INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION UND ER ARTICLE 63
OFNORWAY
10 November 2022
In the case of
ALLEGATIONS OF GENOCIDE UND ER THE CONVENTION ON THE
PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
(UKRAINE v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION)
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION OF NORWA Y
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 63 OF THE STATUTE OF
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
To the Registrar, International Court of Justice, the undersigned being duly authorized by the
Government ofNorway.
1. On behalf of the Government ofNorway, I have the honour to submit to the Court a Declaration
oflntervention 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, and specifies the case and the convention to which it
relates, and shall contain:
(a) particulars of the basis on which the dec/arant 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.
These matters are addressed below, following certain preliminary observations.
PRELJMINARY OBSERVATIONS
3. On 26 February 2022, Ukraine instituted proceedings against the Russian Federation in a dispute
concerning the interpretation, application or fui filment of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (the "Genocide Convention" or the "Convention").
4. In paras. 4-12 of its Application instituting proceedings, Ukraine contends that there is a dispute
between Ukraine and the Russian Federation within the meaning of Article IX of the Genocide
Convention, relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention.
5. On substance, Ukraine claims that the use of force by the Russian Federation in or against
Ukraine since 24 February 2022 on the basis of alleged genocide, as well as the Russian
Federation's preceding recognition of the so-called Donetsk People's Republic and the so-called
2
Luhansk People' s Republic with the pronounced aim of stopping a genocide of people living there1,
is incompatible with the Genocide Convention, quoting Articles 1-III thereof (paras. 26-29 of the
Application).
6. On 30 March 2022, in accordance with Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court, the
Registrar notified the Government of Norway as a party to the Genocide Convention that by
Ukraine's application the Genocide Convention "is invoked both as a basis for the Court's
jurisdiction and the substantive basis of the Applicant' s claims on the merits". The registrar also
noted that:
"[TJ he 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 Il and Ill 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 the case ".2
7. This case raises legal issues of central importance to the Genocide Convention and the
international legal order more generally. The Court has established that the Genocide Convention
imposes obligations erga omnes partes on States parties to the Convention,3 and that the prohibition
against genocide is a jus cogens norm in international law.4 It follows from the erga omnes partes
character of the obligations enshrined in the Convention that ail States parties have a common
interest to ensure the prevention, suppression and punishment of genocide, as well as a legal interest
of their own in the interpretation, application and implementation of the Convention. 5 The
Genocide Convention is of utmost importance to prevent and punish genocide, and interventions in
the present case is a means by which States parties to the Convention may live up to and reaffirm
their collective responsibilities for the protection of the rights and obligations enshrined in the
Convention, and support the crucial role of the Court in this regard.
8. It is in this context, that Norway hereby avails itself of its right to intervene in the proceedings
conferred upon it by Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute.6 Norway recognises that, by using its
1 Address by the President of the Russian Federation of 24 February 2022, http://en.kremlin.
ru/events/president/news/6 7 84 3.
2 Letter from the Registrar of the Court of 30 March 2022 - see Annex A.
3 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 36, para. 107.
4 Case Conceming 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, paras. 161- 162.
5 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 36, para. 107.
6 This Court has recognized that Article 63 confers a "right" of intervention, cf. Haya de la Torre (Colombia v. Peru),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 76; Continental Shelf(Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application for Permission
to Intervene, Judgment, l.C.J. Reports 198 I, p. 13, para. 21. The Court bas also underlined that an intervention "is
limited to submitting observations on the construction of the convention in question and does not allow the intervenor,
which does not become a party to the proceedings, to deal with any other aspect of the case be/ore the Court; and
whereas such intervention cannot affect the equality of the Parties to the dispute ", cf. Whaling in the Antarctic
3
right to intervene under Article 63 of the Statute, the construction of the Genocide Convention
given by the judgement in this case will be equally binding upon it.
9. Consistent with the scope for interventions under Article 63 of the Statute, Norway will present
its interpretation of the relevant Articles of the Genocide Convention in line with customary rules of
interpretation as reflected in Article 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law ofTreaties.7
1 O. At present, Norway will focus on the construction of Article IX, I, II, Ill and VIII of the
Convention. Norway reserves its right to supplement the present declaration and the scope of its
observations to the extent that additional matters of jurisdiction or on the merits arise as the case
progresses, or as Norway becomes aware of them upon receipt (in accordance with Article 86,
paragraph 1, of the Rules) of the pleadings and documents annexed thereto.
11. As stipulated in Article 82 of the Rules of the Court, this declaration of intervention is filed "as
soon as possible and no later than the date fixed for the opening of the oral proceedings". Reference
is also made to the letter of 31 October 2022 from the Registrar, urging any State that intends to
avail itself of the right of intervention to file its declaration no later than Thursday 15 December
2022. Norway respectfully requests to be provided with copies of all pleadings filed by Ukraine and
Russia, as well as any annexed documents, in accordance with Article 86, paragraph 1, of the Rules
of the Court. Norway further informs the Court that it is willing to assist the Court in grouping its
intervention together with similar interventions from other States for future stages of the
proceedings, if the Court deems this useful in the interest of an expedient administration of justice.
NORWAY ISA PARTY TO THE CONVENTION
12. Norway signed the Genocide Convention on 11 December 1948 and deposited its instrument of
ratification on 22 July 1949 in accordance with Article XI, paragraph 2, of the Convention. 8
Norway has not filed any reservations or declarations to the Convention, and remains a Contracting
Party to the Convention.
(Australia v. Japan), Declaration oflntervention of New Zealand, Ortler of 6 February 20 13, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 3, at
p. 9, para. 18.
7 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 31, para. 87: "The Court wi/1 have recourse to the ru/es of customary
international law on treaty interpretation as rejlected 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 Fonns of
Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 4 February 2021, p. 24,
para. 75 with further references.
8 Letter from the United Nations regarding the Ratification by the Govemrnent ofNorway of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - see Annex B
4
PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION IN QUESTION IN THE CASE:
ARTICLE IX
13. In its Application, Ukraine bases the Court's jurisdiction on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the
Statute of the Court and on Article IX of the Genocide Convention. The Russian Federation, in its
"Document" of 7 March 2022 addressed to the Court, daims that Article IX of the Genocide
Convention does not confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case. Thus, the construction of Article
IX of the Genocide Convention is in question in this case. In line with the arguments presented
above, Norway considers that it has an interest of its own in the interpretation of this issue, and
submits that the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the absence of genocide and the violation of a
good faith performance of the Convention, resulting in an abuse of the law.
14. 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. "
15. The notion of"dispute" is already well-established in the case law of the Court. The Court has
described 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.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 two sides must "hold
clearly opposite views conceming 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
daims, it may be inferred from this silence, in certain circumstances, that it rejects those daims and
that, therefore, a dispute exists".12 Finally, as the Court has also made clear, the existence of a
dispute "is a matter for objective determination by the Court which must turn on an examination of
the facts", and a dispute can be found to exist whenever it is demonstrated, on the basis of the
evidence available, "that the respondent was aware, or could not have been unaware, that its views
were "positively opposed" by the applicant". 13 lt follows from this that the unilateral denial of a
9 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 11.
10 South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 21
December 1962, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 319, at p. 328.
11 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of Ali Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v.
United Arab Emirates), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 July 2018, I.C.J. Reports 2018, p. 406, at p. 414, para. 18;
ICJ, Alleged Violations ofSovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia),
Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 17 March 2016, I.C.J. Reports 2016, p. 3, at p. 26, para. 50, citing Interpretation of
Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion, l.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 74.
12 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide {The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 27, para. 71.
13 See, e.g. Obligations conceming Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear
Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2016, p. 833, at
pp. 849-851, paras. 37-43.
5
dispute by one party does not disprove the existence of a dispute between the parties within the
meaning of Article IX of the Convention, conferringjurisdiction on the Court to adjudicate a claim
by the applicant.
16. As follows from the wording of Article IX, a dispute within the meaning of that provision is one
that relates to "the interpretation, application or fui filment of the present Convention". 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 Justice of such
disputes between Contracting Parties as relate to the interpretation or application of the treaties in
question." 14 Its inclusion in the text of the provision makes clear that the Court may assert
jurisdiction pursuant to Article IX of the Convention over disputes conceming the alleged
fulfilment by a Contracting Party of its obligations under the Convention.
17. The phrase "including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or any of the
other acts enumerated in article III" confirms this reading. The word "including" also signifies a
broader scope of Article IX of the Convention when compared to other compromissory clauses. 15
Disputes relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated
in Article III are only one type of dispute covered by Article IX, which are "included" in the
disputes "relating to the interpretation, application and fui filment" of the Convention. 16
18. While the scenario of (alleged) responsibility for acts of genocide is a dispute on the
"interpretation, application or fulfilment" of the Convention, the Court'sjurisprudence confirms it
is not the only one. There can also be disputes about "non-action" as a violation of the substantive
obligations under Article I, IV and V, for instance where one State alleges that another State is not
honouring its commitment to "prevent" and "punish" genocide, because it grants impunity to acts of
genocide committed on its territory. In The Gambia v. Myanmar (pending), the applicant claimed
that the defendant was not only responsible for prohibited acts under Article III, but that it was also
violating its obligations under the Convention by failing to prevent genocide in violation of Article
I; and failing to punish genocide in violation of Articles I, IV and V. 17
19. A dispute as to whether any violations of the Convention have occurred or not, is a dispute
conceming the " interpretation, application or fulfillment" of those obligations over which the Court
may exercise jurisdiction pursuant to Article IX, if requested to do so by any of the parties to the
14 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishrnent of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina
v. Serbia and Montenegro), Preliminary Objections, Declaration of Judge Oda, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (11), p. 627, para. 5
(emphasis in the original).
15 Case Conceming Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishrnent of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia
and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 75, para. 169.
16 See also the Written Observations of The Gambia on the Preliminary Objections raised by Myanmar, 20 April 2021 ,
pp. 28-29, para. 3.22 ("The inclusion of disputes "relating to the responsibility of a State f or genocide" among those
that can be brought be/ore the Court unmistakably means that responsibility for genocide can be the abject of a dispute
brought be/ore the Court by any contracting party ").
17 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishrnent of the Crime ofGenocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar).
6
dispute. 18 This includes jurisdiction to declare the absence of genocide and the violation of an
obligation of good faith performance of the Convention, resulting in an abuse of the law. In
particular, the jurisdiction of the Court ex tends to disputes concerning the question of whether a
unilateral use of military force was a lawful discharge of the undertaking to fulfil the obligation of
preventing and punishing alleged genocide in accordance with Article I of the Convention. 19
20. Moreover, a dispute relating to the "interpretation, application or fulfilment" of the Convention
exists despite the absence of a "specific reference" to a Convention or its provisions in public
statements by the parties, as long as those statements "refer to the subject-matter of the treaty with
sufficient clarity to enable the State against which a daim is made to identify that there is, or may
be, a dispute with regard to that subject-matter".20
21. Article IX further expressly provides that the jurisdiction of the ICJ is established "at the request
of any of the parties to the dispute" ( emphasis added). Thus, it is clear that a State accused of
committing genocide bas the same right to submit the dispute to the Court as the State making the
accusation. This is also confirmed by the object and purpose of the Convention. The Court recently
noted that "[a]ll the States parties to the Genocide Convention [thus] have a common interest to
ensure the prevention, suppression and punishrnent of genocide, by committing themselves to
fulfilling the obligations contained in the Convention".21 Famously, in its 1951 Advisory Opinion,
the Court held:22
"The abjects of such a convention must also be considered. The Convention was
manifestly adopted for a pure/y humanitarian and civilizing purpose. It is indeed
difficult to imagine a convention that might have this dual character to a greater degree,
since its abject on the one hand is to safeguard the ve,y existence of certain human
groups and on the other to confirm and endorse the most elementa,y principles of
morality. "
22. The Convention's object to protect the most elementary principles of morality prohibits a State
party from abusing its provisions for other means. lt would undermine the Convention's credibility
as a universal instrument to outlaw the most abhorrent crime of genocide if its authority were to be
abused by any State party without there being a legal option for the victim of such abuse to invoke
the compromissory clause of that Convention and turn to the Court for relief. The purpose of the
18 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; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Order of23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p. 14,
para. 30.
19 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. 11 , para. 45.
20 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime a/Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ, 22 July 2022, para. 72, citing Application of the International
Convention on the Elimination of Ail Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary
Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p. 70, at p. 85, para. 30.
21 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 36, para. 107.
22 Reservations to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion of28 May 1951, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 23.
7
Convention speaks loudly in favour of a reading of Article IX where disputes relating to the
interpretation, application and fulfilment includes disputes concerning the alleged abuse of the
Convention's authority to justify a State's action vis-à-vis another State party to the Convention.
23. In conclusion, the ordinary meaning of the terms of Article IX of the Convention, in its context
and in the light of the abject and purpose of the Convention shows that a dispute regarding acts
carried out by one State against another State based on false claims of genocide constitutes a
"dispute between Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fui filment of the
present Convention" pursuant to Article IX. Accordingly, Norway submits that the Court has
jurisdiction on the basis of the Applicant' s submission to declare the absence of genocide and the
violation of a good faith performance of the Convention, resulting in an abuse of the law.
24. ln the event that it should be argued that Norway cannot intervene in the question of the
construction of the Convention's Article IX, Norway disputes this. Article 63 of the Statute does
not make a distinction between provisions in a Convention. On the contrary, Article 63 clearly
states that the right to intervene arises "whenever the construction of a convention to which States
other than those concerned in the case are parties is in question" ( emphasis added). The right to
intervene thus arises at any point any provision of such a convention is in question before the Court.
The terms of Article 63 of the Statute, and the terms of Article 82 of the Rules of the Court to file a
declaration "as soon as possible" both confirm that the filing of an Article 63 declaration is
admissible at this stage of the proceedings. Indeed, States may offer their assistance to the Court in
the construction of a particular convention both in relation to provisions which relate to
jurisdictional issues and those which relate to substantial issues. Accordingly, interventions on both
aspects are allowed.23
ARTICLE I, CFR. ARTICLE VIII, ARTICLE II AND III
25. Ukraine argues that the dispute between the Parties concerns the question whether, as a
consequence of the Russian Federation's unilateral assertion that genocide is occurring, the Russian
Federation has a lawful basis to take military action in and against Ukraine to prevent and punish
genocide pursuant to Article I of the Genocide Convention.24 In line with the arguments presented
in paragraph 7 above, Norway considers that it has an interest of its own in the interpretation of this
issue. Norway submits that an undertaking to prevent or to punish genocide in conformity with
Article I of the Genocide Convention does not in any case permit a State to engage in acts of
aggression or any use of force in contravention of the Charter of the United Nations.
26. Article I of the Convention reads as follows:
23 MN Shaw (ed), Rosenne's Law and Practice of the International Court 1920-2015 (5th ed, Vol III, Brill Nijhoff
2016), p. 1533; H. Thirlway, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Fifty Years of Jurisprudence
(Vol 1, OUP 2013), p. 1031 ; A. Miron/C. Chinkin, "Article 63" in: Zimmennann/Tams/Oellers-Frahm/Tomuschat (eds),
The Statu te of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (3rd ed. OUP 2019), p. 1741, at p. 1763, note 46.
24 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, para 31.
8
"The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in lime of peace
or in lime of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent
and to punish. "
27. Article I of the Convention concems the duty of the Contracting Parties "to prevent and to
punish" genocide, whether committed intime of peace or intime ofwar. The notion of "undertake
to prevent" in Article I entails that each State party must assess whether a genocide or a serious risk
of genocide exists prior to taking action pursuant to Article 1.25 Such an assessment must be
justified by substantial evidence "that is fully conclusive". 26 A State purporting to act "to prevent"
genocide is under an obligation to gather evidence of the situation from relevant sources, such as
independent investigations conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. The Court has
previously considered this assessment "of critical importance".27 Moreover, the duty under Article I
must be carried out in good faith.28 The principle of good faith, operates as a safeguard against
misuse of the terms and institutions of the Convention, as it, in line with the Court's previous
observation, "obliges the Parties to apply it in a reasonable way and in such a manner that its
purpose can be realized".29
28. Furthermore, Article I must be read in conjunction with Article VIII when interpreting
"undertake to prevent". Article VIII reads:
"Any Contracting Party may cal! upon the competent organs of the United Nations to
take such action under the Charter of The United Nations as they consider
appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other
acts enumerated in Article III. "
29. The invitation to call upon the competent organs of the United Nations, together with the
provision in Article IX for judicial settlements, indicates that the Convention imposes on States a
duty to seek collective responses to the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide through the
employment of multilateral and peaceful means. Such a reading coïncides with Chapter VI of the
UN Charter, which entails a general obligation for States to settle disputes by peaceful means.
Moreover, the preamble of the Convention clearly reflects the collective approach underlying it,
when explicitly referring to a common conviction by the undersigned that "international cooperation
is required" in order to liberate mankind from the "odious scourge" that acts of genocide
truly represent. The prevention of genocide is a worldwide task for the benefit ofhumankind, nota
matter for the protection of national interests. The object and purpose of Article VIII is to underline
the preferability of collective over unilateral measures.
25 Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia
and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, l.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at pp. 221-222, paras.430-431.
26 Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia
and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, l.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 90, para. 209.
27 Case Conceming 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 pp. 221-222, para. 430-431.
28 Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 79, para. 142.
29 Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 79, para. 142.
9
30. ln fulfilling their duty to prevent genocide, Contracting Parties must act within the limits set by
international law.30 Paramount among obligations limiting the freedom of action are the obligation
of States pursuant to article 2 ( 4) of the UN Charter to refrain in their international relations from
the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, and
the obligation under articles 2 (3) and 33 of the UN Charter to settle their disputes peacefully in
such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered. Any acts undertaken by the
Contracting Parties "to prevent and to punish" genocide must be in conformity with the obligations
established in the UN Charter, including herein the spirit and aims of the United Nations as set out
in Article 1 of the UN Charter.31 This includes, in particular, the prohibition of aggression.
31. Turning to the undertaking "to punish" in Article I of the Convention, Norway contends that the
obligation is limited to punitive measures of a criminal law character directed against individuals.
This is confirmed by Articles IV-VI of the Convention. lt is evident that Article I of the Convention
cannot serve as a legal basis for military measures to "punish" a State or a people, in violation of the
most fundamental norms of international law.
32. Norway submits that "undertake to prevent" genocide in conformity with Article I of the
Genocide Convention does not in any case permit a State to engage in any use of force in
contravention of the Charter of the United Nations.
33. In addition to Article VIII, Article I must be interpreted in light of Articles II and III. Article II
of the Convention deals with the definition of genocide and Article III lists five specific types of
acts punishable as genocide. Norway contends that the elements of genocide are already wellestablished
in the Court's case law. In particular, in order for genocide to occur, there is a
requirement to establish both genocidal action and a (specific) genocidal intent. For the purposes of
the Convention, genocidal intent is defined as an "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such" through the committal of any of the acts listed in Article
IL 32 The Convention thus contains specific elements as to intent and action required for an act to
constitute an act of genocide. The occurrence, even on a large scale, of civilian casualties during the
course of armed conflict is not itself evidence of genocidal action or genocidal intent, as it cannot in
itselfbe qualified as evidence of the extreme and most inhuman form of persecution that is designed
to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
3° Case Conceming 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. 221 , para. 430.
31 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, para 58.
32 Case Conceming 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 (I), p. 43, at pp. 121-122, paras. 186-189.
10
DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE DECLARATION
34. The following documents are attached hereto in support of this Declaration:
Annex A: Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to the Ambassador of
Norway to the Kingdom of the Netherlands dated 30th of March 2022;
Annex B: Letter from the United Nations regarding the Ratification by the Government of Norway
of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
CONCLUSION
35. On the basis of the information set out above, Norway uses the right conferred upon it by
Article 63 paragraph 2 of the Statute to intervene in the proceedings brought by Ukraine against the
Russian Federation in this case.
36. The government ofNorway has appointed Kristian Jervell, Director General of the Legal
Affairs Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as Agent for the purposes ofthis Declaration
together with Martin S0rby, Deputy Director General of the Legal Affairs Department of the
Ministry of Foreign Aff airs, as Co-Agent. The Registrar of the Court may channel all
communication through the following address:
Royal Norwegian Embassy in the Hague
Eisenhowerlaan 771
NL-2517KK
Den Haag
Netherlands
Respectfully,
j(~l~ Kristian J ervell
Agent of the Gove ent ofNorway
11
Annex A: Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to the Ambassador ofNorway to the Kingdom
of the Netherlands dated 30th of March 2022
(()llR IN 11 RNA! 10NAI l
l)f llJ~llO
INHRNATIONAI COUR!
or IU~TIO
156413 30 March 2022
1 have the honour 10 refer to my letter (No. 156253) dated 2 March 2022 inforrning 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
Gcnocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). A copy of the Application was appended to that letter.
The text of the Application is aise 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 ait such States forthwith".
Further, under Article 43, paragraph 1, 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 Article 63,
paragraph 1, of the Stature, 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, 1 have the honour to notify your Govemment of the following.
ln the above-mentioned Application, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime ofGenocide (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. ln 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 li 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. lt therefore appears that the
construction of this instrument will be in question in the case.
H.E. the Arnbassador
of the Kingdom of Norway
to the Kingdom of the Nethcrlands
Embassy of the Kingdom ofNorway
The Hague
Palais de la Pa,x, Carnegieplem 2
2517 KJ La Haye • Pays-Bas
Hléphon, : -31 (0) 70 302 23 23 - Facsimilé : +31 (0) 70 364 99 28
Site Internet . Yi.WW 1c1-cij org
12
Peace Palace, Cameg,eple,n 2
2517 KJ The Hague - Ne1hcrlands
./.
Telephone • 31 (0) 70 302 23 23 - T elefax • 3 1 (0) 70 364 99 28
Wcbsuc. wwv. .1cj-ciJ org
COUR INTfRNAl IONALI
Dr JUSTICl
INTlRNATIONAl t.OURl
Of JUSTIC[
Your country is included in the list of parties 10 the Genocide Convention. The present letter
should accordingly be regarded as the notification contemplated by Article 63, paragraph 1, of the
Statute. 1 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 ofmy highest consideration.
- 2 -
13
Philippe Gautier
Registrar
Almex B: Letter from the United Nations regarding the Ratification by the Govemment ofNorway of the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
UNITED NATIONS • NATIONS UNIES
LAltE SUCCESS~ NEW YORK
TCLCPHDNIEÎ F'IELO■TGNI: 7 • tfOD
.... HWDOO C.N.91.1949.TREATIES 29 July 1949
\ '
CONVI!ffl'ION OF 9 Dmmoeoe 1948 ON THE PIWOE2fTION ARD \
PONISHKBNT OP THE CRIME OP G!NOCIDE
RATIFICATION BJ HOR\f!j(. r
. ''-<-~/
Sir,
I .1111 directed b7 .the Secreta~~al to intorm :,ou that
on 22 Jul,y 1949 the inetl"Wllent ot ratification i:,7 the Governaiat.
ot N~ ot the Connnt.ion of 9 0ec·amber 1948 an the Prnart.icn
'
.and Pwliebmmt ot the Crime ot, ~id• waa depollited rith the
Secr.t.arJ-Geeral of the UJdted Nations, in accordanoe with the
prorieiona ot Article XI.
1
'l'he preeent. notif~~ation 18 made in accordance witb
Article XVII(&) ~t the Convention.
14
I have the honour to be,
str.
Your obedient. Servant
For the Aaaistant Secrc.tarrGeneral
1n charge ot the Legal C'9plLl"tJunt
Director
/
UNITED NATIONS • - NATIONS UNIES LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK
T&L.S~HDN&1 ,1&LOaTONS "J'•UDO
C.H.91.1949.TREATIES le 29 ju1llet. 1949
CONV»n'IO?f 00 9 DEX::aoeRE 1948 POUR LA PREmm:ON
El' LA R~RESSION DU CRIME DE GENOCIDE
RATIFICATION PAR LE l«)RV!XlE
Monsieur
Je suie charg' par le Secr~aire géruSral de porter l votre
connaissance que 111nst.J"WIIClt de ratification par le gouvernement
de la Non•ge de la Convention du 9 d6cembre 194.8 pour la
pmention et, la ripression du crime de Gmocide a 1t., dfpc,8'
aupris du Secrftaire s,n&ral de l 10rgani1àtion dei Nations
Unies le 22 julllet. 1949, conform6ment aux dispositions de
l'article XI de la Convention.
La pr6sente notUication est taite en application de
l 1art.icle XVII (a) de la Convention.
Je vous p.• .i.e d I agr&er, Monsieur
l 1assurance de me. haute coneidfration.
Pour le Secr'tairo g&n6ral adjoint
charg, du.Département juridique
Directeur
15
Declaration of intervention of Norway