCourtnotesthe suggestion made in the requestthat
the Court take certain actionpropriomotu and the reference
in this connectiotno Article75, paragraph1, of the Rulesof
Court. It doesnot howeverconsiderthatin the present
proceedings,wherea specific requesthas been madefor the
indication of provisional measuresany questionarisesof the
exerciseof its powers underthatprovision, which in any event
do not, in the Court'sview, extendto indicating measures
withoutaffording both Partiesthe opportunity of beingheard."

1 was thereforeboundto regardthis approach as an attemptto

re-opena matteralready settled bd yecisionof the Court;
on my

instructions the Registrar reiteratedi,n aletterto theAgentof

Bosnia-Herzegovina dat1 ed August1993,the Court'sposition asset out

in the letterof 24 March1993. In view of the circumstanceh sowever 1feltit appropriate to exercisemy powersunderArticle74, paragraph4,

of the Rulesof Court. On 5 August1993, 1 addressedan urgent message

to both Parties,recalling thetermsof thatArticle, which enablesthe

President,pending the meetingof the Court,

"to callupon the partiesto act in sucha way as will enable
any orderthe Court maymake on the request for provisional
measuresto have its appropriateeffects".

The messagecontinued:

"1 do now callupon the Parties soto act,and 1 stress
that theprovisional measures already indica inedhe Order

which the Courtmade after hearintghe Parties,on
8 April1993,stillapply.

Accordingly 1 callupon the Partiesto take renewed note
of the Court'sOrderand to takeal1 and any measures that may
be withintheir power to preventany commission, continuan ocre
encouragementof theheinousinternational crim of genocide."
[BHY93/47,Ann. 3.1

On 10August1993,the Government of Yugoslaviafiledin the

RegistryWrittenObservations, dated9 August1993,on the secondrequest

for provisional measurp esesentedby Bosnia-Herzegovina. On the same day, the Govemment of Yugoslavia itselfiled a requesftor

the indication ofprovisionalmeasures.

The Agentof Bosnia-Herzegovin has, sincethe filingon

27 July 1993of the second request for the indicatioonf provisional

measures,transmitted to the Courta considerable numbe of

communications and documentshe purposeof whichwas to amendor

supplementthat request,and in some casestheApplication instituting

proceedings. Itwill be for theCourtin due course toruleon the

statusof theseinstruments; for the present1 shallsimplyenumerate

them.
.iir

Communications directe to amendingor supplementingthe requestfor

provisional measures or presenting additional materiw al,e addressed

to the Court by theAgentof Bosnia-Herzegovin an 4August,8 August,

22 August(two communications2 ), Augustand 24 August1993;

communications directe to amendingor supplementingboth the requestfor

provisional measuresand theApplication instituting proceedings were

addressedto the Court by theAgent of Bosnia-Herzegovin on 6 August,

7 August,10 August,13 Augustand 22 August1993.

Copiesof al1 thesecommunications were transmitt tedtheAgentsof

Yugoslaviaas soonas theywere receivedin the Registry. By a letter *(

dated 24 August1993,theAgentof Yugoslavia submitte Written

Observations of his Governmenton themattersraisedin a numberof the

communications from the Age oftBosnia-Herzegovina.

1 note the presencein the Courtof the Agentsand representatives

of the two Parties. The Court is at presentseisedof requests by both

Partiesfor the indicatio nf provisional measures;since

Bosnia-Herzegovini as theApplicantin the case, andits requestfor

measures is priorin date to thatof Yugoslavia,1 proposeto give the

floor first to Bosnia-Herzegovina. 1 therefore givethe floorto Mr. MohamedSacirbey,Permanent

Representativeof Bosnia-Herzegovin ao theUnitedNations.

Mr. Sacirbey.

Mr. SACIRBEY: Thankyou,Mr. President.

Mr. President,distinguisheJdudges ofthe InternationalCourtof

Justice,may it pleasethe Court.

On 8April1993,thisCourt issued its Orderin responseto a

requestfromthe Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina for preliminary

measures, by concludini g,part,thatSerbiaand Montenegroshould take

al1 measuresto ensurethatgenocidedoesnot continue to be executed

againstthe Bosnianpeople and, in particular, againstheMuslimsof

Bosniaand Herzegovina.

Today,we are here to informyou that thegenocide continueand

thatwe, the Governmentof the Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina,are

now being forcedto negotiatewith the perpetratorof this crime,while

the threatof ongoinggenocide is held as a loadedgun to Our head.

In view of the fact that the aforementioanedsof genocide

continuein contraventioonf the Court'sOrderfor ProvisionalMeasures

of 8 April 1993,we cal1upon the Courtto address three generaand

essentialissues:

First,can the absoluterightto self-defence, affirmb ed

Article51 of theUnited Nations Charte of the Peopleand Governmentof

the Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovinabe abridgedby the

Security Councila,s longas the Councilhas nottakenal1 thenecessary

measuresrequiredto stop the genocide?

Second,can the Security Councilct to limitthe affirmative

obligationof the signatoriesof the Conventioon the Preventionand

Punishmentof the Crimeof Genocideto stop thecrime? and Third, can any agreement signedy the Republicof Bosniaand

Herzegovina, underthe compulsionand threatof continuing genocidb e,

deemed as validand binding on the Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina?

These three issues areinvariablyinterrelated.

Despitean ongoinggenocide, certaii nnfluentialmembers ofthe

European Communityand certainpowerful permanen membersof the

Security Council, have undu usyed theirinfluenceto maintainan unjust

and genocide-abettinagrmsembargoon the Republicof Bosniaand

Herzegovina and to effectively prevent thi rduntries fromtakingthe

necessary measuretso confrontthe Serbians and stop theircampaign of

genocide. Thus far,the common denominator oal1 international

cornmunitiynterventionhsas been the lack of wilto confrontand stop

the Serbian perpetrators.

Promoting negotiations betwe the victim anpderpetrator is,in and

of itself,an inadequate and unprincipledresponseto the crimeof

genocide. What is especially flawe in thisprocess,both morally and

logically, is that thenegotiations arperomotedas a preconditionto

endingthe execution of the crime.

In thismatter1 noted yesterday the threatof Dr. Karadicthat if

in factthe Republic of Bosni and Herzegovinadoesnot acquiesceto the I

demandsto sign the currentproposa1 from thC eo-Chairmen, thaitn fact

the assaultsand siegeson the peopleof Bosniaand theircities will

intensify.

Although numerous calls tbye SecurityCouncil and GeneralAssembly

for a cease-fire,the free flowof humanitarian assistanca e,d an end to

ethniccleansing, murder,tortureand rapeof civilians have been ignored

by the Serbian forcest,he internationalcommunityavoids the

responsibilityto confrontthe Serbians byplacingthe unprincipledburdenupon the victimto find a waythroughtalksto satisfythe

ambitionsof thosethathave resortedto the ultimate in evil,rape,

torture,murderand genocide.

Certain membersof the international communihave offeredthe

servicesof mediatorsto assistin the negotiations. Lackingthemeans

and/orwill to compel the Serbian so complywith the resolutionsnd

Orders of the SecuritCouncil,the General Assembly, the London

Conferenceon the Former Yugoslaviand this Court, the mediators

effectivelylegitimizethe ambitions,pretencesand, ultimatelyt,he

consequencesof the crime. The ruleof law is overriddenby the ruleof

force. The more brutal,determinedand criminalthe force,it seems,the

less will there itso confrontit.

Some might argutehatthe Bosnians always havtehe optionnot to

participatein the negotiations, itheyare so flawed. However, even

here,we faceunprincipled pressure. That is, ifwe do notparticipate

in this process,we arethenlabelledas unco-operativb ey thosewho have

the very responsibilityo stopthe crime. Consequently, thecriminal

takes advantagaend is emboldenedto pursueits objectives even more

boldlyand brutally,believingthatthe internationa community will not

respond,and believingthatthe victim will beblamedfor resisting the

legitimizatioannd consequenceosf the crime.

None the less,becauseof a clearlackof will to confrontthe

perpetrator, the Bosniamnsst pursuenegotiations asa subtitutefor

Justiceas the onlyavailable option fora longertermpeace. However,

if the negotiationasre to bring about anyurable peace,they mustbe

pursuedin an environmenthospitablefor an equitable solution. A

cease-firemust befirmly established humanitarian assistance must not

be blocked,and the aggressionand sieges must stop by whateveransarenecessary. To pursuenegotiations in any other environments to make an

agreement,resultingtherefrom, nul1 and voidon the basisthatany

signaturewas coercedunderthe threat of continuinggenocide.

More to the point, shoulwe evenexpect thatan agreementdelivered

undersuch inequitable circumstancesouldbe durable? From the

perspectiveof the victim,it is a sourceof continuingbitternessand

fuelsthe desireto see justicedelivered. From the viewof the

perpetrator,it is a formulafor successand an al1 too obvious

invitation for furthecrimes. This Court, inits Order for Preliminary Measureosf 8 April 1993,

unequivocally called foran end tothe genocideagainst the Bosnian

peopleand for al1 measuresto stop this genocide. Today,the siegeof

Our citiesand the torture, rape,murder,and expulsion ofOur citizens

continueunabated. The Court is now facedwith the imperativefor more

directand resolute measuresto see its Order of8 April 1993,

implemented. In addition,the Courtis facedwith the prospect that the

failureto implementits Orderof 8 April 1993, has, in fact, been

utilizedas a means to coercethe victimto accept, rather than resist,

the consequences ofthe crimesthat this Courthas alreadycondemned.

Despitesome reasonsto fear that this Courtmay becomesubjectto

political pressurew ,e, the Bosnians, must deliverur confidence inthe

independence of the Courtand its commitmentto legal principlesand the

rule of law. After all,a failureby this Courtto confrontthe Serbian

aggression, crimeof genocide,and the consequencet shereofwouldnot

only be a tragedyfor Bosnia,but also adenigration of the international

legalsystem.

As the crimeof genocide continueu snabated, Serbiaand Montenegro

are usingthe apparatusof the International Courtof Justiceand the

UnitedNationsto deny and therefore abet theircrime, byrepeatedly

denying the existenc of the plaintiff. In the currentcontext, such

legalmanoeuvringmust beseen as abetting the crime. Signallingthe

attemptto dismembera sovereign State through genocide, officia1

Yugoslav statementrsepeatedlyreferto the "the so-calledRepublicof

Bosniaand Herzegovina"or "theFormerRepublicof Bosniaand

Herzegovina"- includingin arguments beforethis Court. This is

demonstrated in the document submittetdo the Court, entitled"Observations of the FederalRepublicof Yugoslaviato the second request

made on 27 July 1993and the amended secor ndquestmade on4 August1993

by the so-calledRepublicof Bosniaand Herzegovina for th endication

of provisionalmeasures"(emphasis added). Again,"FormerRepublicof

Bosniaand Herzegovina( "emphasisadded)appearsin officalpress

releasesof the United Nations Missio onthe FederalRepublicof

Yugoslavia, forexample,the PressReleases dated 6 August1993and

12 August1993. Clearly, Yugoslaviais usingthe forumof the

United Nationsand thisCourtto eulogizea recognized MembeS rtate,even

as Yugoslavia,that is Serbiaand Montenegro,commitsgenocide aggression
1'
against that State.

Thus, in the referencesto the "so-calleda"nd "Former"Republicof

Bosniaand Herzegovina, the Belgraderégimeseeksto mock the authority

of the InternationalCourtof Justiceand theUnitedNations, utilize

theseinstitutions to furtherthe dismembermentof the Republicof Bosnia

and Herzegovina,a memberof the UnitedNations,and signalsthe Belgrade

régime'sfinalsteps inperpetrating it sggressionand the crimeof

genocide.

Thankyou foryour attention, and 1 now will cal1uponmy fellow

Co-Agent,ProfessorBoyleto presentthe restof Our case.

ProfessorBOYLE: Mr. President, distinguished Memberof the

InternationalCourtof Justice, may it pleasethe Court:

The Membersof the Court arefamiliarwith the procedural posturoef

this case,so 1 will nottakeyour timeto reviewit here. On

8 April 1993,thisCourt issued an Orderindicating three measuro es

provisional protectio on behalfof the Republicof Bosniaand

Herzegovina,but the Respondent- Yugoslavia(Serbia and Montenegr -o)paid absolutelyno attention whatsoeve to thisCourt'sOrder,and

immediatelyproceededto violateeachand every oneof its provisiono sn

a dailybasis.

SectionB of our currentrequestof 27 July 1993, asarnendeadnd

supplemented,containsa briefchronology of the Respondent's violation

of the Court'sOrder. It is a chronologyof death, destruction murder,

rape,terror, torturet ,hewantondevastation of cities,and the

intentional inflictio on physicalandmental sufferinu gponhundredsof

thousandsof completely innocenthumanbeings. There areover30 pages

of single-spaced, denseltyypedentriesdrawnfrom reputabln eewsmedia

sourcesaroundthe worldincluding accountsby organsand officialsof

theUnited Nations Organization,distinterested foreiggnvernments,war

correspondentsa,nd othereye-witness accounts. As youcan see for

yourselves,the Respondenhtas committedand continuestodayto commit

actsof genocide against the people anSdtateof Bosniaand Herzegovina

in violationof the 1948 Genocide Conventioand this Court'sOrderof

8 April1993.

There areno limitsto the cruelty, rapacity, territori ambitions

and bloodlustof thisRespondent.And as confirmation of this fact,

publicofficialsof the Respondent - includingand especiallythe

Presidentof Serbia,Slobodan Milosevic- are todayopenlyand publicly

proposing anndegotiating iGneneva, BelgradeZ,agreband elsewhere,the

partition, dismemberment, annexat andnincorporationf the sovereign

territoryof the Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina,as we speak here

today. The success oftheir endeavourswill constitute the logical

culminationof their genocidal plan to createa "GreaterSerbia"as

explainedin Our Applicationthat institutetdheseproceedings. Ifnotpreventedby thisCourt,the Respondent plansto annexand incorporate

approximately 75 per centof the sovereignterritoryof the Republicof

Bosniaand Herzegovina.

This brutal,savageand criminalactwill thenbe followedby

furthermeasures ofso-called "ethnic cleansing" againstal1 who livein

Our landsand continueto recognize Bosniancitizenship - whetherMuslim,

Croat,Serb,Jew or other. We have already establishe in Our previous

submissions to the Courtthat "ethniccleansing" is a formof genocidein

violation of the GenocideConvention.The Respondent's proposed

negotiated partitio of Bosniaand Herzegovina will bethe preludeto the
'(i7
ultimateextermination of Our peopleand thefinal extinctioo nf Our

State. Clearly, the destructio on a sovereign natioState bymeansof

genocide by another State mustfa11withinthe prohibitiono sf the

GenocideConvention to whichboth States are Contracti Parties.

Sincethe Court'sOrderof 8April1993,another major development

havinga decisive bearingupon Our request for provisional measuo res

27 July is that theRespondent has officiallyadmittedits responsibility

for arming, equipping,and supplythe Serbarmyand militiaforces,

paramilitary and irregulararmedunitsoperatingin Bosniaand

Herzegovina.SectionC of Our currentrequestcontainsthe fulltextof V

at least three statement to that effect issuebdy the Respondentn or

about11 May 1993. Here 1 want to draw yourattentionto whatwe believe

to be themost salientportionsof two of thesedocumentsfor the purpose

of this request.

The first communiquwéas issuedby the Republicof Serbia,whichis

the predominantpart of Yugoslavia(Serbiaand Montenegro), the

Respondentin this case. It startsby proclaiming: "Firmlybelievingthat ajust battle for freedom and the
equalityof the Serbian people is being conductedin the Serb
Republic [of Srpska]the Republicof Serbiahas been
unreservedlyand generously helping thS eerb Republic,in spite
of the enormousproblemsit had to face due to the sanctions
introduced againstit by the UN SecurityCowicil."

And, that was one month afteryour Court Order. Notice, the Republicof Serbia shamelessly buftorthrightly

proclaimed that thc eampaign ofgenocideby Serbs in Bosniais "a just

battle forfreedom andthe equalityof the Serbian People". In other

words, the Republic of Sebh ias fullyendorsed,ratified and approved

what the Bosnian Serb have done: genocideand acts of genocidein

violationof the Genocide Conventioa nnd this Court'srderof

8 April 1993, lessthan a monthbefore. The Republicof Serbia, inthe

communiqué, then admitted thatit "hasbeen unreservedlyand generously

helping"the Bosnian Serbsin violation ofthe express will of the

United Nations Securit Council. What effrontery. In essence,Serbia

has admitted thatit is factually and legall responsible for whatthe

Bosnian Serbshave done to the peopleand Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina

and couldnot care less what the SecurityCouncilsays about thismatter.

Towards theend of the document,the Republic of SerbiaStates:

"Sincethe conditions for space have beenmet ..." Notice the use of the

word Q1space".Here the Republic of Serbiaindicatesan awarenessthat

Bosnian Serbshave been driving non-Serbs ou tf theirhomes in orderto

create "space"by means of so-called"ethniccleansing", which isa form

of genocide. Serbia'sse ofthe word "space"in this communication

shouldremind the Court of the invocationof the word"Lebensraum" by

Hitlerand the Nazis over a generationago. This communiqué by the

Republicof Serbiaconcludesby freely admitting tha it has been

providing "fundsf,uel, raw materials,etc." to the Serbs in Bosniaat

the costof its "economicdepletion".

These admissions bythe Republicof Serbia werefully endorsed,

approved,and ratified by Yugoslavia(Serbia andMontenegro)in the

second communiquéissuedin conjunctionwith and as part of the same

document asthe firstcommuniqué and 1 have attachedthis documentto my

requestand it was providedto me by the Respondent'sMission inNew York. So, the Respondentin thiscaseitselfhas legallyadmitted

that it has supplied"funds,fuel, raw materials etc."to theSerbsin

Bosniafrom theoutsetof thisconflicton or about 6 March 1992 upto

and includingat least11 May 1993. This is more than enoughto

establishthe Respondent's responsibilituynderinternational law for

violating the 1948 Genocide Convent andnal1 three operativperovisions

of thisCourt'sOrderof 8 April1993.

The firstcommuniqué's use of the abbreviatio"etc."raisesthe far

more seriousand ominous implicatio that theRespondent has been

providing militaryweapons, equipment supliesand troopsto Serbian

forcesin Bosnia, whoin turn haveused theseinstruments of warfareto

inflictactsof genocideupon the people anS dtate ofBosniaand

Herzegovina.This conclusion is made quiteclear byal1 the facts

introduced into evidencseo far in thiscase. It can alsobe confirmed

by a statementgivenby Slobodan Milosevic, Presido entthe Republicof

Serbia andde facto rulerof the Respondent,whichwas issuedin

conjunctionwith the promulgationof these communiquéson 11 May 1993and

1 have providedto the Court thefulltext ofthe translatioo nf

Mr. Milosevic'sstatement, preparedby the BBC. This statementby

Mr. Milosevic- actingin his officia1capacityas Presidentof the

Republicof Serbia - speaks for itselafnd binds theRespondent.

Mr. Milosevic startebdyadmittingthat theRepublicof Serbia

providedassistance to "Serbsoutsideof Serbia" for "thepast two

years" - that is, going backto on or about May1991 orso, justbefore

the entireconflictin the formerYugoslavia was unleashed by

Mr. Milosevichimself whenhe instituted barbaricaggression and

genocidal warfare againt ste peoplesof Slovenia and Croatiaandthen

lateragainst Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. Milosevicthenshamelessly stated: "Mostf the assistancweas

sent to peopleand fighters in Bosniaand Herzegovina." Let me repeat

his word "fighters". In other words,Mr. Milosevicadmitted andconceded

that the Republic of Serbi provided "assistancefor the pasttwoyears

to "fighters" in the Republic oBosniaand Herzegovina. He also

indicatedthat this assistance wa provided"to Serbs whowere at war" in

defianceof the willof the internationa lommunity, asexpressedby

international sanction adoptedby the United Nations Securi Council.

Once again,Mr. Miloseviccouldnot carelessaboutSecurityCouncil

resolutions and thatis why thisCourtmust pay most significant

attentionto the 10 provisionalmeasuresof interimprotection thatwe

have requested.We believethatthe Security Council wil pay some

attentionto what thisCourthas to say.

Mr. Milosevicthenstatedquiteclearlythat, asa resultof the

help providedby the Republicof Serbiato Bosnian Serbs fot rhe past two

years,"Mostof the territory in the formerBosnia-Herzegovina belongs

now to Serbprovinces." In other words,Mr. Milosevichas endorsed,

approved and ratified t hempaignof "ethniccleansing"and genocide

launched by the Bosnian Ser atsthe behestof the Respondent, which has

resultedin theirseizureof almost75 per centof the sovereign

territoryof Bosniaand Herzegovina.If therewere any doubtabout this,

Mr. Milosevic conclude his statement by sayinghat,becauseof the

"great,greatdeal of assistance to the Serbsin Bosnia"given bythe

Republicof Serbia, the Bosnian Ser" bsaveachievedmost of what they

wanted".

Thesethree documents sef torthin Our requestindicatequite

clearlythatthe Respondenh tas knowingly armede,quipped and supplied

Serbianfightersin Bosniafor the express purposeof seizingBosnian

lands andthendrivingout non-Serbs by meansof "ethniccleansing", aformof genocide. Moreover,al1 foreign observers agra eed SectionB of

our current reques as supplemented indicates that,spitethe so-called

cut-offof 11 May 1993,the Respondenthas continuedto provideweapons,

equipmentand suppliesto Serbian military,militia,paramilitaryforces

and irregular armedunitsoperatingin Bosniaand Herzegovina

continuously until toda as,we speak,in violationof the

Genocide Convention and this Court'sderof 8 April 1993.That is

preciselywhy the Respondentrejectedits priorofferto permit the

stationingof United Nations monitorslong itsborderwith Bosniaand

Herzegovinain orderto verify theirso-calledcut-off.

The Courtwill recall that thehenacting Agent for the Respondent,

Mr. Zivkovic,toutedthisofferbefore the Courd turingthe courseof

oral proceedingosn 2April1993 asan indication of the Respondent's

supposed peaceful intentions towards the pa eopState ofBosniaand

Herzegovina.Yet as we now know everything the ActinAgents for theRespondenttold

the Courton 2April 1993 was a completecontradictionto the truth: The

three statementq suotedverbatimin SectionC of ourcurrent request

testify to the true facts t ofiscase. They indicatequiteclearlywhy
i

the Courtmust grantOur requestfor the additionam leasures of

protection set forthon 27 July 1993.

In orderto substantiate and corroboratteheseadmissions we have

also filedwith the Courton 24 August 1993 andexpertarticleby

Dr. Vego publishedin JanelsIntelligence Reviea ws recentlyas October

of 1992, the content of which 1duly incorporat here by reference.

This articleestablishes beyondra easonable doubt thathe Respondent

actuallyexercisesoperational command-and-controolver the JNA/YPA

militaryforces and other Serbian militaryparamilitaryand irregular

armedunitscurrently deployedin Bosnia and Herzegovinathathave

committed acts of genocide in violatioof the 1948 Genocide Convention

and thisCourt's Orderof 8 April1993. We respectfully ask the Courtto

considerthis expertarticlewhen it retiresto deliberate on our current

request.

SectionD of Our requestsets forththe consequences sough to be

avoidedby theseadditional measures. Their overriding objectivet os

prevent thefurtherloss of humanlife and furthea rcts of genocide

against the peoploef Bosniaand Herzegovina.Already,a minimumof

about 150,000 people have been killed, 30 w,omenhave been rapeda,nd

abouttwo-and-a-halm fillion Bosnians have been renderedefugeesfrom

theirown homes.

But thetragedyof Bosnia and Herzegovin has only justbegun -

unless thisCourtmoves promptlye ,ffectively,and fullyby meansof

granting the additional measur ofsprotection setforthin Our request.If the Respondent actuall yarriesout itsplan to partition,annexand

incorporate three-quarters orso of the sovereignterritoryof the

Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina, the generally accepted figures that

up to one millionor more Bosniancitizenswill thenbe subjectedto

so-called "ethniccleansing",which is a formof genocide. And 1 do

writethat figure from an officia1State Departmensttudy whosecontents

was supported earlier thissummerin the NewYork Times. Rightnow as

we speak,hundredsof thousandsof completely innocen humanbeingsin

Bosnia and Herzegovina ac rerrentlybeingsubjectedto death,

starvation, malnutritios n,verebodilyinjury,torture, physicaa lnd

mentalharm, as well as themass rapeof women,and the systematic abuse

of children. The provisional measure to be indicatedare thuscompelled

by themost fundamental humanitaric anncerns.

The Respondent's gross, systemata ic,persistent violatio of

basic international lega ald humanitarian rights pertainitnogthe

peopleof Bosniaand Herzegovina could neverbe adequately compensated

for the paymentof monetary reparations shou the Court ultimately

decidein favourof Bosniaand Herzegovina's claim as set forthin our

Aplication. Pendingthe Court'sdecisionon themerits,it is imperative

that theRespondent's criminaland genocidal behaviou re terminated

forthwith bytheseadditional provisional measuresO .therwise,the

Respondent andits agentsand surrogateswill inflictimmediateand

irreparableharm uponthe peopleand Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina.

Only by grantintghe provisional measures setorthin our current

request can the rightsof the peopleand Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina

be fullyprotectedand preserved. Indeed,if the Court does not grant the additional provisional

measures set forthin Our request, Bosnia and Herzegovina will not be

able to argue its case on the meritsto the Court. 1 herebycertifythis

fact to be true in my capacities as Agent forthe Republic of Bosniaand

Herzegovina,as a Memberof the Bar of the SupremeCourtof the

United States of Americaand the Barof the Supreme Judicial Couro tf the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.This Courtmust not allowthe Respondent

to win this case by means of exterminating the peopl and destroying the

Stateof Bosnia andHerzegovina.

But if you do not act that is exactlywhat they intendto do, to

removeus from the list permanently.

In the recentpast, this Courthas emphasized that r aequestfor the

indicationof provisional measures

"must by its very nature relatt eo the substanceof the case
since,as Article41 [of the Statute]expresslyStates,their
objectis to preservethe respective rights of either party"
(~nited States Diplornaticand Consular Staff in Tehran,
Provisional Measures, I.C.J. Reports 1979,p. 16, para. 28):

"The Courtshall havethe powerto indicate,if it

considersthat circurnstance so require, any provisional
measures which ought to be takento preserve the respective
rights of either party." (Emphasisadded.)

And 1 emphasize the word "any"foundin Article41.

Our request for additional measureo sf protection is motivatedby

the desireto have the Court protect th "rights"of the peopleand State

of Bosniaand Herzegovina as set forthin Section D of Our request. This

request is even moreimportantly motivate dy the desireto have the

Courtprotectthe very existenceof the peopleand Stateof Bosniaand

Herzegovina from extermination by means of genocide,partition,

dismemberment, annexatio and incorporation by the Respondent. Sincethe

Courthas the legalpower to protect the "rights of BosniaandHerzegovinaunderArticle41, thena fortiori the Court mushtave the

legalpowerto protectthe Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina itself.

The sovereign"rights"of the people anSdtate of Bosniaand

Herzegovina to their independent existenasea nationStateand as a

member Stateof the United Nations Organization mc usttainly bearnong

the "rights"thatthe Courtcan protectunderArticle41 of the Statute,

which is "an integralpart"of the UN Charter accordintgo Article91.

In essence,I am todayaskingthe Courtto act underStatuteArticle41

to protectthe veryexistence of a State Member oftheUnited Nations

which is a "party"to a casethatis currently pendin before theCourt

fromthe physical mutilationand thentotalannihilation by theother

"party" tothe same case in violatioonf the 1948Genocide Convention,

which is the verysubject-matteorf the lawsuit itself.The word"any"

foundin StatuteArticle41 indicates quiteclearly that the Couh rts

the powerto protectBosniaand Herzegovina by al1 meanspossible from

genocide,exterminationp ,artition, dismemberment, annexation,

incorporationa,nd thenultimate destruction b the Respodent.

The Court's jurisdiction inhiscaseis alreadyprimafacie

establishedunderthe Genocide Convention fo al1 the reasonsset forth

in Our Applicationand Our 20 March 1993requestfor provisional

measures, andthe oral submissiontshat1 already made befortehe Court

on 1 and 2 April1993.Indeed,the Courthas alreadyindicated provisional measure on behalfof

Bosniaand Herzegovina in its 8 April1993Order. In lightof the three

statements made bythe Respondent, on or about11 May 1993,in light of

the public plans by the Respondentto partition, dismember,nnexand 4

incorporate substantial portio onsthe sovereignterritoryof the

Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina, ani dn lightof the violation of this

Court's Orderof 8 Aprilby the Respondent we believethat theCourt

must now indicateadditional provisional measuresto preserveOur rights

underthe GenocideConvention as well as our rightto existas a

sovereign nation Stat and a Memberof the UnitedNations.
w

Becausethe Respondent has repeatedly contested the jurisdict ofon

the Courton the basisof the Genocide Convention, 1 have feltit

necessaryto filewith the Court a44-pageMemorandumof Law on

jurisdiction underthe Convention, thatwas dated22 August1993. 1 will

not reviewthatMemorandumin detailhere,but will simply incorporate

its contentsby reference at thi time. But theMemorandumestablishes

beyond a reasonable doup bteciselywhy thisCourthas jurisdiction over

our Applicationand our currentrequest for provisional measuresunder

the 1948 GenocideConvention.It alsoestablishes beyonda reasonable

doubtwhy the Court should construe i jurisdictionunderthe Genocide

Convention in themost liberaland far-reaching mannerpossiblefor the

purposeof theseproceedings and in orderto accomplish the sacred

objectives of the Genocide Conventioitself. 1 submitthatthe Court

has al1 the authorityit needsunderthe GenocideConvention and Statute

Article41 to grantal1 of the provisional measure we havenow requested

in fulland as soon as possible.

Nevertheless,and out of an excessof caution,concerning this most

importantquestion ofthe jurisdiction of the Court,1 have also fileda

briefMemorandumof Law outlining our thought on why theCourt'sjurisdictionin this case is also groundein the Customary and

Conventional International Laws of a WarInternational Humanitarian

Law, including butnot limitedto the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949,

the FirstAdditional Protocol of 197 7,e Hague Regulationsn Land

Warfareof 1907and the Nuremberg Charte Judgement, andPrinciples.

And 1 shouldnote thatthe FormerYugoslavia did indeedsign the

NurembergCharter. The precise reasonf sor the assertionofthese

additional jurisdictional bases will debvelopedat greater lengtihn

Our Memorial whichis due beforethe Courton 15 October1993.

But ifthe Courtdoesnot grantour additional measuresof

protection in fulalnd as soonas possiblewe willnot be able to submit

Our Memorialto the Courton 15 October1993. Withouttheseadditional

measuresof protection, we couldbe physicallydestroyed andlegally

liquidated, both asa people and aState, bythe Respondent befortehen.

So the Court mustgrantOur requested additiona measuresof protection

in orderto permitus to even beginto argueOur caseon themeritsto

the Court. Certainly, one of the"rights"of Bosniaand Herzegovina that

the Courthas the powerto protectunderStatuteArticle41 is Our right

to institute andconducttheselegalproceedings in accordancewith the

provisions oftheUnited Nations Charter, theStatuteand Rulesof the

Court and theGenocide Conventio itself.

Once again,out of an abundanceof caution,conceming thismost

importantquestion ofthe Court'sjurisdiction to grant additional

provisional measures and the final rew liehave requestedw,e have also

reliedupon the letterof 8 June 1992 from Slobodan Milosev icd

Momir Bulatovic, the respective Presido entSerbia and Montenegr (the

Respondent)to Mr.Robert BadinterP ,residentof the Arbitration

Commissionon the Conferenceof Yugoslavia.On 13 August 1993, 1 filedwith the Court aforma1Memorandumof Law on why "Yugoslavia(Serbiaand

Montenegro)has acceptedthe Court'sJurisdiction underArticle36,

paragraph1, over al1 Legal DisputesBetweenthe six FormerYugoslav

republicsarising from thD eissolutionof Yugoslavia"on thebasisof

this 8 June letter. Once again,1 will notreview the content of the

Memorandum here; but will simply incorporatit byreference. But for

reasons fullyexplainedin theMemorandum, we submit that theletter

falls withinthe rulingof this Courtfoundin the NuclearTests case

of 1974insteadof the Aegean Sea ContinentaShelf caseof 1978.

We submit thatby meansof the letterthe Respondentaccepted the

jurisdictionof the Courtto hear al1 three questionpsosedto the

BadinterCommission by Lord Carrington,and including"al1questions

involvedin the overallsettlement of the Yugoslavcrisis"and "al1legal

disputeswhich cannotbe settled byagreement". This declarationis

clear, unconditiona and immediate,andwas expressedin unambiguous

language andintent. As the lettermakes clear, the Respondentaccepted

the jurisdictionof the Courtover thesemattersin orderto avoidand

evadethe jurisdiction of the BadinterCommission.But now we have

acceptedthe Respondent'sofferto have thesematters adjudicated b the

Court, the Responden seeksto avoid and evadtehe jurisdictionof this w

Courtas well. The Respondent canno htave it bothways. It is either

Badinter, whichtheyhave rejected,or thisCourt, whichtheyhave also

rejected.

In termsof context,the letterof 8 Junewas a forma1public

statementissuedin responseto the Chairof an international arbitration

tribunal concernin the properforumfor the resolutio of a definedset

of issuesbetweena definedset of parties. It cannotnow be dismissed

as a generalpolicystatement withno bindingeffect. The RepublicofBosniaand Herzegovina as well as the participanin the conferencaend

the entireinternational communi tyve reasonably reliedpon this

letterby the Respondenats an acceptanceof the Court'sjurisdiction

with respectto al1 legal disputes betweethe Former Yugoslavrepublics

arisingfromthe Yugoslavcrisis,which would includ the subject-matter

of this lawsuiatnd our current requefsotr provisionaleasures.

Sincefirst introducing thl istterintoevidence before the Court

on 1 and 2 April,we have obtained a preciseranslationof the operative

paragraphs froam Serbo-CroatialnanguageintoEnglishby a linguistic

expert,Professor AnneHenderson at the Colleo ge William anMary in

Williamsburg,Virginia. Professor Henderson's translation demonstrates

thatthe language used in the letterwas intendedto conveyan immediate

and unconditional acceptanceto he Court'sjurisdiction.And here 1

quotefrom theoperative paragraphsof ProfessorHenderson's translation: "TheFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia takes the position
that thoselegal disputes which cannotbe resolvedthrough
agreementof the FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia and the former
Yugoslav republics mus te submittedto the juisdictionof the
International Courotf Justice asthe principal court
organizationof the UN.

Therefore, keepingin mind thefact that thequestions
your letterraisedwere of a legalnature, the FederalRepublic
of Yugoslavia proposetshat if agreementon thesequestions
cannotbe reached among the participantsof the conference,
they be resolved beforethe International Courotf Justicein

accordancewith the Statuteof that Court."

The language isunqualifiedin statingthat al1 legal disputes specified

therein"mustbe submitted"to the Courtand laterthat thethree

specific questions"be resolved"by the Court. The languagein

AegeanSea was neither asdefinitenor as forceful. Moreover,the

AegeanSea communiquéwas notsignedor initialledby eitherof the

PrimeMinisters,which is the casehere for thetwo Presidentsthat

constitute the Responden (see I.C.J.Reports 1978,p. 39). Once

again,we submit thisletterand declarationfit within the

NuclearTest casesnot the AegeanSea case. Finally,in supportof

this proposition,1 also mentionit this time and cite asauthority

directlyon point the Arbitration betwee nranceand Canadaof

17 July 1986involving the applicationof a 1972 FisheriesTreaty between

the two States.This Arbitration can be interpretedto stand for the

propositionthatwhen a party to a dispute makes aforma1declaration

duringarbitration, this declaratii onbinding(seeRevue générale de

droit internationalpublic,p. 756). In this case,the Frenchagent

declared duringan earlier arbitratiopnroceedingthatFrancewould

enforcethe 1972 Treatyquotason its nationals who were fishingin the

disputedarea. The ArbitrationCommitteeruled thatthis statement was

bindingon France (ibid.). Similarly,the 8 June 1992letterand declaration was a formal,

signedjointstatementto the Badinter Commission b the Presidentsof

Serbiaand Montenegroon behalfof the Respondentin this case made

duringthe proceedingo sf the International Conferen onethe Former

Yugoslavia.The Chaiman of the Conference askedthe Arbitration

Commission, and indirectlyal1 six republicshow thenumerouslegal

issues shouldbe settled. SerbiaandMontenegro responded on behalfof

the Respondent, thaitf the republics themselves conuold settletheir

disputes, thenonly the InternationaClourtof Justice -not the Badinter

Commission -must adjudicatethemattersat issue. Such a declaration,

made duringthesearbitration proceedingi s,bindingupon Serbiaand

Montenegro, andthusupon the Respondent, fotrhe reasonset forthin

these1986arbitration proceedings betwF eennceand Canada.

One finalpoint about th8 e June letterneedsto be explained.The

BadinterArbitration Commissionreportedin its InterlocutoryDecision

(Opinions Nos. 8, 9 and 10) of 4 July 1992that

"TheRepublicsof Montenegro and Serbiainformed the
Chairmanof the [ICFY]Conference and theChairmanof the
Commissionof Arbitration inletters dated19 June il9921that
theymaintained their positio[ nsetforthin the jointletter
of 8 June 19921,Serbiaconsideringin additionthat the
Commissiondid not havethe powerto pronounceupon its own
competence."(SeeInternational Legal Material Vo,l. 31,
pp. 1518-1519,No. 6: November1992.)

So in otherwords,on 19 June 1992 the Presidentof Serbiaand the

Presidentof Montenegro independentr lyaffirmedtheir joint positioonf

8 June thatoutstanding matters between F themerYugoslav republics

thatcouldnot be resolvedby meansof agreement, must besubmittedto

the InternationalCourtof Justice. Now despiteOur best effortsw,e

have not yet beenable to obtainthesetwo 19 June letters. But,we

respectfully submi that the Court shoutldke the Badinter Commissioatits word and concludethat theRespondenthas, not once,but twice,

publicly and officiali lydicatedits intentionand willingnessto submit

thesedisputesto the Court. Andherefore,again,the Court's

jurisdiction fallswithintheNuclear Test cases, the earlier

Arbitration,not within Aegean Sea.

Now to concludethe sectionon jurisdiction,and thenperhapsthe

Court mightwish to takea coffee break, 1 have onefinal pointto make

and thatis, onceagainout of an abundanceof cautionand in deference

to the wishesof the Courton the questionof jurisdiction,1 have filed

with the Courton 6 August1993a forma1Memorandumof Law submitting

that in additionto the jurisdictional basis alres ady forth,the

Court'sjurisdiction to hear thiscase inOur current request for

provisional measure is groundedin the Treaty betweentheAlliedand

AssociatedPowersand the Kingdomof the Serbs,Croatsand Slovenes

(Protection of Minorities)signedat Saint-Germain-en-Lao ye

10 September 1919, whicchalledfor the protectioonf minoritiesand

whichprovided for the compulsory settlemenof disputesby the Permanent

Courtof International Justice. Once again,1 will notbotherto take

your timehere to review this detailed Memorandum and amend toeOur

Application and the current requeastthis time, but was simply

incorporatedby referencein my oralsubmission.

For al1 thesereasons,then,we respectfully submitthat the Court

now has al1 the jurisdictioit needsto grantOur requested additional

measuresof protection on the groundsof the Genocide Convention;the

customaryand conventional internation alwsof war and international

humanitarian law;the Respondent's letterand Declarationof

8 June 1992; and finallyon the basisof the Serb-Croat-SloveT neeaty

of 1919. Thank you very much and 1 suggest that we al1 break for coffee.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much Professor Boyle. So we will

take Our break now and then resume.

The Court adjourned from11.20 to 11.40 a.m. The PRESIDENT: Please beseated. Professor Boyle.

Mr. BOYLE: 1 am not goingto readthroughal1 of the ten additional

measuresof provisional protectiw on have requested- you have them

there beforeyou - but 1 will provideyou with a briefcommentaryupon

the rationale for eac of them.

The firstone, acease-and-desiso trderagainst the Responden to

provideany typeof assistance to Serbsin Bosniaand Herzegovina, is

fully warrantedby the three statementmsade by the Respondenotn or

about11 May 1993, concerning thseo-called cut-of of assistanceto

Serbianfightersin Bosnia. Al1 informedobserversagreethatthis

assistanceis continuing to be providedby the Respondentand the

Republicof Serbiato Serbianfightersin Bosniaand Herzegovina in

violation ofthis Court's Orderof 8 April1993and the1948Genocide

Convention. Indeed, ifyou read the thres etatements themselvets,ey

al1 indicatethatvarioussorts ofassistance will continueto be

providedto Serbianfightersin Bosnia, despitethe so-calledcut-offand

despitethisCourt'sOrderof 8 April1993. We are askingthe Courtto

orderan immediateand unconditional cut-offof any typeof assistanceby

the Respondent, including t Republicof Serbia,to BosnianSerbsfor

any purposeor any reason.

The second measureof provisional protectiois fully warrantedfor

the reasonsset forthin Section D of Our request. We have askedthe

Courtto issuea cease-and-desist orderto publicofficials in the

Respondent and especial Mry. Milosevic,concerningal1 schemes,

proposals, planasnd negotiationsto partition, dismemberannexor

incorporatethe sovereignterritoryof Bosniaand Herzegovina. As we

pointed outin our Applicationi,t has beenthe long-standingplan ofthe

Respondentto create a "GreaterSerbia"by meansof genocideand acts ofgenocide. In the eventthat thepartition, dismemberment, annexat ion

incorporation oBfosniaand Herzegovina by the Respondents actually

carriedout, then therewill inevitably occur furth erts of so-called

"ethniccleansing" and genocide againstst taeggering figure oalmost

one million morehumanbeings - completely innocen men, womenand

children - in Bosniaand Herzegovinaand you can see theirsufferingon

your TV sets this eveninwhenyou comehome fromwork.

Concerningthis secondrequested measure of protection1 have filed

documents withthe Court proving that t rhecently concluded

"negotiationsi"n Geneva werepremisedupon the assumptionthat the

Republic of Bosniaand Herzegovinawouldbe carvedup into three

independentstatesand deprived of its membershiipn theUnitedNations

Organizationand deprived of sovereign controover ourown capital,

Sarajevo. As proofof this,1 refer the Court to my brief communication

of 6 August 1993and my 20-pagecommunicatioonf 7 August 1993concerning

the so-calledOwen-StoltenberPglan andthesenegotiations.Again, 1

will not botherto reviewthesedocuments here but will simply

incorporate them bryeferenceat thistime. Thesedocumentsestablish

beyond areasonable doubtthat thesecondand third provisional measures

of protection arefully warrantebdy thecircumstances.

The so-calledOwen-StoltenberPglan is a diktat thatis the legal

equivalentto what Hitlerpresentedto Czechoslovakiaat Munichin 1938.

It is basedon the assumptionthatthe Republicof Bosniaand

Herzegovina,a member State oftheUnited Nations Organization, will be

carvedup intothreeindependent statesand deprivedof our

United Nationsmembership.We have repeatedly anm dost emphatically

rejected thisproposa1to signour own death certificata es a sovereign

nationState andmemberof theUnited Nations Organization.But 1 want

to indicate thatBosniaand Herzegovina will always negotia inegoodfaith, in accordancwith general principlesof internationalaw,

includingtheUnited Nations Charte and theprinciples of the London

Conference,wheneverwe have the opportunityto so negotiate.The second

and thirdprovisional measure will giveus the opportunityto negotiate

in good faith,without agun ofgenocidepointedat Our heads.

The thirdmeasureof protectionseeksto make it crystal clearto

the Respondent,as wellas the entireworld,that theannexation or

incorporation oefven onecentimetreof the sovereignterritoryof Bosnia

and Herzegovina shall billegal,null,void ab initio,deprivedof any

legal effects whatsoever, that cannot be recog byizedinternational
w'
community for anryeason orat any timefor therestof eternity. We

believethatan emphatic and sound declaratioonf Our "rights"to that

effect bythe Courtat this time will prevent thpartition,

dismembermentand annexationof Bosniaand Herzegovina bythe Respondent,

as well as further actof genocideand "ethniccleansing" that could

approachthe mind-bogglingfigureof over onemillionhumanbeings. We

submitthat the Courthas the authorityto protectOur rightsby making

such a declarationunderStatuteArticle41.

The fourthproposedmeasureof protection simply call for the Court

to determinethe rightsand converselythe obligationsof the peopleand w

Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina underArticle 1of the Genocide

Convention: "TheContracting Partiesconfirm thatgenocide, whether

committedin timeof peaceor in timeof war, is a crimeunder

internationallaw whichtheyundertaketo preventand to punish."

(Emphasisadded.) This provisional measur ef protection draws attention

to the factthatthe Government of Bosniaand Herzegovinhas an

obligationunderthe termsof the Genocide Conventio "to prevent"the

actsof genocide thatare currentlbyeinginflicted upon Our peopleby

theRespondent and yet, becauseof the arms embargo imposeuponus by the

Security Councilillegally, we are unableto protect ourown peoplefrom

genocide.

In the fifth provisional measuw re,are askingthe Courtto

clarify -not determine but clarif -ythe legal responsibilio tyal1

other Contracting Partit esthe Genocide Conventi" ono prevent"the

commission of actsof genocide against the people S andte ofBosniaand

Herzegovina,as they are obligate to do so by Article1 of the

Convention.This provisional measure of protecti ionrequireby the factthatmany

prominentStates of the worlcdommunityhave publiclytakenthe position

that despitethe fact they are parti testhe Genocide Conventiotnhey

have no legal obligation whatsoev"ero prevent"the acts ofgenocide

that the Respondent is undeniab perpetratingagainstthe peopleand

Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina. We areaskingthe Courtto make it

crystal clearto al1 ContractingPartiesto the Genocide Conventitonat

theydo in factand in lawhave a legal obligation "to prevent"genocide

against the peoplaend Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina. Sucha

declarationof rightsby the Courtat this timewill go a longway toward
w
preservingOur "rights"underthe Genocide Convention witht ine meaning

of StatuteArticle41. We have a "right"to the assistance of the other

Contracting Partietso the Genocide Conventionnder the termsof the

Convention itself ,articularlyArticle1.

The sixthmeasure: we are askingthe Courtto declarethatthe

Government of Bosniaand Herzegovinmusthave the meansto defendits

peopleand State from actsof genocideand partitionand dismembermen ty

meansof genocide. This conclusion flows inevitablfyromthe

Genocide Convention itsea lfwell as from Articl51 of the

United Nations Charter, both of wh wecare a partyto. Again,the

Court's issuanceof a declaration of rightalongtheselineswould

clarify the legal situatif onr the entireinternationacommunity, and

especially for thCeontractingPartiesto the Genocide Convention,

severalof which are also Member of the United Nations

SecurityCouncil. And here, 1 believeit is the case thatal1 but three

Stateswho are Members ofthe Security Council are also parttiesthe

GenocideConvention.Sucha declaration of Our "rights" bythe Courtatthis timewill go a longway towardpreserving our "rights"underthe

Convention withitnhe meaningof StatuteArticle41.

The seventh measure of protection dewaltsh the rightsand

obligationspertaining to the other ContractiPngrtiesto the

GenocideConvention.We are askingthe Courtto declarethatal1

ContractingPartiesto the Genocide Convention have the obligation

underArticle1 to preventacts of genocidea ,nd partitionand

dismembermentby meansof genocide, againstthe people and Stat of

Bosnia andHerzegovina. Again,many prominenS ttatesin theworld deny

that theyhave a legal obligatiotno do anythingwith respectto Bosnia

and HerzegovinadespiteArticle1 of the Convention. Their position

simplyis injustifiable. So, we are askingthe Courtto clarify,not

determine butto clarify,the rightsand dutiesof al1 Contracting

Partiesto the Genocide Conventiw onth respectto Bosniaand Herzegovina

undertheseuniquecircumstances.Once again,we submit, sucha

declaration of ourl'rightsb"y the Courtat this time wilgo a long way

towardpreserving Our "rights"underthe Convention withitnhe meaningof

StatuteArticle41. Once again,we have a"rightlt 'o the assistance of

the ContractinPgartiesunderthe termsof the Genocide Conventio nhat

we are askingthe Courtto protectunderArticle41.

Now, noticethatso farnot oneof theseseven measures of

protection1 have called for conflicwtsthUnited Nations

SecurityCouncilresolution 713 of25 September1991that imposedan arms

embargoupon the formerYugoslavia.

Duringthe course ofthe oralproceedings on 1 April1993,1

provided a detaile analysis ofthenegotiating historo yf this

resolutionto prove,first,thatresolution 713 (1991)was adoptedat the

expressrequestof and with the permission of the former Yugoslavia;secondly,thatmost Members of the Security Council madit quiteclear

that the legal validitoyf resolution713 dependedupon the consentof

the former Yugoslavitao the arms embargo; and thirdly,thatwithout

such express requesatnd consentby the former Yugoslavitahe

SecurityCouncil would not haveadoptedresolution 713.Again, 1 will

not go throughal1 thatanalysishere again,but simply refer you to the

verbatim record o my oralsubmissions on 1April 1993, and incorporate

themhere byreference.

Recall,however,the Security Councii lmposed thearms embargoupon

the former Yugoslavia only and at its express requesatnd with its

consent. But the Republic of Bosniaand Herzegovina hadot yet come

into existenceas an independent Statuentil6 March1992. So, the arms

embargoupon the former Yugoslavidaid not and couldnot byits own words

applyto the Republic of Bosniaand Herzegovina.We have neverconsented

to or acquiescedin the extensionof this arms embargforom the former

Yugoslaviato ourselves.We have alwaysclaimedthat any extensio nf

thisarms embargofromthe former Yugoslavit ao ourselves wouldiolate

our inherent righo tf individuaand collectiveself-defenceas

recognized by customary internatio lawand United Nations Charter

Article51.

Now later,the Security Counci reaffirmed thaerms embargo against

the formerYugoslaviain paragraph 5 of resolution724 of

15 December1991. But for similarreasons,the arms embargocontinuedto

applyonly to the formerYugoslavia.By its own terms,

resolution724 (1991)did not and couldnot applyto the Republicof

Bosnia and Herzegovina.

This bringsus to thecriticalresolution of 8 January 1992, when

the Security Counci adoptedresolution727, in which it decidedtoreaffirmthe arms embargoupon the formerYugoslavia appliei dn

paragraph6 of resolution713 and in paragraph5 of resolution724, and

then to applyit in accordancewith paragraph33 of theUnited Nations

Secretary-Generall ReportS/23363,usingthe following languag ehatis

in resolution724:

"6.Reaffirms the embargo appliein paragraph6 of
resolution713 (1991)and in paragraph5 of
resolution724 (1991),and decidesthatthe embargoapplies
in accordancewith paragraph33 of the Secretary-General's
Report(S/23363)."

This paragraph33 of S/23363readsas follows:

"33.To al1 interlocutorsd,uringhis recentfifth mission

to YugoslaviaM,r.Vancepointed out that th arms embargo
imposedby the Councilin resolution713 (1991)and reinforced
by resolution724 (1991),continuesin forceand will retain
its application unless the Security Council determines
otherwise. Indeed,Mr. Vanceadded that the arms embargowould
continueto applyto al1 areasthathave beenpart of
Yugoslavia,any decisionson the questionof the recognitionof
the independencoef certain republicnotwithstanding." As best as can be figured out from threcord, paragraph of

resolution 727 incorporated the referen ceparagraph33 of S/23363for

the purposeof providing formeU rN Special Envoy CyruVancewith some

negotiating leverag at thatparticular time for deali with the

conflicts surroundin the dissolutionof the formerYugoslavia.

Nevertheless,whatevernegotiating utilit yhatthe threatcontainedin

paragraph33 mighthave had in earlyJanuaryof 1992 haslongsince

disappeared and become irreleva imm,aterialcounter-productive and

superseded by supervenie ngentsduringthe past18 monthsthat are

well-knownto thisCourt.

In particular,on 22 May 1992,the UN General Assemblaydopted

resolution 46/237that admitted th Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina to

Membership.At that pointin time,the Republic of Bosniaand

Herzegovinawas subjectto al1 of the responsibilities, rights,

privileges, dutiesand obligationsof theUnitedNations Charter,

including and especially Arti5 clethereof:

"Article51

"Nothingin the present Charter shall impa the inherent
rightof individual or collectiveself-defenceif an armed
attackoccurs against aMemberof theUnitedNations,until the
Security Councihlas takenmeasures necessartyo maintain
international peac end security..."

Certainly,no laterthan22 May 1992,the Republic of Bosniaand

Herzegovina had,and stillhas, the inherent rightto defenditself, both

individuallyand collectively,underArticle51 of the United Nations

Charter.

Indeed,there is nothingin resolution727 thatwould conflicw tith

this conclusion.And here 1 wish to draw to the attentionof the Court

the lastsentenceof paragraph33 of S/23363: "Indeed,Mr. Vance added that thearms embargo would
continueto applyto al1 areasthathad been part of
Yugoslavia, any decisionson the questionof the recognition
of the independenceof certain republicnsotwithstanding."
(Emphasisadded.)

We must analysethe last sentenceof paragraph33 quite carefully

becauseit containsthe crux of the problem. The Secretary-General's

report expressly used th words "anydecisions". Within the context of

the Report, thesetwo words can onlymean "any decisions" by certain

foreignstatesto recognizethe independence of the variousrepublics

withinthe formeryugoslavia. By itsown terms,paragraph33 never

intended todeal with the eventuality thastuch former Yugoslav republics

might be admittedas member States to the United Nations Organization

itself.

Paragraph14 of our Applicationof 20 March 1993pointed out that in

December1991, Bosniaand Herzegovinaappliedto the EuropeanCommunity

for recognition as an independentState. It is this recognition bythe

member States of the European CommunityhatMr. Vancewas referringto

duringthe courseof his fifthmissionto the former Yugoslavia that took

place from 28 December1991 to 4 January1992, whichwas the

subject-matter of the Secretary-General'ReportS/23363,and that in

turnwas the occasionand reason forthe adoptionof resolution 727 on

8 January1992. That is why the last sentenceof paragraph33 of S/23363

refersto the words "anydecisions". Thesewordsmust be interpreted to

mean "any decisions"by variousmember States of the EuropeanCommunity

to recognizethe independence of certain republicosf the former

Yugoslavia.

This interpretationof paragraph33 can be confirmedby reference to

the rest of the Secretary-General'Report,where numerousreferencesare

made to efforts bythe EuropeanCommunity and its memberStatesto obtaina peaceful resolutio of the conflictsin the former Yugoslavia.The

conclusion can be made especially cleaby referenceto paragraphs31

and 32 of S/23363. 1 will notreadthoseparagraphs here but would

encourage al1 of you to readS/23363for yourselves.If you do, you will

see that it is withinthe contextof anticipatedrecognitionby the

EuropeanCommunitythatparagraph33 must be understoodand interpreted.

It had nothingat al1 to do withadmissionto theUnited Nations

Organization.

So, it is clear from thiseport thatMr. Vancesaidnothingat al1

aboutthe armsembargo that was imposedupon the former Yugoslavi being
w
imposedand extendedto its former republic if and when theywere

formally admittet do theUnited Nations Organizatioitself. There is

nothingin there,read it foryourself, you will see. So the two

sentencesfoundin paragraph33 tha-t were laterincorporated in

resolution 727 onlydealt withthe eventualito yf recognitioof the

Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina by thememberStatesof the European

Community. Paragraph33 did not and indeed legally couldnotdealwith

the admissionof Bosniaand Herzegovina to membershipin the

UnitedNationsOrganization by General Assema blyof 22 May 1993.

Likewise,resolution 727 did not and coulnot prejudicethe rights of

Bosnia and HerzegovinaunderArticle51 of the Charterwhen it was

formally admittetdo Membershipin the Organization.

For similarreasons then,al1 subsequent Security Council

resolutions that routinelyreaffirmedthe arms embargoimposedupon the

formerYugoslavia by paragraph6 of resolution713 (1991),paragraph 5 of

resolution724 (1991)and paragraph 6 of resolution727 (1992)cannot

properlybe construedto applyto the Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina

upon its admissionto theUnited Nationsas of 22 May1992. Rather,al1suchSecurity Council resolutio must be construe in a manner

consistent withArticle51 and thereunder the Republicof Bosniaand

Herzegovina hasand stillhas the inherent rightof individualand

collective self-defence. Awe need the Courtto affirm thisright

becausewe are undergenocidal attaca knd aggressionthisvery day.

So, none of thesenumerousSecurity Council resolutio cnan be

properly interprete to applyto theRepublicof Bosniaand Herzegovina

as a member Stateof the UnitedNations. To dootherwisewould "impair

the inherent righ of individualor collectiveselfdefense"of the

Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina, and thusviolate UN Charter

Article51 and render theseSecurity Council resolutions ulv tiraes:

"Nothingin the present Charter shallimpairthe inherent rightof

individual or collectiveself-defence..."(Emphasis added.)

This conclusionis also supported bUyN Charter Articl24,

paragraph2, thatprovides:

"2. In dischargingheseduties[ofmaintaining
international peac end securityt]he Security Councishall
act in accordancewith the Purposesand Principlesof the
UnitedNations. The specific powers grante to the Security
Council forthe dischargeof theseduties arelaiddown in
ChaptersVI, VII, VIII,andXII."

So, even whenit acts underChapterVI1 of the Charter,the Security

Council must"act in accordancewith thePurposesand Principles of the

United Nations" setforthin Chapter1 and this consistsof Articles 1

and 2 of the Charter.In particular, Articl 2, paragraph1, provides:

"TheOrganization is basedon the principleof the sovereignequalityof

al1 itsMembers".

The arms embargo imposedpon the former Yugoslavia bthe Security

Council legalldyid not applyand couldnot applyto the Republicof

Bosniaand Herzegovinaupon its admissionto theUnitedNations.Otherwise, the SecurityCouncilwould not beacting "inaccordance with

the Purposesand Principles ofthe UnitedNations" and thuswould bein

breach alsoof Charter Article 24, paragraph2. Such an improper

interpretation of resolutions713, 724, 727and their successorswould

have illegally deprived Bosni and Herzegovinaof out "sovereign

equality"with al1 other UN Member Stateswhen it comesto exercisingOur

sovereign right, Our inherentright,Our natural right - to quotethe

French version of the Charter- to self-defenceagainstthe armed attack

and armedaggression by means of genocidethathas been continuously

perpetratedupon us by the Respondent in violationof the Genocide w

Conventionand the United Nations Charter. Once again,such an improper

interpretation of theseresolutions would renderthem al1 and their

successorsto be ultra vires the Security Counci lnder both

Article 24, paragrap2 h, and Article51 of the Charter. And hereagain 1

will quote from the introductory languaoge Article51: "Nothingin

the present Charter shalilmpair the inherent rigo ht individual or

collective self-defence..."(Emphasisadded.) That includesSecurity

Council resolutions aw sell.

Finally, Charter Article25 Statesclearly: "TheMembersof the

United Nations agret eo accept and carry out thdecisionsof the

Security Council in accordancewith the presentCharter." Article51 is

certainly oneof the most fundamental provisio ofsthe Charter. So, the

Member States of the UnitedNations havean obligationto carryout the

termsof resolutions713, 724, 727and theirsuccessors "in accordance

with the presentCharter,"which would mean "in accordancewith

Article51". So, the Member Stateo sf the United Nationand partiesto

the Genocide Convention- and a hundredof them are - are obliged"to

accept andcarryout" resolutions 713, 724, 727and theirsuccessors in amanner that would respectBosniaand Herzegovina's right of individual

and collective self-defence again the armed attackand armed aggression

by means of genocidethat is currently being perpetratedby the

Respondentin violation of both the Charter andthe GenocideConvention. The Security Councilhas never expressly deprivedhe Republicof

Bosniaand Herzegovinaof its rightof individualand collective

self-defense. Indeed,for reasons already explained,the SecurityCounci

wouldnot havehad the legal authority to adopt such a resolutionin the

firstplace,and that is preciselywhy theynever did so. There is no

resolutionexpressly applyinb gyname to Bosniaand Herzegovina. It

isn'tthere. So, the obligationof al1 Contracting Partiesto the

GenocideConvention"to prevent" genocide agains the peopleand Stateof

Bosnia and HerzegovinaunderArticle1 remainsintact.

And under the Genocide Conventiont,he Republicof Bosniaand
w
Herzegovinahas a "right"to the performance of theseobligations by the

otherContractingPartiesto prevent genocide agains us and thisright

can be protectedby this CourtunderArticle41 of the Statute.

This bringsus then to requestedProvisional MeasurNeo. 8 and

becauseof its importance1 will read it:

"8. That in orderto fulfillits obligationsunder the
Genocide Conventionunder the currentcircumstance,the
Governmentof Bosniaand Herzegovina must have the abilityto
obtainmilitary weapons, equipmena t,d supplies from other
ContractingParties."

The Courthas already stated in paragraph48 of its Order of8 April:

"whereas fromthe information avaialblteo the Courtit is
satisfiedthat thereis a grave risk of actionbeing taken
which mayaggravateor extendthe existing disputeover the
preventionor punishmentof the crimeof genocide,or render it
more difficultof solution ...".

In Our current requestas supplementedand amended,we have indicated

that such genocidal actionis stillbeing perpetrateudpon us todayby

the Respondentfrom 8 Apriluntil now, aswe speak,you can see it ontelevision thismorning. Undertheseterriblecircumstances of ongoing

genocide, we are callingupon the Courtto clarify andexplainthe right

of Bosniaand Herzegovinu anderthe Genocide Conventio no obtain

militaryweapons,equipment, ans dupplies fromthe otherContracting

Parties necessartyo defendOur peopleand Our State from acts of

genocide, and partitionand dismembermenty meansof genocide,thathave

been and are continously being perpetrauteodn us by theRespondentand

its agents and surrogates in violatiot nheGenocide Conventio and

thisCourt's Orderof 8 April.

A declarationby the Courtto this effectat this timewill go a

longway towards preservingOur "rights"underthe Genocide convention

withinthemeaningof StatuteArticle 41.Conversely, withous tucha

declarationof Our "rights"underthe Genocide Convention by t Courtat

this time,Bosniaand Herzegovina wiln lot be in a positionto argueits

claimson the meritsto the Court becausewe willsoonbe partitioned,

dismembered, annexed incorporated, and destroy bydthe Respondent.

This is not an exaggeratiobut a statementof fact.

In the eventthe Courtwere to make sucha declaration ofOur

"rights"underthe Genocide Conventio ant this time,it would beup to

thoseotherContracting Partiesto the Genocide Conventio to decidewhat

to do next. Andthatwould include the 12 Membersof the

SecurityCouncil whoare also partiet so the Genocide Conventio- they

would decidewhat to do next. We arenot askingthe Courtto orderthem

to do anything, simpltyo declareOur rights.

Thisthenbringsus to theninthproposedmeasure of protection:

"9. That in orderto fulfill theiobligationsunderthe
Genocide Conventionnderthe current circurnstanceasl1
ContractingPartiesthereto musthave the ability toprovide
military weaponse,quipment,supliesand armedforces
(soldiers,sailors,airpeople) to the Government of Bosniand
Herzegovinaat its request." Article 1 of the Genocide ConventioclearlyStates:

"TheContracting Partiesconfirm that genocide, whether
committedin timeof peaceor in time ofwar, is a crimeunder
internationallaw which theyundertake to preventand to
punish." (Emphasis added.)

So, al1 Contracting Partietso the Genocide Conventioare obligated

to prevent the Respondent'sactsof genocide and partitionand

dismemberment by meansof genocide,against the peopleand State of

Bosnia and Herzegovina.Conversely, we have a "right"to the assistance

of the otherContracting Partiesto the Genocide Convention that can be

protectedby thisCourt underArticle41 of the Statuteby makingsucha

declaration.

Article41 empowers this Cour to indicate"anyprovisional

measures"the Courtdeems necessary to preservethe "rights"of Bosnia

and Herzegovina.Underthe uniquecircumstances of this case,and at

this criticaltime in our nation'shistory,we submitthata declaration

of our "rights"by theCourt along the linesof thesenine proposed

provisional measure might verywell Save the peopleand State ofBosnia

and Herzegovina froemxterminationa,nnihilation and liquidationby the

Respondent.

Concerning the tent proposedmeasure ofproisional protection,1

have been advisedby my GovernmentthattheUnited Nations peacekeeping

forcesin Tuzla have been obstructing thedeliveryof humanitarian relief

suppliesto the people of Bosniaand Herzegovina.Some believe thatthis

is a measureof compulsion designedto coerce theGovernment of Bosnia

and Herzegovina intgooing alongwith the so-calledpartition planthat

has been concoctedby the Presidentof Serbiaand thePresidentof

Croatiawith the supportand approvalof EEC Special Envoy David Ow and

the currentUN Special EnvoyThorvald StoltenbergB .e thatas it may,weare askingthe Courtto orderUnitedNationspeacekeeping forcei sn Tuzla

to do al1 in their powerto securethe free flow of humanitaria relief

suppliesto the innocent people oB fosniaand Herzegovinaand in this

regard 1 have been advisedby my Foreign Ministet rhat thereare nearly

one millionpeoplein the generalvicinityof Tuzla whoare near the

point of starvation.

Finally,at the end of Our requestfor provisional measure you will

note thatwe have askedthe Courtto exerciseits powersunderArticle75

of theRulesof Courtto indicate provisiona measures proprio motu.

We have suggested severaladditional provisiona measuresthat the Court

might see fit to cal1 upon the Respondentto obey bothnow and in the

future,and amechanismand ameans to do this.In general,we are askingthe Courtto grantsuchother and further

relief atthistime asthe Courtmay deemto be just,proper, necessary

and sufficient to save thepeople andState of Bosniaand Herzegovina

from actsof genocideand partition, dismemberment, annexation,

incorporation, destructia ond lossof our United Nations membersh biyp

meansof genocide,and thatis clearlywhat is contemplated at this

time. Again 1 referyou to my communication sf 6 and 7 August1993that

are already on file withthe Court. With al1 due respectto the

honourable Members o thisCourt,it is the obligation of thisCourt

underthe United Nations Charte un,derthe Statuteof the Court, under

the Rulesof Court andunderthe Genocide Conventiop na,rticularly

Article8, to divise whatever typeof reliefis necessaryto save the

people and Stato ef Bosniaand Herzegovinafromextermination and

annihilation by the Respondent.Towardsthatend,we have also requested

the Court to keep the situation in Bosniand Herzegovinaunderactive

review forthe indefinite futurefor the purposeof indicating

provisional measuresproprio motuwithoutwaitingforus to fileyet

another written request. Becauseof the Respondent'bsarbaricaggression

and genocide,it is extremely difficul for me asa generalagentto

communicatewith the authorities, my Governmen it,Sarajevo,to get

instructions to comehere. Time is of the essencefor the peopleand

Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina.

At this point,1 must commentbrieflyupon the Respondent's recent

request for oneprovisional measureof protection againstthe Republic of

Bosniaand Herzegovina thatwas madeon 9 August1993and 1 will try to

keep it brief. In al1 honesty,this proceduras ltuntremindedme of the

timewhen over a generation agothe Nazi Governmentblamed the German

Jews for the wanton destructio onsynagoguesand Jewishpropertyon theinfamousKristallnacht of 9 November1938 and then orderedthe Jews to

pay for thedamagethathad been inflictedupon themby the Nazis. The

Respondent'stransparentattemptto make it appearthat theyare not the

perpetrators of genocidecan easilybe disprovenby the Courtreferring

to any of the documentatiocnitedin Our Applicationor any of the

evidentiary submission made so far in this case.

Even the Agent forthe Respondenthas concededflat-outin his

requestof 9 August1993:

"Although comprehensive eviden onethe crimeof genocide
now being committedagainstthe Serb peopleand the ensuant
responsibilityof the so-calledRepublicof Bosniaand
Herzegovina is hard to providein the circumstances,...".

There is one good reasonfor thelack of this evidence: it simplydoes

not exist:

The Respondentand itsagentsand surrogates right now illegally

occupy over 75 per centof the sovereign territoroyf the Republicof

Bosnia and Herzegovina. And theystillcannot produceany independent or

credible evidencethat the Republio cf Bosniaand Herzegovinais

responsiblefor acts of genocideagainstOur own Serbiancitizens. This

is becausethis evidence does not exist. And despitetheir best efforts,

the Respondenthas been unableto producesuch evidenceas concededby

their currentAgent, asrecentlyas 9 August1993, i.e., less than two

weeks ago.

In comparison,in Our Applicationand subsequentsubmissionsto the

Court,we have referredto andreliedupon voluminousdocumentation by

the variousorgansof the United Nations - the Security Council,the

General Assembly,the HumanRights Commissioa nnd its Special

Rapporteur -by the European Community, b yeutralgovemments and by

distinguishednon-govermentalorganizations in thehuman rights field,

such as Amnesty Internationa and HumanRights Watch,in orderto supportOur claimsand Our request for provisionm alasures. If you read through

thismass of outside,independent, objective documentati you,will see

that thereis no evidence that the Governme ontBosniaand Herzegovina

has committedany actsof genocide againsO tur own Serbiancitizens. 1

challenge the Responden to producesuch evidence from ano yutside,

objective, independen source. So far, the Responden tas failedto do

so, despitethe fact that the Responde ntd its agents and surrogates

illegally occupy 75 per centof Our sovereignterritory. Where is the

evidence? - 1 said that the last tim ewas here before theCourt. It

simplyis not there.

Al1 the Agent for the Responde has givento the Courtin support

of his request are documents that have been gener bytthe Respondent

itself. No documents by any outsideorganization.The Respondent's

allegations have not been verifiedby any outside,independent, objective

source. Indeed,severalof thesedocuments,if you read them carefully,

concedethat theentirerestof the world community disagre weith the

allegations founi dn thesedocuments. So if the Courw tere to acceptthe

allegations founi dn the Respondent'sdocuments, the Court would ha toe

believe that everyon in the entireworld is lying about thh euman rights

situationin Bosniaand Herzegovina - includingthe Security Council the W

General Assembly, th HumanRights Commission, its Special Rapporteur,

the EuropeanCommunity, the United StatesGovernment, Amnesty

International andHumanRights Watch, to narnjust a few.

The Respondent assures the Cou rtat this timeit and italoneis

telling the truth. Yet the Courtnow knowsthatthe acting Agents for

the Respondent contradicted the tr ounhehalfof theirGovernent

duringthe courseof the proceedings held on 2 April 1993and 1 submit

that on 9 April the Agent for the Respondent similarly contradicted thetruthwhen he said that therewas evidencethat the Government of Bosnia

and Herzegovinahas committed genocida egainstOur own citizens. Rather,

the exactopposite is true: The Respondent and its agentsand surrogates

have perpetratedacts of genocide againstthoseSerbiancitizensof the

Republic of Bosniaand Herzegovina who supportOur Governmentand strive

to maintainand asserttheirBosniancitizenship and nationality. They

have been killedtoo, alongwith the Muslims, the Croatst ,he Jews and

others.

Now, againby comparison, duringthe course ofal1 the proceedings

up until today, Bosniaand Herzegovinahas reliedalmostexclusively and

referredto and submitted factual allegationbsasedupon outside,

objective,independent and neutralsources. 1 wouldnot insult the

intelligence of this Courtat this timeby givingyou Our own internal

documentation, whicwhe have. We at this timewould likeand submitthe

Courtto rely upon sources other than Our own when it comesto the

indication of provisionalmeasures, whether aosf 8 April 1993 oras of

today. Under the expeditedprocedures,the emergencynatureof these

hearings,we are askingthe Courtto look atoutside,objective,

independent, neutral sources o asposedto sourcesproducedby the Party

to this lawsuit andwe believethat is thebest wayto proceed. If and

when we get to the merits stage ofheseproceedings, then of course we

fully intendto producethe voluminousevidencethathas been producedby

Our Governmentto supportOur factualallegations.At that time, this

evidence can be critically examineby the Court andby the Respondent.

We believethat Our own internal evidencweill withstandthe most

demandingscrutinyand will certainly fulfil Our burdenof proofon the

factual allegations setforthin Our Applicationas amendedand

supplemented and certainlyOur current requesttoday. In the meantime, howevera,nd for the purposeof indicating

provisionalmeasuresat thistime,we submitthat theCourt must not rely

upon evidenceproducedby the Respondena tnd especiallywhen this

so-called"evidence" has not beencorroboratedby any outside,

independent, objectiv and neutral sourcew,hether by a governmenbt, an

international organizati onofficial,or by any human rights

organization.So we respectfully reques the Courtto rejectthe

Respondent'srequestfor thisone provisional measure again thte

Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina, as the Courtdid in itsOrderof

8 April 1993. Thereis no evidenceto support the Respondentr 'squest
J
and therefore theries no need forthe Courtto give this request.

Finally,1 mustmake a briefcommentupon what is entitled

"Memorandum"producedby theso-called"YugoslavStateCommission foW rar

Crimes andGenocide"of April1993, which you have, thatwas submittedto

the GeneralAssembly and the Security Councioln 2 June 1993. The truth

of the matteris that it hasbeen the Respondentand its agentsand

surrogatesthathave perpetrated massive aco tfs genocideupon the poor

people livingin EasternBosniaand Herzegovina and especiallyin the

vicinityof Srebrenica.The Respondent'sacts ofgenocide are preciselywhy theseBosnian

citizenshavenow fled to the so-called"safehavens" in EasterB nosnia

and Herzegovina,including and especially SrebrenicaT.his

self-interestemdemorandumby an agencyof the Respondent trietso turn

the truth uponits head. It is the peopleresidingin EasternBosniaand

Herzegovinawho haveconstituted thm eost and theworstvictims

per capita of acts ofgenocideperpetratedby the Respondentand its

agentsand surrogates.It is the Serbmilitiaforces acting atthe

behestof the Respondent thathave perpetrated''ethniccleansing"which

is a formof genocide, upon almostthe entiretyof EasternBosniaand

Herzegovina except theso-called"safehavens"includingSrebrenica,

which asyou know,is notvery safe either. We ask the Courtto take

judicial notice oafny of thenumerousmaps thathave corneinto the

public recordconcerning "ethniccleansing"by the Respondentin Eastern

Bosniaand Herzegovina. And, if you look atthosemaps, includingthe

so-called"safehavens"you will seethatit is the peopleof Bosniaand

Herzegovinawho have been thevictimsof genocide, not the pepetrators.

Indeed,it is curious that pag e9 of this memorandum indicattesat

the "YugoslaviaState CommissiofnorWar Crimesand Genocide"reliedupon

evidenceproducedby "thecommandand unitsof theArmy of the Republic

of Srpska"in the productioonf this memoranduamnd its evidence.1

repeat: "thecommand and unitsof theArmy of the Republic of Srpska".

It is thatvery same command andunitsof the Armyof the Republicof

Srpskathathas perpetrated thm eost atrociouasctsof genocideagainst

the peopleand Stateof Bosnia and Herzegovin in violationof the

1948Genocide Conventio and this Court'sOrderof 8April1993. As a

matterof soundpublic policy and of general international law, this

Court mustnot acceptas so-calledevidenceany allegations producedbythe Respondent workinw gith and in CO-operatiowith and on the basis of

evidence manufactured by its agen and surrogatesin Bosniaand

Herzegovina, the Army of the Republicof Srpska,which themselves have

committed massive acts ofgenocide,murder,systematicrape,torture,

robbery,and wantondevastationof homesand property. How dare they

rely upon the militiaand armedunitsof the Republicof Srpskato

producethis reportand then insult the intelligenceof this Court, let

alone the Security Council, by filii ngwith you? These are the people

who arethe killersand themurderers; theseare the people whh oave

preparedthis report - the Respondent. Then, 1 thinktheir request
rr
shouldbe denied. Indeed thispage 79 of thememorandumsimplyprovides

additionalproof of the fact that theRespondentis actingin

CO-operation with "the commandand units of the Army of the Republicof

Srpska". They haveadmittedit, they filedit withthe Security Council,

theyhave now filedit withyou. Itgoes back to Our point on command

and control,that the Respondent is workingwith them. Such an officia1

admission bythe Respondent providesyet anotherreason whythe Court

should grant Our ten measuresof provisional protectio of 27 July 1993

and rejectas a matterof sound policy the Respondent's requested measure

of 9 August1993. W

The Respondenthas stillnot createdeven a prima facie cas on

either the facts or the law to supportits request. By comparison,the

Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina has createdmuch more than a

prima faciecase on both the factsand thelaw that theRespondentand

its agentsand surrogates such as "the command andunits of the Army of

the Republicof Srpska"(p. 79), are perpetratingacts of genocide

againstthe peopleand Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina.The true facts

of this case are therefor the entireworld to see. We ask the Courttotakejudicialnotice of what the entireworldknowsto be true for the

purposeof decidingon theserequestsfor provisional measures.

At the conclusionof my briefpresentation today,1wish to draw the

attentionof the Courtto one shortpassage takenfromthe lengthy

negotiating historoyf the Genocide Conventiothatseemsto be

particularly prophetic a ondpoint concerning oucurrentrequestfor

additional provisionalmeasures. Here 1 wish to quotefrom commentsmade

by Mr. Zourek fromCzechoslovakia, the vict ofmMunich, at the

103rdmeetingof the SixthCommittee held on 28 November1948:

"Mr.Zourek(Czechoslovakia )aid that theCommittee was
discussing guarantees ftore applicationof the Convention.
Thoseguarantees should ba eppropriatto the objectof the
Convention, which watsoensurethe prevention andpunishment
of the crimeof genocide.

Genocide wasbrought aboubty racial, national or
religioushatred. That crime mightbe committedunexpectedly
and on a largescale. Legal guarantees, however, seet med
slow to ensurethe effective preventio onthe perpetration of

sucha crime.

The representative of Czechoslovakia observed that there
was every reason to think that thehuman group concerned would
be massacredbefore the completion of proceedings instituted
with the International Courtof Justice.The Czechoslovak
delegationaskedthatsupervision of the implementation of the
Convention should beentrustedto the Security Council, which
had appropriatemeansat its disposa1for stopping, should
occasionarise, theperpetration ofthe crimeof genocide ..."
(SeeOfficia1 Records of the General kssembly, Third Session,
Part 1,Sixth Committee,Legal Questions,
21 September-10December 1948, aptage439.) (Emphasis
added.)

As we al1 know,thisproposa1fortunately failed. The SecurityCouncil

was not givenexclusive jurisdictionto dealwith genocide; the Court

was givenjurisdiction thatwas concurredwith andwe submitat times

superiorto the jurisdiction otfhe SecurityCouncilto dealwith the

crimeof genocideunderthe Convention. With al1 due respectto Mr.Zourek,we submitthatthe International

Courtof Justicedoes indeedhave the powerunderStatuteArticle41 to

guaranteethat thepeopleof Bosniaand Herzegovina will not "be

massacred before the completo ionproceedings institutwedth the

International Cour tf Justice". That is why we have Article 41. To

reiterate, Articl4e1 Statesquiteclearly: "TheCourtshall havethe

powerto indicate,if it considersthatcircumstances so require,any

provisionalmeasures whichoughtto be takento preservethe respective

rightsof either Party." (Emphasisadded.)

Despitethe predictionmsade by Mr. Zourekalmost45 years ago,it

is obviousthat,becauseof seriouspolitical disagreemena tsongthe

PermanentMembersof the Security Council, the Security Coun haslbeen

unableto quotefromMr. Zourekto "intervene with the necessaryspeed"

in the caseof Bosnia andHerzegovina'sgenocide being perpetrated

againstus. In accordance with its own terms,the Court directethat

one original copyof its8 April1993Orderbe transmitted "to the

Secretary-Generaolf theUnited Nationsfor transmissionto the

SecurityCouncil",which wasdone.And yet the exterminatio nf the peopleand Stateof Bosniaand

Herzegovinahas continuedapaceand uninterrupted since 8 April1993as

verifiedby our requestas supplemented and amended. Indeed,now the

situationis significantlm yuchworseand more dangeroussincethe

Respondent is publicly planning, preparing, conspirp inog,osingand

negotiating to partition, dismember, annex, incorporate and destroy

Bosniaand Herzegovina by meansof genocidein violationof the

Convention and thisCourt'sOrderof 8 April. This will in turnresult

in one millioncompletely innocentmen,womenand childrenbeing

subjectedto so-called"ethniccleansing" and acts of genocidein Bosnia

and Herzegovina.

We ask the Courtto take judicialnoticeof the seriouspolitical

disagreementsamong the Permanent Memberosf the Security Councitlhat

have so far preventedthem fromtakingdecisiveaction"to prevent"the

ongoing genocide against the peo andeStateof Bosniaand Herzegovina

by the Respondentt,he Permanent Memberosf the Security Councialre

required by Article1 of the Genocide Conventioto stop the genocide.

Al1 of the Permanent Member are partiesto the GenocideConventionand

are bound by Article1 to preventthe genocide against Bosna iad

Herzegovina and yet sofar theyhave failedto discharge this obligation

and we are nowaskingthe Courtto do somethingaboutit, to clarifyOur

rightsunderthe Convention as you have the powerto do underStatute

Article41.

Thesepolitical disagreemena tsong thePermanent Membersof the

Security Council are amatterof publicrecord. You can read themin the

debatesof the Security Council you can read themin the pagesof the

newspapers- 1 will notget into them here. Butdefaultof such

actionby the SecuritC youncilit now becomesincumbent upon the Court

"to intervenewith thenecessaryspeed",to preventthe peopleof Bosniaand Herzegovinafrom being"massacred beforethe completionof

proceedings institutw edth the InternationaCourtof Justice". We

submitthat StatuteArticle41 providesthe Court with al1 the legal

authorityit needs underthe United NationsCharterto grantOur proposed
*
additional measure of protectionand any other relietfhe Courtdeemsto u
.
be necessary and sufficienunderthe tragic and desperate circumstances

of the peoplein Bosnia and Herzegovin today.

As you retireto deliberateupon Our recent requestp,lease remember

that the very lives, well-beinhg,alth, safety,physical, mentaalnd

bodily integrity homes,propertyand persona1 possession of hundreds of
*
thousandsof completely innocen men, women,and childrenin Bosniaand

Herzegovina are rightnow at stake,hangingin the balance,awaitingthe

next Orderof thisCourt. Makeno mistakeaboutit: this willbe the

lastopportunity this Cour sthall haveto Saveboth the peoplaend State

of Bosnia and Herzegovina fr exterminationand annihilationby the

Respondent.God will recordyour responseto Our current requesf tor the

restof eternity!

Thankyou foryour attention. Anday God be withyou at this

criticaltime in Our Nation'shistory!

The PRESIDENT: Thankyou verymuch ProfessorBoyle. So that1

think concludesthe presentationforBosniaand Herzegovina in this stage

of the proceedings.So we shall meet tomorrowat 10 o'clockin the

morningto hear Yugoslavia'spresentationand thenagainin the afternoon

tomorrowto hear the two replies.

Thankyou verymuch.

The Courtrose at 12.50p.m.