INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION
(Article 63 of the Statute)
SUBMITTED BY FINLAND
on?L September 2022
ALLEGATIONS OF GENOCIDE UNDER THE CONVENTION ON
THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF
GENOCIDE
(UKRAINE v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION)
F'INLAND'S DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION UNDER ARTICLE 63 OF'THE STATUTE
OF'THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
To the Registrar, Intemational Court of Justice, the undersigned being duly authorizedby the Govemment
of Finland:
l. I have the honour to submit to the Court a Declaration of Intervention pursuant to article 63(2) of the
Statute of the Court in the case conceminglllegatíons of Genocide under the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ulvaine v. Russian Federation).
2. Article 82(2) of the Rules of Court provides that a State that desires to avail itself of the right of
intervention conferred upon it by article 63 of the Statute shall file a declaration that specifies the name of
an agent, the case and the convention to which the declaration relates and shall contain:
(a) particulars of the basis on which the declarant State considers itself a party to the convention;
(b) identification of the particular provisions of the convention the construction of which it considers
to be in question;
(c) a statement of the construction of those provisions for which it contends;
(d) a list of documents in support, which documents shall be attached.
3. This Declaration addresses each of these requirements below, following some preliminary observations
on the legal proceedings so far.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS
4. On26 February 2022,the Government of Ukraine instituted proceedings against the Russian
Federation under article D( of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (the "Genocide Convention") in accordance with articles 36(l) and 40 of the Statute of the
Court. Together with the Application, Ukraine submitted a Request for the indication of provisional
measures in accordance with article 4l of the Statute of the Court.
5. Ukaine contends (in paragraphs2-12 of its Application) that there is a dispute between Ukraine and
the Russian Federation relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Genocide
Convention.
L
6. Ukaine fuither states (in paragraph 2) that:
"...the Russian Federation has falsely claimed that acts of genocide have occurred in the Luhansk
and Donetsk oblasts of Ukraine, and on that basis recognized the so-called "Donetsk People's
Republic" and "Luhansk People's Republic," and then declared and implemented a "special
military operation" against Ukaine with the express purpose of preventing and punishing
purported acts of genocide..."
and (in paragraph 28) that:
"Russia's actions erode the core obligation of Article I of the Convention, undermine its object
and purpose, and diminish the solemn nature of the Contracting Parties' pledge to prevent and
punish genocide."
7. On7 March 2022, a hearing, in which Russia did not participate, was held on the Request for the
indication of provisional measures. Russia, however, fumished the Court with a document in which it
contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case. The document also stated that the CouÉ
should refrain from indicating provisional measures and remove the case from the list.
8. On 16 March 2022,the Court ordered that:
(1) The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced
on 24 February 2022inthe tenitory of Ukraine;
(2) The Russian Federation shall ensure that any military or irregular armed units which may be
directed or supported by it, as well as any orgaruzations and persons which may be subject to its
control or direction, take no steps in furtherance of the military operations referred to in point (l)
above; and
(3) Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before
the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.
9. On 30 March 2022, as contemplated in article 63(1) of the Statute of the Court, the Registrar duly
notified Finland as a party to the Genocide Convention that by Ukraine's Application, the Genocide
Convention "is invoked both as a basis for the Court's jurisdiction and the substantive basis of
[Ukaine's] claims on the merits". The registrar also noted that:
"Ukraine seeks to found the Court's jurisdiction on the compromissory clause contained in
Article IX of the Genocide Convention, asks the Court to declare that it has not committed a
genocide as defined in Articles II and III of the Convention, and raises questions concerning the
scope of the duty to prevent and punish genocide under Article I of the Convention. It therefore
appears that the construction of [the Genocide Convention] will be in question in this case"r
10. Finland recalls that the rights and obligations contained in the Genocide Convention are of an erga
omnes partes character.In its 1951 Advisory Opinion, the Court stated that: "In such a convention the
contracting States do not have any interests of their own; they merely have, one and all, a common
2
I Letter from the Registrar of the Court of 30 March 2022 - see Annex I
interest, namely, the accomplishment of those high purposes which are the raison d'être of the
convention."2 The Court has later "...affrrmed that such a common interest implies that the obligations in
question are owed by any State party to all the other States parties to the relevant convention; they are
obligations erga ornnes partes, inthe sense that each State party has an interest in compliance with them
in any given case." Moreover, the prohibition on genocide is a peremptory norm of general international
law (jus cogens).3
1 1. As a State Party, Finland therefore has a direct interest in the proper interpretation, application and
fulfilment of the obligations contained in the Genocide Convention. For this reason, Finland has decided
to avail itself of the right to intervene as a non-party under article 63(2) of the Statute of the Court.
12.TheCourt has recognized that article 63 confers a "right" of interventiona. The Court has also
underlined that such an intervention "is limited to submitting observations on the construction of the
convention in question and does not allow the intervenor, which does not become a party to the
proceedings, to deal with any other aspect of the case before the Court; and whereas such intervention
cannot affect the equality of the Parties to the dispute".s
13. The intervention of Finland pertains to the issues relating to the construction of the Genocide
Convention that arise in the context of the dispute. 6 Finland considers that at least articles I, VIII and IX
of the Convention are relevant to this dispute. Finland presents its interpretation of these articles in
accordance with the customary rules of interpretation as reflected in article 3l of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties.
14. Article 63 of the Statute of the Court makes no distinction between jurisdictional issues and issues of
substance. As stated by Judge Schwebel, "intervention in the jurisdictional phase of a proceeding is
within the scope of rights with which States are endowed by the terms of Article 63"7 . Accordingly,
2 Resertations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 195I,p.23.
3 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegrol, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p.7112, para. 16I; Armed Activities on
the Territory of the Congo (New Apptication: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congov. Rwanda), Jurisdiction
and Admissibility, Judgment, LC.J. Reports 2006, p. 3l, para. 64.
oHoyodelaToneCase,JudgmentofJunel3, l95l: I.C.J.Reportsl95l,p.76;ContinentalShelfQunisia/Libyan
Árab Jamahiriya), Application to Intervene, Judgment, LC.J. Reports 1981, p. 13,para'21'
s lfhahng in the Antarctic (Áustralia v. Japan), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6 February
2013,|.CJ. Reports 2013,p.9, para. 18.
6 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambiav.
Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, lCJ,22 July 2022, p. 31, para. 87: "The Court will have recourse to
the rules of customary international law on trealy interpretation as reflected in Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna
Convention on the Low of Treaties of 23 Mry 1969"; see also Application of the International Convention on the
Elimination of Áll Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v, (Jnited Arab Emirates), Preliminary Objeotions,
Judgment, LC.J. Reports 2021, p. 28, para.75 with further references.
7 See Opinion of Judge Schwebel in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.
(Jnited States of America), Declaration of Intervention of El Salvador, Order of 4 October 1984, I.C.J' Reports 1984,
p.235-236.
3
interventions on both aspects are alloweds, and the words "as soon as possible" in article 82 of the Rules
of Court confirm that the filing of an article 63 declaration is admissible at this stage of the proceedings.
In compliance with that requirement, this Declaration has been submitted at the earliest date feasible for
Finland.
15. Finland does not seek to become aparty to the proceedings and accepts that the construction of the
Genocide Convention given by the judgment in this case will be equally binding upon it.
BASIS ON WHICH FINLAND IS PARTY TO THE COI\WENTION
16. Finland acceded to the Convention and deposited its instrument of accession in accordance with
article XI (4) of the Convention on 18 December 1969.
PROVTSTONS OF THE COTWENTTON rN QUESTION rN THE CASE
17. The issues raised in the dispute turn on the proper construction of articles I, VIII and IX of the
Genocide Convention. This intervention focuses on the said articles inasmuch as they pertain to the
jurisdiction of the Court. At the same time, Finland reserves the right to supplement this Declaration and
the scope of its observations to the extent that any additional matters regarding the construction of any of
the provisions of the Genocide Convention arise, or as Finland becomes aware of them upon receipt,
pursuant to article 86(1) of the Rules of Court, of the pleadings and documents annexed to them.
STATEMENT ON THE CONSTRUCTION OX'THE PROVISIONS
Article I
18. Ukraine contends that there is a dispute between it and the Russian Federation concerning "the
question whether, as a consequence ofthe Russian Federation's unilateral assertion that genocide is
occurring, the Russian Federation has a lawful basis to take military action in and against Ukraine to
prevent and punish genocide pursuant to Article I of the Genocide Convention."e AÍicle I of the
Genocide Convention provides:
8IvIN Shaw (ed), Rosenne's Law and Practice of the Intemational Court 1920-2015 (sthed, Vol III, Brill Nijhotr
2016),p.1533; H. Thirlway, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Fifty Years of
Jurisprudence (Vol I, OUP 2013), p. l03l; A. Miron/C. Chinkin, "Article 63" in: Zimmermann/Tams/Oellers-
Frahm,/Tomuschat (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (3rd ed. OUP 2019), p.
1763, note 46.
e Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on ïhe Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March 2022 para.3l.
4
"The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of
war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish."
19. The Court has emphasized that in discharging their obligation to prevent genocide, the Contracting
Parties must act within the limits permitted by international law.r0 Paramount among the obligations
limiting the freedom of action are the obligation of States to refrain in their intemational relations from
the threat or use offorce against the territorial integrity or political independence ofany State, and the
obligation to settle their disputes peacefully in such a manner that international peace and security, and
justice, are not endangered, both obligations based on the Charter of the United Nations. In any event, any
State Party contemplating unilateral measures in fulfilment of its obligations under article I must bear in
mind that certain acts prohibited by peremptory nonns of general internationallaw (ius cogens\, such as
aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity, may never be justified on the basis of article Lrr
20. Moreover, the obligation under article I must be performed in good faith (article 26 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties). As the Court has observed, the principle of good faith "obliges the
Parties to apply [a treaty] in a reasonable way and in such a manner that its purpose can be realized"r2.
2 1 . The correct reading of the undertaking to prevent genocide takes also into account the final recital in
the preamble of the Convention, which emphasizes the need for intemational co-operation. The United
Nations Human Rights Council has called upon all States, "in order to deter future occurrences of
genocide, to cooperate, including through the United Nations system, in strengthening appropriate
collaboration between existing mechanisms that contribute to the early detection and prevention of
massive, serious and systematic violations of human rights that, if not halted, could lead to genocide".r3
22.The obligation to prevent further implies that prior to taking any action pursuant to article I, a State
Party must assess whether a genocide or a serious risk of genocide is indeed present. A State purporting to
act to prevent genocide is under a due diligence obligation to gather evidence ofthe situation from
independent sources, such as independent investigations conducted under the auspices ofthe United
Nations.
23.The obligation to punish in article I of the Convention is limited to punitive measures of a criminal
law character directed against individuals. This is confirmed by articles IV-VI of the Convention. Thus,
the obligation to punish genocide cannot be interpreted as allowing any other kinds of measures, in
particular forcible or military measures to "punish" a State or a people.
to Case Conceming Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montene,gro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 , p. 221, para. 430; Állegations
of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian
Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March 2022, para. 57 .
I I The Court has recently stated that ". . . it is doubtful that the Convention, in light of its obj eot and purpose,
authorizes a Contracting PaÉy's unilateral use offorce in the territory ofanother State for the purpose ofpreventing
or punishing an alleged genocide. Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide (Ulvaine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March 2022,para 59'
t2 Gabëikovo-Nagtmaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997,p.79,para. 142.
13 UN Human Rights Council, Resolution 43129: Prevenlion of Genocide (29 June 2020), UN Doc
A/I{RC/RES/ 43 /29, para. I l.
5
24.Inlight of the above, Finland concludes that article I of the Genocide Convention does not provide a
legal basis for unilateral use of force in contravention to the Charter of the United Nations as a means to
prevent or punish genocide.
Article WII
25. Finland recalls that the prevention and suppression of genocide is a matter that concems the
intemational community as a whole.
26. Finland contends that the proper construction of article I of the Genocide Convention requires the said
provision to be read in its context, including article VIII, which authorizes States Parties to "call upon
competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as
they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide". Article VIII thus gives
further support to the reading of article I presented above, excluding unilateral measures in furtherance of
a State Party's national interest.
Article D(
27. Ukraine seeks to seize the Court on the basis of article 36(l) of the Statute of the Court and article D(
of the Genocide Convention, which provides:
"Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment
of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or
for any of the other acts enumerated in Article III, shall be submitted to the Intemational Court of
Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute."
28. Finland recalls that the term "dispute" is well-established in intemational law. The Court has
characterizpd dispute as 'oa disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests"
between parties.ra In order for a dispute to exist, "[i]t must be shown that the claim of one party is
positively opposed by the other",l5 The two sides must'ohold clearly opposite views concerning the
question of the performance or non-performance of certain international obligations".16 Moreover, "in
14 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment No.2, 1924, P.C.LJ., Series A, No. 2, p. I l
t5 South l(est Africa (Ethiopia v. South 4frica; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment I.C.J.
Reports 1962,p.328.
t6 Ápplication of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v.
United Arab Emirates), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 July 201 8, LC.J. Reports 201 8, p. 414, para. 18; Alleged
Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaraguav. Colombia), Preliminary
Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2016 (l), p.26, para. 50, ciling Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria,
Hungary and Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1950,p.74.
6
case the respondent has failed to reply to the applicant's claims, it may be infened from this silence, in
certain circumstances, that it rejects those claims and that, therefore, a dispute exists"rT.
29.The ordinary meaning of article D( suggests that there is no need to establish genocidal acts as a basis
to affrrm the Court's jurisdiction. Rather, the Court has jurisdiction over the question whether genocidal
acts have been or are being committed or not.r8 For this reason, the Court also has jurisdiction ratione
materiae to declare the absence of genocide and the violation of a good faith performance of the
Convention. In particular, the jurisdiction of the Court extends to disputes conceming the unilateral use of
military force for the stated purpose of preventing and punishing alleged genocidere.
30. The context ofthe phrase "relating to the responsibility ofa State for genocide or for any ofthe other
acts enumerated in article III" further confirms this reading. In particular, the word "including" in the
intermediate sentence indicates a broader scope of article D( of the Convention when compared to a
standard compromissory clause20. Disputes relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any
of the other acts enumerated in article III are therefore only one type of disputes covered by article IX,
which are "included" in the wider phrase of disputes "relating to the interpretation, application and
fulfilment" of the Convention2r.
3 I . Article D( expressly provides for ICJ jurisdiction "at the request of any of the parties to the dispute"
(emphasis added). This wording suggests that a State accused of committing genocide has the same right
to submit the dispute to the Court as the State making the accusation. In particular, such an accused State
may seek a "negative" declaration from the Court that the allegations from another State that it was
responsible for genocide are without legal and factual foundation.
32. Finally, the object and purpose of the Convention give further support to the wide interpretation of
article IX. The Court has noted that "[a]ll the States parties to the Genocide Convention [thus] have a
common interest to ensure the prevention, suppression and punishment of genocide, by committing
themselves to fulfilling the obligations contained in the Convention"2z. In its 1951 Advisory Opinion, the
Court held23:
t7 Ápplication of the Convention on the Prevention qnd Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (fhe Gambiav.
My anm ar), Preliminary Obj ections, Judgment, ICJ, 22 July 2022, p. 27, para' 7 l.
ts Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ulvaine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measureso Order of 16 March 2022,p. 10, para. 43; Application of the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Provisional
Measures, Orderof 23 January 2020,1.C.J. Reports 2020,p.14,para.30.
te Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Cime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March 2022,p. ll,para' 45.
20 Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montene,gro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p.75, para. 169.
2r See also the Written Observations of The Gambia on the Preliminary Objections raised by Myanmar, 20 April
2021, p. 28--29, para. 3.22 ("The inclusion of disputes "relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide" among
those that can be brought before the Court unmistakably means that responsibility for genocide can be the object of a
dispute brought before the Court by any oontracting party").
22 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambiav.
Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ,22 July 2022,p' 36,para' 107.
23 Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion: I'C'J. Reports l95l,p'23.
7
"The Convention was manifestly adopted for a purely humanitarian and civilizing purpose. It is
indeed difïicult to imagine a convention that might have this dual character to a greater degree,
since its object on the one hand is to safeguard the very existence ofcertain human groups and on
the other to confirm and endorse the most elementary principles of morality. ln such a convention
the contracting States do not have any interests of their own; they merely have, one and all, a
common interest, namely, the accomplishment of those high purposes which are the raison d'être
of the convention. Consequently, in a convention of this type one cannot speak of individual
advantages or disadvantages to States, or ofthe maintenance ofaperfect contractual balance
between rights and duties. The high ideals which inspired the Convention provide, by virtue of
the common will of the parties, the foundation and measure of all its provisions."
33. In light of the above, Finland contends that article D( of the Genocide Convention provides a basis for
the Court's jurisdiction in a dispute concerning false claims of genocide when they amount to abusive
invoking of article I of the Convention.
DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE DECLARATION
34. The following is a list of the documents in support of this Declaration, which are attached hereto:
(a) Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to the Ambassador of Finland to the
Kingdom of the Netherlands on 30 March 2022. (AmexI)
(b) Instrument of accession by the Govemment of Finland to the Genocide Convention. (Annex II)
SUMMARY OF FINLAND'S CONSTRUCTION OF'THE GENOCIDE COI\WENTION
35. Finland contends, firstly, that article I of the Genocide Convention does not provide a legal basis for
unilateral use of force in contravention to the United Nations Charter as a means to prevent or punish
genocide. Secondly, Finland contends that article IX of the Genocide Convention is a broad jurisdictional
clause, including the 'fulfilment' of obligations under that Convention, and does as such confer the Court
jurisdiction to declare the absence ofgenocide.
8
CONCLUSION
36. On the basis of the information set out above, Finland avails itself of the right confened upon it by
article 63(2) of the Statute to intervene as a non-party in the proceedings brought by Ukraine against the
Russian Federation in this case.
37.The Govemment of Finland has appointed Kaija Suvanto, Director-General of the Legal Service of
the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, as Agent for the purposes of this Declaration, and Tarja Lángstróm,
Deputy Director of the Unit for Public International Law, as Co-Agent. The Registrar of the Court is
kindly requested to channel all communication through them at the following address:
Embassy of Finland
Fluwelen Burgwal 58
25II CJ TI{E HAGUE
The Netherlands.
Yours sincerely,
Kaija Suvanto
AGENT OF FTNLAND
íU
Tarja Lángstróm
CO-AGENT OF FINLAND
9
ANNEX I
LETTER FROM TI{E REGISTRAR OF TT{E INTERNATIONAL COURT OF
JUSTICE TO THE STATES PARTIES TO THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION
COUR IN'Í[NÀ]'IONALI
DÈ
'U51tCÈ
INÍEI1NATIONAL COURT
OF
'USTICE
1564t3 30 March 2022
I have the horrour to refcr to rny letter (No. 156253) dated 2 March2022 informing your
(;overnment that, on 2ó February 2O22,Llkraine Íiled in thc Registry ofthe Court an Application
instiluting proceedings against the Republic of the Russian FederaÍion in lhe case concerning
Allegations ot'Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment ofthe Crime of
Cenogide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). A copy ofthe Application was appcnded to that lettcr.
Thc tcxt of the Application is also available on the websile olihe Court (www.ici-cii.org).
Àrticle 63, 1:aragraph l, ofthe Statute ofthe Court provides that:
[w]henever thc construction ofs convention to which States other than those concemed
in the case are parties is in question, thc Rcgistrar shall notif all suoh States forthwith".
Iiuílier, under Article 43, paragraph l, olthe Rules ofCourt:
"Wlrenever the constructiorr of a corrvention to which States other than those
concerned in the casc are pal'ties rnay be in question within the meaning of Article 63,
paragraph l,oftheStatute,llreCotutshallconsiderwhatdirectionsshallbegiventothe
Registrar in thc matter."
On the instructions of the Coufi, given in accordance with the said provision of the Rules oí'
Court, I have the honour to notify your GovernmenÍ ofthe following,
In the above-mentioned Application, thc l94E Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
oflhe Crinre ofGenocidc (hereinafter the "Genocide Convenlion") is invoked both as a basis ofthe
Coun's jurisdiction and as a substantive basis of tlre Applicant's claims on the merits, ln particular,
the Applicant seeks to Íbund the Coun's jurisdiction on tlre compromissory clause conlained in
Aíicle IX ofthe Genocide Couvention, asks the Coul1 1o declare that it has not cornrnitted a genocide
as defined in Arlicles II and lll oftlre Convention, and raises questions conccming thc scope ofthe
duty to prevent and punish genocide undcr Article I ofthe Convention. lt tlrerefore appears lhal the
conslrustion ol'this instrurnent will bc in question in the case.
ILeltcr to the States parties io thc Gerrocide Convention
(except Ukraine and thc Russian lredelation)]
ín ^Y
I'alai6 dc la I'dir, c-trdegicpleiil 2
2517 KJ La thyc- P6ys-Ras
'l éléphoilc : +3 1 (0) 70 302 23 23 - lrasinril'! I +3 1 (0) 70 3ó4 99 28
Silc lnteínei : w$av.icj-cij.oÍg
Peace P6hcc, CaÍnegieplein 2
2517 KJ Th€ IlagilÈ - N.theÍlnnds
TeleÍrhonc: +3 I (0) 70 102 23 23 - Têlefu: {3 I (0) 70 3í'4 99 28
Websito: sww.icj-cii.oíg
COUR INTËRNATIONALE
DE
'USTTCE
INT[,RNATIONAI COURT
of tr.rsrlcÊ
Yourcountry is included in the lisï ofparties to the Genocidc Convention. The prasent leuer
should aocordingly be regarded as the notífication oontemplated by Article63, paragraph l, ofthe
Statute. I would add thatthis notification in no way prejudges any question ofthe possible applioation
of Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute, which the Court may later be called upon to d€t€rmine. in
this case.
Accept, Excellenoy, the agsuranses ofmy highest consideraÍion.
Cautier
R€gistraï
I
)
\
\
ANNEX II
INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF FINLAND TO THE GENOCIDE
CONVENTION
UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES
NEW YORK
. ur^ÍrON! NEWYOFx .
^6t.r..
r.!ror..N.cst
c.n.zol. L9t9.TREAl5ls-l+ 26 Jarmery 196O
con,lilmorÍ oF 9 DEc${m 19118 OIV mr PREIIMIoIí
AID PINÍISEMIIÍT OF TIE CRIME OF (ETOCIDI
ACCESSTOT tr Í[mÁD
Str,
I au dÍicctcd W tbc Sccretary-Oenral to
18 Daccubcr 1919, tlz lactnroeat of acccarÍotr
you t'bat, oÀ
of
Fiala.nd to the Coaalatloa otl tbÊ h.l'ÊltloD of tbÊ
Crtua of (brocldlr, dopt d by tbc Ocrcral of tb. Unlt d
lbtíoac on ! becntar 1tlr8, nar Scc r:tary-(bnral
la accord,alcc rltÈ artlcb lC ol tÈc
'!br lartnnrrt contalas tbc tÀat th [email protected] ol
EtDlrld aeecdlcs to thr ralê
of Artlclc h?, Inragrepb 2,
coÀcarrlllg ÍÈc í.gnaÓutrt of thl
:&t! lotlflcêtlo! 1r aldc tu accor{álca rltb artlclc XVIX(a) of
tho relil Coutrntlon. {
qt""*.
Acccpt, Slr, tbc of ry hlsb.st coorlileratÍoa.
e) Coaatr.ntlq A. Starrolnuloa
Irgal Cornscl
Declaration of intervention of Finland