Declaration of intervention of Bulgaria

DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION OF
THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA
INTERVENTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 63 OF THE
STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
IN THE CASE CONCERNING
ALLEGATIONS OF GENOCIDE UND ER THE CONVENTION
ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME
OF GENOCIDE (UKRAINE V. RUSSIAN FEDERATION)
11 November 2022
1. LETTER FROM THE AMBASSADOR OF THE REPUBLIC OF
BULGARIA TO THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS TO THE
REGISTRAR OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Excellency,
I have the honour to attacha Declaration of the Republic of Bulgaria of its intervention pursuant
to Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice in the case
concerning Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation).
I also attach an instrument signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs appointing the Agent and
Co-Agent of the Republic of Bulgaria for the purposes of these proceedings. I certify that the
signature on the Declaration is that of the appointed Agent, Dr. Di mana Dramova.
Please be informed that the Republic of Bulgaria is prepared to take a common approach with
other intervening States, which have deposited similar statement of intervention, for the next
phases of the proceedings should the Court deem such common approach useful for the good
and expedient administration of justice.
Finally, I have the further honour to advise that the address for service to which all
communications concerning these proceedings should be sentis that of this Embassy.
Yours sincerely,
~Ci<_~
Konstantin Dimitrov
Ambassador of the Republic of Bulgaria to the Kingdom of The Netherlands
2
■
II. APPOINTMENT OF AGENT AND CO-AGENT
THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF
THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA
For the purposes of intervention pursuant to Article 63 of the Statu te of the Court in the present
case before the International Court of Justice, Allegations of Genocide under the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation),
I hereby appoint Dr. Dimana Dramova, Head oflnternational Law Department, International
Law and Law of the EU Directorate, Ministry of Foreign Aff airs, as Agent for the Republic of
Bulgaria and His Excellency Konstantin Dimitrov, Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Bulgaria to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Co-Agent
for the Republic of Bulgaria.
Sofia, JO November 2022
3
Nikolay ilkov
Minister of Foreign Affairs
III. DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
BULGARIA
To the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, the undersigned being duly authorized by
the Republic of Bulgaria:
1. On behalf of the Republic of Bulgaria, I have the honour to submit to the Court a
Declaration of Intervention pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice ("Statute"), 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 International Court of Justice ("the Court")
provides that a declaration of a State's desire to avail itself of the right of intervention
conferred upon it by Article 63 of the Statute
"shall specify the case and the convention to which it 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. All those requirements are addressed in sequence below, following some preliminary
observations.
4
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS
4. On 26 February 2022, Ukraine instituted proceedings against the Russian Federation in
the case conceming Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishrnent of the Crime of Genocide (the "Genocide Convention" or "Convention").
5. In the Application instituting proceedings, Ukraine daims that
" ... the Russian F ederation' 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
preceded the military operation, is incompatible with the 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" (para. 26 of the Application).
and that there 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".
6. On 7 March 2022, the Russian Federation did not participate in the oral hearing, however,
communicated a document to the Court on the same date, contending that the Court lacks
jurisdiction in this case.
7. Following a request for provisional measures from Ukraine, on 16 March 2022, the Court
ordered that:
(1) the Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operation that it
commenced on 24 February 2022 in the terri tory 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 persans 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
(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.
8. As of the date of this Declaration, Russia has failed to comply with that Ortler, has
intensified and expanded its military operations on the terri tory of Ukraine and has thus
aggravated the dispute pending before the Court.
9. On 30 March 2022, as provided for in Article 63, paragraph 1 of the Statute of the Court,
the Registrar duly notified the Republic of Bulgaria as a party to the Genocide
Convention that by Ukraine's application the Genocide Convention "is invoked both as
5
a basis for the Court's jurisdiction and the substantive basis of [Ukraine's] claims on the
merits". The Registrar further specified 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"1•
10. By this present Declaration, the Republic of Bulgaria, as a Party to the Genocide
Convention, avails itself of the right to intervene conferred upon it by Article 63,
paragraph 2 of the Statute of the Court. In accordance with Article 82, para. 2 of the Rules
of the Court the Republic of Bulgaria exercises this right2 by filling this Declaration "as
soon as possible and well in advance of the oral proceeding".
11. This case raises important issues concerning the Genocide Convention. The prohibition
of genocide is a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens norm)3. The
Court has recognized a norm as jus cogens norm the obligations protecting "essential
humanitarian values" 4
• Further, the Republic of Bulgaria recalls that the Court has
recognised 'the rights and obligations enshrined by the Convention (as) rights and
obligations erga omnes.'5 Given the essential fonction of the prohibition of genocide in
ensuring the interests of humanity and the erga omnes nature of the rights and obligations
of States under the Convention, as a Contracting Party the Republic of Bulgaria has a
direct interest in the construction that might be placed by the Court on the relevant
provisions of the Convention and wishes to observe the consistent interpretation,
application and fulfilment of the Convention among all Contracting Parties. Accordingly,
the Republic of Bulgaria has decided to avail itself of the right conferred upon it by
Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Statute to intervene in the present proceedings.
12. In line with Article 63 of the Statute and the Court' s case law on the matter6 Bulgaria
does not seek to become a party to the Proceedings. Bulgaria hereby confirms that, by
1 Letter from the Registrar of the Court No 156413 to the State Parties to the Genocide Convention of 30
March 2022 - see Annex A.
2 Haya de la Torre (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1951 , p. 76; Continental Shelf
(Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application for Permission to Intervene, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1981 ,
p. I 3, para. 21.
3 Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 43 , at p.
111 , paras. 161-162.
4 Application of the Convention on the prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 147.
5 Application of the Convention on the Prevent ion and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1996 (Il), para. 31.
6 Whaling in the Arctic, Declaration of Intervention by New Zealand, ICJ Reports 2013, pp 3, 5, para. 7.
6
availing itself of its right to intervene under Article 63, it accepts that the construction to
be given by the Court' s judgment in the case will be equally binding upon it.
13. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 63 of the Statue of the Court the Republic of
Bulgaria limits its intervention to matters of construction of the Genocide Convention in
the context of the present case. 7
14. The Republic of Bulgaria also wishes to assure the Court that the intervention was filed
"as soon as possible and no later than the date fixed for the opening of the oral
proceedings" as stipulated in Article 82 of the Rules of the Court. On 31 October 2022,
the Registrar of the Court informed the States Parties that, taking into account the number
of declarations pursuant to Article 63 of the Statute of the Court that have been filed in
the case, the Court considers that the interest of the sound administration of justice and
procedural efficiency would be advanced if any State that intends to avail itself of the
right of intervention conferred on it by Article 63 would file its declaration not later than
the 15 December 2022 (No 157450). This Declaration has been filed at the earliest
opportunity reasonably open to the Republic of Bulgaria.
15. The Republic of Bulgaria further informs the Court that it is willing to assist the Court in
grouping its intervention together with similar interventions from other states at future
stages of the proceedings, should the Court consider it constructive for the sound and
expeditious administration of justice.
16. The Republic of Bulgaria reserves the right to submit further arguments as to the scope
ratione materiae of the Genocide Convention and the Court's ensuringjurisdiction under
Article IX as part of written observations, following the decision of the Court on the
admissibility of this Declaration oflntervention. The Republic of Bulgaria requests to be
fumished with copies of the Parties' pleadings and documents enclosed in line with
Article 85, paragraph 1 of the Rules of the Court.
17. The Republic of Bulgaria will limit this intervention to jurisdictional issues, i.e. to the
construction of the compromissory clause in Article IX of the Genocide Convention in
line with the rule of interpretation envisaged in Article 26 and Article 31 of the Vienna
Convention of the Law of Treaties as a reflection of the rules of customary international
law.
7 Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6
February 2013, ICJ Reports 2013, p. 3, at p. 9, para. 18.
7
BASIS ON WHICH THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA IS PARTY TO THE
CONVENTION
18. The Republic of Bulgaria acceded to the Convention and deposited its instrument of
accession in accordance with Article XI, paragraph 4 of the Convention on 21 July 1950.8
In accordance with Article XIII, the Convention entered into force for the Republic of
Bulgaria on 12 January 1951. Upon accession, the Republic of Bulgaria made two
reservations, respectively regarding article IX and regarding article XII. The reservation
regarding article IX was withdrawn on 24 June 1992.
8 See Annex B.
8
PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION IN QUESTION IN THE CASE
19. Article IX of the Genocide Convention 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."
20. The meaning of the term "dispute" is long established in the case law of the Court and
previously of the Permanent Court of International Justice ("PCIJ"). The dispute as "a
disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests" between
the parties is essential for the interpretation of the construction of Article IX.9 In order
for a dispute to exist, "[i]t must be shown that the claim of one party is positively opposed
by the other". 10 The parties must "hold clearly opposite views concerning the question of
the performance or non-performance of certain international obligations". 11 Moreover,
"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"12
. The Court has established that the dispute must in principle exist on
the date on which the application was submitted. 13 With regard to the present application
those requirements are clearly met.
21. The Republic of Bulgaria hence is focusing on the proper construction of the other parts
of Article IX, namely that the scope of such disputes must relate to the interpretation,
application or fulfilment of the present Convention". It con tends 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. In
the present case the subject-matter of the application concerns the question whether
certain acts, such as allegations of genocide and military operations undertaken within
9 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. United Kingdom), Judgment No. 2, 1924, PCIJ, Series A,
p. 11 .
10 South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment,
ICJ Reports 1962, p. 328.
11 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of Ail F orms of Racial Discrimination
(Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Provisional Measures, Order of23 July 2018, [CJ. Reports 20 18, p. 414,
para. 18; Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v.
Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 20 16, p. 3, at p. 26, para. 50, citing
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hunga,y and Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion, ICJ
Reports 1950,p. 74.
12 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide (The Cambia
v. Myanma,), Prelimina,y Objections, Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 27, para. 71.
13 Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear
Disarmament (Marshal Islands v United Kingdom), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2006, p. 833, at p. 851. Para.
42-43.
9
the stated purpose of preventing and punishing genocide, are in conformity with the
Genocide Convention. This dispute falls within the scope of Article IX of the Convention.
22. The ordinary meaning of Article IX establishes the jurisdiction of the Court to answer the
question whether genocidal acts have been or are being committed or not. 14 Hence, it also
has jurisdiction ratione materiae to declare the absence of genocide. There can be a
dispute about the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention when one
State alleges that another State has comrnitted genocide15.
23. The second element of the Court's assessment of the interpretation, application and
fulfillment of the Convention is whether declarations and acts on the basis of false
allegations of genocide are in conformity with the Convention with regard to the principle
of interpretation and application of the obligations in good faith. In particular, the
jurisdiction of the Court extends to disputes concerning the unilateral use of military force
for the stated purpose of preventing and punishing alleged genocide. 16 In this aspect by
the teleological approach of interpretation further in details discussed "an international
instrument has to be interpreted and applied within the framework of the entire legal
system". 17
24. The reading of the Genocide Convention's compromissory clause is further supported by
its context. In particular, the use of the word "including" in the intermediate sentence
indicates a broader scope of Article IX of the Convention 18
• 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 dispute covered by Article IX, which are "included" in
the wider phrase of disputes "relating to the interpretation, application and fulfilment" of
the Convention. 19 Hence, the context of the phrase ("relating to") in Article IX confirms
that the Court' s jurisdiction goes beyond disputes between States about the responsibility
for alleged genocidal acts, but also covers disputes between States about the absence of
genocide and the violation of a good faith performance of the Convention, resulting in an
abuse of the law.
25. Moreover, Article IX expressly provides for ICJ jurisdiction "at the request of any of the
parties to the dispute" ( emphasis added). This language suggests that a State accused of
14 Allegations o/Genocide under the Convention on the Prevent ion and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), 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), Order of 23 January
2020, ICJ Reports 2020, p. 14, para. 30.
Jj Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bos nia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 75, para. 169.
16 Allegations o/Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime o/Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order of 16 March 2022, p. 11 , para. 45.
17 l egal Consequencesfor States of the Continued Presence of South Africain Namibia, Advisory opinion,
ICJ, 21 June 1971 , p. 53
18 Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.CJ Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 75,
para. 169.
19 See also the Written Observations of The Gambia on the Preliminary Objections raised by Myanmar, 20
April, pp. 28-29, para 3.
10
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.
26. The object and purpose interpretation instrument gives further support to the wide
understanding of Article IX. The Court 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"20
. The Court held that21 :
"The objects of such a convention must also be considered. The Convention was
manifestly adopted for a purely humanitarian and civilizing purpose. lt 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 ail, 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."
27. 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 means. lt would
undermine the Convention's credibility as universal instrument to outlaw the most
abh01Tent crime of genocide if its authority could be abused by any State Party without a
possibility of the victim of an 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's action vis-à-vis another State party to
the Convention.
28. In conclusion, the ordinary meaning of Article IX of the Convention, its context and the
object and purpose of the entire Convention demonstrate that a dispute regarding acts
carried out by one State against another State based on false allegations of genocide falls
under the notion of "dispute between Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation,
20 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide (The Cambia
v. Myanma,), Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 36, para. 107.
21 Reservations to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion of28 May 1951, ICJ Reports 1951 , p. 23.
11
application or fulfilment of the present Convention". Accordingly, the Court has
jurisdiction to declare the absence of genocide and the violation of a good faith
performance of the Convention, resulting in an abuse of the law. In particular, the
jurisdiction of the Court extends to disputes concerning the unilateral use of military force
for the stated purpose of preventing and punishing alleged genocide.
12
7
DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE DECLARATION
29. The following is a list of the documents in support of this Declaration, which documents
are attached hereto:
(a) Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice sent pursuant to Article
63, paragraph 1 of the Statute;
(b) Copy of the Instrument of accession by the Republic of Bulgaria to the Genocide
Convention and copy of the Communication of the withdrawal of the reservation
under Article IX.
13
CONLCUSION
30. On the basis of the information set out above, the Republic of Bulgaria avails itself on
the right conferred upon it by Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Statute to intervene as a nonparty
in the proceedings brought by Ukraine against the Russian Federation in this case.
31. The Government of the Republic of Bulgaria has appointed the undersigned as Agent for
the purposes of this Declaration. The Registrar of the Court may channel ail
communication at the following address:
Embassy of the Republic ofBulgaria in The Netherlands
The Hague, Duinroosweg 9, 2597 KJ, Den Haag
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Dimana Dramova
Agent of the Republic of Bulgaria
14
COUR INTERNATIONALE
DE JUSTICE
INTERNATIONAL COURT
Of JUSTICE
156413 30 March 2022
J have the honour to refer to my letter (No. 156253) dated 2 March 2022 informing your
Government that, on 26 February 2022, Ukraine filed in the Registry of the Court an Application
instituting proceedings against the Republic of the Russian Federation in the case conceming
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 concemed
in the case are parties is in question, the Registrar shall notify ail 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
concemed 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 Ru les of
Court, I have the honour to notify your Govemment 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 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)]
Peace Palace, Camegieplein 2
2517 KJ The Hague - Netherlands
./.
Palais de la Paix, Camegieplein 2
2517 KJ La Haye - Pays-Bas
Téléphone : + 31 (0) 70 302 23 23 - Facsimilé : + 31 (0) 70 364 99 28
Site Internet: www.icj-cij.org
Telephone: + 31 (0) 70 302 23 23 - Telefax: + 31 (0) 70 364 99 28
Website: www.icj-cij.org
COUR INTERNATIONALE
DE JUSTICE
1 NTERNATIONAL COURT
OF JUSTICE
Y our 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 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 Gautier
Registrar
-
MINISTÈRE Sofia, le----~_4_ j_u_i_l_l_e_t __ 191. ....
DES AFF AIRES ÉTRANGÉRES
N2 ;~i'iff~?- 2< - vII. JUL 2 11950
INITIA
.:onsicur le Sec::-étaire cén ·r~1 ,
Ln me réf~r~nt à votre lettre du 6
19t~9 et conform 'nent mu: dispositions de 1 1 ü.,tic:..e ,(I
de 'la Convonti o. _;>ol.lI' ln !)r6ve!1tion (;t la r lp! erc-irm
du cri c de Geno Ff', ou-.:erte r. l o. cig?:".nture h Pnris
1.e 9 ducenbre 19li-Ô , j ' ,., i 1 ' no11:.1em· de --ous f uire pnrvenir
_pï:à.r :_a pr ·sf'nte 1 1 iii::;trt'..,7Emt d I ad·"!.~:-:.ion clc l?.
Ilcipub i que I'o!wl: i1 e ùe "Julenric,avoc les r~sorvc~
e:tprer;~ ~nent y I:!ent.:.on..'1 ·es , ' lacL te Convention.
Veuillez agr éer, ; 01~icur le Secr 't:-.ire gé. Arcl,
l es Lsnurances de nn h,.,utc consid-rationo
Li:nistre
Son ""'xcel::..ence
1:om i<'u.r 'l.'rycvc Lie
Secr ~t~ i re ~6m~r ,ü ,le 1 1 Orgo. .. i:::ution
des :,c:.tions U ücs,
Lc~l:e ..>UCCCZ!i ' Ne -r-Yor l-:,
U .S • ~~o
LE P&0IDIU~
de
L' ASSEiBLEE NATIONALE
de la
REPUBLI QUE POPULAIRE DE BULGARIE
YANT VU ET EXAJ .. INE la Convention du 9 décembre
1948 pour l a prévention et la répression du crime de
Génocide ,
CONFIR~E son adhésion à cette Convention avec les
réserves suivantes:
1. En ce gui concerne l 'Article IX: La République
Populaire de Bulgarie ne s ' estime pas tenue par les
dispositions de l ' Ar ticle IX qui stipule que les di fférends
entre les Parties contractantes rel~tifs à
l ' interprétation, l ' application ou l'exécution de la
Convention seront soumis à l ' examen de la Cour internationale
de Justice à l a requête d'une partie au
différend,et déclare qu' en ce qui concerne la compétence
de la Cour en matière de différends relatifs à
l ' interprétation, l ' application et l ' exécution de l a
Convention, la République Populaire de Bulgarie continuera
à soutenir, comme elle l 'a fait jusqu 'à ce jour,
que ,dans chaque cas particulier, l ' accord de t Jutes
l es parties au différend est nécessaire pour que la
Cour internationale de Justice puisse être saisie de
ce différend aux fins de décision .
2. En ce gui concerne l '11rticl e XII · La République
Popul aire de Bulgarie déclare qu ' elle n' accepte pas
-.-
les termes de l 'Article XII de la Convention
et estime que toutes les clauses de la.dt.te
Convention devraient s'appliquer aux territ-aires
non autonomes,y compris les terr itoires sous
tutelle.
\
ET DECLARE en assurer 1 1 application.
EN FOI DE QUOI, a signé les présentes et y a
Jai t apposer le sceau de 1 1 E'tat.
DONNE à Sofia, le 1t juillet de l 'an mil neuf
cent cinquante.
LE SECRETAIR8 :
Ji)/1;_ fA1 fiAq_ 'L/
LE LillISTHE DES "1FF'ilIRES ETRANGE&,"S :
u N j T è.? ~A -:-. ; ) .~ : :,.:{i; ~ A ';" 1 V N s u },I I E s ! 1 E L E G R A p H
l- ------=---- -----------------·'--------- - ---"'1 P'AGI; -!.. OF 2 f ::ir •Jn ol"Ccb l Op{'rat1t;m~ Ùm t on 1.,. f?és r,-rvi: 0 11 Group,:" c•~ lo eortespondonce rè:lè9ra1thiq11•
JAB/KC
!-A~l VNê
OF ..,.:~~ T
OEltHtf'""f
LJG",f ?fJ
.,.E:tTF
1 ·~· jLe:gal
1 OA iE26 Jun0 1992
°\!::•~ 111..,1,;.E.r.1oo 1~)1.-. .,._., ,.'l;e,
1 S-3200 1 5472
LA 41 Tl
221,
(l-2, ll)
l (4-1 , 2. ~. 9)
1----'-------------------------· ....;1!,-f7--..i..l...l. a. ""')~(l6.t) CJ.8-5)
FACSIMILE 31 70 364 9928.
;lt!CI STRAR
INTRRC0URT
~ HAGUE pm. EDUARDO VALENCIA~-OSPINA
A.SSISTANT SKCRKTARY~GENERAL
HEREWITH YOO WILL FIN!> COPY OF A COMMUNICA'Il'.ON ON '.noe
WITlIDRAWAL OF TH& RESPECTIVE. RBSRRVATIONS C0NCERNING THE
1
1
1
1
COKPUlJfüRY JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNNt'lONAL COURT or JUSTICE MAt>E
• 1
i ' ' t 1,Y BULCARIA t.TPON RATIFICATION OF, OR AOCRSSION TO. TlIE NINE UNITR.D
~ATIONS CONVENTIONS IN:DlCAl'S:0 ON THE SAID COMMUNICATION.
B&ST UCARDS .
--------------------------------------------------~
//// 1
00 NOT ,
t!:Yl'.iND
MARG!NS
014 THE
SIDê
RIEN OltN
l ES MAR<
IWiTIWCT
.htl 1 o A B4e..z:___
Legal Officet:
1 ~ G" •qmîfi e ,. Lcruis:P.. Quér.é
: Chh!. TréAty Séct
.J
LA 41 TR/221/1 (3-2) , (3· 11) ,
(4~i."), (4-2),
(4 - 8), (4-9).
(7 -11.:.) , ( 16. 1) ,
(l&-5)
li;K/EK
The Secreta.ry• Gènersl of the United Nàtions p:tèsèt'l'tS bis
compliments to t:he P.érmamm.t Representati vo of the Republic of
E,ùlgaria to the United. Nations. and hlls the honour to reter t:o
the Permanent Representat::tve's note No. 332 of 23 June 1992,
eon.stituting th.e notification of wiehdrawal of the tese,rvat:ions
b7 the Govern;ment of RulgAria t:o tho provi5iOP$ r èla.ti~ to 1:he
Intérnational Court of Justice, as containod in the following
treat.i es:
(i) C-0nvention on the Pdvilege!;I and l tnrtru.niticu; of.
the Spec:i-!Ùi.zed .i\gencies, approvcd by the
Cene("al A$r;.embly of thé Unit.ed Nations on
21 Novembcr 1947 (Sections 24 and 32} ;
( i:i) Con,ventio:n cm t he Prévention and Punishnumt
of Crimes ag,ainst: Inte,rrun:ionally i'totected
P.0rsons, incl uding Diplomatie Agents, adopt:ed.
by th,e Genetal Assembly of the Uni ted Nations
on 14. Oêc:ember 1973 (Article 13, para.graph 1):
(iii) convention on the Préven~ion and Punishment
of t:hé Crime of Génoci de, adopted by the
·General Ass:~mbly <lf the lJnite-d Nations on
9 Oecembe-r 1948 (A:tticle IX);
(iv) International Convention on the Elimination
of All For111s of Racial Dhcri:mination,
opened for signature at New York on 7 March 1966
(Article 22);
- 2 -
{v) Convention on the Elilll.Lnation of A11 Forms of
Discri mination Against. Womên, adoptéd by the
Gener.al Assembly o,f the United Nations on
18 D-eceDJberr 1979 (A1:ticle 29, paragraph 1);
(vi) Convont:ion against Torture 1:1.rui ot.her Cruêl,
Inhuman or D-egra:ding Treatment or Punishm,êfjt,
adopted by the General Assembly of the
Uni ted Nations on 10 Deeember 1984 (Article 30 ,
pa.r.!lgraph 1) ;
(vii) C911venti-on for the Suppression of the Traffic
b, P@rsons a;.nd of thè Expl.oit.a.tion of t he
E'rostitut:i-on of Others, opened for .signature
at Lake Suceess, Now York, on 21 Ma.:rch 1950
( Ar-t:1,c:lè 22};
(viii} Convention on th$ Poli,tical Rights or Wom.~n,
opened fo•r signatur-e at New York: on 31 Marcb
1953 (Article IX); and
( ix.) International Convent.io.n Aga.inst the 'l'aking of
HMta,ges, adopted by the Genèrsl AsSèlïl.bJ.y of t:hë.
Unit~d Na.tians 0,n 17 Decemhêr l979 (Articl8 16 ,
paragraph 1).
'!'b_e lnt ,n:·n.ational Court of J usti ce was :Lmmediately
advised. All States ecmcerned are being informed accord.ingl.y.
2.2 September 1992
....
._P ERMANENT M ISSION
OF 'THE ,u;,-uàt..1i! OJ!!' BUL.OA~IA
T O T H E l.,lNIT E O NATIONS
i I a;AST 84'1'>< $TRE :ET
NEW vo .. ,c; N Y 100:ZC
The Permanent. Representative of the R.epublic of
Bulgaria to the Uni t~d Nations presents his compliments to tlie
Seeretary-General of the United N~tions and has the honor to
communicate that the Republic of Bulgaria has decided to
withdraw, pursuant to a Law enacted. by the National Assembly on
May 51, 191lT,- i ts -reservations concerning the compul,;;ory
juris diction -o' te I.t1ternational Court of Justice-, made upon the
ratification of,, or .acces.aiot'I by the R public of Bulgaria t.o the
following international treaties:
1. Convention on t he Prevention and Puuishmefi't. of the ..
,j : Cri.!lle- of Ge.noci de, adof;>ted by the Genera.l Assembly on 9 .. December,
·- 1948 (Article 9);
2, Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in
Pet"oons and of the Exploitation of t he Prostitution of Others,
1\ JJrr,.' openëd for signature at Lâkë Suëcess 1 New York, on 21 1arch. 1950
{ 1 • TJ.~ J (Article 22);
/·
3. Con vent ion on the Poli tic al Right s of Women , open.ed
•/ for aignature at New York on 31 March, 1953 (Article 9):
4. Internatio nal, Convention on the IUimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination, openeid for signature &t New York -
,r on 7 Harch, 1966 (Article 22);
5. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Agoinst Women, adopt.ed by th~ General Ass~robl y of
the United Nations on 1B December, 1979 tArticle 29• para l}t
6. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel1 I nhuma.n
or Degradln~ Treatment or Punishment, adopted by t he General
_,.
Assembly of th~ Unitèd Nations oi"I 10 Decèmber, 19,84 (At"tiele 30); ,___.,
H.E, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali
Secretary-Gen~ral
United Nations
New York
,~
J ,·_
~OJê
!'.""I .,
✓ r (
,.
' .
....
7, Convcn ion on the Prevention and Puni hment of
Crimes Again6\ Internationally Protected PPTSOns, Including
Diplomatie Agents, adopted by the Ceneral Assernbly of the vnitcd
Nations on 14 December 1 1973 (Article 13 , paral);
8, lnternational Convention Against the Taking of
Hostages , adopted by the General Assembly of the Unitéd o.tions
on 17 December, 1979 (Article 16, para 1);
9. Convention on the Pri.\.i.leges and Tnununities of t.he '-Specioliied
Agencies, approved by the General Assembly of the
United Nations on 21 , ovember, 1947 (Sections 24 and 32} ,
The Permanent Representative of the Republic of
Bu \garia. to the United N11,tions ava.ils. hi1Mtf" 1 f of thi.s opportuni t.y
to renew to t.he Secret ry-Gen ral the assur~nces of h lis highcst
conside.r:-ation. L '_/':_
New York City
June 23, 1992