INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
ALLEGATIONS OF GENOCIDE UNDER THE CONVENTION ON THE
PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
(UKRAINE V. RUSSIAN FEDERATION)
WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS OF UKRAINE ON THE
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION OF THE PRINCIPALITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN
30 January 2023
1
1. On 15 December 2022, the Principality of Liechtenstein (“Liechtenstein”) filed
a Declaration of Intervention (the “Declaration”) pursuant to Article 63 of the Statute of the
Court. On the next 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 30 January 2023 as the time-limit within which the
Governments of Ukraine and the Russian Federation may furnish their written observations
on the Declaration.
2. The Government of Ukraine provides its observations regarding
Liechtenstein’s Declaration of Intervention below. In the view of the Government of Ukraine,
the Declaration of Liechtenstein fulfills the requirements of Article 63 of the Statute 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 Rules of the Court. As Article 63 of the Statute
provides for intervention as of right,2 where a State seeking to intervene has 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, I.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 Arab Jamahiriya)
Application to Intervene, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1981, p. 13, para. 21; Territorial and Maritime
Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Application for Permission to Intervene, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2011, p. 433, para. 35.
2
provided under Article 63 of the Statute and Article 82 of the Rules, the declaration is deemed
admissible.3
4. The Declaration of Liechtenstein satisfies all the necessary requirements. The
instant case puts in question the construction of the Genocide Convention. Liechtenstein is a
party to the Genocide Convention and thus has a right to intervene under Article 63. Based
on the text of the Declaration of Liechtenstein, which identifies Liechtenstein’s interpretation
of specific provisions of the Genocide Convention, namely Article 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 later 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 shall 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 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 the documents in support, which documents shall
be attached.
6. All of these requirements are met. Liechtenstein has filed its Declaration well
before the opening of oral proceedings, which have not been set. Liechtenstein has also
3 See Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand,
Order of 6 February 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, pp. 5–6, paras. 7–8.
3
appointed an agent,4 and the Declaration notes the basis on which Liechtenstein 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 Liechtenstein’s intervention. As stated in the Declaration,
Liechtenstein wishes to avail itself of its right to intervene with respect to the construction of
Article IX of the Genocide Convention, which concerns the jurisdiction of the Court and is
therefore at issue in addressing Russia’s preliminary objections.8 Liechtenstein 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 Court is asked to interpret
during the preliminary objections phase of the case.9
4 Letter from the H.E. Ms. Dominique Hasler, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Education and Sports of
the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, dated 13
December 2022.
5 Declaration of Intervention Under Article 63 of the Principality of Liechtenstein, Allegations of
Genocide Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russia), 15 December 2022, para. 13.
6 Id. paras. 14–24.
7 Id. para. 25.
8 Id. paras. 15–24.
9 See Hugh Thirlway, THE LAW AND PROCEDURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: FIFTY YEARS
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 all 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 involves the interpretation
of a multilateral treaty.” (internal citations omitted)); ROSENNE’S LAW AND PRACTICE OF THE
4
* * *
8. For the reasons set forth above, it is the view of the Government of Ukraine that the Declaration of Intervention filed by Liechtenstein under Article 63 of the Statute of the Court is admissible.
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 contains 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 Rules of Court of 1922 strongly indicates that this was precisely the intention behind that provision.” (internal citation omitted)).
5
30 January 2023
Mr. Anton Korynevych
Agent of Ukraine
Written Observations of Ukraine on the Declaration of Intervention filed by Liechtenstein