INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
ALLEGATIONS OF GENOCIDE UNDER THE CONVENTION ON THE
PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
(UKRAINE V. RUSSIAN FEDERATION)
WRITIEN OBSERVA TI ONS OF UKRAINE ON THE
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION OF LATVIA
17 October 2022
1. On 21 July 2022, the Republic of Latvia ("Latvia") filed a Declaration of
Intervention (the "Declaration") pursuant to Article 63 of the Statute of the Court. On the
same day, the Registrar of the Court, acting in accordance with Article 83 of the Rules of Court,
forwarded a certified copy of the Declaration to the Agent of Ukraine and informed him that
the Court had fixed 15 September 2022 as the time-limit within which the Governments of
Ukraine and the Russian Federation may furnish their written observations on the
Declaration. By letter dated 31 August 2022, the Deputy-Registrar communicated that the
Court had postponed this time-limit until 17 October 2022.
2. The Government of Ukraine provides its observations regarding Latvia's
Declaration of Intervention below. In the view of the Government of Ukraine, the Declaration
of Latvia fulfills the requirements of Article 63 of the Statu te and Article 82 of the Rules of the
Court and is, accordingly, admissible.
* * *
3. Article 63 confers a "right to intervene in the proceedings" to a State notified of
a case involving the construction of a convention to which the State is a party. In assessing
whether a declaration falls under Article 63, "the only point which it is necessary to ascertain
is whether the object of the intervention ... is in fact the interpretation of the [relevant]
Convention in regard to the question" at issue in the dispute. 1 The declaration must also satisfy
the conditions set forth in Article 82 of the Ru les of the Court. As Article 63 of the Statute
provides for intervention as of right, 2 where a State seeking to intervene bas met the conditions
1 Haya de la Torre Case, Judgment of 13 June, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 77. See also Whaling in the
Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6 February
2013, J.C.J. Reports 2013, pp. 5-6, para. 8.
2 Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 63(2). See also Haya de la Torre Case,
Judgment of 13 June, I.C.J. Reports 1951 , p. 76; Continental Shelf (Tunisia/ Libyan A rab Jamahiriya)
provided under Article 63 of the Statute and Article 82 of the Ru1es, the declaration is deemed
admissible.3
4. The Declaration of Latvia satisfies all the necessary requirements. The instant
case puts in question the construction of the Genocide Convention. Latvia is a party to the
Genocide Convention and thus bas a right to intervene under Article 63. Based on the text of
the Declaration of Latvia, which identifies Latvia's interpretation of specific provisions of the
Genocide Convention, namely Articles I and IX, the Declaration's object is the interpretation
of the Genocide Convention.
5. Article 82(1) provides that declarations under Article 63 "shall be filed as soon
as possible, and not 1ater than the date fixed for the opening of the oral proceedings. In
exceptional circumstances a declaration submitted at a later stage may however be admitted."
Article 82(2) provides further requirements:
2. The declaration shal1 state the name of an agent. It 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 itse1f 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 the documents in support, which documents shal1
be attached.
Application ta Jntervene, Judgment, J.C.J. Reports 1981 , p. 13, para. 21; Territorial and Maritime
Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Application for Permission ta Intervene, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2011, p. 433, para. 35.
3 See Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand,
Order of 6 February 2013, J.C.J. Reports 2013, pp. 5-6, paras. 7-8.
2
6. All of these requirements are met. Latvia has filed its Declaration well before
the opening of oral proceedings, which have not been set. Latvia has also appointed an agent,4
and the Declaration notes the basis on which Latvia considers itself a party to the Genocide
Convention,5 identifies "particular provisions" of the Genocide Convention it considers to be
in question, and provides a statement regarding the "construction of those provisions."6
Finally, the Declaration includes "a list of the documents in support and attaches those
documents."7 Accordingly, all of the requirements of Article 82 are met and the Declaration
is admissible.
7. Russia's filing of preliminary objections on 3 October 2022 does not have an
effect on the admissibility of Latvia's intervention. As stated in the Declaration, Latvia wishes
to avail itself of its right to intervene with respect to the construction of several provisions of
the Genocide Convention, including those relevant to the merits of this case (Article I) and to
the Court's jurisdiction (Article IX). 8 Russia's preliminary objections place at issue the
interpretation of several articles of the Convention. Russia takes the position that, in addition
to Article IX, the Court should "carry out, at this stage, a proper interpretation of the provisions
invoked by Ukraine (Articles I and IV of the Convention) to determine the obligations
contained therein and the scope of the Court's jurisdiction ratione materiae."9 Without
4 Decla ration of Intervention Un der Article 63 of the Republic of Latvi a, Allegations of Genocide
Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v.
Russia), 21 July 2022, para. 58.
s Id. para. 23.
6 Id. paras. 25- 55.
7 Id. para. 56.
s Id. paras. 38-55.
9 Preliminary Objections of the Russian Federation, Allegations of Genocide Un der the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russia), filed 3 October 2022,
para. 163.
3
prejudice to Ulu-aine's ultimate position as to whether the interpretation of these provisions
should take place at the preliminary objections or merits phase of these proceedings, Latvia
has the right under Article 63 of the Statute to intervene with respect to the interpretation of
any provision of the Convention that is at issue, including any provision that the Courtis asked
to interpret during the preliminary objections phase of the case. 10
8. Moreover, as the Court did not decide under Article 79 of the Rules that
questions concerning its jurisdiction or the admissibility of the application shall be determined
separately, and Ukraine accordingly filed a Memorial ad dressing both the Court' s jurisdiction
and the merits, it was appropriate for Latvia to submit a Declaration of Intervention
addressing its interpretation of provisions of the Genocide Convention relevant to both
jurisdiction and the merits in this case. 11
* * *
9. For the reasons set forth above, it is the view of the Government of Ukraine that
the Declaration of Intervention filed by Latvia under Article 63 of the Statute of the Court is
admissible.
IO See Hugh Thirlway, THE LAW AND PROCEDURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: FIFTYYEARS
OF JURISPRUDENCE, VOLUME I (2013), p. 1031 ("If for example a case is brought on the basis of the
compromissory clause in a multilateral convention, the interpretation of that clause may be of interest
to ail the other States parties (or at least those of them who have not made a reservation to the clause).
It would therefore seem that there is no reason why intervention under Article 63 should not be
possible to argue a question of jurisdiction or admissibility, if that question in volves the interpretation
of a multilateral treaty." (internai citations omitted)); ROSENNE's LAW AND PRACTICE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT: 1920-2017, VOLUME III PROCEDURE (Malcolm N. Shaw QC ed., 5th ed. 2016),
p. 1533 ("If the dispute over jurisdiction relates to the interpretation of a multilateral treaty which
con tains a compromissory clause or any other provision including another instrument intrinsically
linked to that treaty, it is not self-evident why any other party to that treaty cannot intervene under
Article 63 in any phase of the proceedings: close examination of the legislative history of that
provision in 1920 and of the initial Ru les of Court of 1922 strongly indicates that this was precisely the
intention behind that provision." (interna] citation omitted)).
"Cf Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of
America) (Declara tion of Intervention of El Salvador), Order of 4 October 1984, I.C.J. Reports 1984,
p. 216 (finding inadmissible El Salvador's declaration, which addressed merits as well as jurisdictional
issues, where the Court had ordered a separate jurisdictional phase of proceedings and Nicaragua had
filed a Memorial limited to jurisdiction and admissibility).
4
Mr. Anton Korynevych
Agent of Ukraine
17 October 2022
5
Co-Agent of Ukraine
Written Observations of Ukraine on the Declaration of Intervention filed by Latvia