Before the
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION UNDER ARTICLE 63 OF THE HELLENIC
REPUBLIC
6 October 2022
In the case of
ALLEGATIONS OF GENOCIDE UNDER THE CONVENTION ON THE
PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
(UKRAINE v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION)
"
UND ER OF THE case PUNISHMENT OF THE (UKRAINE v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION)
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION UNDER ARTICLE 63 OF THE STATUTE
OF THE COURT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC
To the Registrar, International Court of Justice, the undersigned being duly authorized by the
Government of the Hellenic Republic:
1. I have the honour to submit to the Court a Declaration of Intervention pursuant to Article
63, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court in the case concerning Allegations of Genocide
under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine
v. Russian Federation).
2. Article 82, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the Court provides that a State which desires to
avail itself of the right of intervention conferred upon it by Article 63 of the Statute shall file
a declaration that states the name of an agent, specifies the case and the convention to which
it relates, and which contains:
(a) particulars of the basis on which the declarant State considers itself a party to the
convention;
(b) identification of the particular provisions of the convention the construction of
which it considers to be in question;
( c) a statement of the construction of those provisions for which it contends;
( d) a list of documents in support, which documents shall be attached.
3. Those matters are addressed in sequence below, following some preliminary observations.
I. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS
4. On 26 February 2022, Ukraine instituted proceedings against the Russian Federation
concerning "a dispute ... relating to the interpretation, application and fulfilment of the 1948
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" ("the Genocide
Convention" or "the Convention").
5. In its Application instituting proceedings, Ukraine claims that
"(...) the Russian Federation's declaration and implementation of measures in or
against Ukraine in the form of a "special military operation" declared on 24
February 2022 on the basis of alleged genocide, as well as the recognition that
2
of Justice, the undersigned being Govemrnent Court in the case conceming Federation) .
Court identification particular convention construction addressed in sequence below, following some preliminary OBSERVA TI ONS
4. On 26 February 2022, Ukraine instituted proceedings against the Russian Federation
conceming . .. relating to the interpretation, application 1948
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" ("the Genocide
5. In its Application instituting proceedings, Ukraine claims that
"( ... ) declaration against Ukraine in the form of a "special military operation" declared on 24
February 2022 on the basis of alleged genocide, as well as the recognition that
2
preceded the military operation, is incompatible with the [Genocide]
Convention and violates Ukraine's right to be free from unlawful actions,
including military attack, based on a claim of preventing and punishing
genocide that is wholly unsubstantiated".'
and that accordingly
"[t]here is a dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation within the
meaning of Article IX relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment
of the Genocide Convention". 2
6. Together with the Application, Ukraine filed a Request for the indication of provisional
measures in which it requests the Court to indicate provisional measures "in order to prevent
irreparable prejudice to the rights of Ukraine and its people and to avoid aggravating or
extending the dispute between the parties under the Genocide Convention". 3
7. On 7 March 2022 a public hearing was held, without the participation of the Russian
Federation. However, in a document communicated to the Court on 7 March 2022, the Russian
Federation contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case and "request[ ed]
the Court to refrain from indicating provisional measures and to remove the case from the
list".4
8. In its Order of 16 March 2022 the Court indicated the following provisional measures:
(1) The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operation that it
commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory 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 organizations and person
which may be subject to its control or direction, take no steps in furtherance of the
military operations referred to in points ( 1) above; and
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Application instituting proceedings, filed in the Registry of the Court on 26
February 2022, para. 26.
2 Mid., para. 7.
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Request for the indication of provisional measures of 26 February 2022, para.
20.
4 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Document (with annexes) from the Russian Federation setting out its position
regarding the alleged "lack of jurisdiction" of the Court in the case, dated 7 March 2022, para. 24.
3
preceded the rnilitary operation, 1s in corn patible with the [ Genocide]
Convention and violates Ukraine 's right to be free frorn unlawful actions,
including rnilitary attack, based on a clairn of preventing and punishing
unsubstantiated". 1
and that accordingly
"[t]here is a dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation within the
rneaning of Article IX relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilrnent
2
indication of provisional
rneasures rneasures prevent
irreparable prejudice to the rights of Ukraine and its people and to avoid aggravating or
3
7. On 7 March 2022 a public hearing was held, without the participation of the Russian
cornrnunicated that the Court to refrain frorn indicating provisional rneasures and to rernove the case frorn the
list'·. 4
the Court indicated the following provisional rneasures:
(1) The Russian Federation shall irnrnediately suspend the rnilitary operation that it
cornrnenced (2) The Russian Federation shall ensure that any rnilitary or irregular armed units
rnay organizations rnay rnilitary 1) 1 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Application instituting proceedings, filed in the Registry of the Court on 26
February 2022, para. 26.
2 lbid., para. 7.
3 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevent ion and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Request for the indication of provisional measures of 26 February 2022, para.
20.
4 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Document (with annexes) from the Russian Federation setting out its position
regarding the alleged "Jack of jurisdiction" of the Court in the case, dated 7 March 2022, para. 24.
(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 23 March 2022 the Court issued an order that fixed the time -limits for the filing of
Ukraine's Memorial and the Russian Federation's Counter -Memorial as of 23 September
2022 and 23 March 2023, respectively.
10. On 30 March 2022, as provided for in Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court,
the Registrar of the Court duly notified the States Parties to the Genocide Convention that
"(...) the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(hereinafter the "Genocide Convention") is invoked both as a basis of the Court's
jurisdiction and as a substantive basis of the Applicant's claims on the merits. In
particular, the Applicant seeks to found the Court's jurisdiction on the compromissory
clause contained in Article IX of the Genocide Convention, asks the Court to declare
that it has not committed a genocide as defined in Articles II and III of the Convention,
and raises questions concerning the scope of the duty to prevent and punish genocide
under Article I of the Convention". 5
11. On 1 July 2022, Ukraine filed its Memorial.
12, Article 82, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court provides that a declaration of a State
desiring to avail itself of the right of intervention conferred upon it by Article 63 of the Statute
shall be filed "as soon as possible and not later than the date fixed for the opening of the oral
proceedings". In accordance with this requirement, this Declaration has been filed at the
earliest reasonably available opportunity, namely after the filing of Ukraine's Memorial
and after the Court having previously rendered its order on provisional measures in the
case.
13. By filing this Declaration, the Hellenic Republic avails itself of its right under Article 63,
paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court to intervene as a Contracting Party to the Genocide
Convention.
14. This case raises important issues concerning the Genocide Convention. The Hellenic
Republic firmly believes that the Genocide Convention is of utmost importance to prevent
and punish genocide. Any acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnical, racial or religious group constitute a crime under international law. The
prohibition against genocide is "a peremptory norm in international law (jus cogens)".6
Moreover, as the Court has affirmed, "kin view of their shared values, all the States parties to
the Genocide Convention have a common interest to ensure that acts of genocide are prevented
and that, if they occur, their authors do not enjoy impunity. That
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Letter from the Registrar of the Court No 156413, to the Contracting Parties to
the Genocide Convention, dated 30 March 2022. See Annex A to this Declaration.
6 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 111, para. 161.
4
time-limits Ukraine 's Memorial and the Russian Federation's Counter-as of23 2023 , 1 O. "( ... ) 1948 the "Genocide Convention") is invoked both as a basis of jurisdiction and as a substantive basis of the Applicant's claims on the merits. In
5
11 . 12. State
63 proceedings". In accordance with this requirement, this Declaration has been filed at the
earliest reasonably available opportunity, namely after the filing of Ukraine 's Memorial
and after the Court having previously rendered its order on provisional measures in the
case.
Convention.
14. This case raises important issues concerning the Genocide Convention. The Hellenic
Genocide and punish genocide. Any acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnical, racial or religious group constitute a crime under international law. The
prohibition against genocide is "a peremptory norm in international law (jus cogens)".6
Moreover, as the Court has affirmed, "[i]n view of their shared values, all the States parties to
the Genocide Convention have a common interest to ensure that acts of genocide are prevented
and that, if they occur, their authors do not enjoy impunity. That
5 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation) , Letter rrom the Registrar of the Court No 156413, to the Contracting Parties to
the Genocide Convention, dated 30 March 2022. See Annex A to this Declaration.
6 Application of the Convention on the Prevent ion and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro ), Judgment, !.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 111 , para. 161.
common interest implies that the obligations in question are owed by any
State party to all the other States parties to the Convention" ( obligations ergo omnes partes). 7
Already more than seven decades ago, the Court had recognised the international
community's common interest in the rights and duties enshrined in the Convention, observing
that "a convention of this kind [...] does not deal with the private interests of a State, but with
the preservation of an element of international order...".8 In such situations, when the treaty
embodies matters of collective interest, the late Judge Cancado Trindade called upon all
States Parties to contribute to the proper interpretation of the treaty as sort of a "collective
guarantee of the observance of the obligations contracted by the States Parties". 9
15. It follows that all States Parties to the Genocide Convention have an interest of their own
in the proper interpretation, application and fulfilment of the obligations enshrined therein.
16. It is within this context that the Hellenic Republic has decided to exercise its right to
intervene under Article 63 of the Statute in order to reaffirm its commitment to upholding the
rights and obligations contained in the Genocide Convention and to support the Court in
preserving the integrity of the Convention.
17. In this Declaration, the Hellenic Republic focuses on the construction of Article IX of the
Genocide Convention on the jurisdiction of the Court and, consistent with the restricted scope
for interventions under Article 63 of the Statute, will present its interpretation of Article IX of
the Convention in line with customary rules of interpretation as reflected in the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties.1° As this Court has underlined, "an intervention under
Article 63 of the Statute 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 [...]".11 Hence, the
Hellenic Republic's Declaration of intervention will not address issues of application of the
Convention. At the same time, the Hellenic Republic reserves the right to supplement the
present Declaration and the scope of its observations to the extent that additional matters of
jurisdiction arise as the case progresses or as the Hellenic Republic becomes aware of them
7 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p. 3, at p. 17, para. 41 with
further references; see also Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Judgment of 22 July 2022, p. 36, para. 107.
8 Reservations to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, LC.J. Reports 1951, p. 15, at p.
22.
9 Separate Opinion of Judge Cancado Trindade, attached to Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan),
Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6 February 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 3, at p. 33, para.
53.
10 See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia
v. Myanmar), Judgment of 22 July 2022, p. 31, para. 87:"The Court will have recourse to the rules of customary
international law on treaty interpretation as reflected in Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties of 23 May 1969"; see also Application of the International Convention On the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 2021, p. 71, at p. 95, para. 75 with further references.
'I Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6
February 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p.3, at p. 9, para. 18.
5
erga ornnes 7
Already more than seven decades ago, the Court had recognised the international
common [ ... ] does order ... ". 8 ln Cançado of the treaty as 9
It is within context Hellenic and m
ln will customary interpretation Vienna
of Treaties. 10 underlined, intervention Statute is limited to submitting observations construction [ ... ]". 11 Republic' s At Hellenic supplement 7 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Cenocide (The Cambia v.
Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, 17, further references; see also Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Cenocide (The Cambia v. Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 36, para. 107.
8 Reservations to the Cenocide Convention, Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, !.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 15, at p.
9 Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, attached to Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan),
Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6 February 20 I 3, !. C.J. Reports 20 l 3, p. 3, at p. 33, para.
10 See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Cenocide (The Cambia
v. Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 31, para. 87: "The Court will have recourse to the rules of customary
international law on treaty interpretation as reflected in Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties of 23 May 1969 "; see also Application of the International Convention On the Elimination of Ali
Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 2021, p. 71, at p. 95, para. 75 with further references.
11 Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6
February 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 3, at p. 9, para. 18.
upon receipt, in accordance with Article 86, paragraph 1, of the Rules, of the pleadings and
documents annexed to them.
18. The Hellenic Republic does not seek to become a party to the proceedings and recognises
that by using its right to intervene, the construction of the Genocide Convention given by the
judgment of the Court in this case will be equally binding upon it.
19. The Hellenic Republic further informs the Court that it is willing to assist the Court in
grouping its intervention together with similar interventions from other EU Member States
for future stages of the proceedings, if the Court deems such a move useful in the interest of
an expedient administration of justice.
IL CASE AND CONVENTION TO WHICH THIS DECLARATION RELATES
20. This Declaration of intervention relates to the case concerning Allegations of Genocide
under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine
v. Russian Federation) instituted on 26 February 2022 by Ukraine against the Russian
Federation. This case raises questions concerning the construction of the Genocide
Convention.
21. As a Contracting Party to the Genocide Convention, the Hellenic Republic has a direct
interest in the construction that might be placed upon provisions of the Convention by the
Court.
III. BASIS ON WHICH THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC IS PARTY TO THE
CONVENTION
22. The Hellenic Republic signed the Convention on 29 December 1949 and deposited its
instrument of ratification of the Convention in accordance with Article XI of the Convention
on 8 December 1954.12
IV. PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION IN QUESTION IN THE CASE
23. In its Application, Ukraine seeks to found the Court's jurisdiction on Article 36,
paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and on Article IX of the Genocide Convention.13 The
Russian Federation, in its document of 7 March 2022 communicated to the Court, is of the
12 See Annex B to this Declaration.
1' Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order of 16 March 2022, p. 2, para. 3.
6
informs the Court that II. conceming Russian on Ukraine Russian
Federation. This case raises questions conceming the construction of the Genocide
the Genocide 1954. 12
23 . In its Application, Ukraine seeks to found the Court's jurisdiction on Article 36,
Genocide Convention.13 The
Russian Federation, in its document of 7 March 2022 communicated to the Court, is of the
12 See Annex B to this Declaration.
13 Allegations ofGenocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Ortler of 16 March 2022, p. 2, para. 3.
6
view that Article IX of the Genocide Convention does not confer jurisdiction on the Court in
this case.I4
24. Therefore, the proper construction of the compromissory clause of the Convention, i.e. its
Article IX, is in question in the case.
The said provision reads as follows:
"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 International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties
to the dispute."
25. It is with regard to the interpretation of that provision that the Hellenic Republic
intervenes in the current proceedings on the basis of Article 63 of the Statute of the Court.
The Hellenic Republic notes that Article 63 does not make a distinction between provisions
in a convention, which relate to jurisdictional issues and those, which relate to substantive
provisions. Accordingly, there appears to be no reason within the Statute why an intervention
should not be allowed for the purpose of placing an interpretation of a compromissory clause.
Furthermore, according to 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".I5 The wording of Article 63 is unqualified in asserting "whenever the
construction of a convention ... is in question". This implies that Article 63 is applicable in all
phases of a given case. Indeed, both at the jurisdictional stage and the stage of the merits,
States may offer their assistance to the Court in the construction of a particular convention.
Accordingly, interventions on both aspects are allowed, I6 and the wording in Article 82 of the
Rules to file a declaration "as soon as possible" confirms that the filing of an Article 63
declaration is admissible at this stage of the proceedings.
14 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Document (with annexes) from the Russian Federation setting out its position
regarding the alleged "lack of jurisdiction" of the Court in the case, dated 7 March 2022, paras. 10 et seq.
15 See Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, attached to Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against
Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Declaration of Intervention of El Salvador, Order of 4
October 1984, I.C.J. Reports 1984, P. 223, at pp. 235-236.
16 M.N. Shaw (ed.), Rosenne's Law and Practice of the International Court: 1920-2015, Brill Nijhoff,
Leiden/Boston, 5th ed., 2016, Vol. III, para. 364, p. 1533; H. Thirlway, The Law and Procedure of the
International Court of Justice: Fifty Years of Jurisprudence, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013, Vol 1, p.
1031; A. Miron, C. Chinkin, "Article 63", in A. Zimmermann et al., (eds.), The Statute of the International
Court of Justice: A Commentary,Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2019, .3rd ed., p. 1763.
7
.,
14
of the compromissory interpretation, including those relating to the responsibility State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article JJL shall be
submitted to the International Court of.Justice at the request of any of the parties
dispute. "
25. It is with regard to the interpretation of that prov1s1on that the Hellenic Republic
on the Court.
distinction convention, to in phase is the of by 63". 15 The wording of Article 63 is unqualified in asserting "whenever the
phases of a given case. Indeed, both at the jurisdictional stage and the stage of the merits,
assistance construction particular 16 declaration 63
14 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Document (with annexes) from the Russian Federation setting out its position
regarding the alleged "Jack of jurisdiction" of the Court in the case, dated 7 March 2022, paras. 10 et seq.
15 See Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, attached to Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against
Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Declaration of Intervention of El Salvador, Order of 4
October 1984, /.C.J Reports 1984, p. 223, at pp. 235-236.
16 M.N. Shaw (ed.), Rosenne's Law and Practice of the International Court: 1920-2015, Brill Nijhoff,
Leiden/Boston, 5th ed., 2016, Vol. lll, para. 364, p. 1533; H. Thirlway, The Law and Procedure of the
International Court of Justice: Fifty Years of Jurisprudence, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013, Vol I, p.
I 031; A. Miron, C. Chinkin, "Article 63", in A. Zimmermann et al., (eds.), The Statute of the International
Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2019, 3rd ed., p. 1763.
CONSTRUCTION OF ARTICLE IX OF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION
FOR WHICH THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC CONTENDS
26. As the Court has recalled in its Order on provisional measures in the case at hand, the
Parties to this case dispute whether the compromissory clause of Article IX of the Genocide
Convention can be invoked in a case in which allegations of genocide committed by one
State lead to the use of military force by another State." Whether the Court does indeed have
jurisdiction to make a declaration of an applicant State's compliance with its obligations
under the Convention, provided that this is a matter in dispute between the Parties to the case,
is therefore dependent on the proper construction of Article IX of the Genocide Convention.
27. The Hellenic Republic contends that the notion of "dispute" is already well established in
the case law of the Court and supports the current interpretation. Accordingly, it concurs with
the meaning given to the word "dispute" as "a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a
conflict of legal views or of interests" between parties.18 A dispute exists wherever the two
sides "hold clearly opposite views" with respect to the issue brought before the Court, "the
claim of one party is positively opposed by the other", and "the respondent was aware, or
could not have been unaware, that its views were 'positively opposed' by the applicant". 19 It is
not necessary that a respondent State has expressly responded to the position of the applicant
State.2° As recognised by the Court, "in case the respondent has failed to reply to the
applicant's claims, it may be inferred from this silence, in certain circumstances, that it
rejects those claims and that, therefore, a dispute exists".21 Moreover, the Court has
emphasized that a dispute under a specific treaty may exist despite the absence of "a specific
reference to the treaty or to its provisions" in public statements by the parties, provided that
those statements -refer to the subject -matter of the treaty with sufficient clarity to enable the
State against which a claim is made to identify that there is, or may be, a dispute with regard
to that subject-matter".22
28. Turning to the interpretation of the other parts of Article IX, namely that the scope of
such disputes must be "relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present
Convention", the Hellenic Republic contends that Article IX is a broad jurisdictional clause,
allowing the Court to adjudicate upon disputes concerning the alleged fulfilment by a
Contracting Party of its obligations under the Convention.
17 See Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order of 16 March 2022, paras. 28 et seq.
18 The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment of 30 August 1924,P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 11.
19 Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear
Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2016, p.
833, at p. 850, para. 41 with further references.
29 See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia
v. Myanmar), Judgment of 22 July 2022, p. 27, para. 71.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid., para. 72, citing Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011(1,), p.
85, para. 30.
8
V. Ortler which allegations one
State. 17 Whether declaration compliance its obligations
of Article of the Genocide Convention.
that the "on a legal views or of interests" between parties. 18 party is positively other", respondent 19 20 As recognised by the Court, "in case the respondent has failed to reply to the
inferred this silence, in certain circumstances, claims and that, therefore, a dispute exists".21 has
"subject-matter of subj ect-matter". 22
Tuming of the allowing the Court to adjudicate upon disputes conceming the alleged fulfilment by a
17 See Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order of 16 March 2022, paras. 28 et seq.
18 The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment of 30 August 1924.P.CJ.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 11 .
19 Obligations concerning Negotiations relating ta Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and ta Nuclear
Disarmament (Marshall !stands v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, JCJ Reports 2016, p.
833, at p. 850, para. 41 with further references.
20 See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Cambia
v. Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 27, para. 71.
21 ibid.
22 ibid., para. 72, citing Application of the international Convention on the Elimination of Al! Forms of Racial
Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminmy Objections, Judgment, l.CJ. Reports 201 I (!), p.
85, para. 30.
29. The Hellenic Republic's interpretation of Article IX in general and of the phrase "relating
to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Genocide Convention" in particular is
based on Article 31 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reflecting
customary international law, and which reads as follows:
I. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning
to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and
purpose.
2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in
addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:
(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in
connection with the conclusion of the treaty;
(b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the
conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to
the treaty.
3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:
(a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the
treaty or the application of its provisions;
(b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the
agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;
(c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the
parties.
30. As far as the ordinary meaning of the terms of Article IX is concerned, the phrase
"relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention" may be divided in
two parts: (a) "relating to" and (b) "interpretation, application of fulfilment of the
Convention".
31. (a) The phrase "relating to" establishes a link between the dispute and the Convention.
The subject -matter of the dispute must concern the Convention itself. Or, to put it otherwise:
it would not be permissible to use the Genocide Convention as a means of bringing before the
Court a dispute regarding alleged violations of other rules of international law.
32. However, where, like in the case at hand, the subject -matter of an application concerns
the question whether certain acts, such as allegations of genocide and military operations
undertaken with the stated purpose of preventing and punishing genocide, are in conformity
with the Genocide Convention, such dispute falls squarely within the scope of Article IX of
the Convention. The Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide
Convention irrespective of the question whether or not the conduct in question
simultaneously breaches other rules of international law extrinsic to the Genocide Convention
and whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over those matters.
33. (b) The phrase "interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention" is
intentionally broad to encompass many different scenarios. As observed, Article IX of the
9
Republic' s interpretation interpretation, of the 1969 Vienna Convention the Law of Treaties, reflecting
1. goodfàith abject and
The context the interpretation treaty shall comprise, in
ifs agreement to al! (b) instrument more in connection the
(b) subsequent application treaty which establishes the
any relevant international applicable relations between the
the terms of Article IX is concerned, the phrase
'·two parts: ( a) "relating to" and (b) "interpretation, application of fulfilment of the
establishes link between Convention.
subject-matter of the dispute must concern case at hand, the subject-concerns
the question whether certain acts, such as allegations of genocide and military operations
the Convention. The Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide
Convention irrespective of the question whether or not the conduct in question
breaches 3 3. (b) The phrase "interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention" is
intentionally broad to encompass many different scenarios. As observed, Article IX of the
9
Convention is "a model of clarity and simplicity, opening the seising of the Court as largely
as possible". 23
34. It is already the ordinary meaning of Article IX which makes it clear that there is no need
to establish genocidal acts as a basis to affirm the Court's jurisdiction. Rather, the Court has
jurisdiction over the question whether genocidal acts have been or are being committed or
not.24 The French version of the text, which is equally authentic according to Article X of the
Convention, corroborates this interpretation of Article IX, as the expression y compris ceux
relatifs a la responsabilite d'un Etat en matiere de genocide » is broad enough to include not
only the commission but also the non -commission of the crime of genocide.
35. Moreover, the inclusion of the word "fulfilment" in Article IX in addition to the more
common formulation of "interpretation and application" in compromissory clauses further
supports the view that the Court has jurisdiction ratione materiae to declare the absence of
genocide when genocide is being alleged to take place. As Judge Oda noted, the inclusion of
the word "fulfilment" is "unique as compared with the compromissory clauses found in other
multilateral treaties which provide for submission to the International Court of such disputes
between Contracting Parties as related to the interpretation or application of the treaties in
question".25
36. Thus, whenever there is a dispute between two or more States Parties concerning whether
a State Party has engaged in conduct contrary to the Convention, the State party accused of
such conduct has the same right to submit the dispute to the Court as the State that has made
the accusation, and the Court will be in a position to exercise its jurisdiction. There is
nothing that limits the Court's jurisdiction to cases where it is the applicant State that
accuses the respondent State of breaching its obligations under the Convention. Otherwise
a State Party could freely invent violations of the Genocide Convention, allegedly committed
by another State Party without the latter being able to have recourse to the Court, thus
excluding from the Court's jurisdiction genocide -related disputes and leading potentially to
serious misuses of the Genocide Convention.
37. Moreover, Article IX expressly provides for ICJ jurisdiction "at the request of any of the
parties to the dispute" ( emphasis added). The Court has stated that this "phrase clarifies that
only a party to the dispute may bring it before the Court".26 The relevant limitation is that the
party seising the Court must be a party to the dispute, but there is no limitation as to which
party to the dispute. It can be "any" party to the dispute. This language suggests that a State
23 R. Kolb, "The Compromissory Clause of the Convention", in P. Gaeta (ed.), The UN Genocide Convention: A
Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, P. 420.
24 See Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order of 16 March 2022, p. 10, para. 43; see also Application of the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Order of
23 January 2020, Reports 2020, p. 3, at p. 14, para 30.
25 Declaration of Judge Oda, attached to Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Preliminary Objections, Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1996. P. 595, at p. 627, para. 5 (emphasis in the original).
26 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of 22 July 2022, p. 37, para. 111.
10
23
lt 24 « à responsabilité État matière génocide but non-commission of more
compromissory further
25
conceming the accusation, and the Court will be in a position to exercise its jurisdiction. There is
nothing that limits the Court' s jurisdiction to cases where it is the applicant State that
its under the Convention. Otherwise
of by another State Party without the latter being able to have recourse to the Court, thus
jurisdiction genocide-to the dispute may bring it before the Court".26 The relevant limitation is that the
party seising the Court must be a party to the dispute, but there is no limitation as to which
party to the dispute. It can be "any" party to the dispute. This language suggests that a State
23 R. Kolb, "The Compromissory Clause of the Convention", P. Gaeta (ed.), The UN Cenocide Convention: A
p. 24 See Allegations of Cenocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Cenocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order of 16 March 2022, p. 10, para. 43; see also Application of the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Cenocide (The Cambia v. Myanmar), Order of
2 3 f. C.J para. 25 Declaration of Judge Oda, attached to Application of the Convention on the Prevent ion and Punishment of the
Crime of Cenocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro ), Preliminary Objections, Judgment,
I.C.J. p. 26 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Cenocide (The Cambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 37, para. 111.
accused of committing genocide has the same right to submit the dispute to the Court as the
State making the accusation. In particular, such a 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.
38. The broad interpretation of the Convention's compromissory clause is furthermore
confirmed by the fact that it does not require, unlike many other compromissory clauses, any
additional procedural steps such as prior negotiations or attempts to settle the dispute by way
of arbitration.
39. Finally, the object and purpose of the Convention gives further support to the broad scope
of the compromissory clause of Article IX. The Court has noted that 141 the States parties
to the Genocide Convention [...] have a common interest to ensure the prevention,
suppression and punishment of genocide, by committing themselves to fulfilling the
obligations contained in the Convention".27 Famously, in its 1951 Advisory Opinion, the
Court held:
"The objects of such a convention must also be considered. The Convention was
manifestly adopted for a purely humanitarian and civilizing purpose. It is indeed
difficult 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 of certain human
groups and on the other to confirm and endorse the most elementary principles of
morality. In 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 of the maintenance of a perfect 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." 28
40. The Convention's object to protect the most elementary principles of morality also
prohibits any possibility of a State Party to abuse its provisions for other purposes. It would
undermine the Convention's credibility as a universal instrument to outlaw the most
abhorrent crime of genocide if its authority could be abused by any State Party without a
possibility of the State Party victim of such abuse to turn to the Court. The purpose of the
Convention hence speaks loudly in favour of a reading of Article IX, according to which
disputes relating to the interpretation, application and fulfilment include disputes about the
abuse of the Convention's authority to justify a State Party's action vis-à-vis another State
Party to the Convention.
41. In conclusion, it follows from the ordinary meaning of Article IX of the Convention, and
the object and purpose of the entire Convention that a dispute regarding acts carried out by
27 Ibid., p. 36, para. 107.
28 Reservations to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 15, at p.
23.
11
"negative" declaration
broad interpretation the Convention's compromissory clause is furthermore
abject clause of Article IX. The Court has noted that "[a]ll the States to the Genocide Convention [ ... ] have a common interest to ensure the prevention,
suppression and punishment of genocide, by committing themselves to fulfilling the
the Convention".27 1951 Advisory Opinion, abjects such a convention must also be considered. The Convention was
adopted for It indeed
to safeguard very existence certain human
other to confirm and endorse the most elementary principles by 28
40. The Convention's object to protect the most elementary principles of morality also
undermine the Convention's credibility as a universal instrument to outlaw the most
of Convention hence speaks loudly in favour of a reading of Article IX, according to which
abuse of the Convention's authority to justify a State Party's action vis-à-vis another State
27 Ibid. , l 07.
28 Reservations ta the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion of28 May 195/, 1.C.J Reports 1951, p. 15, at p.
1 1
one State Party against another State Party based on false claims of genocide falls under the
notion of "dispute between Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or
fulfilment of the present Convention". Accordingly, the Court's jurisdiction is broad enough
to include a declaration of the absence of genocide and the violation of a good faith
performance of the Convention resulting in an abuse of the law.
VI. DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE DECLARATION
42. The Hellenic Republic submits the following documents in support of this Declaration:
a)
b)
Annex A - Letter from the Registrar sent pursuant to Article 63,
paragraph 1, of the Court's Statute.
Annex B — Copy of the Notification by the Depository of the
deposit by Greece of the instrument of ratification of the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
VII. CONCLUSION
43. For the reasons given in this Declaration, the Hellenic Republic respectfully requests the
Court to recognise the admissibility of this Declaration and that the Hellenic Republic is
availing itself of its right under Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court to
intervene in these proceedings.
44. The Hellenic Republic reserves the right to amend or supplement this Declaration in the
course of written and oral observations and by filing a further declaration with the Court.
45. The Government of the Hellenic Republic has appointed the undersigned as Agent for the
purposes of this Declaration. It has also appointed Caterina Ghini, Ambassador of the
Hellenic Republic to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Co -Agent. The Registrar of the
Court may channel all communication at the following address:
EMBASSY OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC IN THE HAGUE
Amaliastraat 1, 2514JC, Den Haag, Netherlands
Respectfully
Chaido Stavridi, Head of the Public International Law Section of the Legal
Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic
12
one State Party against another State Party based on false claims of genocide falls under the
notion of "dispute between Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or
fulfilment of the present Convention". Accordingly, the Court' s jurisdiction is broad enough
to include a declaration of the absence of genocide and the violation of a good faith
per formance of the Convention resulting in an abuse of the law.
VI. DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE DECLARATION
42 . The Hellenic Republic submits the following documents in support of this Declaration :
a)
b)
Annex A - Letter from the Registrar sent pursuant to Article 63 ,
paragraph 1, of the Court ' s Statute.
Annex B - Copy of the Notification by the Depository of the
deposit by Greece of the instrument of ratification of the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
VII. CONCLUSION
43. For the reasons given in this Declaration, the Hellenic Republic respectfully requests the
Court to recognise the admissibility of this Declaration and that the Hellenic Republic is
availing itself of its right under Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court to
intervene in these proceedings.
44 . The Hellenic Republic reserves the right to amend or supplement this Declaration in the
course of written and oral observations and by filing a further declaration with the Court.
45. The Government of the Hellenic Republic has appointed the undersigned as Agent for the
purposes of this Declaration. It has also appointed Caterina Ghini , Ambassador of the
Hellenic Republic to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Co-Agent. The Registrar of the
Court may channel ail communication at the following address :
EMBASSY OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC IN THE HAGUE
Amaliastraat 1, 2514J C, Den Haag, N etherlands
Respectfully ;'
· novia Chaido Stavridi, Head of the Public International Law Section of the Legal
Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic
12
COUR INTERNATIONALE
DE JUSTICE
156413
I NITERNATIONAL COURT
OF JUSTICE
30 March 2022
have the honour to refer to my letter (No. 156253) dated 2 March 2022 informing your
Government that, on 26 February 2022, Ukraine tiled in the Registry of the Court an Application
instituting proceedings against the Republic of the Russian Federation in the case concerning
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), A copy of the Application was appended to that letter.
The text of the Application is also available on the website of the Court (www.icj-cij.org).
Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court provides that:
[w]henever the construction of a convention to which States other than those concerned
in the case are parties is in question, the Registrar shall notify all such States forthwith".
Further, under Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court:
"Whenever the construction of a convention to which States other than those
concerned in the case are parties may be in question within the meaning of Article 63,
paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Court shall consider what directions shall be given to the
Registrar in the matter."
On the instructions of the Court, given in accordance with the said provision of the Rules of
Court, I have the honour to notify your Government of the following.
In the above -mentioned Application, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter the "Genocide Convention") is invoked both as a basis of the
Court's jurisdiction and as a substantive basis of the Applicant's claims on the merits. In particular,
the Applicant seeks to found the Court's jurisdiction on the compromissory clause contained in
Article IX of the Genocide Convention, asks the Court to declare that it has not committed a genocide
as defined in Articles II and 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 this instrument will be in question in the case.
[Letter to the States parties to the Genocide Convention
(except Ukraine and the Russian Federation)]
Palais de la Paix, Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ La Haye - Pays -Bas
Telephone : +31 (0) 70 302 23 23 - Facsimile : +31 (0) 70 364 99 28
Site Internet: WNW.i ej-c ij org
./.
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ The Hague - Netherlands
Telephone: +31 (0) 70 302 23 23 - Telefax: +31 (0) 70 364 99 28
Websitc: www.iej-cij.org
,f'.
INTERNATIONAl.E
JVSTfCE
1 l'-!TERNATIONAL JUSTICE
(1 \-\U X'
30 Mardi 2022
r have the honour to refer to my letter (No. 156253) dated 2 March 2022 infom1ing your
Governrnent that, on 26 February 2022, Ukraine filed in the Registry of the Court an Application
înstituting proceedings against the Republic of the Russian Federation in the case concerning
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Ukràine v. Russian Federation). A copy of the Application was appended to that letter.
Thetext of the Application is also available on the website of the Court (www.icj-cij.org).
Article paragraph l, of the Statute of the Court provides that:
[ w ]henever the construction of a convention to which States other than those concerned
in the case are parties is in question, the Registrar shall notify all such States forthwith" .
Further, under Article 43, paragraph of the Ru les of Court:
"Whenever the construction of a convention to which States other than those
concerned in the case are parties may be in question within the meaning of A1ticle 63,
paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Court shall consider what directions shall be given to the
Registrar in the matter."
On the instructions of the Court, gîven in accordance with the said provision of the Ru les of
Court, have the honour to notify your Government of the following.
In the above-mentioned Application, the 1948 Convention on the Prcvention and Punishment
of the of Genocide (hereinafter the "Genocide Convention") is invoked both as a basis of the
Court'sjurisdiction and as a substantive basis of the Applicant's claims on the merits. In particular,
the Applîcant seeks to found the Court's jurisdiction on the compromissory clause contained in
Article IX of the Genocide Convention, asks the Comi to declare that has not committed a genocide
as defined in Articles II and III of the Convention, and rai ses questions conceming the scope of the
duty to prevent and punish genocide under Article I of the Convention. It therefore appears that the
construction of this instrument will be in question in the case.
[Letter to the States parties to the Genocide Convention
(except Ukraine and the Russian Federation)]
Carnegieplem 25 1 7 The Hague - Netherl ands
.1.
Camegieplein La Haye • Pays-Téléphone: Facsimilé: +70 www.icj-cij .org
+(0) 70 302 Tclcfax: icj-cij .Pt 1
COUR. INTERNATIONALE INTERNATIONAL COURT
DE JUSTICE OF JUSTICE
Your country is included in the list of parties to the Genocide Convention. The present letter
should accordingly be regarded as the notification contemplated by Article 63, paragraph 1, of the
Statute. I would add that this notification in no way prejudges any question of the possible application
of Article 0, paragraph 2, of the Statute, which the Court may later be called upon to determine in
this case.
Accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Philippe Gautier
Registrar
- 2 -
COUR INTERNATIONALE
Dt JUSTICE
1 NTERNATIONAL COURT
Of JUSTICE
Your country is included in the list of pmties to the Genocide Convention . The present Ietter
should accordingly be regarded as the notification contemplated by Article 63, paragraph 1, of the
Statute. I would add that this notification in no way prejudges any question of the possible application
of Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute, which the Court may later be called upon to determine in
this case.
Accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.
- 2 -
Philippe Gauti er
Registrar
M e
PILE NO.,
UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES
NEW YORK
womomomcwvonst ........... . . . . . IPUl t
t.N.239.1954.TREATIES CONVENTION OF 9 DECEMBER 1948 ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
RATIFICATION BY GREECE
Sir,
Nk, 7f
.1 am by Secretary -General toein5o you that, On
instrument of ratificatiod4k Government
of Greece of the the Prevent an, 1,.' Punishment of the
o)
Crime of Genocide, opened for signaturC t Paris 9 December 1948,
with the Secretary4ener United Nations in
the An'icle II of Convention.
iIn its instrument of rat fication the Government of Greece
following declaration:N,
ci
.. -
UNITED NATIONS - NATIONS UNIES
NEW YORK
aA•L• ADD ...... UNATIDND Nl:WYOAlt. ADIIC ■■ • Tlll. ■ ll•A-•ttou•
C.N.239.1954.TREATIES 4 January 1955
CONVENTION OF 9 DECEMBER 1948 ON THE PREVENTION AND -FUNISHMENT OF
THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
RATIFICATION BY GREECE
. 0 / . V
I am directed b;y the Secretary-General to ~~you that. on
8 December 1954, the instrument or ratification~ the Governnent
or Greece or the Convention on the Prevent:& Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide, opened for signat_urr\ P&rie on 9 Decem.ber 1948,
was deposited with the Secretary-GenerU the United ~tions in
4 •
accordance with t.he provisions .of Al1,icle n or the ~tion.
In its instrument or ratvication 'tbe Government or GNece
made the tollowing declarat~
aq_
()
UNITED NATIONS.
- 2 -
NATIONS UNIES
(Translation) We further declare that We have not accepted
and do not accept any reservation which has already been made
or which may hereafter be made by the countries signatory to
this Instrument or by countries which have acceded or may
hereafter accede thereto.
In accordance with the provisions of Article XIII of the
Convention, the ratification by Greece will become effective on
8 March 1955, that is to say, on the ninetieth day following the
deposit of the instrument of ratification with the Secretary-
General.
The present notification is made in accordance with
Article XVII (a) of the Convention.
Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Constantin A. Stavropoulos
Principal Director
in charge of the Legal Department
• . y
UNITED NATIONS .• ). NATIONS UNIES
~
- 2 -
(Translation) We .further declare· that We have not accept.ed
and do not accept any reservation which has already been made
or 'Which may hereafter be ma.de by the countries signatory to
this Instrument or by countries 'Which have acceded or ma.y
hereafter accede thereto.
In accordance wi.th the provisions of Article XIII of the
Convention, the ratification by Greece will become effective on
8 March 1955, that is to say, on the rμ.netieth day following the
deposit of the instrument of ratification with the SecretaryGeneraJ..
The present notification is made in accordance with
Article XVII (a) of the Convention.
Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.
~r"3 Constantin A. Stavropouloe
Principal Director
in charge of the ·Legal Department
Declaration of intervention of Greece