INTERNATIONALCOURTOFJUSTICE
CAS'ECONCERNINGLEGALITY
OFUSEOFFORCE
(YUGOSLAVIAv. CANADA)
PRELIMINARYOBJECTIONSOF CANADA TABLEOFCONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1........
...............................................
CHAPTER1 . THE COURTIJACKSJURISDICTIONUNDER
THEOPTIONALCLAUSE ........................................ 9.................................
Introduction ..........................................................
..............9................................
A . The purporteddeclarationof 25 April 1999is anullity ...........................9.........
1 . The former SocialistFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia and the
Federal Republicof Yugoslaviaare separatelegal entities. and
the issueof theirrespectivemembershipsin theUnited Nations
mustbe treatedseparately ..............................................................
2 . TheFederalRepublicofYugoslaviadoesnotcontinuethe
United Nationsmembership onceheldby the former Socialist
Federal Republicof Yugoslavia .......................................1..........
3 . TheFederalR.epublicof Yugoslaviahas not applied for
membershiipinthe UnitedNations ....................................1............
4 . Administrativedecisionsorpracticesof'theUnitedNations
Secretariatarepracticalaccommodationsofdiplomacyanddo
not affectthe decisionsofthe relevant principalorgansofthe
UnitedNa.tions .......................................................1..
...............
5 . TheFederalR-epublicofYugoslaviahaschosennot to applyother
availablernechanismsforaccess tothe Court ..........................1........
B . Thepurporteddeclarationis inapplicable .......................................1.............
1 . TheOptionalClausejurisdictionis governedby consent
and reciprocity .......................................................1...
................
a. Jurisdictiolnis basedon consent .......................................1............
b. Jurisdictiolnis based on reciprocity....................................1.............
2 . Thereservation ratione temporis of thepurporteddeclaration
excludesjurisdiction ..................................................1........
.......
a. Thereservationis designedto excludeal1pre-existingdisputes ........1.8
b. The disputearosebeforethe declaration ...............................1.........
c. "New elements"in the dispute cannot changeits date of origin ........21.
d. Al1the "constituentelements"ofthe disputewere in place
by 25 .April1999 ..................................................2........
.....
e. The disputealsorelatesto "situations orfacts"priorto
the declaration ....................................................2....
.......
f. Jurisdictionis establishedasofthe dateof theapplication
andnoltlater ...........................................................
..............
Conclusion .............................................................
...........2..............................CHAPTERII -THECOURTLACKSJURISDICTIONUNDERTHE
GENOCZDECONVENTION ....................................... ................................
Introduction:Thetest oftreaty-basedjurisdiction ...........................................................
A. The Applicant disregardsthespecialnature of theGenocideConvention .............
1. Thehistoncalbackgroundofthe GenocideConvention .....................3.....
2. Theuniquenatureof the GenocideConventionrequiresangorous
examinationof allegationsbeforejurisdictioncanbe granted
underArticle IX .......................................................3.....
..............
a. The allegationsof genocidemust disclosethe existence
...................................................
of a specificintent(dolusspecialis) 32
i) The specific intentrequirementin ArticleII ofthe Genocide
Convention is anintegralelement of the crime ofgenocide
ii) The specificintentrequirement cannotbe replacedwith references
to allegedviolationsofother bodiesofinternationallaw
iii) Theintentto commit genocide cannotbe inferredfromthe
allegedintent or actionsof others
b. The allegationsof genocidemust discloseadiscriminatory
intenttowards agroup"as such" ....................................6..........
The Applicantobscuresthe distinctionsbetween genocide, the use
B.
of forceand jus in bel10 ....................................................7.......
........
1. No attempthas beenmade to demonstrate that the claim falls within
the GenocideConvention ..............................................37............
............
2. The Applicantobscuresthe distinctionbetweengenocideand
othercrimes ...........................................................39.....................
3. TheApplicantdisregardsthedefiningelements of the
crimeof genocide .....................................................40..
..............
a. Thereis nothingto supporttheattributionof specific
intentto Canada ...................................................4........
........
b. The Applicant assumes theexistenceof apresumption
of genocidalintent ............................................................
.....
c. Thereis nothingto demonstrate anintentionto destroy
a group"as such" ..................................................42.........
..........
C. Thenew claimsrelatedto KFORfailto connectCanadato the
allegedoffences ..........................................................
.4...................
1. Thereareno allegationsofcommission or omission againstCanada .......44.
2. The subjectmatterof thenewclaims fallsoutsidethe
GenocideConvention ..................................................4.........
.....
3. Thereis no basis for imputing theacts of thrd parties to Canada ............6.
Conclusion ...........................................................
.............4.........................CHAPTERIII THE CLAIMIS INADMISSIBLE .....................................49.......................
Introduction ..........................................................
...........9...........................
A . The new elementswouldtransfonnthe dispute ................................5..........
1. Thenew elerrientsthat areextraneousto the originalclaim
are inadmissible ....................................................5..
..............
2 . Thenew elemientsintroducedin theMemorialwouldtransform
the subjectmatterof thecase ......................................................
B. Theverysubjectmatterof the caserequiresthepresenceof essential
thirdpartiestlsatarenot beforethe Court ................................5...........
1. TheMonetag)Goldprinciple isapplicable ...............................53...................
2 . This caseis differentfiom situationswhere the Courthas declined
to applytheMonetary Goldpnnciple ................................54....................
Conclusion ......................................................
...............57............................
SUMMARYOF PRELIMINARYOBJECTIONS .......................................59........................
SUBMISSIONS ................................................................... 6.....
..................................................
LIST OF ANNEXES .............................................................. ..3........
......................................... INTRODUCTION
1. ThisPleadingsetsoutthepreliminaryobjectionsoftheRespondenttothejurisdictionofthe
InternationalCourtofJusticeandtotheadmissibilityoftheclaimsinthepresentcase,inaccordance
with Article79 of the Rulesofthe Court.
ProceduralBackground
2. On 29 April 1999, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia filed an Application instituting
proceedingsagainstCanada"for violationoftheobligationnot touse force",followedby arequest
fortheindicationofprovisionalmeasures.Similarbutseparateproceedingswerefiledagainstnine
other Statesthen participatingin the North AtlanticTreatyOrganization("'NATO) Allied Force
operationagainsttheApplicant. Clanadaopposedtherequestforprovisionalmeasuresontheground,
inter alia, that the Court lacked primafaciejurisdiction in the case, either under the purported
declarationmadeby theApplicantunderArticle36,paragraph2,oftheStatuteofthe Courtorunder
Article IX of the Conventionon the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide'.The
Courtupheldthisposition,withoutprejudgingtheultimatedecision.InanOrderdated2 June 1999
it held thatit "lacks primafaciejurisdictionto entertainYugoslavia'sApplication ..."*.
3. By an Order dated 30Jwie 1999,the Court set thefollowingtime limits for the filingof
writtenPleadingsenvisagedbyArticle45 oftheRulesof the Court:
5 January 2000,for theMemorialoftheFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia;and,
5 July 2000, forthe Counter-MemorialofCanada3.
The Applicantfiled itsMemorialon 5January2000.In accordancewithArticle 79,paragraphs 1
and3,oftheRules,providingthal:preliminary objectionsmaybemade"withinthetime-limit fixed
for the delivery of theCounter-:Mernorial"w , hereuponthe "proceedings on themerits shallbe
suspended", Canada has choseri to file preliminary objections at this time. The preliminary
objections set out in this Pleadingdeal with both jurisdiction and admissibility. They may be
surnmarizedas follows.
' 9 Dec. 1948,78 U.N.T.S. 277, Can.?'.S.1949127("Cenocide Convention")(Annex 2).
Legality of Useof Force (Yugoslaviav. Canada),ProvisionalMeasures, 2 June 1999,I.C.J. Reports
1999 (Orderof 2June 1999),para.41.
Legali~,of Useof Force (Yugoslaviav. Canada),Orderof 30June 1999,I.C.J.Reports 1999.Theabsenceofjurisdiction underthe OptionalClause
(a) Thepurported Optional Clausedeclaration is a nullity
4. The Applicant's purported declarationof 25 April 1999is a nullity. Only parties to the
Statuteofthe Courtmay take advantageoftheprovisionin Article36,paragraph2, ofthe Statute,
andthe Applicantdoesnot fulfilthis condition.Forthe samereason,it doesnothave accessto the
Court under Article 35, paragraph 1,of the Statute.Such accessis a conditionprecedent to the
existenceofjurisdiction.
5. TheApplicantisnot aMemberoftheUnitedNations,andforthat reasonit isnotapartyto
the Statute of the Court under Article 93, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the UnitedNations 4.
SecurityCouncilResolution777of 1992,alongwithGeneralAssemblyResolution 4711ofthesame
year,declareinunequivocaltermsthattheFederalRepublicofYugoslavia(Serbiaand Montenegro)
cannot continue automatically the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia in the United Nations5.The resolutions also decide that the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia should apply formembershipin theUnitedNations.
6. The legal issue is straightfonvard.If the Applicant continued the legalpersonality of the
formerSocialistFederal Republicof Yugoslavia, thenit wouldautomaticallybea Member ofthe
United Nations. If,on the otherhand,it is one of severalsuccessorStatesto the former Socialist
Federal Republicof Yugoslavia,thenitcanonlybecomea Memberin accordancewith paragraph
2 of Article4 of the Charter,throughadecisionof the GeneralAssembly on the recornmendation
ofthe SecurityCouncil.
7. The principal political organs of the United Nations have spokenwith clarity on this
question.Theresolutionsjust referred to wouldmakeno senseexcept on the basis thattheFederal
Republicof Yugoslaviais anew Statewhich doesnot continuethelegalpersonalityofthe former
SocialistFederalRepublicofYugoslavia.It isnot,forthat reason,aMemberoftheUnitedNations
andcannotbecomeaMember exceptinaccordancewith Article4oftheCharter.Theexecutiveacts
and communications on which the Applicant relies to overcome thisobstacle are practical
accommodations,which arenot intended to, and in any eventcannot,prevail over authoritative
pronouncementsof the competentpolitical organsof the UnitedNations in the exerciseof their
powers underArticle4 of the Charter.
Nor has the Applicantbecome a party to the Statuteof the CourtunderArîicle93,para. 2, of the Charter.There
has been no attemptin this caseto rely on Article35,para.2, of the Statute,providingthat theconditionsunder
which the Court shallbe open to non-partiesshallbe specifiedby the SecurityCouncil.Article41 of the Rules of
the Courtwould have required the depositofa declarationmadetheauthorityofthe relevantSecurityCouncil
resolution,which wasnotone and wouldin anyeventhavebeen inconsistentwith the purported relianceon
Article36, para.2.
SCRes. 777, UN SCOR,47" Year,UN Doc.SIRES1777(1992)(Annex 1A);GA Res.4711,UN GAOR,47"
Sess.,N Doc. A/RES/47/1(1992) (Amex 1B).(b) Thetemporalresewation inthepurported declarationexcludesjurisdiction
8. It was on the basis of the reservation ratione temporis of the Applicant's purported
declarationthattheCourt decidedit lackedprimafaciejw'isdictionin its Orderof2June1999.So
far as the original claim is concemed, absolutely nothinghas been added that would lead to a
reconsiderationof the Court'sreasoning.
9. The reservation,based on a well-knownformula,has two elements.First, it excludespre-
existing, knowndisputes. This was unquestionably a pre-existingdispute as of 25 April 1999.
Secondly, the reservation limitsijurisdiction to disputes "with regard to the situations or facts
subsequentto" 25Apnl 199g6. Y ettheApplicationcoverssituationsor factsthatalreadyexistedat
that date.nbothrespects,theApplicationwouldbeoutsidethejurisdictionofthe Court,evenifthe
declarationwere othenvisea va1:id oneby aMemberof theUnitedNations.
10. TheApplicanthasrelieduponthe "newelements" t has added to itsclaimbased onevents
relatedto the peacekeeping effoitspursuedby theUnited NationsKosovoForce("KFOR) since
June 19997.But under the formula fieely chosen by the Applicant, eventssubsequent to the
declaration are immaterial if the dispute arose before that time. And the Court has already
determinedthatthisdisputearose "wellbefore25April1999 ..."'Thisnecessarilyimplies,contrary
to theApplicant'sargument,thal:al1its"constituent elements",within themeaningofthe Rightof
Passage (Merits)case,had arise~ibeforethat dateg.
11. The inferencesthe Applicantdrawsfiomthe"new elements"sinceJune 1999wouldlead,
inanyevent,to anabsurdposition.TheApplicantarguesthatthedisputedidnot arise"in full"until
the developmentsrelated tothe peacekeeping operationhad occurredlOT. hatwould entai1at least
twountenableconsequences.Fir,st,it wouldmeanthatthe.Applicationwas filedon29 Apnl 1999
inrelationtoafuturedisputethathadnotyet crystallized-somethingthatwouldcontradictfactsof
almostuniversalpublicknowledge. Second,itwouldmeanthat adisputewhichboth theApplicant
andthe Courthavecharacterizedasonerelatingtotheuseofforcearoseonlywhentheuseof force
hadbeen brought toan end.
12. TheApplicant'spositionontheeffectofitstemporalreservationalso disregardstheprinciple
thatjurisdiction is establishedasofthe dateofthe application,notlater.Thispnnciple may admit
of exceptionsto overcome forma1defects,but nottonullifyreservationsonjurisdiction thatwere
fieely adoptedby the Applicantitself.
Application.
' Memorial,p. 8,para.12,andp. 339,para.3.2.11ff.
' Orderof 2 Jun1999 ,upra,n.2, para.27.
~i~htof PassageoverIndianTerritory,Merits,Judgment,I.C.J.Reports1960,p. 34.
'O Memorial,p. 340,para.3.2.14.Theabsenceofjurisdiction underthe GenocideConvention
13. The Applicant also relies upon Article IX of the Genocide Convention as a basis of
jurisdiction.
(a) Theuse offorce cannotin itselfconstitute anact ofgenocide
14. In itsOrderof2June 1999,theCourtappliedthe testoftreaty-basedjurisdictionset outin
the OilPlatfomzs decision''.It is not enoughthat oneparty shouldmaintain that a disputeexists
underthetreatyandthatthe otherdeniesit;instead,theCourtmustascertainwhethertheviolations
pleaded "door donotfa11 within"theprovisionsofthetreatyI2.TheOrderof2June 1999therefore
addressed the nature of the Genocide Convention.The Court stated,in accordancewith earlier
jurisprudence,thatthe"essential characteristicofgenocideistheintendeddestructionof'anational,
ethnical,racial orreligiousgroup'",andnotedthatthe threatoruseof forceagainsta Statecannot
in itself constituteanact of genocide within themeaning of the ConventionI3.For thesereasonsit
was unable, at that stage of the proceedings,to see a prima faciebasis of jurisdiction in the
Convention.
15. So far as the originalclaimis concerned,namely, theuseof forceby NATO,this analysis
stillprovidesacompleteanswertothemisplacedrelianceonArticleIXoftheGenocideConvention.
The Memorial in fact provides little more than a bare assertion that evidenceof intent has been
provided.It wouldbe difficultto imaginea clearerexarnpleofaPleadingthatsimply"maintains",
butinnoway demonstratesthe applicabilityofatreaty,whichtheCourthas veryclearlyheldtobe
insufficientto establish jurisdiction14.
16. The Memonal alleges intentional hami to civilian populations through environmental
destructionand theuse of improperweapons15T . houghthe allegations arevigorouslydenied,it is
unnecessq to consider their truth or falsehoodin order to ascertain the complete lack ofany
substancetothe Applicant'sclaim thatthe subjectmatteris withinthe provisionsof the Genocide
Convention.On the contrary,it isclearthattheposition of the Applicantisbasedon a systematic
confusion of the law of genocide with the provisions of certain instruments of international
'' OilPlatfom (IslamicRepublic ofIran v. UnitedStatesofAmerica),Preliminaly Objections,Judgrnent,I.C.J.
Reports 1996,p. 803.
l2Id.,p. 810,para16.
I3Orderof 2June 1999,supra, n. 2,para.39,quotingApplicationof the ConventiononthePreventionand
Punishmentof the Crimeof Genocide, ProvisionalMeasures,Orderof 13September 1993,I.C.J. Reports 1993,p.
345, para.42.
l4OilPlatforms,supra,n. 11,p.8 10,para.16.
l5Memorial,p. 174,paras. 1.2.7.ff, andp177,paras.1.3.1ff.humanitarian law, especially Geneva Protocol Il6. This position is legally incorrect because it
overlookstheneed fora specificintentto destroyphysicallyagroup"assuch" -thedefiningfeature
ofthe Genocide Convention,asthe Courthasrepeatedly held.
(b) The newclaimsfail to connect Canadato the allegationsofgenocide
17. Thenewelementsoftheclaim,asnowembodiedintheApplicant'sMemonal, focusonthe
"killings,woundingandexpulsio~o nfSerbsandothernon-AlbaniangroupsinKosovoandMetohija
..."17.Quite apartfiom the considerationsof adrnissibility set out below,theseallegationsrefer to
actsby "Albanianten~rists"'~.Thereis no allegationof complicityor negligencebyCanada, and
no director indirect attributionolfactsoromissionsto Canadathat couldengageits responsibility
underthe GenocideConvention.In fact, thereareno violations pleadedagainstCanadaassuchto
which thetest ofjurisdictioninthe OilPlatformscasecanbe applied.
18. TheprovisionoftheGenocideConventionthat Canadaissaidtohaveviolatedhas notbeen
expressly identified,buttheterm!;oftherelevantsubmissionattheendoftheApplicant's Memorial
indicate that it must be the geneiralobligation topunish andprevent genocidein Article 1of the
Convention19 .n the absenceofanycausallinkbetweenCanadianconductandthe incidentscited
asevidenceofgenocide, however,it is impossibleto seehowthe subjectmatterofthe newclaims
can fa11within that provision.The basic principle illustratedby the Oil Platfomzs case is that
jurisdiction undera treaty cannotbe establishedif the conduct complainedof does not fa11 within
its provisions. The test also assumesthe existence of pleaded "violations" that pertain to the
RespondentzoO . nbothcounts,theMemonaloftheFederalKepublicofYugoslaviafailstoestablish
evenan arguablebasis forjurisdiiction underArticle IX of the GenocideConvention.
Inadmissibility of the new elementsof the claim
19. If, astheApplicantconterids,theeventssincetheOrderof2June 1999are"partandparcei"
of the original dispute, then the:yare excluded from jurisdiction on the basis of the temporal
reservation forthe reasons givenabovezl.If, on the otherhand,the Courtis unable to acceptthis
charactenzation, itmust followthat these"newelements"areinadmissible.Theywouldintroduce
l6 Protocol Additional to the GenevaC:onventionsof 12August 1949,and relatingto theProtection of Victimsof
InternationalArmed Conjlict,8June1977,1125U.N.T.S.3, Can.T.S. 199112(Annex3).
l7 Mernorial, . 339,para.3.2.11.Seeialsop.9,para.15,p. 283,para 1.6.2,p. 339,para.3.2.12,andp. 349,para.
3.4.3.At places,heMemorialalsoreferstoethniccleansinginrelationthe"new elernents"p. 201,para.1.5,p.
249,para.1.5.6,andp. 352).
l8 Id.,p. 201,para.1.5.1.1.lff.
l9 rd.,p. 352.
OilPlatforms,supra, n. 11,p. 810,para.16.
21 Mernorial, . 339,para.3.2.12.factors "extraneousto the original ~laim"~~ and transform "the subject ofthe dispute originally
brought before [the Court] under the terms of the Appli~ation"~~c ,ontrary to principles well-
establishedin thejurisprudenceofthe Court.
20. It isthereforeclear that the"new elements"of the claim areeitheroutsidethejurisdiction
oftheCourtonthebasisofthetemporalreservationintheApplicant'spurporteddeclaration,orelse
inadmissibleon the basisof the variousfeaturesthat distinguishthem fiom the originalclaim. In
eitherevent,they arenotproperlybeforethe Court.
Inadmissibility ofthe daim in the absence of essentialthirdparties
21. Theproceedingsarebeingpursued againstaverylimitedselectionofthe Statesinvolvedin
thedispute.Onlyeightoutoffourteenoftheparticipantsintheuse offorcebyNATOarebeforethe
Court. The substantial majority of the KFORparticipantsare also absentfiom the proceedings,
includingboth the United States and the RussianFederation,as well as al1the other non-NATO
participants. Perhaps more important,KFOR is an operation under the auspices of the United
Nations carriedout underthe authorityandcontinuingoversightofthe SecurityCouncil, an entity
that isnot and cannotbe brought into the present proceedings.
22. The Courtis therefore faced withthe anomaly oflitigation inwhich most of theprincipal
actors aremissing.Whilethe circurnstancesareunique, thevery subjectmatterof the casewould
requireanadjudicationofthe legalrightsanddutiesof essentialthirdpartiesthatarenotbeforethe
Court, includingthe UnitedNations itself.The case is therefore inadmissible underthe principle
establishedin the Monetary Goldcase 24Significantly,the Courthasneverdeclined to apply that
pnncipleinacasewherethemainprotagonistsweremissingfiomthelitigation.Thecollectivebasis
onwhich theApplicanthas imputedresponsibilitytoeach partywithoutanyindividualimputation
ofwrongdoing,aswellasthecentralroleofinternational organizations,alsodistinguishthepresent
case fromsituationswherethe Court hasheldtheMonetay Goldprincipleto be inapplicable.
Theformal and substantive defects of theMemorial
23. The title of the case used by the Applicantin its Memorial does not correspondto that
adopted by the Court.TheApplicanthasnarnedal1the Respondentsin theproceedingsinstituted
on 29 April 1999, with the exception ofthose in the two cases that were dismissed. This case,
however,hasasingleRespondent,noOrderhavingbeenmadeunderArticle47 oftheRulesjoining
anyof thecasesbroughtagainstNATOmembers bythe Applicant last year.
22 CertainPhosphateLands in Nauru (NauruvAustralia),Preliminary Objections,Judgment, I.C.J. Reports1992
(Nauru),p. 266,para.68.
23 FisheriesJurisdiction (Spainv.Canada),Jurisdiction,Judgment,I.C.J. Reports 1998(FisheriesJurisdiction),
para.29.
24 Monetary GoldRemovedfi-omRome in 1943,Judgment,I.C.J. Reports 1954,p. 19.24. Thatmaybe anessentiallyforma1defect,but it hassubstantiveimplications. Whatis more
important is that the Applicanthas prepared an identical text for al1eightpending cases, on the
groundthatthe "substanceofthe disputeinal1eightcasesisidenti~al"~~ T.hepracticalresultofthis
approachis thatnothingis attributedto anyindividualRespondent,andeachparticipatingStateis
held responsible for every act that occurred during the .4llied Force operation and during the
subsequentpeacekeepingphase.
25. Theassumptionisthatno allegationsneedbeattributedto anyindividual State,becausethe
actsof eachofthem areimputableto al1the others.Thisassumptionpervades every aspectof the
argument.It is by no means reslicted to the use of forceper se. It extendsbeyond thatissue to
seriousaccusationsrespecting,interalia, genacideand theuseof unlawfûlmeansandmethods of
warfare -crimesthat, ifproved, would shock"theconscienceofmankind ..."26Eveninthecontext
ofacollective militaryeffort,it isunthinkablethatsuchcrimesshouldbeattributedtoanindividual
Statein the absenceof anyreal o:ralleged misconductonthepart of its organsor ofpersons under
itscontrol.
26. The specific legal consequence of the omission of any particularsrespecting individual
Respondentsis that the Memorialnecessarily fails to establishany legalconnection betweenthe
parties and the alleged violations of the treatyinvoked as a basis of jurisdiction. So far as the
relationsbetweenthe parties are concemed,therefore, the pleaded violationsdonot fa11 within the
treaty.Thisconsiderationisfatal1:otherelianceonArticleIXofthe GenocideConventionasabasis
ofjurisdiction.
27. TheMemorialisalsofatilly flawedinits failuretoprovideadequateevidenceinsupportof
itsassertions,particularlywithrespecttothe"newelements".Thereare twovolumesentitledNATO
Crimes in Yugoslavia:DocumentalyEvidencerespectingonly the bombing carnpaignfiom 24
March to 10June 1999.Theannexesproperconsist largelyof documentsin Serbian,but itseems
clear(ontheassumptionthatthefewdocumentsfi-omJune 1999aredepositionsaboutthebombing)
that no documentary evidence whatsoeverhas been filed on the "new elements" of the claims
respecting KFOR.
28. A failureto presentevena commencementofproofwould obviouslybe fatalonthemerits.
Butthis almostunprecedentedinsufficiencyofmaterialisalsorelevantatthepresentstage,because
it meansthereis virtuallyno materialbeforetheCourt showingthat the"newelements" mightfa11
withinthetreatyinvokedasabasisofjurisdiction.Inprinciple,aStateseekingtorelyonjurisdiction
underaspecifictreatymustberequired -asamatterrelatingto the admissibilityofitsapplication -
to adducefactswhich, iftrue,wouldbe capableofbringingits claimwithinthe scopeofthe treaty
25 Memorial,p. 8, para.11.
26 Reservationsto the Conventionon thePreventionandPunishmentof the Crimeof Genocide,Advisory Opinion,
1C.J. Reports 1951(Reservations),p. 23.sofarastheRespondentStateis concemed.TheApplicanthasnotdonesoandthe"newelements"
shouldtherefore be held inadmissible.
Structure of this Pleading
29. ThisPleadingisorganizedasfollows.Chapter 1 setsforththeCanadianpositionwithrespect
to thepurported OptionalClausedeclarationof 25 April 1999.ChapterII deals withthe claimto
jurisdiction under ArticlIX of the Genocide Convention.Chapter III sets out the objections
respectingthe admissibilityof thelaim.There followsaSummaryofthe PreliminaryObjections
andthe Pleadingconcludeswith the Submissionsofthe Respondent.
30. HavingregardtoArticle79,paragraph2,oftheRules,CanadahasincludedanAnnexsetting
outthe factualbackgroundto thismatte?7.In Canada's view, howevert,he-preliminaryobjections
submittedherein canbedecidedonpurelylegalgroundswithout addressingcontestedissuesoffact.
27 Annex1. CHAPTER1
THECOURTLACKS JURISDICTIONUNDER
THEOPTIONALCLAUSE
Introduction
3 1. Therearetwoindependentreasonswhythepurporteddeclarationof25April1999 confers
nojurisdiction on the Court: the statusof theApplicantandtheterms of the declarationitself.
32. AsCanadaarguedatthehearingsonprovisionalmeasures,thedeclarationisaradicalnullity
with no legal effects whatsoever.The Applicant is not a Member of the United Nations and
accordinglyisnotpartytothe StatuteoftheCourt.Itisthereforenoteligible,underthetermsofthe
Statute,to makea declarationunderthe OptionalClause.
33. Evenifthequestionofitsvalidity issettooneside,thedeclarationbyitsowntermsconfers
no jurisdiction. The temporalreservationit contains,based ona time-honouredformula, limits
jurisdiction to "disputesising(orwhichmay ariseafterthe signatureof thepresentDeclaration,
withregard to the situationsorfiictssubsequentto ths signature"28.
34. With respectto theuseof'forcebytheNorthAtlanticTreatyOrganization ("NATO), there
is absolutely nothing to altere provisional conclusionreachedby the Court last year that the
disputearosein lateMarch 1999,severalweeks beforethe declaration wassigned.It followsthat,
to the extent that the "new elernents"of the case regarding the United Nations Kosovo Force
("JSFOR) mightbe considered1:o form"part andparcel"ofthe originaldispute,as the Applicant
contends,they are excludedfionnjurisdiction for exactly thesamereas~n~I.f, on the otherhand,
theydonot form"partandparceï"ofthe originaldispute, thentheyareinadmissibleforthereasons
setout in ChapterIII.
A. The purporteddeclarationof 25 April1999 is a nullity
35. InordertohaveaccesstotheCourt,theApplicant musteitherbeapartytothe Statuteofthe
Court,or claimtoapplytheexceptionalmechanismsprovidedforinArticle93,paragraph2, ofthe
Charterof the UnitedNationo sr in Article 35,paragraph2, of the Statute.The Applicant meets
neitherof theserequirements.
28Application.
29 Mernoria, .339,par3.2.12.36. Under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, only parties to the Statute are entitled to
participateinthe OptionalClausesystem.Followingthedissolutionofthe formerSocialistFederal
Republic of Yugoslaviaand the admissionof four of its formerconstituentrepublics to United
Nationsmembership, the Applicanthasbeen expresslydeterminednot tobe amemberStateofthe
United Nations by the organs of the United Nations thatare empowered by the Charter with
determiningissuesofmembership.Itfollowsnecessarilyfi-omthis findingthat theApplicantisnot
aparty to the Statute ofthe Court. TheCourtis thusnot opento it throughthis approach,and its
pwported declarationof25Apnl1999, madeunderArticle36,paragraph2,oftheStatute,seeking
to initiatean actionbeforethe Court,is a nullity.
1. The former Socialist Federal Republicof Yugoslavia and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslaviaare separatelegalentities, and theissueoftheirrespectivemembershipsin
the UnitedNationsmust betreatedseparately
37. In its argumentconcemingitsmembershipin theUnitedNations, the FederalRepublic of
Yugoslaviadeliberatelyobscurestheissueofthe statusofthemembershipintheUnitedNationsof
two entities: the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which Security Council
Resolution777 states"has ceased to exi~t"~~ a;nd anentirelynew entity, theFederalRepublic of
Yugoslavia,whichemerged asoneoffivenewStatesfi-omthedisintegrationoftheformerSocialist
FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia.
38. TheCourtnotedin itsApril 1993Orderonprovisionalmeasures intheApplicationofthe
ConventiononthePreventionandPunishmentof theCrimeof Genocidecase certainambiguities
which surround the status of the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia3'.This left the issue of the United Nations membership of that entity prima facie
unre~olved~~ T.hissituation,however,doesnotinanyway affectthemembershipstatusofthenew
legal entityknown as the Federal Republicof Yugoslavia. On the membership of the Federal
RepublicofYugoslaviathereexistsasenesofclear,unarnbiguous,authoritativeandlegallybinding
pronouncements,bytheorgansoftheUnitedNationscompetenttodetermineissuesofmembership.
2. TheFederalRepublicofYugoslaviadoesnotcontinuetheUnitedNationsmembership
onceheld by theformerSocialistFederalRepublicofYugoslavia
39. In order to become aMember of the UnitedNations,'a State must apply and quali@for
membershipinaccordancewiththetermsofArticle 4 oftheCharter.BythatArticle,thesolepower
todetermine whch StatesmaybegrantedmembershipintheUnitedNationsisgiventotheGeneral
Assembly,uponrecomrnendationbytheSecurityCouncil. Inaccordancewithdeterminationsofthe
30 Supra,n. 5 (Annex 1A).
" Applicationof theConventionon thePreventionand PunishtftheCrimeof Genocide,Provisional
Measures,Orderof8April1993, I.C.J.Reports 1993,pp. 13-14,paras.17-18.
32 Ibid.General Assemblyandthe SecurityCouncil, the FederalRepublicofYugoslaviais not amember
Stateof theUnitedNations.
40. SecurityCouncilResolution757, adoptedon 30May 1992,notesthat -
"the claim by the Federal Republicof Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)to continue
automaticallythe membershipoftheformerSocialistFederalRepublicofYugoslaviainthe
UnitedNationshasnotbeen generally a~cepted"~~.
41. In Mer explicitrecognj.tionofthe factthattheFederalRepublicof Yugoslaviacouldnot
layclaim tothe UnitedNations nlembershiponceheldbythe formerSocialistFederalRepublicof
Yugoslavia,SecurityCouncilRe:solution777,dated 19September 1992,statesthat -
"the state formerlyknown as the Socialist FederalRepublic of Yugoslaviahas ceased to
exist"
andthat -
"theFederalRepublicof'J7ugoslavi( aSerbiaandMontenegro)cannotcontinueautomatically
the membership of the former Socialist FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia in the United
Nations .."34.
Upontherecommendationofthe SecurityCouncilinResolution 777,theGeneralAssembly,on22
September 1992,in Resolution 4711,therefore decided -
"that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) should apply for
membershipintheUnitedNationsandthatit shallnotparticipateintheworkoftheGeneral
A~sembly"~~.
42. Thelegal statusoftheFederalRepublicofYugoslaviaasanon-memberStateoftheUnited
Nationsandits inabilitytoparticipatein GeneralAssemblyworkhasbeen authoritativelydecided
by the combination ofthe resolutionsof thesetwo bodies, in the due exerciseof their respective
33 SC Res. 757,UN SCOR,47' Year,]UNDoc. S/RES/757(1992)(Annex4).
34 Supra,n. 5 (Annex 1A).
35 Supra,n. 5 (Annex 1B).On28April 1993,the SecurityCouncil, recallingits Resolution777 (1992)and General
AssemblyResolution4711,recornmendedin Resolution821(1993)to theGeneralAssemblythat it decidethat the
Federal Republic of YugoslaviarbiaandMontenegro) "shallnotparticipatein thework of the Economic and
Social Council" (SCRes. 821,SCC)R,47" Yeu, UNDoc. S/RES/821(1993) (Annex5)). On 5May 1993,the
GeneralAssemblyadoptedResolution847122in whichit decided"thatthe FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia (Serbia
andMontenegro)shallnot participatethework of theEconomicand SocialCouncil"(GARes. 471229,UN
GAOR,47' Sess.,UN Doc.A/RES/47/229(1993)(Amex 6)).powersunderArticle4oftheCharter.InhistreatiseonLegalEffectsofUnitedNationsResolutions,
Castaiïedaconfinns the authoritativecharacterof suchdeterminations:
"But the determinationas such is apronouncementof the Organization, whichis legally
definitive, andagainstwhichthereisnolegalrecourse.Inasmuchasitrepresentstheofficial
UnitedNationspositionontheexistenceofafactorlegalsituation,itistheonlyonethatthe
Organizationtakesintoaccountasthebasisforeventualaction;thustheindividualdissident
attitudelacksuridicalrelevance.Inthissensethesepronouncementshavelegalvalidity,and
the resolutions thatcontain them can properlybe charactenzed as bindingin what they
determine"36.
43. Thestatus of the allegedcontinuation by the Federal Republicof Yugoslaviaof the legal
rights andprivilegesoftheformerSocialistFederalRepublicofYugoslaviawas alsothesubjectof
deliberationsoftheArbitrationCommissionofthePeaceConferenceonYugoslavia.TheArbitration
Commissionwasestablishedbyajoint statementonYugoslaviaadoptedatanextraordinarymeeting
ofMinistersinthe contextofEuropeanPoliticalCooperationon27August1991.Thisarrangement
wasacceptedbythesixYugoslavRepublicsatthe openingofthePeaceConferenceon7September
1991.
44. TheArbitrationCommission,initsOpinionNo.8of 4 July 1992,tooktheposition"thatthe
process of dissolutionof the SFRY ..is now completeandthat the SFRYno longerexists";that
"SerbiaandMontenegro ...haveconstitutedanewState,the'Federal RepublicofYugoslavia'";and
that"the formernationalterritoryandpopulationofthe SFRYarenow entirelyunderthe sovereign
authonty of the new Statesu3'.
45. InOpinionNo. 9 of the samedate,the Arbitration Commission stated:"New States have
been createdon the territory of the former SFRY and replacedit. Al1are successorStates to the
formerSFRY3*,and addedinits conclusions that -
"the SFRY's membershipof internationalorganizationsmustbe terminatedaccordingto
theirstatutesand thatnoneof the successor Statesmay thereupon claim foritselfalonethe
membershiprightspreviouslyenjoyedby theformer SFRY"39.
36 CASTANEDA,LegalEfeectsof UnitedNationsResolutionsb,ans.AlbaAmoia,NewYork,Columbia
University Pres, 969,. 121(Annex7) [emphasisinoriginal].
37 (1993) 92 I.L.R.199,p. 202 (Annex8).
38 (1993) 92I.L.R.203,p. 204 (Amex 9).
39 Id., p. 205.46. In Opinio Nno.10,also o'fthesamedate,the ArbitrationCommissionstatedthat "noneof
the resultingentities could claini to be the sole successor tothe SFRY40 and that "theFRY is
actuallyanew Stateandcouldnotbe the sole successorto the SFRY4'.
47. In accordance with the decisions taken by the relevant bodies, Canada has never
acknowledgedthe Federal RepublicofYugoslaviato be the continuationof the former Socialist
FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia,but has treated it as oneofthe fiveequal successorStates.
3. The Federal Republicof Yugoslaviahas not applied for membershipin the United
Nations
48. TheissueofmembershipintheUnited Nations -andhencethatofjurisdictionofthe Court
qua a State'sstatusas apartyto the Court'sStatute-isdirectlytiedto the legal statusofthe entity
referredto as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This entityis not the continuingState of the
formerSocialistFederalRepublic of Yugoslavia.It is a new State and, as such,it must make an
applicationunder Article4of the:Charterto becomeaMember ofthe United Nations.
49. TheotherindependentStatesthatwerecreatedfollowingthebreak-upoftheformerSocialist
FederalRepublicofYugoslaviaal1appliedformembershiptotheUnitedNationsandwere admitted
to the UnitedNationsby the GeneralAssembly upon recornmendation of the SecurityCouncil, in
accordancewith the provisionso:fArticle4,paragraph2, o.fthe Charter.
50. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, andSlovenia .\irereadrnitted on 22 May 1992. Their
admissiondoubtless informedthe adoption four monthslaterof SecurityCouncilResolution777.
The formerYugoslavRepublicofMacedoniawas admittedto membershipon 8April 1993.
51. Only the FederalRepublicrofYugoslaviahas not followedtheclear legalpath directedby
both the Charterand the various resolutions ofthe competentorgans of the UnitedNations. On
29 September1992, following the GeneralAssembly'sadoption of Resolution4711,Mr. Milan
Panic,thenPrimeMinisteroftheIFederaR l epublicofYugoslavia,madethe followingstatementon
the floorofthe Assembly:
"1 herewith formally request membershipin the United Nations on behalf of the new
Yugoslavia, whoseGovexnment1repre~ent'"~.
52. TheFederal Republicof Yugoslavia did not follow up on thisrequest,and itis amatterof
recordthattheSecurityCouncilmadenosubsequentrecommendation concemingitsUnitedNations
40(1993)92 I.L.R. 206, p. 207 (Annex 10).
41Id., p. 208.
42 UNGAOR,47~Sess.,7" Plen. Mtg., UN Doc.Al47lPV.7 (1992) Iprovisional],p. 149(Annex 11)[emphasis
added].membership,and thatthe GeneralAssemblymadeno decisiononits admission.Accordingly,the
FederalRepublicof Yugoslaviahas failed to complywith'therequirementsformembershipinthe
UnitedNations.
4. Administrativedecisionsor practicesof theUnitedNationsSecretariatare practical
accommodationsof diplomacyanddonotaffectthedecisions of therelevantprincipal
organs of theUnitedNations
53. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has cited certain correspondence andresolutions
pertaining to the assessment of membership fees to "Yugoslavia", and which it claims are
inconsistentwith the positionthat it is not aMemberof theUnitedNations 43.Thereis no legalor
factualbasis fortreatingthesevariousmeasuresasanythingbutthepragmaticaccommodationsof
diplomacy,in a situationin which:(a)theUnitedNationshas a practicalneedto maintaincontact
and communication with the Applicant, whose conduct hasbeen a core concernof the United
Nations since the dissolution ofthe formerSocialistFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia;and (b) the
governingprinciplesandlegalparametershadalreadybeen establishedby thecompetentprincipal
organs.
54. Such administrative flexibility inthe contextof multilateral diplomacycannot affectthe
underlyingjuridical situation.Noexecutiveactsorcommunications,evenfromthehighestsources
withintheUnitedNationsSecretariat,canaffectthedejure positionreflectedintherelevantUnited
Nations decisions, nor can they create membership in the absence of a positive decision on
admission.
55. TheFederalRepublicofYugoslavia'spaymentof assessedmembershipfeesin theUnited
Nationsisnotevidenceofitsstatus.TheFederalRepublicofYugoslaviamustapplyformembership
in the UnitedNations, as it hasbeen expresslytold it must do. Suchpaymentdoesnot permitthe
Applicantto continuethe membership ofthe formerSocialistFederal RepublicofYugoslavia,to
which it has been expresslytoldit doesnot "automaticallys~cceed"~.
56. Inanyevent,Article4oftheChartersetsouttherequirementsformembershipintheUnited
Nations.In the Admissioc nase,the Court stated clearlythatno fürtheror additionalconditionsin
43 Notwithstandingthe Applicant'sclairnto United Nations membership, documentspresented tothis Courtby the
Applicantitself demonstratethe differingstatusaccorded to Mr.Jovanovié(ofthe FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia)
and torepresentativesofUnited Nations member Statesbythe SecurityCouncil. In UN Doc.SPV.3988 (1999),
the Presidentof the SecurityCouncil(China)makesa cleardistinctionbetweenmember Statesinvited"to
participate the discussion,without theright to vote,in accordance with the relevantprovisionsof the Charter
[Art.321and rule 37 ofthe Council's provisionalrulesofprocedure" andMr. Jovanovic,whomthe -resident
withoutrefening to himby his Stateof o-merely proposes"to invi..to addressthe Couninthe course of
itsdiscussionof the itembefore it" (UNSCOR,54hYear,398Mtg.,UNDoc. S/PV.3988(1999),p. 2 (Annex
177 ofthe Mernorial)).
SCRes.777, supra,n. 5 (ArinexlA), and GARes.4711,supra,n. 5 (Annex1B).respectofmembership,beyondthosesetoutinArticle4,couldbeimposedbytheSecurityCouncil
orotherorganoftheUnitedNations4'. Itfollowsthatpaymentofmembershipfeescannotbelinked
to admissionor membership. Ariancillaryprovision, Article19ofthe Charter,links feepayment
only to the exercise of the voting rightsthat attach toan existingmembership.Accordingly,the
Applicant's claim that its payment of fees was evidence of United Nations membership is
inconsistentwithclearprovisionsof the Charter.
57. The principal political organs of the United Nations have spoken and reiterated their
decisions,with authorityandexernplaryclarity.Theirpronouncementsarebindinginwhattheyhave
determined,namelythat:
the state formerlyknoim as the SocialistFederal Republicof Yugoslaviahas ceasedto
exist;
thepresentApplicant,theFederalRepublicofYugoslavia,cannotcontinueautomatically
the membershipof the:former Socialist Federal Republicof Yugoslaviain the United
Nations;
theFederalRepublicof'YugoslaviacannotbeconsideredaMemberoftheUnitedNations
andthereforeneedsto applyunderArticle4 oftheCharterin orderto become a Member
of the UnitedNations.
Notbeing aMemberoftheUnitedNations, theFederalRepublicofYugoslaviaisnot a partytothe
Statuteof the Court,underArticle93,paragraph1,of theCharter.
5. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has chosen not to apply other available
mechanisms foraccess 1:the Court
58. As anon-memberStateoftheUnitedNations,theApplicantcouldhavesoughtto applythe
exceptionalmechanismsforaccessto theCourtcontainedinArticle 93,paragraph2,oftheCharter
orin Article 35,paragraph2, of the Statute.
59. Article 93, paragraph2, (enablesa Statewhichis not a Memberof the United Nations to
become party to the Statuteon conditionsdeterminedin eachcaseby the GeneralAssemblyupon
the recommendationofthe SecurityCouncil.No suchdeterminationhas been madein thepresent
case,nor has onebeensoughtby the Applicant.
60. Article 35,paragraph2, ofthe StatutepermitstheCourttobe open toaStatenot aMember
of the UnitedNations,accordingto conditionslaid downby the SecurityCouncil.The conditions
45 ConditionsofAdmissionofa StatetoMembershipinthe UnitedNations(Article4 of theCharter),Advisory
Opinion,1948,ZC.J. Reports1947-1948,p64-65.nowinforceweresetoutbytheSecurityCouncilinitsResolution9of 15October194646H . owever,
the Applicant,inits purported declaration, neitherclaimsto apply Article35, paragraph 2, norto
have acceptedthe conditionsrequiredby Resolution9 ofthe SecurityCouncil,perhapsbecauseto
do sowould notbe consistentwith its claimtobe a member StateoftheUnitedNations.Evenhad
itdone so, accessto the Courtunder this mechanismwould require the "explicit agreement"of
Canadafor thiscase to pr~ceed~~ N.o suchagreementhasbeen soughtor given.
B. The purported declarationis inapplicable
61. ThequestionoftheApplicant's entitlementtoinvoketheOptionalClauseis logicallyprior
to a considerationof the meaning and interpretationof its declarationpurportingto accept the
Court's jurisdictionunderthat Clause.But the Court's jurisdictionis alsoplainly excludedby the
termsofthe Applicant'sowndeclaration.This,inandof itself,is asufficientbasis fortheCourtto
dismissthepresent Applicationso faras it seeksto relyonthe OptionalClause.
1. The OptionalClausejurisdictionis governed byconsent and reciprocity
a. Jurisdiction is basedon consent
62. The principle of consent was summarizedby the Court in its Order of 2 June 1999 on
provisional measures,whereit statedthat "'it cannotdecidea disputebetweenStateswithout the
consent ofthose States .."',andthat -
"the CourtcanthereforeexercisejurisdictiononlybetweenStatesparties to a disputewho
notonlyhaveaccesstotheCourtbutalsohaveacceptedthejurisdictionofthe Court,either
in generalformor forthe individualdispute~oncerned"~~.
ItisaconsequenceofthisprinciplethatStatesarefree,indepositingdeclarationsundertheOptional
Clause,tostipulatereservationsofanykindlimitingtheiracceptanceofjurisdiction.Asstatedinthe
1998FisheriesJurisdictioncase:
"It is foreach State,in formulatingitsdeclaration,toecideuponthe limits itplacesupon
itsacceptanceofthejurisdictionoftheCourt:'Thisjurisdictiononlyexistswithinthe limits
withinwhichithasbeenaccepted'(PhosphatesinMorocco,Judgment,1938,P.C.I.J.,Series
46 SCRes.9, UNSCOR, IRYear,UNDoc. SRES19 (1946)(Annex 12).
47 Ibid.
48 Order o2 June1999,supra,n. 2, para. 19,quotingEast Timor(Portugalv. Australia), Judgment,I.C.J.Reports
1995,p. 101,para.26.See alsoMilitaiy andParamilitaiy ActivitiesinandagainstNicaragua(Nicaraguav. United
States ofAmerica),JurisdictionandAdmissibilim JudgmeC.JR.eport1984 (Militaryand Paramilitaly
Activities), p. 418,para. 59, wherethe Courtcharacterized underthe OptionalClauseas "facultative,
unilateralengagements,that Statesare absolutely makeornotto make". A/B,No. 74,p. 23). Conditionsor reservations ...operateto definethe parametersof the
State'sacceptanceofthe compulsoryjurisdictionof the Court"49.
b. Jurisdiction is basedon reciprocity
63. ReciprocitycontrolstheoperationofOptionalClausedeclarationsinconferringcompulsory
j~risdiction~~T .he principle appears inArticle36,paragraph2, of the Statute("in relation to any
other State accepting the same obligation"), in the Canadian declarationof 10 May 1994 ("on
conditionof re~iprocity")~~ a,nd in the purporteddeclarationof the Applicant("in relationto any
otherState acceptingthe sarneobligation,that is onconditionofre~iprocity")~~.
64. Therearetwoimplicatiorisoftheprincipleofreciprocity.First,thecompulsoryjurisdiction
of the Court under the Optional Clause extends only tc.)the common ground covered by the
declarationsof bothparties.Asthe CourtstatedinAnglo-Iranian Oil,"jurisdictionis conferredon
theCourtonlytotheextenttowhichthetwoDeclarationscoincideinconferringit"53.Second -and,
for present purposes, more important - Canada is entitled to invoke the reservations in the
Applicant's declarationas thougl~they appearedintheCanadianreservation.Asthe Courtput it in
theInterhandel case:
"ReciprocityinthecaseofDeclarations acceptingthe compulsoryjurisdictionofthe Court
enablesa Partyto invokea reservation to that acceptance which it has not expressedin its
ownDeclarationbutwhichthe otherPartyhas expressedin itsDe~laration"~~.
65. The Applicantcannotbe allowedto invokethe declarationit hasitselfmade, whenon the
face of that declaration there i!: a reservation whichplainly disqualifies it from bringing its
Application. Without prejudiceto the objectionsmade above as to the status of the Applicant,
49 Supra,n. 23, para. 44.
50 "The principle of reciprociîyformspart of thesystemof the OptionalClause by virtue of the expressterms both
of Article 36 of theatute and of most Declarationsof Acceptance,includingthat of India. The Court has
repeatedly affmed and appliedthatprinciple inrelation toits ownjurisdiction. It did so, inpainthe case of
CertainNorwegianLoans ...(RightofPassage overIndianTerritoryPreliminary ObjectionsJ,udgment,I.C.J.
Reports 1957(RightofPassage (PreliminaryObjections)p )., 145).
51 Annex 13.
52 Application.
53 Anglo-IranianOil Co.,PreliminaryObjection,Judgment,I.C.J.Reports1952,p. 103.
54 Interhandel,Preliminary Objections,udgment,I.C.J.Reports1959,p. 23. SeealsoElectrici~,CompanyofSofia
andBulgaria,Judgment, 1939,P.C.I.J.,SeriesAiB,No. 77,p. 81,wherethe Permanent Court saidwithrespect to
the reservationationetemporisof the .Applicant:"Although thislimitationdoes not appear in the Bulgarian
Government'sown declaration,it is cornmongroundthat, in consequenceofthe conditionof reciprocitylaid down
in paragraph 2 ofArticle 36 of the Court's Statuteand repeatedinthe Bulgariandeclaration,it is applicableas
betweenthe Parties."Canada therefore invokes and relies upon the reservationratione temporis in the purported
declarationof the Applicant dated25April 1999.
2. The reservationratione temporis of the purported declaration excludesjurisdiction
a. The reservation is designedto excludeal1pre-existingdisputes
66. The purported declarationfiled on 25 April 1999contains a self-imposedjurisdictional
limitationthat is fatal to these proceedings. Thedeclaration,by its own terms, is limited to "al1
disputesarisingor whichmay ariseafterthe signatureofthepresentDeclaration,withregardtothe
situationsor facts subsequenttothis signature"55T . heFederal Republic ofYugoslavia,forreasons
thatareeasily surmised,wasunwillingtoincurtheriskoflitigationrespectinganyexistingdisputes
and any existing facts andsituations.Its priority was to protect itselfagainst that threat, even at
obvious cost to itself in respect of its intended Application.Reciprocity,the keyprinciple of the
OptionalClause,meansthat the Applicantcannotitself invokethecompulsoryjurisdiction of the
Courtinconnectionwithdisputeswhoseoriginorwhosefactualbasispre-dates thesignatureofthe
declaration.
67. As a result, as of 29 April 1999when the Applicationin this case was filed, compulsory
jurisdictionunderthedeclarationwaslimitedto disputesarisingononlythreedays -fiom26April
to 28 April 1999inclusive.Becausethedisputearosea fullmonthbeforethistime,nojurisdiction
in this casecould be foundedon thedeclarationevenif itwerevalid.
68. TemporalconditionsareatypicalfeatureofOptionalClausedeclarations.Theirpurposeis
to ensurethat anewly-fileddeclarationhasnoretroactiveeffectS6I.nparticular,asRosennehasput
it, they"aredesignedto excludeknowndisputeswithwhichthe State[s]makingthedeclaration ...
were concemedwhenthey madethe declaration..."57.Thisperfectlycapturesthereason why the
temporallimitationinthedeclarationof 25April1999rulesoutcompulsoryjurisdictioninthiscase.
At the materialtimethiswas indisputablyan existingdispute -aknowndispute.It alsorelatedto
existing "situations or facts". Its exclusion fiom jurisdiction is not an incidentalor unintended
consequence of the terms fkeelychosen by the Applicant. On the contrary,it is central to the
Applicant'sown purposein formulatingits temporalreservation.
55 Application.
56 Under thejurisprudence of the PermanentCourt (inparticularMavrommatisPalestine Concessions,Judgment
No.2, 1924,P.C.I.J., SeriesA, No. 2,p. 35,andPhosphatesinMorocco, Judgment,1938,P.C.I.J.,SeriesA/B,No.
74,p. 24)it would appearthat in the absenceof qualification a titleofjurisdictionmayhave aretroactiveeffect.See
ROSENNE, TheLawandPracticeof theInternational Court,1920-1996,TheHague,MartinusNijhoff, 3dEd.,
1997,Vol. II,pp. 785-786andpp. 943-952(Annex14).
57 ROSENNE,supra,n. 56,Vol. II,p. 785(Annex 14).b. The disputearose beforethedeclaration
The25 April1999 declarationusesthewell-known"Belgian"formula58w , hichis based on
69.
a double exclusion.It refersbotlito disputes arisingsubsequentto thesignatureofthe declaration
andto situationsor factssubsequenttothat signature.Bothconditionsmustbe metfora disputeto
be subjectto compulsoryjurisdiction.The firstconditionisthe simplerofthetwo.It isfareasierto
identi& a singlepoint in time al:which a disputeoriginated - terminusa quo -than to identiQ a
single criticaldatein the courselofa lengthy,complexandevolvingdispute.
70. Inmanycasesthedualcriterionhasnopracticalsignificance.Ittakesoncriticalimportance,
however,inthecaseofongoing, c:omplexdisputeswhose"situations orfacts"aremulti-dimensional
andprolonged over aperiod of time that may continue afterthe declaration.Inthesesituations,it
is immaterialthat someoftherelevantsituationsor factsmayhaveoccurredsubsequenttothedate
of the declaration.If in fact theisputearosebeforethatdate,thenjurisdiction is excluded.
71. These considerations were thebasis of the Court'sconclusionthat it lackedprima facie
jurisdictionunder the Optional Clause in its Order of 2 .June199959. The reasons of the Court
distinguishbetweenthetwo separateconditionsofthe doubleexclusionformula,notingthat itwas
sufficientto decidewhetherthe disputearosebeforeorafierthe date ofthe declaration.Refemng
to discussionsin the SecurityCouncilin late March 1999,the Courtheld that a legaldisputehad
arisenwellbeforethedeclaration.Moreover,thefactthatthedisputeandtheuseofforcegivingrise
to the disputehad persistedwas"notsuchasto alter the dateonwhichthe disputearose..."60A . nd
finally,theCourtpointedoutthattheApplicanthadnotestablishedthat"newdisputes,distinct fiom
the initial one, have arisen bebveen the Parties since 25 April 1999in respect of subsequent
situationsor facts attributableto Canada'"jl.
72. Nothinghas been addedthat would changethisassessment.On the contrary,the material
filedwiththe Applicant'sMemowiap l lacesit beyond anydoubt.Thechronologyof "facts" inPart
I ofthe Memorialbeginson 24March1999withtheinceptionoftheNATO bombing. Thereisno
suggestionthat anythng changetiwhen 25April 1999was reached:it appears as a date like any
otherin acontinuoussequence~f'events~~ T.hetwovolumesentitledNATOCrimesin Yugoslavia:
DocumentaryEvidence cover the entire penod from 24 March 1999to 10 June of that year.
Annex177oftheMemorialsetsouttherecordsofthe SecuntyCouncilmeetingstowhichtheCourt
attached importance in its Order of 2 June 1999. There could be no doubt on reading Mr.
Jovanovic's statementbefore the Security Council that the dispute forming the object of the
58 Seepara.2 of the separateopinionof JudgeHiggins appendedto theOrderof2June1999,supra,n. 2.
59 &der of2June1999,supra,n. 2, paras. 25-29.
Id.,para. 28.
Ibid.
62 Memorial,p. 52.Applicationhad crystallizedseveralweeks beforethe purportedOptionalClausedeclarationwas
~igned~~.
73. Indeed, exceptwhen addressing theissueofjurisdiction,the Applicanthas alwaysagreed
that the dispute aroseat the latestwhenthe useof force began.This is clearfiom the terms of its
letter of 24 March 1999addressed to the Presidentof the Security Councilrequesting an urgent
meeting"to condernnand to stoptheNATO aggressionagainsttheFederalRepublicofYugoslavia
andtoprotectits sovereigntyandterritorialintegrity"64a ,ndfromits declarationofa"state ofwar"
on the sarne date65.It is clear as well from the terms of the Application, fiom the request for
provisional measures,whichspecificallyreferstoeventsinMarch andApril 1999thatpre-datethe
declaration;and fiom statementsmadeby counselin the oral Pleadingsonthat req~est~~T .hereis
no needto dwellonthepoint,becauseit is inconceivablethata disputerelatingto amilitary action
shouldhave arisenweeksafterit began,whichiswhat the Applicant would haveto show in order
to overcomeits ownreservation.
Nowherehastheissueofcontinuingdisputesinrelationtotimeconditionsbeenmoreclosely
74.
scrutinizedthan in Phosphates inMorocco,and nowhere havethe guidingprinciplesbeen more
clearlystated.ThePermanentCourtofInternationalJusticewas facedwithadisputethathadseveral
phases andseveraldimensions,originating beforethe ratificationof the declarationbut extending
well beyond that date. The applicantin that case submitted thatthe whole sequence of events
constituted"a single,continuingandprogressiveillegalact whichwas not fullyaccomplisheduntil
after the crucial date ..."67.The PermanentCourtwas unequivocalin rejecting the view that an
evolvingdisputerelatesto situationsor factssubsequenttotherelevant datew , herethose situations
or facts "either presume the existenceor are merely theconfirmation or developmentof earlier
situationsor factsconstitutingthe real causesof the dispute"68.
75. Inoneimportantrespect theissueinPhosphates inMoroccodifferedfkomthepresentcase.
The time condition was based, as here, on the double exclusionof the Belgian formula. It was
agreed,however,that the disputehad arisen afterthe relevantdate.Thusthe firstconditionunder
thedoubleformulacreatednoobstacletojurisdiction.Thefocuswasonthe secondaspect:whether
thedisputehad arisen"withregardtosituationsorfacts" subsequenttotherelevantdate.Thepresent
63 Annex 177of the Memonal, p. 523ff.
64 Letter dated 24 March 1999fiom the Chargé d'affairesa.i. of the PermanentMissionofYugoslaviato the United
Nations addressedto the Presidentof the SecurityCouncil,c. S/1999/322(1999)(Annex 15).
65 Letter dated 24 March 1999fiom the Chargéd'affairesa.i. of thePermanentMissionof Yugoslavia tothe United
Nations addressedto the Presidentof the SecurityCouncil,c. SI19991327(1999)(Annex 16).
66 Statementby Mr.Mitic, counselfor the Applicant,before the InternationalCourt ofJustice,CR 99/14, 10May
1999, refening to "thebeginning of the aggressionon24 March 1999"(Annex 17).
67 PhosphatesinMorocco, supra,n. 56,p. 23.
Id.,p. 24. See alsopara. 6 of the separateopinion of JudgeHigginsappendedtothe Orderof2June1999,supra,
n. 2.casepresentsfarlessdifficulty.Sincethedisputearosebeforetheentryintoforceofthedeclaration,
thatby itself is enoughto excludejurisdiction.Thereis nothingfürtherto beconsidered.
76. Less than a year followingPhosphates in Morocco, the Permanent Courthad a second
occasionto applya temporalreservationbasedonthe doubleexclusionof theBelgianformula,in
Electricity CompanyofSofiaandBulgaria.Onceagainitwasconcededthat thedisputehad arisen
afierthe relevant date,andonceagainthe distinctionis fundamental.
77. Thepresentcase -unlikeeitherPhosphatesinMorc)ccoorElectricityCompanyofSofiaand
Bulgaria -can be decided exclusivelyon the basisof the first condition inthe formula.In other
words,it canbe decidedonthebasis ofwhenthedisputearose.Andthis,in fact,ispreciselywhat
theCourt decidedin its Order qf 2 June 1999.
c. bbNe~ elements"in the disputecannotchange its dateof origin
78. The Applicanthas attempted to overcomeits ownreservationby grafiingon to its claima
series of allegations about the United Nations peacekeepingoperation under Security Council
Resolution 124469T . he Applicaritsubmitsthat thedispute"matured", "aggravated and extended",
andacquired"new elements"as a result of allegedmistreatmentof Serbsandothernon-Albanian
groupsafter 10June 1999'OI.t argues,onthisbasis,thatthe dispute didnotarise"in full"untilafier
that date7'.
79. The implicationsofthis argumentare astonishing.It would meanthat theApplicationwas
filedon29 April1999 inrelationtoafuturedispute -adisputethathadnotyetcrystallized,andthat
remainedin therealm of speculationandhypothesis.It wouldmeanaswell that a disputerelating
to the "Violation of the Obligation Not to UseForce" -terms chosen by the Applicant -or the
"LegalityofUseof Force" -asthe Courtdescribesthiscase - aroseonlywhenthe use of forcehad
ended, in June 1999.No argument somuch at oddswith reality and commonsense couldhave a
legalbasis.
80. The argument overlooks the duality of the criterion in the Belgian formula which the
Applicant has elected to use. The Applicant has treatedthe two conditions as if they were
alternatives,linkedby the word'"or".But theword "or" isnotusedto connectthe two conditions.
Theconditionsarecumulative,not alternative.Ifthedisputeoriginatedinthepast, theintroduction
ofnew "situationsor facts" astiine goesondoesnothng to cure the absenceofjurisdiction.
81. The argumentis alsorep'letewith contradictions, explicit andimplicit.In a singlepassage
the Applicant Statesfirst that the dispute "arose" in SecurityCouncil discussionson 24 and 26
69SCRes. 1244 ,N SCOR,54~Year,UN Doc. SIRES11244(1999)(Amex 1KK).
70Mernorial,pp. 8-9,paras. 12-16,ami339-340 paras3.2.11-3.2.16.
71Id., p. 340, p3.2.14.March 1999,andthen that the dispute "arose" only after25 Apnl 1999"when al1its constituent
elements aro~e"~~M. ore fündarnentally,the argumentimpliesoneof two untenablepropositions:
eitherthattherewasnodisputewhentheApplicationwas filedon29 April1999,orelsethatasingle
disputemaybe saidtohavearisenatseveraldifferenttimes.Consequently,thehplicant musteither
take the position thatthe new elementsformpart of the originaldispute, orelse it must take the
position that they form partof a new and separate dispute.In the first case,the time condition
excludesjurisdiction.Inthesecond,thenewallegationsareinadmissibleandirrelevanttothepresent
case. On eitherbasis,the newelementscanhave no effectonthejurisdictionof the Court.
82. In fact, the Applicanthas insistedwith some emphasisthat the "new elements" form an
integralpart of the originaldispute.It states:"No doubt thatthesenew disputed elementsarepart
and parce1of the disputerelatedto the bombingof theterritoryofthe Appli~ant"~~ . nthis view,
the new elements would represent nomore than the continuation and extension of the original
dispute. It would make no difference whetherthe dispute has been aggravatedor extended, or
whetherithas acquirednewelements.Ifitwereasingledispute,itwouldnecessarilyhave a single
point oforigin,whichhas alreadybeenidentifiedbythe Courtas lateMarch 1999,wellbeforethe
effectivedate ofthe declaration.
d. Al1the "constituent elements"of the dispute were inplaceby 25April1999
83. Accordingtothe Rightofpassage (Merits)case,adisputecannotbesaidto "arise"untilal1
its constituent elementshave comeinto existence74I.t is impossible toseehow this precedentcan
provide anyassistanceto theApplicant.Theconstituent elements ofadisputearecomplete,in the
words ofthe RightofPassage(Merits)case,whentheparties"adoptclearly-defined legalpositions
as against each~ther"~~T . he Orderof 2June1999 has already determinedthat the dispute -and
thereforeal1itsconstituentelements -hadcomeintoexistencebefore25April1999, withtheresult
that there isno basisforjurisdictionnderthe declaration.
84. The dispute arose when the conditions specified in the classic definition fi-om the
MavrommatisPalestine Concessionsjudgrnenthad been fulfilled:in otherwords, as soonas the
parties were divided by "a disagreement ona point of law or fact, a conflictof legal views or
interestsbetweentwoper~ons"~~ It.wouldbeludicroustosuggestthattherewasnosuchconflictof
legalviewsor interestsduringtheNATObombingcampaign.If the essentialconstituentelements
ofthe disputewereheldtoinclude"newelements"subsequentto10June 1999,theresultwouldbe
that there was no dispute between the parties when the proceedingswere brought and that the
72 Id.p. 340, pa3.2.16 asttwosentences.
73 Id.p. 339, pa3.2.12.
74 Supra,n. 9, p. 34.
75 Ibid.
76 Supra,n. 56,p.1.Application had no object. That would be incompatiblenot only with reality but with the
assumptionson whichthe Courtrelied in issuingits Orderof2June1999.
85. Nor,ofcourse,cantheRightofPassage(Merits)doctrinebetakentomeanthataprotracted,
evolvingdispute canneverariseuntilitsevolutionhascometoanend.Thiswouldleadtotheabsurd
position that thedispwe could notariseuntil it had been ~ettled~~ C.learly,then, the "constituent
elements" essential to the existence of a dispute need not include al1the various phases and
developmentsofanevolvingdispute fiomitsinceptiontoits finalconclusi~n~~ J.ust astherecould
not be a new dispute with "eac:hindividual air attack", as the Court observedin its Order of
2June1999,asingledisputecanxiotbebomanew,arisingoverandoveragain,witheachnewphase
of its continuingde~elopment~~ T.hiswouldsubverttheintentof the temporalreservation.
e. The dispute also relatesto "situationsor facts"prior to the declaration
86. For al1thesereasons,jurisdictionis excludedinthiscaseby virtueofthe first conditionof
the temporalreservation:its limitationto disputes"arisingor whichmay arise"subsequentto the
signatureof the declarationsO. Aridwhile thereis strictlyspeakingno need to considerthe second
condition,it is alsoclear thatthe dispute,charactenzedby the Applicantasone involvingthe use
offorceby NATOmembers,hasarisen"withregardto situationsor facts"pnor to the signatureof
the declaration,andjurisdiction canbe ruledout onthatbasis aswe1lS1.
87. The continuing use of fc~rceafter the date of the declarationuntil June 1999 entails no
difficulty:itrepresentsatmost wliatthePhosphates in Moroccojudgment termedthe"confirmation
ordevelopmentofearliersituationsorfacts The Courthasalready determinedthat continuing
use of forcedoesnot implythe existenceof"new disputes,distinctfromtheinitialone", andthere
is nothingthat should promptareconsideration of thatfindingS3.
77 That, moreover,would leadto theMer absurditythat protracteddisputescouldneverbe the objectof a
judicial settlement.Nodisputecouldarise while theconfiictrernained-sincethat impliesnew developmenk
astime goes on-whileafter its finalsettlementthe disputewould loseits objectandbecomemoot (Northern
Cameroons,PreliminalyObjections,JudgrnentI,.C.J.Reports 1963,p15;NuclearTests(Australiav.France),
Judgrnent,I.C.J.Reports1974,. 253;NuclearTests(Nav Zealandv.France),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 1974,p.
457).
78 RightofPassage (Merits),supra,. 9,p34
79 Orderof2June1999,supra,n. 2,pim. 28.
Application.
Ibid.
82 Supra,n. 56,p24.
83 Orderof2June1999,supra,n. 2,para. 28.88. By contrast, the "new elements" relating to ethmc strife in Kosovo since June 1999 are
fùndamentallydistinct fiomthe originalclaimandare therefore inadmissibles4.But the Applicant
has electedto treat the entire sequence of eventsas an indivisible whole, andit is bound by the
consequencesof its ownposition. Ifthe new elementswerereally"partand parcel"ofthe original
dispute, they would necessarily constitute merelythe "confirmation or development" of earlier
situationsorfactss5.As such,theywoulddonothingtoovercomethe absenceofjurisdictionflowing
fiom the Applicant'sowntemporalreservation.
89. Thejurisprudence - PhosphatesinMoroccoandRightofpassage (Merits)amongothers -
also shows that where a dispute evolves over time, andit is necessary to determinewhether the
relevant"situationsorfacts"areprioror subsequentto thedeclaration,what countsisthe situations
orfactsthat constitutethe"sourcens6ofthedisputeorthe"real cause"s7.Thisleavessomeroom for
judicial appreciation,but it also shows thatthe decisivefactsarethoseatthe origin ofthe dispute,
not those arisingoverthe course of its evolutionor at its culminatingpoint. In thiscase, the "real
cause" ofthe dispute - and thus the originof al1that followed - was theuse of forceby NATO,
coupledwiththeantecedentpatternof humanitarianabusesandfailednegotiationsthatprecipitated
the conflict.On no view of the mattercouldthe "real cause"be situatedafterthe signatureof the
declaration.
90. TheattempttousethelatesteventsinKosovotoovercomethetemporalreservationcomrnits
theApplicantto aninsolubledilemma.Ifthenewelementsarenot "partandparcel"oftheoriginal
dispute, then they areinadmissibleforreasons thatwill be developed below.If theyare "part and
parcel"oftheoriginaldispute,thentheyareexcludedfiomjurisdictionbyvirtueofbothpartsofthe
double exclusionusedin the reservation.On eitherbasis, theattempt tobring thesenew elements
before the Court must fail.When theApplicationwas filed,the dispute hadarisenwith regard to
situationsandfactsthatprecededthe signatureofthe declaration,andsoit remainsto this day.
f. Jurisdictionis establishedasof the dateoftheapplication andnotlater
91. Thereis afûrtherconsideration.Thejurisdictionofthe Courtis establishedonceandforal1
as of the date ofthe application.Jurisdiction in relation toa caseis not and cannotbe a moving
target, something that fluctuates fiom day to day as the litigation develops.The certainty and
stability essentialto theproper administrationofjustice require afixeddateon whichjurisdiction
either existsor doesnot exist.
s4 SeeChapterIIIbelow.
Memonal, p. 339, para.3.2.12;PhosphatesinMorocco, supra,n. 56,p. 24.
s6 PhosphatesinMorocco, supran.56,p. 23; see alsoRightof Passage (Merits),s,. 9,p. 35, and Electriciîy
Companyof Sofa andBulgaria,supra,n. 54,p. 82.
s7 RightofPassage(Meria),supra,n. 9,p.35.92. The principle is one of long standing, appliedin both Nottebohmand Right ofPassage
(PreliminaryObjections) in supportofthepropositionthat thewithdrawal ofadeclarationafterthe
institutionofproceedingscannotdeprivethe Courtofjurisdictionvalidly conferredas of thedate
of the applications8.It was reaffirmedrecently in 1998, in the Lockerbiecase, where the Court
referred to the dateof the application andto certain subsequentSecurity Councilresolutionsand
wenton to state:
"In accordancewith its establishedjurisprudence,if the Court hadjunsdiction atthat date,
it continues to do so; ithesubsequent coming into existence of the above-mentioned
resolutionscannotaffectitsjurisdictiononce established...'789.
The converse of this propositionis that a substantive absenceofjurisdiction on the date of the
applicationcannotbe curedby subsequentevents.
93. The applicationof this principlehas been relaxed to overcome defectsof form which are
withinthepowerofthe Applicantto remedyatanytime.TheApplicantreliesinthisrespectonthe
recent decision on preliminary (objectionsin the Applicationof the Genocide Convention case,
thoughonly in connectionwith the twelve-monthrestrict~onin the UnitedKingdomdeclaration,
whichis not relevantheregOI.nthat decision,the Courtheldthatjurisdiction couldnot be setaside
onlybecause -on onepossibleview -the applicationmighthavebeen afewdaysearly.TheCourt
said"it shouldnotpenalizea defectin aproceduralactwhichtheapplicant could easilyremedym9'.
94. But a substantive absence of jurisdiction under the self-imposed limitations of the
Applicant's owninstrumentisinnosensea defectofform.ItmakestheApplicationanullity,which
no one can remedy.In thejudgnient onpreliminaryobjectionsin theApplicationofthe Genocide
Conventioncase and the other casesreferredto in that decision,the disputewas withinwhatthe
Courthas referredto as the "scopeandsubstance"of thejurisdictionalinstrument,subject onlyto
a prescribed lapseof time or to a procedural pre~ondition~~ H.ere,the absenceofjurisdiction is
8s Nottebohm,Preliminary Objectio,udgment,I.C.J.Reports1953 p. 123;Rightof Passage (Preliminary
Objections),supra,. 50,p142.
89 Questionsof Interpretationand Applicationofthe 1971MontrealConventionarisingfiom theAerialIncidentut
Lockerbie(LibyanArabJamahirzyav. UnitedKingdom), Preliminaly Objection,udgment,I.C.J.Reports1998,
para.38;Questionsof InterpretationandApplication ofthe1971MontrealConventionarisingfromtheAerial
Incidentat Lockerbie (LibyanArabJamahiriya.UnitedStatesofAmerica),PreliminaryObjection,udgment,
I.C.J.Reports 1998,para.37.
Applicationof theConventiononthe Preventionand PunishmenttheCrimeof Genocide,Preliminary
Objections,Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 1996,595.
91 Id.,p. 613,para.26. Theapplicatio~iinthatcasewouldhavebeenprernatenlyontheassumptionthatBosnia
andHerzegovinadidnot succeed totheGenocideConvention(as contended), ut rathrccededto itsubjecttothe
90-daydelayprovided forinthatConvention. heCourtpreferredtheviewthatBosniaandHerzegovinahad
succeededto theConvention.
92 MilitaryandParamilitaly Activities, s, .48, p.419,para.62.inherent,andcentralto the purposeofthe temporal limitation the Applicant freelychoseto adopt.
Ifthesubstanceofreservations -be theyrationemateriaeorrationetemporis -couldbedisregarded
at will as mere procedural or formaldefects,the whole principleof consent and theimportance
attachedto the intentionof Stateswouldbe seriouslyimpaired,if not destroyed.
Conclusion
95. The applicable resolutions are authoritative and clear: the Applicant "cannot continue
automatically"themembershipoftheformerSocialistFederalRepublicofYugoslaviaintheUnited
nation^^ ^.herelevantinstrumentsareconsistentonlywiththepositionthatthe Applicantdoesnot
continuethe legalpersonalityof the formerSocialistFederalRepublicof Yugoslaviaandthat, in
ordertobecomeaMemberoftheUnitedNations,itmustapplyandbe admittedin accordancewith
Article4 of the Charter.
96. Only a party to the Statuteof the Courtcan make a valid declarationunder the Optional
Clause,and onlyMembersof the United Nationsand other Statesthat havemet the conditionsof
Article 93,paragraph 2, of the Charter, arepartiesto the Statute.TheApplicantbelongsto neither
category. Itis nottherefore eligibleto availitselfof theprovisionsofArticle36,paragraph 2, and
the purported declarationitsigned on25 April1999 is anullity.
97. Nevertheless,theCourtmayfinditappropriatetodealwiththeissueonthebasisoftheterms
used by the Applicant itself, as itdid in the Order of 2 June 1999, with respectto provisional
measures.If so,the outcomefor theseproceedingsis the same:the Court hasnojurisdictionunder
the termsof the purporteddeclarationbecauseof the reservationrationetemporisit contains.
98. The Court has recently reaffirmed thebasic principles forthe interpretationof Optional
ClausedeclarationsintheFisheriesJurisdictioncase:adeclarationistobeinterpreted"'inharmony
with a naturalandreasonableway of readingthe te~t'"~~T.henotion thatthe disputearose weeks
aftertheapplicationwasfiled,orthatadisputetnggeredbyamilitarycampaignthatbeganinMarch
arose after the campaign ended, is not in harmony with such a reading of the text. Indeed, the
suggestionthat a disputerespectingtheuseof forcearose onlywhenthe use offorcewasbrought
to an endis aboutasfa. froma''natural and reasonable" readingasitwouldbepossibletoimagine.
99. AnOptionalClausedeclarationisalsoto be interpreted"havingdueregardto theintention
of the State concerned atthe time when it accepted the compulsoryjurisdiction of the Court'95,
althoughthisofcourseistheintentiondisclosedbythetext"'asit stands,havingregardtothewords
93 SCRes.777,supra,n. 5 (AnnexlA), andGARes. 4711 ,upra, n. 5 (Ann1B).
94 Supra,n. 23, para.47, quotingAnglo-IranianOil,sn.53,p. 104.
95 Id.,para49.SeealsoAnglo-lranianOil,supran.53,p. 104,andAegean Sea ContinentalShelf;Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1978,p. 29, para.69.actually~sed'"~~T . he intent of the Federal Republicof Yugoslaviaas disclosedby the text as it
standsisclear:to limititsacceptmcetodisputesarisingafter25April1999,withregardtosituations
or factssubsequentto the samedate, in accordancewith atime-honouredformula.
100. Thoughthe intentionis clear,theremayhavebeen a strategiccalculationthat somehow a
distinctdisputesubsequentto 25Apnl 1999couldbe identified,andthattheApplicantcouldenjoy
theprotection of its reservationwithoutpayingthe pnce exactedby the principleof reciprocity -
namely,that it could"haveitscakeandeat ittoo".If so,the strategyhasnobasisin law.TheCourt
has alreadyrejectedthe contentionthat the dispute consistsof a multiplicityof disputes, someof
whichcould meetthetemporalcondition.TheCourthasrejectedtheattempttosubdividethedispute
andhasinsteadassertedthe unityofthedispute,whichisthereallessontobedrawnfkomtheRight
of Passage (Merits)case.Thisdispute,astheCourtnotedinitsinitialruling,aroseinMarch 1999,
weeks before the declaration wiis filed. Even if the declaration werevalid, it would confer no
jurisdiction on the Courtin relationto thepresent dispute.
96 FisheriesJurisdiction,supn.23,.para.7, quotingAnglo-IraniOils,pra,n.53,p. 105.
-27- CHAPTERII
THE COURT LACKSJURISDICTION UNDERTHE
GENOCIDECONVE~IVTION
Introduction: The test of treaty-basedjurisdiction
101. Atthemost fundamentallevel,thebasisofjurisdictionundertheOptionalClauseandunder
treaties containing a compromissoryclause is the sarne.A genuine consent fieely given is the
essentialprerequisite,whateverhebasisofjurisdiction.Thereare,however,twodifferenceswhere
atreatyisatissue.First,thespecialconsiderationsrisingoutoftheunilateralnatureof anOptional
Clausedeclarationno longerapply.Second,therulesoftreatyinterpretationcodifiedinArticles31
and 32 of the 1969 Vienna Conventionon the Law of Treaties have a direct and not merely an
analogical applicationto theangvageconfemngjuri~diction~~.
102. The Applicantrelies in this case on ArticleIX of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishmentof the Crimeof Genocideasabasisofjurisdiction.Whatmustbedeterminediswhether,
on acceptedprinciples of interpretation, it isreasonableimpute an intention to the parties to
consentto an adjudicationonthe ments of allegationstha-evenifthey hadabasis in fact,which
they do not -amount in substance to allegations of violations of quite different instruments
respectingthe lawofwar,and whichfailtodiscloseanyofthe specificfeaturesthatdistinguishthe
crimeof genocidefiom jus ad bei'lumandjus in bello.Andthe answerisclear:no suchconsentcan
reasonablybe inferredfiom ArticleIX.
103. The recent jurisprudence of the Court provides authoritative guidance on the test of
jurisdiction to be appliednder a compromissory clauseof a treaty. TheCourt must determine
whethertheallegedviolations"doordonot fa11withintheprovisionsofthe Treaty Thisisthe
formulationusedinthejudgmentonpreliminaryobjectionsinOilPlatforms,wheretheCourtstated
that i-
"cannotlimititselftonotingthatoneofthePartiesmaintainsthat ..a disputeexists,andthe
otherdeniesit.It mustascertainwhetherthe violationsofthe Treaty..pleaded ..do ordo
notfa11withintheprovisionsoftheTreatyandwhether,asaconsequence,thedisputeis one
whichthe Court has juristlictionratione materiaeto entertain..."99.
97 23 May 1969,UN Doc.AlCONF.39/27(1969),Can.T.S. 1980/37c:Annex18).
98 OilPlatforms,supn.,11,p. 810,para. 16.
Ibid.Thesarnetesthad beenappliedby the Courtsomemonthsearlier,in amatterof obviousrelevance
to thepresent case,in thejudgment onpreliminary objectionsintheApplication of the Genocide
ConventioncaseloO.
104. Thetest as formulatedinthesecasessetsahighstandard.Itisnot sufficientthatatreatywith
a compromissoryclause should be invokedin the Pleadings,or that a violation of such a treaty
should be alleged by one party and deniedby the other. The test adopted by the Court in Oil
Platforms andApplication of the GenocideConventionrequires adefinitivedeterminationthat the
allegationsmadeby theApplicantwould "fa11within"the provisionsof the treatyif provedlO'.
105. The practical applicationof thetest inOilPlatfoms is illustrative.The Courtundertooka
painstaking and exhaustive analysis of the provisions of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic
Relations andConsularRightsbetweenIranandtheUnitedStates,andreachedanumberofdefinite
conclusionsaboutthescopeofthetreatyasrelated totheclaimbeforethe Court.Therewasnothing
provisionalaboutits findingsin this respect.Jurisdictionwas assumedonthe basis of theCourt's
interpretationof theexpression"freedomof commerce"in ArticleX,whichwas foundcapableof
providing a basis for evaluatingthe lawfulnessof the destructionof the oilplatf~rms'~~ .ad the
Courtreachedthe oppositeconclusion -that the subjectmatterwasoutsidethe scope ofArticleX
(as in fact it did with respect to Articles 1andN) - it is clear that the case would have been
dismissed forwant ofjurisdiction.
A. The Applicantdisregardsthespecialnatureof the GenocideConvention
1. The historicalbackgroundofthe Genocide Convention
106. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has asked the Court to take jurisdiction over its
Application against Canada in respect of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's("NATO")
militarycampaign, as well as in respect of Canada'sparticipation in the UnitedNations Kosovo
Force ("IWOR"),basedon Article IXofthe Genocide Convention.Becauseof the gravityof any
allegationofgenocide,itisuseful brieflytorecalltheconceptualandlegalbasisoftheConvention.
107. The GenocideConventionwasbom outofthe atrocitiescommittedby Germany's National
Socialistregime priorto and during WorldWar II. Arnongthe veryearliesthurnanrights-related
instrumentsto obtainsufficientpoliticalmomentumto enter intoforceas a legallybinding treaty,
the Genocide Conventionservedto givelegalexpressionto States7revulsionoverthe deliberately
planned and meticulouslyexecuted slaughterof whole population groups, based on an ideology
foundedon discriminationby race,religion,ethnicityor nationality.
'O0Supra,n.90,p. 615,para30.
'O'Ibid.;OilPlatforms,suprn.11,p.810,para.16.
'O2 OilPlatfonns,supra,n. 11,p. 820, p1.a.5108. Bearing in mind the specialnatureof the crime that a treatyon genocide was intended to
address, andthe already well-establishedlegal conceptsof crimesagainstpeace, warcrimes,and
crimesagainsthurnanitythat were:confirmedintheNurembergCharteroftheInternationalMilitary
Tribunallo3t,heSecretary-GeneraloftheUnitedNations,inpresentingtheConvention'sinitialdraft,
notedthat genocideshouldbe definedsoas not to encroach"on other notions which logically are
and shouldbe distinct"lo4.This tleterminationwas subsequentlygiveneffect in ArticleII of the
GenocideConvention, which crea.tedasuigeneris crimeboththespecificityandthegraviîyofwhich
served -andcontinuetoserve -to givethe GenocideConventionaspecialstatusininternationallaw.
109. In the interveningyears sincethe entryinto forceof the Convention - in responseto what
manyconsideredasinglehistoricalaberrationthathasproventobethemostegregious,butfar from
uncornmon,formof Statepolicy -genocidehas rightlycornetobe seenby international tribunals
andlegalscholarsasthe"crimeof crimes"'05A. s earlyas 1951,the CourtnotedintheReservations
casethat -
"it was the intentionof the UnitedNations to condemnand punish genocideas 'a crime
underinternationallaw'iiivolvingadenialoftherightofexistenceofentirehumangroups,
a denialwhichshockstheconscienceofmankind and resultsingreatlossestohurnanity,and
which is contrarytomora.1 lawandto the spirit and aimsof theUnited Nations..."Io6.
110. It is againstthisbackground,whichunequivocally cstablishesthe GenocideConvention as
the apexof international crimina:[andhumannghts law, thattheApplicant seeksto convincethis
Court to take jurisdiction over actionsby NATO military forces in the context of the military
campaignofMarchthroughJune 1999,andoveractionsor omissionsbyparticipatingStatesinthe
SecurityCouncil mandatedKFClRoperation.The argument disregardsthe core elements of the
Conventionandthevery conceptof genocide.
'O3Agreement bythe Govemmentof theUnited Kingdomof GreatBritainandNorthem Ireland,theGovernmentof
the UnitedStatesofArneriCa,theProvi.~ionalGovernmentoftheFrenchRepublicand theGovernmentof theUnion
of SovietSocialist RepublicsfortheecutionandPunishmentof theMajor WarCriminalsof the European Axis,
8 Aug.1945,82 U.N.T.S.280(Annex :19).
'O4Draft Conventionon theCrimeof Genocide,UNESCOR,1947,UN Doc.El447,p.15,asquotedinSCHABAS,
TheLawof Genocide,CambridgeUniversityPress[forthcoming, raftof 6 May19991,p. 64 (Annex20). TheDraft
waspreparedby theSecretary-Generalnpursuanceof anEconomicandSocialCouncil Resolutiof 28 March
1947.
'O5SeeProsecutor v.Kambanda(Caseno. ICTR-97-23-S),JudgmentandSentence,4Sept.1998,para.16(Annex
21);Prosecutor v. Serashugo(Caseno. ICTR-98-39-S),Sentence,5 Feb.1999,para.II.B.4(Annex22);Prosecutor
v. Musema(Caseno.ICTR-96-13-T),JudgmentandSentence,27 Jan.2000,para.981(Annex23).
'O6Supra,n. 26, p. 23.2. The unique nature of the Genocide Conventionrequiresa rigorousexaminationof
allegationsbefore jurisdictioncanbegrantedunderArticleIX
111. The Genocide Conventionis primarilyaninstrumentof internationalcnminal law,andas
suchmandates specificityin anyallegationsandchargesbroughtunderits purview. Moreover,as
notedabove,itdealswiththemostseriousofcrimes.Accordingly,thestandardthatmustbeapplied
in determiningwhetherthe Conventionappliesto a given setofcircumstancesmustbe ahighone,
andmust take into accountthe specificityofthe definitionthatliesatthe heartof the Convention.
112. Thereis onlyonerecognizeddefinitionofthecrimeofgenocide.Thisdefinitionappearsin
the Genocide Convention,repeated unchangedintheDraft Codeof CrimesagainstthePeace and
Security of MankiPrdIo7t,he Statutes for the InternationalCriminal Tribunals for the former
Y~goslavia'~a ~ndforRwandalo9a ,ndintheRomeStatuteoftheInternationalCriminalCourt1 'Oand
is indisputably part of customaryinternationallaw.Both underthe terms of the Conventionand
under customaryinternationallaw, thatsingledefinitionmust thereforedeterminethe parameters
of the crime of genocide both in respect of individualcnminal liability, and in respect of the
responsibilities of States Parties. Unless the Court is satisfied that the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia'sApplicationdisclosesal1the constituentelementsofthe crimeof genocide,it would
be inappropriate, ratione materiae, for it to takejurisdiction on the basis of Article IX of the
Conventionover the claimbrought againstCanada.
a. The allegations of genocide must disclose the existenceof a specific intent (dolus
specialis)
i) Thespeciflc intent requirementin ArticleII of the GenocideConventionis an integral
element of the crime ofgenocide
113. ArticleII of the Genocide Conventiondefinesgenocideas -
"any ofthe followingactscommittedwithintentto destroy,inwhole orin part,anational,
ethnical,racialor religiousgroup,assuch:
(a) Killingmembers ofthe group;
(b) Causingseriousbodily ormentalhm tomembersofthe group;
'O7Report of theInternational Law Comissnntheworkofitsforty-eighthsession(6Ma-26July 1996)(UN
Doc.A/51/10) in Yearbookofthe Internatiol aw Commissio1996,Vol. II,Part2, pp. 17-56,Article 17(Annex
24).
'OsReport of the Secretaïy-Genelursuanttoparagraph2 ofSecurityCouncilResolution808(1993),UN
SCOR,48" Year, UN Doc. Si25704(1993),pp. 36-48, Article4 (Annex 25).
'O9SC Res.955, UNSCOR,49" Year,UN Doc.SIRES1955(1994)andAnnex,Article2 (Annex 26).
"O UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9(1998), Article 6 (Annex27). (c) Deliberately inflictingon the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destructioninwholeorinpart;
(d) Imposingmeasuresintendedtopreventbirthswithin the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring childrenofthe group to anothergroup."
The definitionreflects the existenceof a mandatoryrelationship betweencertainenumeratedacts,
in themselves intentional,andan overridingspecific intentthat underliestheir commission.
114. InitscommentaryonArticle 17oftheDrap CodeofCrimesagainstthePeace andSecurity
ofMankind,which incorporated.ArticleII ofthe GenocideConventionverbatim,theInternational
Law Commission statedin 1996::
"Asregardsthefirstelement,the definitionofthecrimeofgenociderequiresaspecificintent
whichisthedistinguishingcharacteristicofthisparticularcrimeunderinternationallaw.The
prohibited actsenumeratedin subparagraphs(a) to (e) areby their very natureconscious,
intentionalorvolitionalactswhichanindividualcouldnotusuallycommitwithoutknowing
that certain consequencei;were likely toresult. Theseare not the type of actsthat would
normally occurbyaccidentorevenasaresult ofmerenegligence.However,ageneralintent
to commit oneof the enumeratedactscombined witha general awarenessofthe probable
consequencesof suchanactwithrespecttotheimrnediatevictim orvictimsisnot sufficient
forthe crirneof genocide.Thedefinitionofthis crimerequires aparticular stateofmind or
a specific intentwith respect to the overall consequenceo sf theprohibitedact"ll'.
Thisviewisreflectedinthejurisprudenceofthe InternationalCnminal TribunalsforRwandaand
forthe formerY~goslavial'~.
In the light of the historical conceptof genocide,its definitionin the Convention andits
115.
consistent applicationby domesticH3 andinternationaltribunals,it is clearthat the specific"intent
to destroy"is itsprimaryconstitu.entelement.Withoutthat specificintent,the conceptof genocide
andhencethe Conventionarewhollyinapplicable,bothin factandinlaw.Inrespectofindividuals
charged with the crime of genocide, convictions havesucceededwhere this specificintent was
'11 Supra, n. 107,p. 44 (Annex24).
Il2 Prosecutorv.Akayesu(CaseNo. ICTR-96-4-T),Judgment,2 Sept.1998,para. 498 (Annex 28); Prosecutv.
Jelisic, (ICTY CaseNo. IT-95-10),Judgmentand Sentence, 14Dec. 1999,para. 66 (Annex29).
Il3 See, e.g.,A.-G.Israv.AdolfEichrnann, (1968)36 I.L.R. 5,pp. 233-234 (Annex30), and Guatemala: Memoly
ofSilence,Report of the Commissionfor Historical Clarification, Conclusionsand Recommendations
(<http:lkr&ta.aaas.org/ceWreport/engl:isconcl.html>), para. 120(Annex 31).Evenwhere domesticûibunals do
not operate wiîh a verbatim reproduction of the Article IIdefinition,their viewsconcerningthe specificintent
requirement arerelevant insofaras they reflectîhose"principles underlyingthe Convention[that] areprinciples
which are recognizedby civilizednations asbindmg on Sta...(Reservations,supra, n. 26, p. 23).provento havebeenpresent(Prosecutorv.Akayesu114P ;rosecutorv.Musema"') andfailedwhere
it was not (Prosecutorv.Jelisic'16).
116. It isclearfi-omthe foregoingthatwithouttheelementofa specificintentnoneofthe crimes
enumerated within Article II can arnount to genocide. Even the closely linked crime of
extermination,asdiscussedatlengthinthe 1996 ReportoftheInternationalLawCommission,must
be distinguishedfiom genocideon thatbasis1I7.
117. TheConventionholdsa specialplaceininternational law.In it, andinthe definitionof the
crime it addresses, the international protectionof human rights and criminal law intersect and
become inseparable.Removing thespecific intentrequirement, whichlinks the concept ofmass
murderto thegravestofhumanrightsviolationsandthusprovidestheparticularelementofmoral
turpitude that underlies the crimeof genocide,would lead to anerosion and trivialization of the
~ffence"~.Without atleastdeminimisevidenceoftheexistenceofsuchanintent,nocomplaintrnay
be styledor entertained underthat Convention.
Thespecific intent requirement cannotbe replaced with referencesto alleged violations
ii)
of other bodies of internationallaw
1 18. TheApplicant seeksto inferthe necessaryintentrequiredunderthe GenocideConvention
by introducinganumberofconceptsandlegalinstrumentsfiomtheinternationallawrelatingtothe
use of force (jus ad bellum) and internationalhumanitarianlaw (jus in bello), as the following
sectionsofthischapterwillexplain1 19TheApplicant's suggestion thattheintenttocommitgenocide
can be inferredfiom the meansand methods of warfarewouldbe an unacceptableandill-advised
extensionof theConvention.
"4 Supra,n. 112(Annex28).
Il5 Supra,n. 105(Annex 23).
Supra,n. 112(Annex29).
117
Supra,n. 107p.48 (Annex24).
'l8 In aforthcomingbook,Professor William Schabmsakesacogentargument againsterosionof thespecific
intentrequirement:Butwhilethedesiretoextendthereachofinternational laso astocovernegligentbehaviour
of govemmentsand corporations icsornmenclabl, isbecomessomewhatfarremovedfromthestigrnatizationof
genocideas the'crimeof crimes'forwhichthehighestlevelofevil andmaliciousintentis presumed.Thedanger,
in fact,isthatextensionof thescopeof genocide tocrimesof negligencewilltrivializetheentireconcept"
(SCHABAS, supra,n. 104,p. 197(Annex32)).
'l9 See,e.g.,the1976Conventionon the ProhibitionofMilitaryor anyOtherHostileUseof Environmental
Modifcation Techniques,10Dec. 1976,UN Doc.A/RES/31/72;the1907HagueIVConventionconcerningthe
Laws and CustomsOf WaronLandandannexedRegulationsRespectingtheLawsand CustomsOf WaronLand,
18Oct.1907,B.T.S. 191019;the1954Conventionfor theProtectionof CulturalPropertyin theEvent ofArmed
ConfIct andProtocol, 14May1954,249 U.N.T.S.215, Can.T.S. 1999152;and, the1980Conventionon
Prohibitions orRestrictions on theUseof CertainConventionalWeaponswhich maybedeemed tobexcessive&
injurious or to have indiscrimefects, anditsProtocols,10Oct.1980,UNDoc.AlCONF.95115 andCorr.1-5,
tonamebutafewrelevanttreaties.
-34-119. Thetems andintentofthe GenocideConventionarewhollyinconsistentwith anapproach
whichmerelyinfersthespecificintenttocommitgenocidefi-omtheuseofcertainmeansormethods
of warfare. Neither do the travaux préparatoires suggest that such an inclusion was ever
contemplated.The ciraftersof the Convention,as evidentfiom the travauxpréparatoires,decided
at an earlystagetokeeptheconceptofgenocidedistinctfiom otherbodiesoflawpreciselyin order
to preserveits special character, andto ensureuniversalacceptanceand adherencel*O.
Theintent to commitgenocide cannot be inferredfrom the allegedintent or actions of
iii)
others
120. Generalprinciplesofcriniinallawestablishthatthe intenttocommitacrimeis asubjective
one,whichmustbe ascribedto the allegedperpetrator.Article 30,paragraph2, inPart 3 ("General
Principles of Criminal Law") of the Rome Statute of theIrtternationalCriminal Courtthus states
that:
"2. For the purposesof this article, aperson has intent where:
(a) In relationto conduct,thatpersonmeansto engagein the conduct;
(b) In relation to a consequence,that personmeansto causethat consequence or is
awarethat it will occur inthe ordinarycourse of events"12'.
121. Accordingly,for achargeofgenocideto succeed,it is insufficienttoallegethat agenocidal
intentresidedwith a thirdparty or a collectivebody.It must be shownthat the allegedperpetrator
had suchanintent, or actedin fullknowledge andfurtheranceof genocidalintent in other~'~~ I. is
therefore not open to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to plead violations of the Genocide
Conventionby Canada without offering at least prima fac:ieevidence that Canada itself had the
special intentor knowledgerequiiredto makethe provisions of the Convention applicable.
Iz0 DrajiConventio nn theCrime ofGenocide s,upran. 104,pp. 16--17,asquoted in SCHABAS, supra,n. 104,
pp. 64-65 (Annex20).
Iz1 Supra,n. 110(Annex 27) [emphasisadded].
'22 Usefùlinsightsas to howthe intentionsof oneaccusedmay intersectwiththose of third parties arecontainedin
Prosecutorv.Akayesu, supra,n.1 12,ajudgment ofthe InternationalCriminalTribunalfor Rwanda,inthe context
of an extensivediscussionofontributoryoffencessuch asconspiracy,aidingandabetting,and beingan
accomplice (noneof which are alleged'bythe Applicant against Canada) (Annex28). The Tribunalnotedatpara.
541that "if forxample,an accusedknowinglyaidedor abeîtedanother in the commissionof a murder,whilebeing
unawarethattheprincipal wascommitîingsucha murder,withthe intent to destroy,in whole or in part,the group
to whichthemurderedvictimbelonged,the accused couldbe prosecutedfor complicityin murder, and certainlynot
forcompliciîyin genocide.However,if the accusedknowinglyaided and abeîtedin the commissionof such a
murderwhilehe knew or had reason to knowthattheprincipalwas actingwithgenocidalintent,the accusedwould
be an accompliceto genocide,even thoughhedidnot sharethemurderer's intentto destroythe group."b. The allegationsofgenocidemustdiscloseadiscriminatoryintenttowardsa group"as
such"
122. The secondconstituentelementofthecrimeofgenocide,narnelythesubstantivecontentof
the intent that is required to constitute the crime, is the destruction,"in whole or in part, of a
national, ethnical, racialor religiousgroup,as such"[emphasisadded].
123. Asnotedabove,theGenocideConventioncutsacrossbothinternationalcriminallawandthe
international law of human rights. The crime of genocidedeniesnot only theright to life of its
individual victimsbut that of an entiregroup.The definingcharacteristicof genocideis therefore
anelementofpersecutionanddiscrimination.The additionofthewords "as such"inArticleIIand
theirextensivediscussioninthe meetingsoftheAdHoc DraftingCommitteedemonstratethat the
targetingof a groupqua its collectivecharacteris anecessary elementofthe offenceit~elf'~~ T.he
UnitedNationsCommissionofExpertsonviolationsofinternational humanitarianlawintheformer
Yugoslavia,established pursuanttoSecurityCouncilResolution780of 6 October1992,explained
the meaning of these words in the definition most succinctly:"the crimes againsta number of
individualsmustbe directedat thernintheir collectivityorat themin theircollectivecharacter or
capa~ity"'~~.
124. The International Law Commission,in its 1996Report, furthersurnrnarizedthis second
constituentpartof the intent requirementin ArticleII inthe followingterms:
"Theprohibitedactmustbe comrnittedagainstanindividualbecauseofhs membershipin
aparticulargroupandasanincrementalstepintheoverallobjectiveofdestroyingthegroup.
..The groupitselfis the ultimatetargetorintendedvictim ofthistypeofmassivecriminal
conduct.Theactiontakenagainstthe individualmembersofthe groupisthemeansusedto
achievethe ultimatecriminalobjectivewithrespectto thegro~p"'~~.
As a result, at least some evidenceofthis elementmustbe ledby the Applicantin orderto bringa
claimwithinthe ambitofthe GenocideConventionanditscompromissoryclause;the Applicant's
Memorial containsnone.
'23Prof. William Schabasnotes that "it shouldbe necessaryforthe prosecution toestablishthatgenocide,takenin
its collectivedimension,was committed 'on thendsofnationality, race, ethnicity,orreligion'.The crime must,
in otherwords,be motivatedby hatred oftheup. Thepurposeof criminalizinggenocidewasto punish crimesof
thisnature, not crimesof collectiverpromptedby othermotives"(supra, n. 104,p. 222)(Ann32).
124AScitedin SCHABAS,supra, n. 104,pp. 218-219(Annex33) [emphasisadded].
12'Supra, n. 107,p. 45 (Annex24) [emphasisadded].TheJelisic case conthis analysis,before elaboratingon
theneed to prove thescriminatoryor persecutorynature ofthe actsallegedto constiîute genocide(Pv.secutor
Jelisic, supra, n. 112,para. 66ff(Annex 29)).
-36-B. The Applicant obscuresthe distinctionsbetweengenocide,the use offorceand jus in
bel10
1. No attempthas been madeto demonstratethat the claimfalls within the Genocide
Convention
125. InitsOrder of2June 1999,the CourtconcludedthatArticleIXofthe GenocideConvention
doesnot''constituteabasis onwYlich thejurisdictionofthe Court couldprima faciebe foundedin
the case"lZ6. his conclusionwasbased on a nurnberof considerations,includingthe following:
the OilPlatformstestwas citedand applied;
the Court noted thatthe threatoruseof forcedoesnot in itselfconstitutegenocide;
referringtotherecent.ApplicatiooftheGenocideConventioncase,theCourtstatedthat
theessentialcharacteristicof genocidethe intendeddestructionofanational,ethnical,
racial orreligiousgroup;and,
quotingtheAdvisory Opiniononthe Legalityoj'theThreator UseofNuclear Weapons,
theCourtsaiditdidnotappearatthatstageoftheproceedingsthat"thebombingswhich
form the subject ofthe Yugoslav Application 'indeedentai1the element ofintent,
towards a groupas such"'asrequired by theC~nvention'~~.
126. Inthe faceofthiscarefülreasoning,theApplicant'sresponseiscursoryintheextreme.Itis
foundinasingleparagraphattheendof Par TthreeoftheMemorial ("Jurisdiction oftheCourt")lZ8.
Thereisno attemptwhatsoevertocometogripswiththedifficultiesidentifiedintheCourt'sOrder
of 2 June 1999. The Applicantsj.mplyasserts that it has submittedevidenceof intentto commit
genocide,referringto"actsoftheKespondents(actsofbombing)andtoactsofkillingandwounding
of Serbsandothernon-Albanian populationinKosovoand Metohija",and that"[a]ccordingly,the
Applicantclaimsthatthe jurisdicf.ionoftheCourt,basedonArticle IX oftheGenocideConvention
is establi~hed"'~~.
127. This is not an argument.It is a bare, unsupportedaffirmationthat the Conventionapplies,
which the Court has already described as insufficient to foundjurisdictioneven prima facie
jurisdictio- based ona compromissoryclausein atreaty.
128. The "evidence"of "genocide"adducedby theFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia -evenapart
fiomanylegalconsiderations -isfactuallyunfounded,distortedandbasedonunwmantedinference.
lZ6Supra,n. 2, para.40.
'27M.,para.39.
128Mernorial . 349,para.3.4.3.
12'Zbid.Butindependentlyoftheirtruthorfalsehood,the Applicant's accusations failtodiscloseanyofthe
specifictraitsthatdistinguishgenocidefromothercrimesagainst humanity,andmakeitthegravest
ofinternationalcrimes.Thereis anaffirmationof genocidalintent,but thatisnot enough.Whatis
lackingis anyfactual allegation- whethertrueor false -that wouldindicateanintentionto destroy
physically a "national,ethnical,racialorreligiousgroup,as such".
129. , A closereading oftherelevantportionsofthe Applicant's Memorias lhowsthatno attempt
hasbeenmadetosatisQ thetestoftreaty-basedjurisdictioninOiZPZatforma sndotherleadingcases.
ThesingleparagraphonArticleIXjurisdiction -anassertion,butnot anargument -hasalreadybeen
mentioned. PartTwo("Law")includesasectionofIessthanapageentitled"Obligationsestablished
bythe 1948ConventiononthePreventionand Punishmentofthe CrimeofGen~cide"'~~ It.consists
of quoted excerptsfiom Articles1,II, III andIX, with nocommentaryandwith no attemptto link
these provisions to the facts alleged. There is no explanationas to exactly whythe Applicant
considersthatitsallegationsadduptoaviolationoftheConvention.Infactt,heRespondentandthe
Coiirthavebeen lefi with no legal argument on theissueat all.
130. PartOne("Facts") includesa sectionentitled"FactsRelatedtotheExistenceofanIntentto
Commit Gen~cide"'~~T .his is presurnably thematerialreferred toin the paragraph onArticleIX
jurisdiction, wherethe Applicantstatesit has satisfiedthejurisdictionaldeficiencyapparent at the
provisionalmeasuresstagebysubmittingevidenceofintentto commitgenocide.Infact,ithasdone
no such thing,here or elsewhere.
13 1. Sofarastheallegationsofkilling,woundingandexpulsionofSerbsinKosovoandMetohija
areconcerned,thenext sectionwilldemonstratethatthereisnotthe slightestsuggestionthatanyof
the alleged crimesare dueto actsor omissionsby Canada.Sofar as the use offorceby NATOis
concerned,thereis littleornothinginthisMemorialthatwasnot before the Courtwhenitmadeits
initialOrder.
132. The Court was fully aware of the nature of the allegations againstthe NATO bombing
campaignwhenit renderedits Orderof 2June 1999. InconsideringtheGenocide Conventionasa
basis ofjurisdiction, it tooknote of the Applicant's allegatiowith respectto "the sustained and
intensive bombingof thewholeof itsterritory,including the most heavily populatedareas","'the
pollution of soil, air and water, destroying the economy of the country, contaminating the
environmentwith depleteduranium"',the targetingof "the Yugoslavnation as awhole" and"the
use of certainweapons [with]long-termhazardsto healthandthe environment In its Order
of 2June 1999,the Court simplystressedthat the use offorcecannotin itself constitutean act of
genocide. Nothinghas been added since then,beyondthe mere assertion thatthese acts denotea
genocidalintent.There is consequently nothing that shouldleadthe Court toalterthe conclusions
it reached provisionally in June1999.
130Id., p. 326, pa2.7.1-2.7.4.
131Id.,pp.282-284p,aras1.6.6-1.6.2.5.
'32Order of2June1999,supra,n.2, para34.
-38-2. TheApplicant obscuresthe distinction betweengenocideand other crimes
133. The Applicant'sargumentcentreson the bombing of chemicalindustryplants inPancevo,
as well as the use of depleteduranium.The Applicant associatesdepleteduranium withserious
illnessandbirthdefects,thoughithas failedto allege that thesubstancewasused by theCanadian
forces133I.tisassertedthatthebombingofchemicalplantscanhave"extremelysevereconsequences
forhealthof alargenumberofpe:oplein averywidearea"' 34andthat, sincethebombingallegedly
continued afterthe plants hadbeen incapacitated,theremusthavebeen an intentionto "expose a
largenumberofinhabitantsofYilgoslaviato extensivedestr~ction"'~~ F.romtheseconsiderations,
the existence of a genocidal intention is imputedas a logically necessaryinference - the "only
possible e~planation"'~~.
134. Al1these allegationsarevigorouslydenied.But evenif the issueoftheir veracityis put to
one side, they do not add up to genocide within the meaning of the Convention. Theuse of
indiscriminateweapons,orintentional damagetothenaturalenvironmentprejudicingthehealthand
safetyof the civilianpopulation,arecrimes underinternationalhumanitarianlaw.Theyarecrimes
that,toadoptthewordsofthis Court,offend"elementaryconsiderationsofhumanity..."137 B.utthe
suggestionthat crimes underpravisions of jus inbel10desjgnedto protect thecivilianpopulation
canautomaticallybe equated with genocide,andthatsuchc:rimesipsofacto implytheexistenceof
agenocidalintention,doesmorethanblurthedistinctionsbetweeninstrumentsthatareautonomous
anddistinct. Itobliteratesthe distinctionsaltogether.
135. If theyhadany substance,,the allegations advancedasevidenceofagenocidalintentwould
fa11withinPartIVofthe GenevaProtocol1, dealingwiththeprotectionofciviliansintimeofwar.
Theallegationsput forthby the Applicantasevidenceofgenocidalintentincludenodistinguishing
elementthat sets them apartfiorn the subjectmatter of GenevaProtocol I. They add absolutely
nothingthatwouldnot inevitablybeincludedinachargeorindictment undertheprovisionsofthat
Protocol.
136. Theimplicationisclear.TheApplicantistreatinggenocideasidenticalinsubstancetoquite
distinctprohibitionsunderinternationalhumanitarianlaw.Itistreatinggenocideasexactlythesame
thingas certaincrimescodifiediriother legalinstrumentsinthefieldofinternationalhumanitarian
law.Crimes againstcivilians und.ertheseother instrumentswouldipsofacto constitutegenocide -
andvice versa,atleastintimeof armedconflict.Eachwouldbecome the alteregooftheother,the
samething undera differentname.
13' Mernorialp.283,para.1.6.1.4.
134Id.,p.282,para.1.6.1.1.
13*Id.,p.283,para.1.6.1.3.
136Ibid.
13' CO@ Channel,Merits,Judgment,1:C.J.Reports 1949,p22.
-39-137. TheApplicanttreatsthetwobranchesoflawasiftheycoveredexactlythesameground.This
isthe legal flaw attheheartoftheApplicant'sapproach,and itisonewhichisentirelyindependent
of thetruthor falsehood of thefactsalleged.
3. TheApplicantdisregardsthedefining elementsof thecrimeofgenocide
a. There is nothingto supporttheattributionofspecific intentto Canada
138. Genocide,astheprecedingsectionhas explained,isaboveal1acrimeofspecificintent.Yet
thereisnotasinglepassageintheMemorial linkingtheCanadiangovernmentorCanadianofficials
to conduct thatcouldprovideabasis forimputingtherequisitespecificintentto Canadaasa State.
139. Genocideis primarilya crimeco&itted by individualsthat Statesarerequired topunish
and prevent. Assurning, howevert ,hat Statesassuchcanbe chargedwith thecrimeof genocide,a
specificintent to destroy a groupmust still constitutethe essential defining characteristicof the
crime. It is therefore aine qua nonof any charge of genocideagainst a State that it should be
supportedbyassertionsof specificintentonthepartofthatStateorpersonsactingonitsbehalf.This
essentialmatenal is lackingintheApplicant's Pleadings.Thegap,moreover,couldnotbe filledby
allegationsagainstCanada's alliesinOperation AlliedForceoragainstNATOitself.Specificintent
is a stateofmind,whichisnot somethingthatcanbe indirectlyattributedfromthe actionsofother
parties.
b. TheApplicantassumestheexistenceof apresumptionof genocidalintent
140. SpecificintentasthedefiningcharacteristicofgenocidehasMer implications.Allegations
thatcivilianshavebeenneedlessly,evenintentionally,exposedtodestructioncannotbythemselves
bring thesubjectmatterwithn the Convention.Theymustbe accompaniedbysomefactualbasis -
real or alleged- for believing thatthese acts were cornmittedwith intent to destroy a national,
ethmcal, racial, or religious group "as such".In the absenceof suchparticulars, therecan be no
objectivebasis forfindingthat the subjectmatterof the claim"fall[s] within" the Convention,as
requiredby the test inOilPlatforrn~'~~.
141. Thereareno suchparticularsin the Applicant'sMemorial.It is not simplythat there isno
evidence -indeed,al1theevidenceistothecontrary -but thattheApplicanthasfailedeventoallege
a factual basis or set ofcircurnstancesthat would allow the Court to infer the existence of a
genocidalintention.It has listeda seriesofbombings by theNATOforces, alongwith anassertion
that they had no military necessity and must therefore have intended to expose civilians to
destruction.Thatmightpossiblybe enoughtobringthe disputewithincertainother instrumentsof
internationalhumanitarianlaw.But it doesnotbring it withinthe Genocide Convention.
13*Oil Platfonns,suprn.11,p. 10,para.16.
-40-142. TheApplicant'sapproachisbasedonthe falseassurnptionthat an allegationthat
civilianswereintentionallyexposedtodestructionwithoutmilitaryjustification,ortoindiscriminate
meansofwarfare,isa sufficientbasisforinfemng agenocidalintention.Thisisthe fallacyimplicit
in theApplicant'suse of the GeriocideConvention.Ifitwere accepted,threeconsequenceswould
follow,al1of them equallyunteniable.
First, thecommissionofcertainquitedistinctcrimesunderinternationalhumanitarian
lawwouldcreateanirrebuttablepresumptionofgenocidalintention.Thereisnotextual
basisforsuchapresuanptioninthe GenocideConvention,whichisclearlypredicated on
the requirementthat thespecificintentto destroy agroup"as such"must existin fact
andthereforemustbeprovedseparately.
Second,if genocidalintentionwere read automaticallyinto the commissionof these
distinct crimes,the practical resultwouldbe thedisappearanceof specificintentfiom
the legaldefinitionifgenocide.
Third,ifagenocidalintentionwerepresumedtoexistwhereoneofthesedistinctcrimes
is committed, such crimes would automaticallyconstitute genocide as well. More
specifically,enocide:wouldbecome,ineffect, anincludedoffencewithincertainother
instrumentsofinternationalhumanitarianlawand -asarguedabove -genocideandthese
distinct crimeswouldlbe treatedasbeingsynonymous.
143. The last point calls for ariadditionalcomment.The pnnciple legal effectof the Genocide
Convention is to defme certain crimes andprovide for their prevention and punishment. The
Conventionis aninstrumentof internationalcriminallaw, andconceptsdrawn fiom criminallaw
shouldgovem its interpretation.
144. Incriminallaw,acrime OFspecificintentisonewhereitisnotsufficienttoallegethatanact
was committed.It must alsobe alleged - and eventuallyproved - that the actwas committedwith
a specificntentorpurpose.If intentcould be inferred automaticallyfiom the act,thisrequirement
would ceaseto exist.Inpracticaleffect,thecrimewouldbeçomeonewhereit is sufficienttoallege
andprovethe actwithoutconcern.fortheintentionor purposebehindtheact.Theideathatintention
canbe inferredautomaticallyfromthe commissionofwrongfulactsis therefore inconsistentwith
the verydefinitionof an offenceofspecificintentordolusspecialis.
145. The samepoint maybeplutin moretechnical languagedrawnfi-omcriminallaw. Someof
theleadinglegalsystems, includirigthecommonlaw,refertotheprohibitedactastheactusreusand
totheintentionalelementasthe mensrea.Themoreseriousoffencesgenerallyrequirethatthemens
rea be specifically allegedand proved.Any assumption that themens rea can automaticallybe
inferred fiom the actus reus obviously destroys this reqiiirement and would be tantamountto
convertingthe offencefiom onelofspecificintentinto oneof strictliability.146. This is preciselywhat the Applicantdoeswithrespectto the definitionof genocide.It
asks the Court to infer a genocidal intent fkom its allegation that the Pancevo bombings
unnecessarilyexposedthe civilianpopulationto destruction.It similarlyasksthe Courtto infera
genocidal intent fiom its allegationthat depleteuranium createshazardsto human health. This
ignoresspecificintentasanindependentlegalrequirement.Iteffectivelydispenseswiththeconcept
attheheart ofthe Convention,thatgenocideissomethingcommittedwiththeintentionofdestroying
a national, ethnical,racial,or religiousgroup"as such", andthat even themostrepugnant crimes
cornrnittedwithoutthat specificintentiondonot constitutegenocide.
c. There isnothingto demonstrateanintentionto destroya group"assuch"
147. The Applicant'sMemorial fails to address,much less demonstrate,how Canada -or any
otherNATO members -canbe saidtohave intendedthephysical destructionofagroup "assuch".
Thosetwowordsarevitally important.They underline,beyondintentionandpurpose,theneedfor
a genocidalmotivation -a hostilitytoward the target group thatimpelstheperpetratorsto seekits
extermination.Theanalysisof this aspectofgenocidein the 1996ReportoftheInternationalLaw
Commissionhas alreadybeen menti~ned'~~ T.he Report also noted that theexpression"as such"
implies that the intention mustbe to destroythe group "as a separate and distinct entity"1,nd
addedthat"theintentionmustbeto destroyagroupandnotmerelyoneormoreindividualswhoare
coincidentallymembersof aparticular gro~p"'~~W. ithoutsomeanimus againstagroup"as such",
the crimemaybe oneofthe utrnostgravity;but it is not genocide.
148. The Applicant's Memorial attemptsno explanation,andpresentsno factualmaterial, that
would suggest that Canada or its allies were motivated by an anti-Serbian or anti-Yugoslavian
animusof suchintensityasto leadto an attempt todestroythegroup "as such".Thenotionwould
besoimplausibleasto attractridicule,andit hasnotinanyeventbeenputfonvard.Butitsabsence
is fatal.It meansthe Courtdoesnot have beforeit the materialthat wouldbe requiredto makethe
claims "fa11within"the C~nvention'~~.
149. Otheressentialcomponentsofthealleged crime arealsomissing. Thewords "deliberately"
and "calculated" in Article II, paragraph (c), of the Convention were included, inter alia, to
emphasize the importanceof specific intent,but they must be given an independent effect.In a
passage cited with approvalby the InternationalLaw Commissionin its 1996Report, onescholar
hasstatedthat theword"deliberately" denotesthepremeditationrelatedtothecreationofconditions
oflifethatwilldestroythe gro~p'~~T.heword "calculated" has alsobeentakentoimply an element
'39Supra,para.124.
14'Supra,n.107,p.45 (Amex 24).
141Ibid.
'42OilPlatforms,supran.11,p. 810,para.16.
'43ROBINSON,TheGenocide Convention:A Commentary,New York,Instituteof JewishAffairs,1960,p. 63,
citedwithapprovalinthe1996ReportoftheInternationlawCommissions ,upra, n. 107,p.fn.124(Annex
24).
-42- ofpremeditati~n'~~ T.hereisnottheslightestattemptinthe Applicant'sMemorialto cometo grips
withthese elementsofthe definition.
150. One writer on the international lawof genocide, citinga United NationsRapporteur,has
aptlywrittenthat"[tlheoffencec8an onlyretainitsawesomenatureifthestrictnessofitsdefinitional
elementsis retained andnot in aiiywaytri~ialized"'~~ T.heApplicant'sMemorialpays little or no
heedto thesedefinitionalelements.Itsapproachisnotonlylegallywrong,butisdangerous.Itwould
stripthemeaning of genocideof'its"awesome nature"anditsunique moralstigrna.It would turn
genocideintoanordinarycrime,inolongerthe"crimeofcrimes"attheveryapexofthewrongs that
shockthe conscienceof h~rnanity'~~.
151. The Federal Republic of'Yugoslaviaclaims that it has submitted evidence of genocidal
intention.It has done no such th.ing.It has assertedthe existenceof intentionin response to the
Court'sstated reservationsin the:Orderof2June1999.Butanassertionunsupportedby material
thatwould allowtheCourtto determinewhether thepleadedviolationsdoordonot fa11 withinthe
provisionsofthetreaty cannotsatis@the OilPlatfoms tesl.Insubstance, themostthatcanbe said
isthatoneparty"maintains"thert:isadisputeundertheGenocideConventionandtheother"denies
it": andthat, theCourt heldin 01'1Platforms,is not enough.
152. Al1theseconsiderationsdemonstratethat genocideisnot andhas neverbeen thereal issue
in thiscase.TheApplicanthas siinplyrecycleditsfactualallegationsrelated to the useof forceand
jus inbel10and placedthem underthe headingof genocideinorderto claim thebenefit of Article
IX.Theartificialityofthestratage:mistransparent.ThenexiisbetweenthedisputeandtheGenocide
Convention is a sham,and it shoilldbe treatedas such.
Discussionpaper proposedby theCo-ordinator:Article6: Thecnmeofgenocide,UN Doc.
PCNICC/1999MrGECIRT1.,asannexedinPreparatoryCommission fortheInternationaCl riminalCourt,ln Sess.,
UNDoc.PCNICC/1999IL.CIRev1.(1999)(Annex34).
14'SHAW,"GenocideandInternationaLl aw"inDINSTEIN,ed.,InternationalLawat a TimeofPe~lexi~,
(EssaysinHonour ofShabtai Rosenne), Dordrecht,artinusNijhoff,1989,p. 806(Annex35);see also
CommissiononHumanRights,Revisea! andupdated reportonthequ~~tioofthepreventionandpunishmentof the
crime ofgenocidebyMr.B. Whitaker,1JNESCOR,1985,UNDoc.EiCN.4/Sub.2/1985/6 andCorr.1,p. 16,para.
29 (Annex36).
'46Supra,n. 105.
-43-C. Thenew claimsrelatedto KFORfailto connectCanadatothe allegedoffences
1. Thereareno allegationsof commissionor omissionagainstCanada
153. TheMemorialofthe Applicant presentsanunusualfeature,possiblyuniqueinthe history
ofproceedingsbeforethisCourt.Notasinglefactualallegation isspecificallytied toCanada.Inthe
caseof the submissionrelatedtothe alleged "killing, wounding and ethniccleansingof Serbsand
othernon-Albaniangroupsin KosovoandMetohija"sinceJune 1999,the failureto impute either
actsor omissionsto Canadaisobviouslyofcentralimp~rtance'~~ It.is,by itself,fataltojurisdiction
underthe Genocide Convention.
154. No factual connection between Canada and the alleged genocidal acts by "Albanian
terrorists" has been asserted '48.There is not a shred of evidence, or even anallegation,linking
Canadaoritsforcesto anyoftheseincidents.Thereisno suggestionthatalackofduediligence,or
afailureto exertbest efforts, oreven"merenegligenceorlackofappropriatemeans"inpreventing
the alleged acts, can be laid at Canada's d~or'~~T .he submission standsin complete isolation,
unsupportedby factualorother matenal to giveit substance. Inreality,Canadastandsaccusedof
nothing.It has no charges to answer, and nothing to refùte.
155. A generalized submission alleging a breach but unsupported by factualallegations or
argumentcapableof linkingthebreachtotheRespondentplainlyfailstomeettheOilPlatformstest.
It amounts to a bare assertionthat the Conventionhas been violated. A bare assertion of this
characterispreciselywhatwas describedasasituationwhere"oneofthePartiesmaintainsthatsuch
a dispute exists, and the otherdenies it", which the Court declared tobe insufficientto establish
jurisdiction under atreatylS0.
156. The Oil Platformscase demonstrates thatfar more is required. The Court canied out a
thorough analysis of severalprovisions of the treaty in order to determine whether ornot, on a
correctinterpretation,theycoveredtheactsdescribedintheApplication. Suchananalysiscouldnot
possiblybe carriedoutinthe abstract.It presupposes the existence ofa factualcontextlinkingthe
Respondent to the pleaded violations.Nothing ofthe sort can be found in the Memonal of the
Federal Republicof Yugoslavia.
14'Memorial,p. 339, para. 3.2.12.
148The expressionis consistentlyusedin theMemorial(p. 201,para. 1.5.1.1.1ff.). Canadareservesitsposition with
respect to (a)the accuracyofthe allegationsrespectingviolencesinceJune 1999,(b) the characterizationof
the incidentsas genocidalin nature ornt,and(c) thecharacterizationofthe allegedperpetratorsas "Albanian
terrorists", none of which arerelevantfor presentpurposes.
'49UnitedStatesDiplornaticandCansularStaf inTehran,Judgment1.C.J.Reports1980,p. 31,para. 63.
150OilPlatfonns,supra,n. 11,p. 810, para. 16.
-44-157. Conventionsmaybemultilateral,butlitigationisbilateral15'O . neStatebringsaclaimagainst
another.Ifinasingleapplication itbrings acaseagainstseveralStates,itmuststillestablishitscase
against each Respondent. It is i~xiomatic,therefore, thatthe subjectmatter must pertain to the
Re~pondent'~~ T.he Court'srequirementin OilPlatjîormsthatthe"violations"should"fa11 within"
the treaty must be understood in the light of these elementary cons ide ration^'^ Th.e term
"violations",by definition,refersto specific actionsoromissions attributableto individualStates.
Topleadaviolationisto identifi specificactsoromissionsattributabletotheRespondentStatethat
wouldconstituteabreachifproved. Anyotherdefinitionwouldleave thenotionofaviolationempty
ofcontent,apure abstractionthat wouldmakeit impossibleto applythetestin OilPlatjîoms inthe
mannerillustratedby the analysjs carriedoutin thatcase.
158. By this standard, sofaras thenewclaimsrelatedto KFORareconcerned,there isnothing
whatsoeverto which thetest in OilPlatformscanbe applied.And if the Applicanthas provided
insufficientmaterial to allow the test of jurisdiction to be applied - much less satisfied -the
necessaryinferenceisthatthereisnobasisonwhch jurisdictionunderthetreatycanbeestablished.
2. The subjectmatterofthe newclaimsfallsoutsidethe GenocideConvention
159. TherelevantsubmissioncsftheApplicant's Memorial statesthatCanadahasactedinbreach
of its obligation "to prevent genocide and other acts enumerated in article III of the Genocide
C~nvention"'~~ T.hisispresumablyanobliquereferencetoArticle 1oftheConvention,inwhichthe
contractingparties undertaketo "preventandto punish"the crimeof genocide.
160. Quiteapartfiom considerationsofadrnissibility,itis impossibleto seehowthenewclaims
could fa11within Article 1.The acts are said to be those of "Albanian terrorists", and neither
complicity,negligence,nor a "kick of appropriate me an^"'^ or due diligenceare allegedagainst
Canada. The Applicant has not even hinted at the existenceof a causal link between Canadian
conductandtheincidentsitcites;ae svidenceofgenocide.Thereisnoevidenceorevenasuggestion
that these incidents occurredbecause of a lack of preventionby Canada156S .o far as Canada is
15'ROSENNE,supra,n. 56, Vol.II, p.567 (Annex 14).
15*If the subjectmatter did not pertainto theRespondent,theproceedingswouldtakeonthe characterof a request
for an Advisory Opinion,whichnonlybe requested byauthorizedbodiesunderArticle6.5ofthe Statute.
'53OilPla~orms,supra,n. 11,p. 810,para. 16.
'54Memorial,p. 352.
'55 UnitedStatesDiplomaticandConsularStafin Tehran,supra,n. 149,p. 31,para. 63.
15'The Cornmentaryof the InternationalLaw Commissiononobligations ofpreventionadoptedin 1978statesthat
the ''overwhelmingajority ofmodernwriters"considerthat"the Statecannotbe heldintemationallyresponsible"
under an obligationof prevention"except in..where suchactshave been commiîtedpreciselybecauseof the
lack of preventionby the State"(Drafiarticleson StateresponsibilityinReportofInternationalLaw Commission
on theworkof its thirtiethsession, -28July 1978)(UN Doc.A'33110)in Yearbookof theInternationalLaw
Commission 1978,Vol. II, Part2,p. 85 (Annex37)). Seegenerallyalsopp. 81-86,andInternationalLaw
Commission, Second Report on StateR'esponsibi, N GAOR,54"'Sess.,UNDoc.AlCN.41498(1999),pp. 36-37
(by ProfessorJames Crawford, SpecialRapporteur)(Annex.
-45-concerned,therefore,thereis nothingthatcouldbringthenewclaimswithinArticle1or anyother
provisionof the Genocide Convention.
161. The argument implies that Canada is automaticallyresponsible for incidents of ethnic
violence in Kosovo by reason of its participationin KFOR. There is nothing in the text or the
travauxpréparatoiresofthe GenocideConventionto supportsuchaninterpretation.Participation
in a UnitedNationseffortto restorepeaceand securityin conditionsof ethnicstrifeis oneway in
which States may choose to fülfil their undertaking under Article 1. Such participation is not
mandatory but is an act of internationalsolidarityand goodwill. Therecan be no legal basis for
suggesting that it adds to or extends the legal burdens imposed on States by the Genocide
Convention,underArticle1or othenvise.
3. Thereis no basisfor imputingthe actsof thirdpartiesto Canada
162. Internationallawholds Statesresponsibleforwrongful actscommittedbytheir organsand
persons actingon their behalf'57E. xceptionally,a Statemaybe responsiblewhereit has aidedor
assistedanotherStateinthe commissionofawrongful act, orwhereanotherStatehasactedunder
its directionor contr01'~'.
163. Theseprinciplesprovideno support forthe Applicant'scontentionthatjurisdictioncanbe
foundedon Article IX ofthe Genocide Convention.As notedabove,the argumentconsistsalmost
exclusivelyofan inventoryof incidentsperpetrated by"Albanianterronsts". Inahandfulofcases,
a very smallproportion ofthe total,the effectivenessofKFORtroopsinpreventing suchincidents
is called into question.None of this could begin toreach the level of complicityor negligence
necessaxyforthepurposesofthe GenocideConvention, and -moretothepoint -noneofitis linked
either directlyor indirectlyto Canada.In the circurnstances,there can be no question of ajoint
commission of a wrongfùl act or of the attribution toone State of wrongful acts committedby
another.
164. ThebasisonwhichtheApplicantarguesthatactsofKFORareimputabletotheRespondent
isin anyeventerroneous.KFORisdepictedasan instrumentalityofNATO,whoseactsarealsosaid
to be imputableto eachofitsmembers.ThiscompletelymisrepresentsKFOR'sstatusandmandate
underthetermsofUnitedNationsSecurityCouncilResolution1244.KFORoperates"underUnited
Nations auspices" pursuant to Chapter VI1 of the Charter of the United nation^'^^ I.has, in
accordancewithResolution 1244,a"substantialNorth AtlanticTreatyOrganizationparticipation",
but thatdoesnotmakeitaNATOforceI6O K.FORalsoincludesRussiaandthirteenother Statesthat
'57Drafi articleson StateresponsibilityintheReportoftheInternationalLawCommissionontheworkofitsforty-
eighthsession(6May- 26July 1996(UN Doc.Al51/10)in Yearbookof theInternationalLaw Commission1996,
Vol. II,Part 2, p. 59, Articles5-10 (Annex 39).
15'Id., p. 61,Articles27-28(Annex 39).
15' SCRes. 1244,supra,n. 69 (Annex 1KK).
Ibid.arenotmembersofNATO,anditmaintainsareportingrelationshiptotheSecurityCouncil.Al1this
is of secondary importancein view of the failure of the Applicantto attribute any violations to
KFORthatfa11 within theGenocideConvention,butitprovidesfurtherevidencethatthisbranchof
the Applicant'sargumentfor jurisdictionis completelymisconceived.
165. At onepoint,the Applicant submitsinthe alternativethat, ifKFORisnot"undercommand
and controlofNATO"soasto erigagetheresponsibilityofeachofitsmemberStates, then "every
Respondentisresponsibleforactscommittedinthearea untleritsc~ntrol"'~'. otheextentthatthis
suggeststhattheparticipantsinKFOR arelegallyresponsibleforanygenocidalactsthatmay occur
in theareasinwhich theyoperate:,regardless of anyintentorcomplicityontheirpart,then - foral1
thereasonssetoutabove -it isbasedonanerroneousinterpretationofthe scopeofthe Convention.
In any event, no attempthas been madeto identifj those incidents,if any, that took place in the
specific sub-sectorfor which Ciinadais responsible.Having omittedhere again to provide the
minimum material necessary to bnng the pleaded violationwithin the terms of the Genocide
Convention,the attemptto invokethe compromissory clause ofthat Conventionmust fail.
Conclusion
166. Genocideisthemostodiousofcrimesagainst humanity.Nothinginflictsgreaterdamageon
a State'sreputationthanimplication,director indirect,in actsof genocide -andrightly so, where
there is substanceto theaccusation.
167. One consequenceofthe gravity ofthiscrimeisthat responsibilityforgenocidemustnot be
lightlyorcasuallyimputed.Accusationsrelatedtothe GenocideConventionshouldbe sufficiently
precisethattheimplicatedpersonsor States canknowthechargesandbein apositiontorebutthem
ifthey cm: fundamentalpinciples ofjustice requireno less.Accusationsbased on anassurnedbut
unstatedtheoryof"guiltby association", orliabilityerga omnesforoccurrencesbeyondthecontrol
of the accused, shouldsimply be disregarded. Theydegradethe content of the Convention,and
diminishits moral force.
168. A Mer consequence i,sthat the interpretation of the Convention should respect its
distinctivecharacter.ThedangeroftrivializingtheConventionby anoverlybroadinterpretationwas
recognizedin the very early stagesof its development, when the Secretary-Generao lf the United
Nations, responsible for the preparationof the initial draft, stressed the importanceof a narrow
definition so as not to confuse genocidewith other A dilution of the terms of the
Convention,obscuringits specialcharacter and sphere of operation, can only weakenthe stigrna
attachedto genocide.
16'Memonal,p. 299,para.1.9.2.8.
'62Dra3 Conventionon theCrime of Genocide,supn.104,pp. 16-17asquotedin SCHABAS,supra,n. 104,
p.64 (Annex20).
-47-169. TheApplicant's approachis inconsistentwiththesepnnciples. Indealingwiththeoriginal
claimsrelatedto the useof force, the Applicantequatesgenocidewithotherquitedifferentcrimes,
disregardingits distinguishingcharactenstics, inticular,the factthat its essentialfeatureis the
specificintentto destroyanational,ethnical,racial,orreligiousgroup,assuch.Sofarasthisbranch
of the claim is concemed,there is nothing inthe Memorialof the Applicant that shouldadto a
reconsiderationof the conclusionsthe Courtreached provisionallyin its Orderof2June1999.
170. Indealingwiththenew claimsrelatedtoKFOR,quiteapartfiomtheobviousobjectionsto
the admissibilityofthesenew claims,theApplicantfailsto establishor eventoasserta connection
betweenthe cited incidentsandthe Respondent. The onlymaterialbefore theCourt onthe subject
of the "killing,wounding, andexpulsionof Serbs and other non-Albaniagroups"is an inventory
of incidentssaid to have beenperpetrated by "Albanianterr~rists"'N.one of theseis allegedto
have been committed by the organs of the Canadian State or by persons acting onits behalf.
Moreover,thereisnoallegationofcomplicityornegligence againstCanada,creatingthe necessary
causallinktothe citedincidents,that couldpossiblybnng thematterwithinArticle1.Theideathat
the subjectatteroftheApplicant's claimcan"fa11 within"theConventioninthesecircumstances,
oreventhatthere canbea"violation"towhichtheOilPlatformstestcanbe applied,isuntenable1@.
171. The Oil Platformscase is conclusiveauthoritythatjurisdiction under a treaty cannotbe
establishedon thebasisof a legallyincorrectinterpretationof the scopeor coverage ofthattreaty.
Thecasealsoassumesthe existenceofpleadedviolationsthatpertainto theStateagainstwhichthe
proceedingshavebeenbrought.TheApplicant's relianceonArticle IXoftheGenocide Convention
failsto meet either conditi-nandnecessarilyso -becausein realitythe disputebetween Canada
and theApplicant hasnothing to do with breaches of the Genocide Conventionby Canada.The
Conventionhasbeeninvokedasanartificialbasis forbringingproceedingstowhichthecompulsory
jurisdiction of the Courtdoesnot extend.
'63Memorial,~.9,para.15,and p. 201,p1.5.1.1.lff.
'@ OilPla~oms,supra,n. 11,p. 810,para.16.
-48- CHAPTERIII
THECLAIMIS INADMISSIBLE
Introduction
172. The Memorial filed by the FederalRepublic of Yugoslaviaraises for the first time new
elementswhich,while characterizedas anextensionofthe original dispute,are so fundarnentally
differentfiomthe claimdefined:inthe Applicationasto transformboth theform andsubstanceof
the originallaim.
173. In its Orderof2June 1999,theCourtreferredtothetitleofthe caseadoptedbytheFederal
Republic of Yugoslavia(Applicationof the Federal Republicof Yugoslaviaagainst Canada for
Violationofthe ObligationNot to Use Force),and to the subjectmatterofthecaseas describedin
the Application.Itthen continuetlas follows:
"[Ilt canbe seenboth fiomthe statementof 'factsupon whichthe claimis based'andfiom
themannerinwhichthe 'c:laims'themselves areformulated(seeparagraphs3and4 above)
thatthe Applicationisdirected,inessence,againstthe'bombingofthe territoryofthe
Federal RepublicofYugoslavia',towhich the Court is askedtoput an end'65.
Thenew elementsofthe claimdonotrelatetothis subject.Theyrelate,instead,to ethnicdisorders
inKosovosincethebombingwasbrought toahalt,andtothepeacekeepingoperationsoftheUnited
NationsKosovoForce("KFOR) conducted pursuanttoUnitedNationsSecurityCouncilResolution
1244. The shift £romwar to peace is decisive:they stand at opposite ends of the spectnun of
internationalrelationsandlaw.It followsthatthe new claims cannot properly begraftedonto the
proceedingsbrought on 29 April 1999in relationto theuseof forceby the NorthAtlantic Treaty
Organization ("NATO"). They would transform the siibject matter of the case. They are
consequentlyinadmissible, undeirlong-established principleswhose continuingvalidity has been
reaffirmedin recent years.
174. The claimisalsoinadmissible undertheMonetaryGoldprinciple.Whilethiscasehasbeen
institutedagainstCanadaalone,il:was originally accompaniedbyparallelproceedingsagainstnine
otherRespondents.Therenowremaineightparallelcases,eachagainstanindividualState,several
with distinctive features,but al1dealingwiththe useof forcebyNATO againstthe territoryof the
Applicant in 1999. As a result, only eight out ofurteeriNATO members that participated in
Operation AlliedForcearebeforethe Courtin separatebutparallel proceedings.
175. It is obvious thatroceetiingsagainsta limited selectionof the NATO participants, not
includingthemostprominentmi1.ita1- cyontributor,wouldbe at theleastan anomaly.However, the
165Order of 2 June1999,supra, n.2, para.26 [emphasisadded].
-49-proceedings are more than anomalous. In al1the circurnstances, whichare in many respects
unprecedented,the ver=subjectmatter of the proceedingsrequires the presence of States -and
internationalorganizations-thatarenotbeforethe Court.Further,thepursuitofthesecaseswithout
thepresenceofthese essentialthirdparties couldleadtoasubstantialmiscarriageofjustice against
the remainingRespondents.
A. The new elements wouldtransformthe dispute
1. The new elements that areextraneousto theoriginalclaim are inadmissible
176. The new elementswould transformthe subjectmatterof the case andareinadmissiblefor
areasonthatisof particularrelevancetothiscase.Becausejurisdictionmustbeestablishedasofthe
dateoftheapplicationandnot later,itisessentialthatthecaseasdevelopedinthesubsequentphases
shouldbethe sameastheoneonginallybrought.It isprecisely this requirementthatthe Applicant
isseekingto evadethroughits expanded claim, whichis a transparent attemptto shiftthe critical
dateof the dispute.
177. Thisstrategyismisconceivedintermsoftheprinciplesofjurisdiction,forthereasonssetout
in Chapter 1.It is also misconceivedin terms of the proceduralrules consistentlyappliedby this
Court and itspredecessor.
178. A fundamentalchangein the natureofthe claimsaftertheinstitutionofproceedingswould
not be consistentwith the orderlyadministration ofjustice. ThetatuteandRules are predicated
upontheideathat acaseevolvesthroughseveralphases,commencingwithanapplication, andthen
writtenfollowedbyoralPleadings.Withoutanessentialcontinuityofsubjectmatterfiombeginning
toend,thisprogressiveevolutionwouldloseitscoherence.Itcouldalsoprejudicetherightsofthird
States who make decisions on intervention on thebasis of the application (the firther written
Pleadings remaining confidential until the oral hearings). Both the Court and its predecessor
thereforehaveconsideredtobeinadmissibleanynewclaimsthatwouldbeextraneoustothesubject
matter of the original application,or that would transformthe subjectmatter of the dispute.
179. Thejurisprudence on the subjectis abundant.InMilitary andParamilztaryActivities,the
Courtstatedinits judgmentonjurisdictionandadrnissibilitythatadditionalgroundsofjurisdiction
may be invoked, "provided also that the resultis not to transformthe disputebroughtbefore the
Courtbytheapplicationintoanotherdisputewhich isdifferentincharacter..."166I.n 1998the Court
held in theFisheries Jurisdiction caseas follows:
"Paragraph 1ofArticle 40oftheStatuteofthe Courtrequires moreover that the 'subjectof
thedispute'beindicatedinthe Application;and,foritspart, paragraph2ofArticle38ofthe
Rulesof Courtrequires'theprecisenatureofthe claim' to bespecifiedintheApplication.
In anurnberof instancesin thepastthe Courthashad occasionto refertotheseprovisions.
'66Supra,n.48,p.427,para.80. Ithas characterizedthemas 'essentialfromthepointofviewof legalsecurityandthe good
administrationofjustice' and,onthisbasis, hasheld inadmissiblenew claims, fomulated
during the course of proceedings,which, if they had been entertained, would have
transforrnedthe subjectof the disputeoriginallybrought before it under the terms of the
Appli~ation"'~~.
180. Similarly,inNauru,the Courtheld thatif itwere tosettlethe disputeonthedisposalofthe
overseas assets of the British Phosphate Commission, the subject ofthat dispute would be
necessarilydistinct from the subject submittedto it in the applicati~n'~T.he additionalclaimhad
neitherbeen implicit inthe appli~ation'~~n,orhad it arisendirectlyout ofthe questionwhichwas
the subject matter of that application170T.he Court held:
"To settle the dispute onthe overseas assetsof the British PhosphateCommissionersthe
Courtwouldhavetoconsideranumberofquestionsthat appeartoittobe extraneousto the
originalclaim, suchasthe:precisemake-upandongin ofthe wholeoftheseoverseasassets;
andthe resolutionof anissueofthiskindwouldleadit to considerthe activitiesconducted
by the Commissioners not only,ratione temporis,after 1July 1967,but also,ratione loci,
outsideNauru (on OceanIsland (Banaba)and ChristmasIsland)and, ratione materiae, in
fieldsother thanthe exploitationofthe phosphate .."17'.
181. Theserecentpronouncementsareidenticailnsubstanceandinreasoningtothejurisprudence
of the Permanent Court of International Justice. In the case concerning the Prince von Pless
Administration,thePermanentCourt statedthatwhilethePleadings"mayelucidatethetermsofthe
Application,[they]mustnotgobeyondthelimitsoftheclaimas set out therein"172A. ndinSociété
commercialede Belgiquethe Permanent Courtreiteratedthis principle, holdingthat it would not
"allow a dispute brought before it by application to be transformed by arnendrnents in the
submissionsinto anotherdispute:which is different in ~haracter"'~~ .he relevant passageof the
judgrnent notes that any other approach would be inconsistent with the nghts of potential
interveners,and - with particular relevanceto thepresenc tase -thata completechangeinthe basis
ofthe case submittedto the Courtmightaffectthe Court's,juri~diction'~~.
167 Supra,n. 23,para.29.
Supra,n.22.
169 Templeof Preah Vihear,Merits, JudgmentI,.C.J.Reports1962,p. 36.
I7O FisheriesJurisdiction(FederalRepublicof Gennanyv. Iceland),Merits,Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 1974,p. 203,
para.72.
l7' Supra,n.22,p. 266, para.68.
172 PrincevonPlesssAdministration,Clrderof4 February1933,P.C.I.J.,SeriesA/B,No. 52,14.
'73Judgment,1939,P.C.I.J.,SeriesAB, No. 78,p. 173.
174Zbid.
-51-2. Thenewelementsintroducedin theMemorialwouldtransformthe subjectmatterof
the case
182. TheApplicantclaimsthat,sincethe Court'sOrderof2June 1999,thedispute"aggravated"
and "extended" and"got new elements"of crucialimp~rtance'~~ A.ccording to the Applicant, the
new elementsconcernfailuresoftheRespondentsto fulfilltheirobligationsestablishedbySecurity
CouncilResolution 1244andbythe GenocideC~nvention'~~ "N: ewelementsarerelatedtokillings,
wounding andexpulsionof Serbsandothernon-Albanian groupsinKosovoandMetohija,after10
June 1999"'77.
183. Thesoleobjectofthenewelementsoftheclaimis,therefore,notthebombingofthetemtory
of the ApplicantbyNATOforces, whichhad endedby 10June 1999,butrathertheconductofthe
peacekeeping mission of KFOR, the international security presence established under
Resolution1244inordertorestore"publicsafetyandorder"toKosovo,andspecificallytoestablish
a safe environmentfor al1people inKosovo and to facilitatethe safereturn to their homesof al1
displacedpersons andrefi~gees'~~.
184. Undoubtedlythereneverwouldhavebeen aneedforapeacekeepingoperationandthe other
specialarrangementsprovidedforinResolution1244ifthe humanitariancrisisinKosovohadnever
occurred,precipitatingthe NATO intervention and theconflict formingthe object ofthe original
claim. But under the established principlesof thejurisprudence, it is not sufficientthat the new
claims should stem fkomthe sarneorigins,when in everyrespectthey differso profoundlyasto
transformthe subject matter of thedispute.
185. ThematerialsubmittedwiththeMemorialimplicitlyrecognizedthatthenewelementsshare
little if any commonground with theoriginal claim. The two volumes entitledNATOCrimesin
Yugoslavia: DocumentaryEvidence are,as the titleimplies,limitedto the use of forceby NATO,
andtheycoverthepenod from 24 Marchto 10June 1999. Whilethe annexesproperaremostlyin
Serbian,there is nothingto indicatethat anyof them pertainto the implementationof Resolution
1244or toKFOR.
Thenew elements introducedin theMemorialdifferfromthe originalclaiminmany more
186.
respectsthan wereheldto be sufficientfor inadrnissibilityinNauru. In this case:
the actorsaredifferent-ofthemorethan30StatescontributingtoKFOR,onlyeight
are before the Court, and they are al1fiom the NATO component ofthe KFOR
mission;
175Memonal,p. 8,para.12,andp. 339,para.3.2.11.
'76Ibid.
'77Id.p,. 339, para.3.2.11.
17'Supra,n. 69 (Annex1KK). thetemtory is diff'erenttheApplicationrefersto eventsinthe entiretenitory ofthe
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, whereas the new elements introduced in the
Memonalreferto eventsintheareascoveredby SecurityCouncilResolution 1244;
the time is different- the Application refers toevents which took place before
29 Apnl 1999, while the Memonal includes events which took place after
10June 1999;
thenatureofthe actsisdifferent -theApplicationreferstoNATOairstrikes,while
thenew elements:relateto United Nation securityefforts.
187. Further,thenew elements; ofthe claimrelateto the implementationof Resolution1244,in
which the Security Council adopted a politicalsolution to the crisis in Kosovo based on the
pnnciples setoutintheResolution'sannex,andincludingthe deploymentofboth aninternational
civilpresence (theUnitedNationsMissioninKosovoor "ITNMIK")and an internationalsecurity
presence (KFOR). In adopting these measures, the Security Council was, in the terms of the
prearnble, acting under the speciialpowers vestedin it under Chapter VI1of the Charter. Any
assessment of the implementationof the program of action which the Resolution authonzes,
includingthe conductof KFOR anditsmembership, andthe adequacyof their effortsto suppress
ethnicdisorders, would dependupon a legalfrarneworkquitedistinct fromthat applicableto the
originalclaim.
188. Above all, however,therecould be nosharpercontrat ofsubjectmatterthanthatbetween
theuseofforceandpeacekeepingeffortsfollowing thecessationofhostilities.Theonemayleadto
theother,but they havenothing elseincornmon.Thenew claimsare entirelyoutof contextinthe
proceedingsbroughtinApril1999 inrelationtothebombingoftheterritoryoftheFederalRepublic
ofYugoslaviatowhichthe Courtwasasked to putanend.
B. Theverysubjectmatterofthecaserequiresthepresenceof essentialthirdpartiesthat
arenot before the Court .
1. The MoneîaryGoldprincipleis applicable
189. TheMonetary Goldcaseremainstheleadingauthontyonessentialthirdparties.TheCourt
decidedin MonetaryGoldthat the questionsbefore it couldnot beansweredwithout determining
whether acertain Albanianlawwiascontrarytointernationallaw.SinceAlbaniahadnotconsented
tojurisdiction,theCourtcouldnotmakeadecisionwithrespecttothe Albanianlaw,andtherefore
heldthat it couldnotanswerthe questionsbeforeit.
190. This principlewas applieclby the CourtinEast Timor, andit plainly remains ali id"^.he
testwas also discussedinMilitay andParamilitary Activities where,althoughthe claimwasheld
17'Supra,n.48,pp.101-105,paras.23,-35.tobe admissible,theCourtstatedthatinorderfortheMonetay Goldtesttobemetthe Stateswhich
arenot partiestothe actionmust be "trulyindispensableto the pursuanceof theproceeding~"'~~.
191. The Courthas been cautiousinthe applicationof this principle,takingaccount ofthe fact
thatthirdparties cannotbe addedastheycaninnationalcourts,andthattheirinterestsareprotected
by Article 59 of the Statutelgl.But the application of the rule must depend on the concrete
circurnstancesof each case, and the presentcase is in many respects unique. Its distinguishing
featureslieinthecollectiveforminwhichtheApplicanthaschosentofiameitsPleading,thespecial
importance of the missing Respondents, and the central role of international organizations,
particularlywith respectto the "new elements"of theclaim.
2. This case is different from situationswhere the Court has declined to apply the
MonetaryGoldprinciple
192. InNauru, the CourtfoundthattheprincipleestablishedinMonetaryGolddidnot applyto
the facts of the case,holding that "the determinationof the responsibilityof New Zealandor the
United KingdomisnotaprerequisiteforthedeterminationoftheresponsibilityofAustralia,theonly
object of Nauru's ~laim"'~~T . he Court also cited the reasoning in Militaly and Paramilitary
Activities, where the potential implication of Honduras as a staging ground for the military
operationsatissuewas heldnottobe a sufficientreason for holdingthe casetobe inadrnis~ible'~~.
193. Thernostobviousdistinctionwithboththesecasesistherelativeimportanceofthoseparties
that are not before the Court. In both Nauru and Military and ParamiIitary Activities the main
protagonistswerebeforetheCourt,andthe absent thirdpartieshadarelativelysecondaryandminor
role.ItisobviousthatinMilitaryandParamilitaryActivitiestheUnitedStateswasineveryrespect
theleaderandprincipalactorintheeventsthattriggeredtheproceedings.TheroleofHonduraswas
incidental,limitedessentiallyto the useof its territoryas a staging ground. InNauru, theposition
ofAustraliawas equallydominant. Asthe Courtstated:
"As a matter of fact, the Administrator was at al1times appointed by the Australian
Government and was accordingly under the instructions of that Government. His
'ordinances,proclamationsand regulations'weresubjecttoconfirmationorrejectionbythe
Ig0Supra,n. 48, p. 431, para. 88.
lS'Ibid. SeealsoNauru,supra, n. 22,pp. 260-261, paras. 51-55.
lS2Supra,n. 22,p. 261,para. 55.
lS3 Id.,p. 260, para. 51.Referencewas alsomadeto the ChamberdecisioninLand, Island andMaritime Frontier
Dispute (ElSalvador/Honduras),Application toIntemene,Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 1990,p. 116,para. 56.This
wasan applicationfor interventionby Nicaragua,inh the Chamberexpressedthe view, atp. 122,para. 73,that
Nicaraguahad an interest(in the statusof the Gulf of Fonseca)that rnightbe affectedby the decisionfor the
purposesofArticle 62 of the Statuterespectingintervention.However,that interestdidnot constitutethe "very
subject-matterof the decision",sincewhatwas at issuewasmerely the opposabilityto Hondurasof a 1917decision
ofthe CentralAmericanCourtof Justicein a caseinwhichHonduraswasnot aParty.
-54- Governor-GeneralofAustralia.TheotherGoveniments,inaccordancewith theAgreement,
received suchdecisionsforinformation~nly"'~~.
The two States absent from theproceedings were, in effect, nominal or "silent" partners in the
administrationof the temtory.
194. The contrat is striking.In this case it would bedifficultto overlookthe essentialmilitary
andpolitical roleof theabsentparties,andinparticulartheUnited States. The UnitedStatesalone
contributedalmosttwo-thirdsof the air powerto the campaign. OperationAlliedForce couldnot
andwouldnothavetakenplacewithouttheparticipation and leadershipofparticipatingStatesthat
arenot beforethe Court.
195. In sum, the Courthas declinedto apply theMonetary Goldprinciplewherethe roleof the
absentparties was minoror incidental.It hasneverdoneso where -ashere - the mainprotagonists
weremissing fromtheproceedings.
196. This points to a key distinction with the reasoning in both Military and Paramilitary
ActivitiesandNauru. In both thosecases, the Court focused onthe possibilityof prejudiceto the
legal interests of the absent third States, and concluded that their interests were adequately
safeguardedby Article59ofthe Statute,whichlimitsthebindingeffectofjudgments to theparties
beforethe Court, andby potentialfor interventionunderArticle62.
197. But it is not merely thei:nterestsof absentthird Statesthat are threatenedin the present
circumstances.Itistheinterestsofthe Respondentsthatremainbeforethe Court.Thisisthecritical
legal distinction that flows fromthe fact that in cases likeNauru andMilitary and Paramilitary
ActivitiestheRespondentswerethekeyplayers.Itwouldbe exceedinglydifficult,especiallyinthe
contextof a politicalandmilitasi.operationofgreatcomplexity,foran unrepresentativeselection
oftheparticipantstoprepareafullandadequatedefencewithoutthepresenceoftheprincipal actors.
The difficultyis compoundedby the failureof the Applicant todifferentiateineven theslightest
degreebetween the rolesof the iridividualRespondents.They are left in the invidiouspositionof
beingcompelledby therealitiesoflitigationto answerindividuallyforactionsofthe entirealliance
withoutthe presenceof certain ke:ymembersof NATO.
198. Secondly, the intrinsic nature of the argument as fiamed by the Federal Republicof
Yugoslaviaimpliesthatthe respo~isibiliofal1theimplicatedStates,includingthosenotbeforethe
Court,is inseparable;that the responsibilityof eachis inextricablybound up with that of al1the
others.Thepremisemay be misconceived - it is certainly not acceptedby Canad-but it iswoven
into theargumentat everystep. This creates a decisive distinctionwith Nauru andMilitary and
ParamilitaryActivities.Thedetemination oftheresponsibilityoftheabsentpartiesinthiscasemay
not be a "prerequisite" in a temporal sense, but the Court pointed out in Nauru that the term
Is4Supra, n. 22, p. 257, para.43."prerequisite"is "notpurelytemporalbut also logical..."lg5I .tis sufficient,inotherwords,thatthe
linkbetweenthesubjectmatterofthe casebeforetheCourt andthe legalinterestsof absentparties
shouldbe logicallynon-severable.And soit is in the present mattertg6.
199. There is a fùrther consideration, perhapsmore fundamental,with respect to the "new
elements" of the case conceming KFOR. The essential but missing third parties include an
internationalorganization - the UnitedNationsitself.KFORwasestablishedbytheUnitedNations
SecurityCouncilactingunderChapterVI1ofthe Charter.By thetermsofResolution 1244,itwas
created"underUNauspices"as an "international securitypresence"functioningasthecounterpart
toUNMIK - theUnitedNationsMissioninKosovo1g7 I.sstructure,mandateandactivitiesareunder
thejurisdiction ofthe SecurityCouncil.The Security Council exercisesits own autonomouslegal
powers,resultingindecisionsthatarenotonlyindependentoftheindividualorcollectivewillofthe
KFOR participants,but arebindinguponthem and uponal1otherUnitedNationsMembers.
200. The whole object of the "new elements" of thecase -apart fiom their character as a
transparent attempt to circumventthe temporal reservation - is to impugnthe conduct of KFOR
underits UnitedNations mandate.Thisis a thinlydisguised attempttobringthe SecurityCouncil
beforetheCourt,insofarasthesubject matterofResolution1244isconcemed.TheSecurityCouncil
did not create KFOR and then relinquish its authority.On the contrary,under paragraph 20 of
Resolution 1244,the SecurityCouncil-
"Reauests the Secretary-Generalto report to the Council at regular intervals on the
implementationof thisresolution,includingreportsfiomtheleadershipsoftheinternational
civilandsecuritypresences, the firstreportstobe submittedwithin30daysoftheadoption
ofthisre~olution"~~~.
The activities of KFOR, therefore, wereoriginallymandated by theSecurity Council and they
remain underitscontinuing surveillance.It is a SecurityCouncilactivity,not aCanadianactivity,
that is the essentialtarget of theinadmissiblenew claims.
Is5Id.,p. 261,para.55.
Ig6 Ithasalreadybeenarguedthat theso-called"newelements"ofthecaserespectingKFORareextraneous the
claimandthereforeinadmissible.Furthe,he argumentsoncerninMonetaryGoldal1applywithspecial forceto
these"new elements"A. lmostthree-foursftheparticipantisnKFOR areabsent;most,infact,werenever
involvedintheoriginalproceedingsbroughtinApril1999.Theabsentparîiesincludethetwolargestpowers,the
United StatesndtheRussianFederationw, hosepoliticalandmilitaryleadershipwithintheoperationisnotonly
self-evidentbutisreflectedthe structural arrangemotrsKFOR.
lS7 Supra,n. 69(Annex1KK).
lg8 Ibid.Conclusion
201. Thetestofwhethernewdaims areinadmissibleiswhethertheytransfom thesubjectofthe
disputeonginally brought beforethe Courtunderthetenns of the application.Thetestis solidly
entrenchedin thejurisprudence lofthe Court'89and hasbeen welldocumentedby scholar~~~T ~h.e
Courthasestablisheda limitonthefieedomtopresentadditionalfactsandlegalconsiderations,and
therequirementisthattheremus tbenotransformationofthedisputeintoonethatisfundamentally
differentin characterfiomthe oiiginalclaim.
The Applicationin this caseincluded the customaryclause reservingto the Applicant the
202.
right toamendor supplementit, a provisorecalledin the introductionto the Mem~rial'~~ S.ucha
reservation cannot, under the establishedjurisprudence of the Court, allow the claim to be
substantiallytransformed.ThatwaspointedoutbythePermanentCourtintheSociété commerciale
de Belgique decision, whereit washeld that -
"the liberty accordedto ,theparties to amendtheir submissionsup to the end of the oral
proceedingsmustbe construedreasonablyandwithoutinhnging thetermsofArticle40 of
theStatuteandArticle 32; paragraph2,oftheRuleswhichprovidethattheApplicationmust
indicatethe subjectof the dispute"'92.
Whatthe FederalRepublicofYugoslaviahasattemptedin itsMemorialgoesfarbeyondthe stated
critena. Thisis not a situationwherethenew elementscanbe impliedfromthe Applicationlg3b ,ut
onewhere the new elementsareextraneousto the original claimandwould transformthe dispute
broughttotheCourtbythe Applicrationintoanotherdisputewhichisdifferentincharacter.Thenew
elementsare,therefore, inadmissible.
203. ThecircumstancesarenovelbuttherelevanceoftheMonetaryGoldprincipleisclear. Inno
caseinwhichthe Courthas declinedto applythatprinciple havethemainprotagonistsbeen absent
fiom theproceedings.Moreover, the collectiveforminwhich theargument has been presentedby
the Applicant, while misconceived, implies that the proceedings against a lirnited and
unrepresentativeselectionofthe partiesareinappropnate.It followsthatthe "very subject-matter
of the decision"would includethe legalinterestsandresponsibilitiesof other concemedStates194.
The"new elements" alsobnng theresponsibilitiesofthe SecurityCouncilto theverycentreofthe
case,and amountto anattempttosubjectactivitiesunderits,jurisdictionto aformofjudicialreview.
189Nauru,supra, n. 22, pp.266-267, paras.66-70,PrincevonPlessAdministration,n.172,p. 14,and
Société commercialee Belgique,supra, n. 173,p. 173.
190ROSENNE,supra, n. 56, Vol. III,pp. 1237-1238,p. 1268,andp. 1377(Annex40).
I9lMemorial,p. 7, para.6.
192Supra,n. 173,p. 173.
193 TempleofPreah Vihear,supra,n. :l69,p. 36.
'94Monetary Gold,supra, n.24, p. 32.204. On al1these groundstheMonetaryGoldprincipleshouldbe applied.It would benot only
anomalousbut contrary to the proper administrationof justice to proceed against a limitedand
imperfectlyrepresentativesample oftheNATOmembersandKFORparticipants,intheabsenceof
certainprincipal actors. SUMMARYOFPRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
205. As explainedinthe body ofthePleading,Canada'spreliminaryobjectionswithrespect to
thejurisdiction of the Court arebasedon the followingconsiderations.
1. The purported declaration of the Applicant dated25 Apnl 1999 is a nullity because the
Federal Republicof Yugoslaviais not apartyto the Statuteof the Court.
2. The purported declaratioriisin anyeventinapplicableby reasonof thereservationratione
temporis it contains, anclthe principle of reciprocity in the application of Article 36,
paragraph2, ofthe Statutle.
3. Article IX of the Genocide Conventionconfers no jurisdiction in this case because the
subject matterofthe casedoesnot fa11 withinthe termsof the Convention.
206. Whileit shouldnotstrictlybenecessarytoconsideradmissibilityinviewofthe absenceof
jurisdiction,Canada'spreliminq, objectionswithrespecttotheadmissibilityoftheclaimsarebased
on two additionalconsiderations.
1. The new claims respecting the penod subsequent to the Order of 2 June 1999 are
inadmissiblebecause the:ywould transformthe subject of the dispute onginally brought
beforethe Court.
2. The claims in their entiretyare inadmissiblebecause the very subjectmatter of the case
requiresthepresenceof essential thirdparties that arenotbeforethe Court. SUBMISSIONS
May itpleasethe Courtta adjudgeanddeclarethat, forthereasonsadvancedin this
pleading:
It lacksjurisdictionovertheproceedingsbrought bytheApplicantagainstCanada
on 29 April1999.,and
The claimsbroughtagainstCanadain the saidproceedingsare inadmissibleto the
extentspecifiedinthesepreliminaryobjections.
PhilippeKirsch,Q.C.
AgentforCanada
5 July2000 LIST OFANNEXES / LISTEDES ANNEXES*
Page
VOLUME 1
Annex 1 1 Annexe1 .......................................................
..............1........................
Chronologyof events ........................................................
.....3..........................
Chronologiedesévénements .......................................................1
...............
Annex / Annexe1A .........................................................
...........21...........................
SecurityCouncilResolution777. UNSCOR.47" Year.
UN Doc .SIRES1777(1992) .................................................2.......
......
Résolutiondu Conseilde sécurité 777.Doc .off.CSNU.
47"année. Doc .NU SIRES1777(1992) ..................................................
Annex / Annexe1B .........................................................
...........2..........................
General Assembly Resoliition4711.UN GAOR.47' Sess.,
UNDoc .AIRES14711 (1992) .................................................9.......
......
Résolutionde l7Assembl4egénéral4 e711.Doc. off.AGNU.
47"sess..Doc .NIJA/RES/47/1(1992) .......................................1............
Annex / Annexe1C ........................................................
.............3.....................
SecurityCouncilResolution1160. UN SCOR.53rdYear.
UN Doc .S/RES/l160 (1998) .................................................5.....
......
RésolutionduConseilde sécurité 1160. Docoff . CSNU.
53'année.Doc .NU SIRES11 160(1998) .....................................3...........
Annex / Annexe1D .........................................................
...........45...............................
NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization.NewsRelease(98)51.30April 1998 ..............7..
Organisationdu Traitéde l'AtlantiqueNord.
Communiquédepresse (98)51.30 avril 1998 .................................9..........
Annex / Annexe1E .........................................................
...........5...........................
Secretary-General ofthe lJnitedNations. News Release.
UNDoc .SG/SM/6583.5June 1998 .........................................53.........................
Secrétairegénérad lesNationsUnies. Communiqué depresse.
Doc .NU SGlSMl6583.5juin 1998 ..........................................55.........................
* The page numbersset out inthis list arethoseof theAnnexesto thesePreliminw .bjections
Les numérosdepage indiquésdancette liste sontceux desAnnexesauxprésentesexceptionsprél.sinaireAnnex1Annexe 1F ...............................................................
...............7........................
Secretary-Generalofthe UnitedNations,NewsRelease,
UNDoc.SGlSW6673, 11Aug. 1998 .............................................9.............
Secrétairegénéral deN sationsUnies, Communiquéde presse,
Doc.NU SGlSW6673, 11août 1998 ............................. . . ,. .. 61
Annex /Annexe 1G ...............................................................
..............3.....................
Statementof thePresidentof theSecurityCouncil,
UNDoc. SlPRSTl1998125 (24Aug. 1998) ........................................5........
DéclarationduPrésident duConseilde sécurité,
Doc,NU SPRSTl1998125(24 août 1998) ......................................................
Annex1Annexe 1H ................................................................
.............9..........................
Report oftheSecretary-GeneralpreparedpursuanttoResoZution 1160 (1998)
oftheSecurityCouncil,UN SCOR,531d Year,UNDoc. SI19981834(1998) ....71
Rapport duSecrétaire généralprésen cténformémen t la résolution 1160(1998)
du Conseilde sécuritéD , oc.offCSNU, 53'année,
Doc.NU SI19981834(1998) .......................................................1.......
.......
Annex1Annexe 1 I ........................................................................ .,. ...91
SecurityCouncilResolution1199, UN SCOR,53rdYear,
UNDoc.S/RES/1199(1998) ......................................................3...
RésolutionduConseilde sécurité 1199, Doc.off.CSNU,
53eannée,Doc.NU SIRES11 199(1998) ....................................... . 99
Annex1Annexe 1J ............................................................................. 105
Report oftheSecretary-Generalprepared pursuantto Resolutions 1160 (1998)
and 1199(1998) ofthe Securis Council,UNSCOR,53rdYear,
UNDoc.SI19981912(1998) ......................................................0.........
...
Rapport duSecrétairegénéraé l tablienapplicationdes résolutions 1160(1998)
et 1199(1998) du Conseilde sécuritéD , oc.off.CSNU, 53'année,
Doc.NU SI19981912(1998) ......................................................2.........
..
Annex / Annexe 1K ............................................................................. 135
Agreementonthe KosovoVerificationMissionbetween theOrganizationfor
Security and Cooperation in Europeandthe Governmentof theFederal
RepublicofYugoslavia,in Letterdated 19October1998fiom the
PermanentRepresentativeof Poland totheUnitedNations Addressedto
the Secretary-General, UN Doc. SI19981978(1998) ............................137...
Accord concernantla Missiondevérification auKosovoentre l'Organisation pour
la sécuritéeltacoopération en Europeet le Gouvernementde laRépublique
fédérald eeYougoslavie,dansune lettredatéedu 19octobre 1998,adressée
au Secrétairegénérp alr lereprésentant permanend te laPologne auprèsde
l'organisation desNationsUnies, Doc.NU SI19981978 (1998) .................4.7
-64-Annex /Annexe1L ..........................................................
...............5..............
SecurityCouncilResolution1203.UN SCOR.53'*Year.
UN Doc . S/RES/1.203(1998) ..................................................5............
.
Résolutiondu Conseilde sécurité 1203. Doc .off.CSNU. 53"année.
Doc .NU S/RES/1.203(1998) ...................................................1......
....
Annex /Annexe1M ..........................................................
.............65...................
Organizationfor Securiv andCooperationin Europe:
Kosovo VerificationMission:SpeciaIReport:Massacre of Civilians
inRacak. 17Jan .1998;and.KVMHumanKightsReport. 18-28Jan . 1999
and24 Jan..6 Feb .1999 ........................................................7.
............
Annex / Annexe 1N.............................................................
.............5......................
United NationsHigh CommissionerforRefugees.NewsRelease. 18Jan .1999 ........87
Haut CommissariatdesNations Unies pourlesréfugiés. Communiqué de presse.
18janvier 1999 ............................................................
..9....................
Annex / Annexe 10 ...........................................................
............9...................
UnitedNations HighCommissionerforRefugees.NewsRelease.21Jan .1999 .......193
Haut Commissariatdes NationsUnies pourlesréfugiésC . ommuniquédepresse.
21janvier 1999 .........................................................
....9...............
Annex /Annexe1P ...........................................................
.............97....................
Statementof thePresidentofthe Security Council.UNDoc .S/PRST/1999/5
(29Jan .1999) ...........................................................
.....9....................
DéclarationduPrésidentdu Conseil de sécurité. Doc .NU S/PRST/1999/5
(29janvier 1999) ...........................................................
2..1...................
Annex / Annexe 1Q ..........................................................
...........2..3.................
North Atlantic TreatyOrganization.NewsRelease(99)012.30 Jan 1999 . ............205....
Organisationdu Traitéde l'AtlantiqueNord.Communiquédepresse (99)012.
30janvier 1999 ............................................................
2..7....................
Annex / Annexe 1R ...........................................................
...........2.0.....................
North AtlanticTreaty Organization.NewsRelease(99)020. 19Feb .1999 ...........2..1
Organisationdu Traitéde l'AtlantiqueNord.Communiquédepresse (99)020.
19février1999 ...........................................................
..................
Annex /Annexe 1S ..........................................................
...............5...................
Organizationfor SecurityandCooperationin Europe:Kosovo Verification
Mission:Kosovo iVerz$cationMissionReports. 18-21and 24 Feb . 1999;
and.KVMHumanRights Reports. 7-20 Feb. 1999and
21Feb..6 March 1.999 .........................................................7
............Annex /Annexe1T ..........................................................
..........2.......................
UnitedNations High Commissionerfor Refugees.NewsRelease. 11March 1999 ...247
HautCommissariatdesNationsUniespour les réfugiésC . ommuniquéde presse.
11mars 1999 ..........................................................
..2......................
Annex/ Annexe 1U ............................................................
...........1..........................
Organizationfor Securityand Cooperationin Europe:KosovoVerification
Mission:Kosovo VerzjkationMission Reports.16March 1999 ..............2....
Annex /Annexe1V ............................................................
...........7..........................
Kosovo/Kosova:AsSeen.AsTold,Warsaw,OSCEOffice for Democratic
Institutionsand HumanRights,1999(extractslextraits) ..............................
Annex /Annexe1W .........................................................
............9.....................
Secretary-Generalof the UnitedNations.News Release.UNDoc .SGlSW6936.
22 March 1999 ...........................................................
..7.....................
Secrétairegénéraldes Nation Usnies.Communiquéde presse.
Doc .NU SGlSW6936. 22 mars 1999 ..................................................
Annex1Annexe1X ...........................................................
.....................................
NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization.NewsRelease(1999)040.23March 1999 .........03
Organisationdu Traitéde l'AtlantiqueNord. Communiqué depresse(1999)040.
23 mars 1999 ....;..........................................................
.5................
Annex/ Annexe1Y ...........................................................
............7.........................
Secretary-Generalof the UnitedNations.NewsRelease. UN Doc .SGlSW6952.
9 April 1999 ..........................................................
...........................
Secrétairegénérd alsNationsUnies.Communiqué depresse.
Doc .NU SGISW6952. 9 avril 1999 ...........................................1.........
Annex /Annexe12 ...........................................................
...................................
NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization.NewsReleaseM-NAC-1(99)51.
12Apnl 1999 ...........................................................
...5......................
Organisationdu Traitéde l'AtlantiqueNord, Communiquéde presse
M-NAC-1(99)51,12avril 1999 ...............................................9...........
Annex /Annexe1AA ..........................................................
...........3.....................
UnitedNations High CornrnissionerforRefugees.News Release.20 Apnl 1999 .....325
HautCommissariatdesNationsUniespour lesréfugiés. Communiqud éepresse.
20 avril 1999 ..........................................................
....27....................Annex/ Annexe 1BB.............................................................
..........2.....................
NorthAtlantic TreatyOr,ganization, NewsReleaseS-1(99)62,23 April 1999 ........331..
Organisationdu Traitéde:l'AtlantiqueNord,Communiquéde presse S-1(99)62,
23 avril 1999 ...........................................................
...3.....................
Annex/ Annexe 1CC ..........................................................
..........3.......................
Chairman's surnmaryof,thedeliberationson Kosovoatthe informa1meetingof
the Headsof Stateand Govemmentof the EuropeanUnion heldat
Bmssels on 14April 1999,in Letterdated 15April 1999fiom the
PermanentRepresentativeof Germanyto the UnitedNationsaddressed
to the Presidentofthe Security Council,UNDoc.SI19991429(1999) .........41
Résumé des débatsdu Prksidentau sujetduKosovolorsdelaréunion informelle
des chefsd'Étatet de gouvernementde l'Unioneuropéennequi s'esttenue
àBruxellesle 14(avril1999,dansune lettre datée du 15avril 1999,
adresséeauPrésident duConseil desécurité par le représentantde
l'Allemagne auprksde l'organisation desNations Unies,
Doc. NU SI19991429(1999) ................................................345.......
.............
Annex / Annexe1DD .........................................................
...........4................
Briefingto the Security Councilby Mrs.SadakoOgata,UnitedNations
High Comrnissio~ier forRefugees,5May 1999 ...............................5......
Annex/ Annexe 1EE ........................................................
...........357.........................
Statementby the Chairmanonthe conclusion of the meetingofthe G-8Foreign
Ministersheld atthe Petersberg Centreon 6 May 1999,in Letterdated
6 May 1999fiomthe Permanent Representative of Germany to theUnited
Nations addresseclto the Presidentofthe SecurityCouncil,
UN Doc. Sl1999l:S 16(1999) ................................................359........
............
Déclarationpubliép ear le Présidentde la réunion desministresdes affaires
étrangèresdu G-8qui s'esttenueau Centre de Petersberg,le 6mai 1999,
dans une lettre datéedu 6 mai 1999,adressée auPrésidentdu Conseilde
sécuritépar le représentantpermanentde l'Allemagneauprèsde
l'Organisationde!;NationsUnies,Doc.NU SI199915 16(1999) ................6...
Annex / Annexe 1FF ..........................................................
..........36....................
United NationsUnder-Secretary-Generalof HumanitarianAffairs,
Press Statement, 24 May 1999 ...............................................6...........
..
Annex / Annexe 1GG .........................................................
.........36..................
International CriminalTribunalfor the formerYugoslavia,NewsRelease
JLPIUl403-E, 27 May 1999 ................................................3........
.....Annex / Annexe 1HH .........................................................
........371...........................
Briefingto the SecurityCouncil byUnder-Secretary-GeneralSergio
VieiradeMelloon the UNInter-AgencyNeeds AssessmentMission
to the FederalRepublicofYugoslavia,2 June 1999 .........................37......
Annex / Annexe 111 ..........................................................
.........379.............................
Agreementontheprinciplesto movetowardsaresolutionofthecrisisin
Kosovo presentedto the leadership ofthe Federal Republicof Yugoslavia
by the PresidentofFinland,representingthe EuropeanUnion, and
the SpecialRepresentative of the President of thessianFederation,in
Letterdated7June 1999fkomthe Permanent Representative ofGermany
to the UnitedNations addressedto thePresidentof the SecurityCouncil,
UN Doc. SI19991649(1999) ..........................................................
.............
Accordsurlesprincipesvisant àtrouverune solution à la crisedu
Kosovo, quia été présenté auxresponsables de la République fédéraldee
Yougoslavieparle Président finlandais,représentant l'Unioneuropéenne,
et le représentant spécidluPrésidentde laFédération deRussie, dansune
lettre datéedu 7juin 1999,adresséeauPrésidentdu Conseilde sécurité par
lereprésentantpermanentde l'Allemagneauprès del'organisation des -
NationsUnies,Doc.NUSI19991649(1999) ................................385..................
Annex /Annexe 1JJ .........................................................
................................
Military-technicalagreementbetween the international securityforce(KFOR)
andthe GovernmentsoftheFederalRepublicsof Yugoslavia and the
Republicof Serbia,in Letterdated 15June 1999fiomthe Secreta~y-General
addressedto the Presidentofthe Security Council,
UN Doc. SI19991682(1999) ...............................................3...........
.....
Accordmilitaro-techniqueentrela Forceinternationaledesécuritéau Kosovo
(KFOR)etles Gouvemmentsde laRépubliquefédéraledY e ougoslavieet
de la Républiquede Serbie, dansunelettre datéedu 15juin 1999,adressée
auPrésidentdu Conseil desécurité parle Secrétairegénéral,
Doc.NU SI19991682(1999) ...............................................399.......
..............
Annex /Annexe 1KK ........................................................
........4.........................
Security CouncilResolution1244, UN SCOR,54thYear,
UN Doc. SIRES11244(1999) ..........................................................
....
Résolution duConseilde sécurité 1244,Doc.off. CSNU, 54'année,
Doc.NU SIRES11244(1999) ..............................................4..........
....Annex /Annexe ILL .............................................................
.........2.........................
Reportof the Secretary-Generalpursuantto paragraph 10 of Security
CouncilResolution 1244(1999), UN Doc. SI19991672(1999) ................429
Rapportprésenté par le Secrétairegénére al applicationduparagraphe 10 de la
résolution 1244(1999) du Conseil desécurité,
Doc.NU SI19991672 (1999) ......................................... ...... 435
Annex /Annexe 1MM ......................................................................4.......................
UnitedNationsHigh Co~nmissioner forRefugees,NewsRelease, 13 June 1999 ......443
Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour lesréfugiés, Communiqué p dreesse,
13juin 1999 ...................................................................4.5........
Annex /Annexe INN ..........................................................
...........4..................
AgreedPointsonRussianParticipationin KFOR,Helsinki,l8June 1999 .............449
Annex1Annexe 100 ........................................................................5...........
Undertakingof demilitarisationandtransformation bythe UCK, 20 June 1999 .......459
Annex /Annexe 1PP ..................................................................................
Report of the Secretary-Generalon the United NationsInterimAdministration
MissioninKosovo,UNDoc. SI1 9991779 (1999) ............................ 467
Rapport du Secrétairegénéraslurla Missiond'administration intérimaird ees
NationsUnies au Kosovo, Doc.NU SI19991779(1999) ..........................3....
VOLUMEII
Annex /Annexe2 ..............................................................................................
ConventiononthePreventionand Punishment of the CrimeofGenocide,
9 Dec. 1948, Can.T.S. 1949127 ...............................................5........
Conventionpourlapréventionet la répressionducrimedegénocide,
9 décembre 1948, R.T.Can. 1949 no 27 .......................................5.23.
Annex /Annexe3 ............................................................
............5.3.........................
Protocol Additionalto the GenevaConventionsof 12August1949,and
relatingto theProtectionof VictimsofInternationalAnned Conflict,
8 June 1977,1125 U.N.T.S. 3 (extracts) ......................................5.........
Protocole additionnelauxconventionsde Genèvedu 12août 1949,et relatif
à laprotection des victimesdes conjZitsinternationauxarmés, 8 juin 1977,
1125 R.T.N.U. 3 ((extraits....................................................5..9.....
........Annex / Annexe4 .......................................................
...............8.....................
Security CouncilResolution757. UN SCOR.47" Year.
UN Doc .SIRES1757(1992) ...................................................5.....
.....
Résolution du Conseilde sécurité 757. Doc .off.CSNU.47kée.
Doc .NU SIRES1757(1992) ..................................................9......
......
Annex1Annexe5 ..........................................................
............599.............................
SecurityCouncilResolution821. UNSCOR.47thYear.
UN Doc .SIRES1821(1993) .........................................................
......
Résolution du Conseilde sécurité 821. Doc .off.47'année.
Doc .NU SIRES1821(1993) ..................................................0.......
......
Annex / Annexe 6 ..........................................................
.............0.........................
GeneralAssemblyResolution471229, UN GAOR,47thSess.,
UN Doc .AIRES1471229 (1993) ...............................................7.........
Résolutionde l'Assembléegénérale 47/229,Doc .OE AG NU, 47"sess.,
Doc.NU AIRES1471229 (1993) ...............................................9..........
Annex/ Annexe7 .........................................................
............611.............................
CAST-DA. LegalEflectsof UnitedNationsResolutions.trans .AlbaAmoia.
NewYork. ColumbiaUniversityPress. 1969(extractslextraits) .................3..
Annex / Annexe8 .........................................................
..............9........................
Arbitration Commissionof the PeaceConferenceon Yugoslavia, OpinionNo . 8
of4 July 1992.(1993)92I.L.R. 199 .....................................................
Commissiond'arbitragede la Conférence depaix surlaYougoslavie.avis no8
du 4juillet 1992. R.G.D.I.P..tomeXCVII. 1993.vol .2. p.588 .................7..
Annex/ Annexe 9 ..........................................................
............3.......................
Arbitration Commissionof the PeaceConferenceon Yugoslavia. OpinionNo .9
of4 July 1992.(1993)92I.L.R.203 ..........................................3..........
Commissiond'arbitragede la Conférence de paix sur la Yougoslavie.avisno9
du4juillet 1992. R.G.D.I.P..tome XCVII. 1993.vol .2. p.591 ................3..
Annex1Annexe 10 ........................................................
..............1.....................
Arbitration Commissionof the PeaceConferenceon Yugoslavia.OpinionNo. 10
of4 July 1992.(1993)92I.L.R.206 ..........................................3............
Commissiond'arbitragede la Conférence depaix surleYougoslavie.avis no10
du4juillet 1992. R.G.D.I.P..tomeXCVII. 1993.vol . 2. .594 ..................Annex / Annexe 11 ..........................................................
...........65........................
UN GAOR.47fiSess.,7IhPlen .Mtg.,UNDoc .Al47lPV.7(1992)
[provisional](extxacts)......................................................65.....
..............
Doc .off.AGNU. 47'sess.,7"séanceplénière D.oc.NUAl47PV.7 (1992)
[provisoire](extraits)........................................................6
...............
Annex / Annexe 12 ..........................................................
............7.........................
SecurityCouncilResolution9. UN SCOR. 1"Year.UNDoc .SiRESl9(1946) .......675.
Résolutiondu Conseilde:sécurité 9. Doc .off. CSNU. 1'"année.
Doc.NU S/RES/9(1946) ...................................................67...
.........
Annex /Annexe 13 ..........................................................
...........7.......................
Declarationof Acceptance by Canada ofthe CompulsoryJurisdictionofthe
InternationalCourtof Justice. 10May 1994 .................................6........
Déclaration d'acceptatioiipar le Canadade lajuridiction obligatoirede la
Courinternationalede Justice.10mai 1994 .................................68.........
Annex / Annexe 14 ..........................................................
............8.......................
ROSENNE.TheLaw andPractice oftheInternationalCourt.1920.1996.
Vol .II. The Hague.Martinus Nijhoff.3rdEd.. 1997(extractslextraits) .........85
Annex / Annexe 15 ..........................................................
............1.......................
Letterdated24 March 1999fiom theChargéd'affairesa.i.of the Permanent
Missionof Yugoslavia to the UnitedNations addressedto thePresident
of the SecurityCouncil.UNDoc .SI19991322(1999) .........................1......
Lettre datéedu24mars 1999. adressée auPrésident du Conseilde sécurité par le
chargéd'affaires :parintérim dela Mission permanentede laYougoslavie
auprèsde l'OrganisationdesNationsUnies.Doc .NU SI19991322(1999) .....717
Annex / Annexe 16 ........................................................
.............71.....................
Letterdated24 March 1999fi-omtheChargéd'affairesa.i.of thePermanent
Missionof Yugoslavia to the UnitedNations addressedto the President of
theSecurityCouricil.UNDoc . SI19991327(1999) ............................2.......
Lettre datéedu 24 mars 1999. adressée au Présidentdu Conseil desécuritépal re
chargéd'affaires parintérimde la Missionpermanente delaYougoslavie
auprèsde l'organisation desNationsUnies. Doc.NU SI19991327(1999) .....723
Annex / Annexe 17 .............................................................
........72............................
Statementby Mr .Mitic.counselforthe FederalRepublicofYugoslavia.before
the InternationalCourt ofJustice. CR 99/14.10May 1999(extracts) ..........27
Déclarationfaitepar M . Mitic. conseilde la Républiquefédérald eeYougoslavie.
devantla Cour in1:emationaledeJustice.CR 99114.10mai 1999(extraits) ....743Annex/ Annexe18 .............................................................
..............1.......................
ViennaConventionon theLaw ofTreaties,23 May 1969,
Can.T.S. 1980137(extracts) .....................................................3.......
...
Conventionde Viennesur leDroit destraités,23mai 1969,
R.T. Can. 1980 no37 (extraits) ..................................................53........
..
Annex1Annexe19 .............................................................
..............9......................
Agreement bythe Governmentof the United Kingdomof GreatBritain
andNorthernIreland,the Governmentofthe UnitedStatesofAmerica, the
Provisional GovernmentoftheFrench Republicand the Governmentof the
Unionof Soviet SocialistRepublicsfor theProsecution and Punishment of
theMajor WarCriminalsof theEuropeanAxis, 8Aug. 1945,
82U.N.T.S. 280 ..............................................................
.61..................
Accord entre le Gouvernementprovisoirede laRépublique française et les
Gouvernementsdes Etats-Unisd'Amérique d,u Royaume-Unide
Grande-Bretagneet de 1'IrlandeduNord,etde l'Uniondes républiques
socialistes soviétiques concernantlapoursuite et le châtimentdesgrands
criminels deguerre despuissances européenned se l'axe,
8 août 1945,82R.T.N.U. 280 ...................................................61.........
..
Annex1Annexe20 ..............................................................
............8.........................
Drap Conventionon the Crimeof Genocide,UN ESCOR, 1947,
UN Doc. El447, ascitedin SCHABAS, TheLaw of Genocide,Cambridge
UniversityPress[forthcoming, draftof 6May 19991(extractslextraits) ........787
Annex/ Annexe21 ........................... . .. . .. . .. . . . . . ............791
Prosecutor v.Kambanda(Caseno. ICTR-97-23-S),Judgment andSentence,
4 Sept. 1998(extracts) ..........................................................3..
.............
Le Procureur c.Kambanda(Affaire noICTR-97-23-S),jugement portant
condamnation,4 septembre1998(extraits) ......................................97..........
Annex /Annexe22 .............................................................
..............9.....................
Prosecutor v. Serashugo (Caseno. ICTR-98-39-S),Sentence,
5 Feb. 1999(extracts) ...........................................................01
..............
Le Procureurc.Serashugo(Affaire noICTR-98-30-S),sentence,
5 février1999(extraits) ........................................................8.5.
.........
Annex / Annexe23 .............................................................
..............9.....................
Prosecutorv. Musema(Caseno. ICTR-96-13-T),JudgrnentandSentence,
27 Jan.2000(extracts) ........................... ........ .. . ........... .811
Le Procureurc.Musema(AffairenoICTR-96-13-T),jugement portant
condamnation,27janvier2000(extraits) ......................................81...Annex / Annexe24 ............................'...................................................2..........
Drap Codeof CrimesAgainst the PeaceandSecuriv ofMankind,inReport
of theInternationalLaw Commissionon theworkof itsforty-eighth session
(6May - 26July 1996)(UNDoc.Al51/10)in Yearbookof theInternational .
Law Commission1996,Vol.II (Part2) (extracts) .........................................
Projet de Codedescrimescontrelapaix etla sécurité de 1'humanitéd ,ans
Rapport de la Commissiondu droit international à l'Assembléegénérale
sur les travauxde sa quarantième-huitièmesession (6mai -26juillet 1996)
(Doc.NU A/51/10)dansAnnuaire de laCommissiondu droitinternational
1996,vol.II (deuxièmepartie)(extraits) ..........................................3........
Annex / Annexe 25 .................................................................
.............4.........................
Report of theSecretary-Generalpursuant toparagraph2 of SecurityCouncil
Resolution808 (1'993),UN SCOR,48~Year,
UN Doc. SI25704(1993)(extracts) ................................................4.9.........
Rapport du Secrétairegénéré altabliconformémena t uparagraphe 2 de la
résolution808 (1993)du ConseildesécuritéD , oc. off. CSNU,48"année,
Doc. NU SI25704(1993)(extraits) ................................................5.......
Annex / Annexe 26 .......................................... . ....... . ............ ..... . 861
Secuity CouncilResolution955,UN SCOR,49~Year,
UNDoc. S/RES/!255(1994)andAnnex(extracts) ...............................6......
Résolutiondu Conseilde: sécurité 955,Doc.off.CSNU, 49"année,
Doc.NU S/RES/'955(1994e )t annexe(extraits) .........................................
Annex / Annexe27 ...............................................................................87..........
Rome Statute of theInternationalCriminalCourt,UNDoc.A/CONF.183/9
(1998) (extracts) .............................................................. .. 873
Statut de Romede laCozrrpénale internationale,Doc.NU AlCONF.183/9
(1998) (extraits) ................................................ .................877
Annex / Annexe28 ................................................................
..............8......................
Prosecutorv. Akayesu(CaseNo.ICTR-96-4-T), Judgment,
2 Sept. 1998(extracts) ....................................................................
Le Procureurc.Akayesu (AffairenoICTR-96-4-T),jugement, .
2 septembre1998;(extraits) .......................................................913
Annex / Annexe 29 ................................................................................4.......
Prosecutor v.Jelisic,(ICTYCase No.IT-95-10),Judgment and Sentence,
14Dec. 1999(extracts) .............................................................4............
Le Procureurc.Jelisic, (ICTYAffairenoIT-95-10),jugement portant
condamnation,14décembre 1999 (extraits) ......................................955Annex /Annexe30 ......................................................
...........969............................
A.-G.Israel v.AdolfEichmann,(1968)36I.L.R. 5 (extractslextraits)..........................
Annex /Annexe31 ......................................................
...........981............................
Guatemala: MemoryofSilence,Reportofthe Commission for Historical
Clarification,ConclusionsandRecommendations
(~http://hrdata.aaas.org/ceh~r1 e.htmr>/)enxrlctslh~taois)c..983
Annex/Annexe 32 .......................................................
...........8......................
SCWAS, TheLawof Genocide,CambridgeUniversityPress [forthcoming,
draft of6 May 19991(extractslextraits....................................9............
Annex /Annexe33 ........................................................
.........0......................
United NationsCommissionof Expertsonviolationsofinternational
humanitarianlawin the formerYugoslavia,establishedpursuantto
SecurityCouncilResolution780(1992),as citedin SCHABAS,
TheLawof Genocide,CambridgeUniversityPress[forthcoming,
draft of6May 19991(extractslextraits....................................0..........
Annex1Annexe34 .........................................................
.......1013.............................
Discussion paper proposed bythe Co-ordinator: Article6: Thecrime
ofgenocide, UN Doc.PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT1 .,as annexedin
Preparatory CommissionfortheInternationalCriminalCourt, 1"Sess.,
UN Doc.PCNICC/1999/L.3Rev.l(1999) (extracts) .......................1........
Documentdesynthèse proposépar le Coordonnateur : Article6: Crimesde
génocide, Doc.NUPCNICCII999tWGECRT.1,annexéauRapport
de laCommissionpréparatoiredela Courpénale internationalesur
sapremièresession, Doc.NU PCNICC/l999/L.3BRev .(1999) (extraits)...1019
Annex1Annexe35 .........................................................
.......10..........................
SHAW,"GenocideandInternationalLaw"in DINSTEIN, ed.,International
Lawat a Timeof Perplexity(EssaysinHonourofShabtaiRosenne),
Dordrecht,MartinusNijhoff, 1989(extractslextraits)......................10..5...
Annex /Annexe36 .......................................................
.........10..7...................
Commissionon HumanRights,Revisedand updatedreport onthequestion
ofthepreventionandpunishmentofthecrimeofgenocide by
Mr.B. Wlitaker, UN ESCOR, 1985, UN Doc.EICN.4/Sub.2/1985/66
andCorr.1(extracts) ....................................................0.
.............
Commissiondes droitsde l'homme,Versionrévisée etmise à jour de 1'Etude
sur la question delapréventionet de la répresssiondu crimedegénocide
établiepar M. B. Whitaker,Doc.off.CESNU, 1985,
Doc. NU E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6et corr. 1(extraits)........................10......Annex / Annexe37 ............................................. ......... . ...... ..... . 1043
Drap articles on State re,sponsibili~,inReport of the InternationalLaw
Commissionon the work of its thirtiethsession, 8 May - 28July 1978
(UNDoc. Al331liDi )n Yearbookof theInternationalLaw
Commission 1978,Vol.II,Part 2 (extracts) .....................................1..4.......
Projet d'articles sur la responsabilitédes États, dansRapport de la Commission
du droit internationalsur les travauxdesa trentièmesession, 8 mai -
28juillet 1978 (Dloc.NU Al3311 0)dansAnnuaire de la Commission
du droit international1978, vol. II,deuxièmepartie(extraits) .. ...............1053
Annex / Annexe38 ............................................. . ........... .. . .. . 1061
InternationalLaw Commission, SecondReport onStateResponsibility,
UNGAOR,54thSess.,UNDoc.AlCN.41498(1999)(byMr. James
Crawford, Specia'lRapporteur)(extracts) .......................................1063
Commissiondu droit inte:mational,Deuxièmerapportsur la responsabilité
desÉtats, Doc.ofI:AG NU, 54esess.,Doc.NU AlCN.41498(1999)
bar M. JamesCri%wford R,apporteurspécial)(extraits) ........................1..7...
Annex / Annexe39 ..............................................................................1079
Draft articles on State re.sponsibiiityinReport of the InternationalLaw
Commissionon the work of itsforty-eighth session (6May -26July 1996)
(UNDoc.Al51/10)in Yearbookof theInternationalLaw
Commission1996,Vol.II (Part2) (extracts) ......................................081
Projet d'articlessur la responsabilitédesÉtats, dansRapport de la
Commissiondu droitinternationalsur les travauxde sa quarante-huitième
session (6mai - 26juillet 1996)(Doc.NU A/51/10)dansAnnuaire
de la Commissiondudroit international1996, vol.II, deuxième
partie (extraits) ...................................................................1................
Annex / Annexe40 ................. ....................................................... . . 1093
ROSENNE, TheLaw andPractice of theInternational Court, 1920-1996,
Vol.III,TheHague,MartinusNijhoff,3d Ed., 1997(extractslextraits) .......1095
Preliminary Objections of Canada