Written observations of Bulgaria on the subject-matter of its intervention

WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS
OF
THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA
IN THE CASE
ALLEGATIONS OF GENOCIDE UNDER THE CONVENTION ON
THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF
GENOCIDE
(UKRAINE V RUSSIAN FEDERATION)
30 June 2023
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On 18 November 2022, the Republic of Bulgaria filed a Declaration of Intervention in
the case concerning Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) pursuant to
Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice ("the
Statute").
2. On 5 June 2023, the International Court of Justice ("the Court") decided that the
Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of Bulgaria under Article 63 of the Statute
is admissible, amongst others1
. The present Written Observations are submitted to the
Court based on its Order of 5 June 2023 ("the Order") and within the the time-limit
fixed by the Court in accordance with Article 86, paragraph 1, of the Rules of the Court,
namely the 5 of July 20232
.
3. The intervention of the Republic of Bulgaria under Article 63 of the Statute has a limited
scope on the construction of the Convention in question before the Court at the relevant
stage of the proceedings3. As determined by the Court in the Order, the construction of
Article IX and other provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide ("Genocide Convention")4 that are relevant for the determination
of the Cout1's jurisdiction ratione materiae are in question at the present stage of the
Proceedings5.
4. The intervention of the Republic of Bulgaria is further limited to the construction of the
compromissory clause of A11icle IX, by its own Declaration oflntervention6. References
1 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order of 5 June 2023, para. 102 (I).
2 Ibid, para. I 02 (3).
3 Ibid, para 84.
4 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted on 9 December 1948,
entered into force of 12 January 1951) 78 UNTS 277.
5 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order of 5 June 2023, para. 99.
6 Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of Bulgaria, para 17.
to other rules and principles of international law outside the Genocide Convention will
be introduced only in reference to the construction of Article IX of the Convention, in
accordance with the customary rule of interpretation reflected in Article 31 of the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ("Vienna Convention")7 and the systemic
integration principle of interpretation in international law. The Republic of Bulgaria will
not address other matters, such as the existence of a dispute between the Patties, the
evidences, the facts or the application of the Genocide Convention in the present case.
5. Upon the Court's invitation to coordinate with other intervening States8, the Republic
of Bulgaria has reached a large substantive convergence with the position of other
interveners.
6. In the present Written Observations the Republic of Bulgaria will focus on the proper
construction of the compromissory clause of Article IX of the Genocide Convention.
Together with the key elements, some distinctive features of this provision will be
analysed; arguments will be presented to the broad interpretation of the jurisdiction of
the Court to decide on disputes relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment
of the Genocide Convention formulated as a non-violation applications; the general
rules of interpretation as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties will
be applied to the construction of Article IX, in order to argue the inclusion of the Court's
jurisdiction of disputes on interpretation, application and fulfillment in good faith of the
provisions of the Genocide Convention; the nature and the role of Article IX as part of
the Genocide Convention will be analyzed to ensure the proper understanding of the
scope and purpose of the instrument; the Republic of Bulgaria will submit its view on
the interpretation of the Genocide Convention within the framework of the entire legal
system under the systemic integration principle and in light of the development of law
at present.
1 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order of 5 June 2023, para. 84.
8 Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice no 159464, 6 June 2023 and Letter no
159638, 23June 2023.
II. THE CONSTRUCTION OF ARTICLE IX OF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION
7. 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."
8. 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")9. Accordingly, a
dispute is "a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of
interests" between parties. 10 In order for a dispute to exist as a jurisdictional
requirement, "(i]t must be shown that the claim of one party is positively opposed by
the other". 11 The parties to a dispute must "hold clearly opposite views concerning the
question of the performance or non-performance of certain international obligations". 12
9. It is also established by the Court and generally recognized that in order for a dispute to
arise it is not necessary that a State invoke a specific treaty or its provisions13
. As the
Court has observed, applications that are submitted to it often present a particular
9 Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of Bulgaria, para 2 1.
10 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. United Kingdom), Judgment No. 2, 1924, PCIJ, Series
A, p. 11.
11 South West Afi·ica (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Aji-ica), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, ICJ Reports 1962, p. 328.
12 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 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, !CJ Reports 2016, 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.
13 Milita,y and Paramilita,y Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States o_f America),
Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, !CJ. Reports 1984, p. 391, at pp. 428-429, para. 83; Application
of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v.
Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, !CJ Reports 20 11 , p. 70, at pp. 84-85, para. 30.
dispute that arises in the context of a broader disagreement between parties. 14 Thus, a
dispute before the Court may fo1m part of a complex situation that includes various
matters over which the States concerned hold opposite views. Moreover, a dispute may
fall within the ambit of more than one instrument and may relate to the "interpretation
or application" of more than one treaty or other instrument 15. However, in line with the
wording "relating to ... the present Convention" the Court must still ensure that the
dispute in question does fall within the provisions of A1ticle IX of the Genocide
Convention 16
.
10. The Republic of Bulgaria is focusing now on the proper construction of other paits of
the compromissory clause of Article IX of the Genocide Convention as the legal
provision relevant to the seisin of the Court and the basis for the exercise of the Court's
jurisdiction 17. Different from other similar provisions in multilateral treaties, Article IX
is a broad jurisdictional clause with several distinctive features. Namely, that the scope
of such disputes must be "relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the
present Convention" (emphasis added)18, that the use of the word "including" indicates
a scope of Article IX beyond disputes between States about the responsibility for
alleged acts of genocide19 and that "any of the parties to a dispute" may institute a
proceeding20. As the Court stated, the Genocide Convention does not attach additional
14 Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, ICJ Reports 2019, p. 23, para. 36; Obligation lo Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia
v. Chile), Preliminary Objection, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2015 (II), p. 604, para. 32; Application of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian
Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, !CJ Reports 2011 (I), pp. 85-86, para. 32; Border and
Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, !CJ
Reports 1988, pp. 91-92, para. 54; United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States
of America v. Iran), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1980, pp. 19-20, paras. 36-37.
15 Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights (Islamic
Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 3 February 2021 , para.
56.
16 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia
and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment. !CJ Reports 1996, para. 30.
17 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The
Gambia v. Myanmm), Provisional Measures, Order, 23 January 2020, para. 35.
18 Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of Bulgaria, para 21.
19 Ibid, para. 24.
20 Ibid, para. 25.
conditions to the invocation of responsibility or the admissibility of claims submitted
to the Court21 .
11. The expression "relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the
Convention" is "unique as compared with the compromissory clauses found in other
multilateral treaties"22
. Whereas "relating to" establishes a link between the dispute and
the Convention23, a more detailed analysis of the interpretation, application or
fulfillment is further presented.
12. The "interpretation" of the Convention would include the process of determining the
true meaning of a word, expression or a provision. As the Court emphasized
"to obtain an interpretation" means. "to obtain clarification of the meaning and
the scope ... "24
In 1927, the PCIJ also indicated that the interpretation would mean
"to give a precise definition of the meaning and scope ... "25
The rules of interpretation in international law are codified by the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties, in particular Articles 31 and 32 thereof.
13. The term "application" is the 'action of putting something into operation' in a given
case26. In 1927, the PCIJ held that a dispute on the application of a provision includes
"not only those relating to the question whether the application of a particular
clause has or has not been correct, but also those bearing upon the applicability
21 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The
Gambia v. Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 22 July 2022, para. 110
22 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia
and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Preliminary Objections, Declaration of Judge Oda, JCJ.
Reports 1996 (11), p. 627, para. 5.
23 Discussed in details under para. 9 of these Written Observations.
24 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum Case (Colombia v.
Peru), Judgment, 27 November 1950, p. 402.
25 Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (Facto,y at Chorzow), PCJJ, Judgment, 16 December 1927,
p. 10.
26 C. Tams, Article IX, in: Tams/Gerster/Schiffbauer, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
Genocide, A Commentary (Beck 2014).
of these articles, that is to say, upon any act or omission creating a situation
contrary to the said articles"27
.
14. The words "interpretation and application", as an expression together and as different
processes were famously analyzed by Judge Ehrlich as
"The words "interpretation and application" ... refer to processes, of which one,
interpretation, is that of determining the meaning of a rule, while the other,
application, is, in one sense, that of determining the consequences which the
rule attaches to the occurrence of a given fact; in another sense, application is
the action of bringing about the consequences which, according to a rule, should
follow a fact. Disputes concerning interpretation or application are, therefore,
disputes as to the meaning of a rule or as to whether the consequences which
the rule attaches to a fact, should follow in a given case"28
.
15. By distinguishing the wording of Article IX from other classic clauses, the inclusion of
the word "fulfilment" broadens the scope of the jurisdiction of the Court. This
conclusion is supported by the effet utile principle of treaty interpretation. Thus, the
inclusion of additional term in an expression clearly should change in the aspect of
making is wider its meaning in general.
16. As the Comt observed, compared with standard jurisdictional clauses, "add[ing] the
word 'fulfilment' to the provision" confers the Court jurisdiction over disputes as to the
'interpretation and application' of the Convention29
. The ordinary meaning of the word
"fulfilment" in Article IX can be considered to refer to an application that "meets the
requirements" of a norm 3°. However, the scope of its meaning is much wider than that
of the term "application".
17 Facta,y at Chorz6w (Jurisdiction), PCIJ, Judgment, 26 July 1927, pp 20-21 .
28 Facta,y at Chorzow (Jurisdiction), PCIJ, Judgment, 26 July 1927, Dissenting Opinion by Judge
Ehrlich, p. 39.
29 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia
and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, !CJ Reports 2007, p. 43, at 114, para. 168.
3° C. Tams, Article IX in: Tams/Gerster/Schiffbauer, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
Genocide, A Commentary (Beck 20 14 ).
17. The inclusion of the term "fulfilment" was subject to an extensive debate during the
drafting of the Convention31
. The understanding of the wider meaning to this tenn
shared by the majority of delegations voting in favor of the word is an important
argument towards the extensive interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Court under
Article IX of the Convention.
18. As emphasized by the legal doctrine
"the reason for inserting all the three alternative terms, as does the Genocide
Convention, was to give a coverage as exhaustive as possible to the
compromissory clause. The aim was thus to close down all possible loopholes
weakening the jurisdictional reach of the Court. The purpose pursued in 1948
was to grant the Court a jurisdiction as wide as possible in the life of the
Convention, forestalling all the potential subtle arguments denying jurisdiction
on account of an insufficient link with that Convention"32
.
19. As acknowledged by the Court, Article IX encompasses the situation in which one State
alleges that another State has committed genocide33. Disputes based on allegations by
a State Party that another State Party is responsible for acts of genocide, lack of
prevention or punishment of acts of genocide clearly constitute disputes on the
"interpretation, application or fulfilment" of the Genocide Convention, thus falling
within the scope of Article IX of the Genocide Convention.
20. The fact that the Court may decide on disputes concerning a declaration of conformity
of the conduct of a State with a given treaty is also supported by the Court's case law.
The Applicant asked the Court to declare that its conduct was "in conformity with the
economic system ... according to the conventions".34 Neither the Court, nor the
Respondent, raised any issue as to the framing of the application as a non-violation
31 Official Records of the Third Session of the Sixth Committee of the General Assambly, Part I, Summary
of Records of Meetings 21 September - I O December 1948, UN Doc No A/C.6/SR.6 1-140
32 Robert Kolb, 'The Scope Ratione Materiae of the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the ICJ ' in P Gaeta (eds),
The UN Genocide Convention: a commenta,y (OUP 2009) 442, 453.
33 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. 114, para. 169.
n Case concerning rights of nationals of the United States of America in Morocco, Judgment of August
27th, 1952: I.CJ Repofts 1952, p. 176, alp. 182.
one.35 Furthermore, by deciding on the violation and on the non-violation the Court is
engaged in the same type of analysis of interpretation and application of treaties in line
with the construction of Article IX as represented in these Written Observations. The
nature of this analysis falls within the scope of Article IX, when the dispute concerns
non-violation complaints. Namely, where a State Party, which has been accused by
another State Party of having committed breaches of the Genocide Convention, claims
that it has not committed such breaches. The Court confirmed its jurisdiction over
Applicant's request for a negative declaration establishing that it had not violated
certain Convention36.
21. The broad interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Court under Article IX is fm1her
supported by the phrase (" relating to ... "). Disputes relating to the responsibility of a
State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in Article III are therefore
only part of the disputes covered by the jurisdiction of the Court under Article IX37
.
This conclusion is supported by the Court
"The unusual feature of Article IX is the phrase "including those [disputes]
relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or any of the other acts
enumerated in A11icle III". The word "including" tends to confirm that disputes
relating to the responsibility of Contracting Parties for genocide, and the other
acts enumerated in Article III to which it refers, are comprised within a broader
group of disputes relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the
Convention"38 [ emphasis added].
35 Ibid., pp. 182-184.
36 See Questions of Inte,pretation and Application of the I 971 Montreal Convention Arising ji-om the
Aerial Incident at lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), Prelimina1y Objections,
Judgment, /CJ Reports 1998, p. 14, para. 13.
37 See also 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 for
genocide" among those that can be brought before the Court unmistakably means that responsibility for
genocide can be the object of a dispute brought before the Court by any contracting party").
38 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia
and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, para. 169
22. Article IX expressly provides for ICJ jurisdiction "at the request of any of the parties
to the dispute" ( emphasis added). As the Court already stressed
"the terms of Article IX providing that disputes are to be submitted to the Court
"at the request of any of the parties to the dispute", as opposed to any of the
Contracting Parties, do not limit the category of Contracting Parties entitled to
bring claims for alleged breaches of obligations erga omnes partes under the
Convention. This phrase clarifies that only a party to the dispute may bring it
before the Court, but it does not indicate that such a dispute may only arise
between a State Party allegedly violating the Convention and a State "specially
affected" by such an alleged violation ...
. . .It follows that any State Party to the Genocide Convention may invoke the
responsibility of another State Party, including through the institution of
proceedings before the Comt, with a view to determining the alleged failure to
comply with its obligations erga omnes partes under the Convention and to
bringing that failure to an end" 39
23. It follows from the above, that any of the parties to a dispute relating to the Genocide
Convention may seek a "negative" declaration from the Court and under the proper
interpretation of Article IX disputes of the category of "non-violation" or "noevidences"
applications will fall under the jurisdiction of the Court. The Republic of
Bulgaria states as indicated in its Declaration of Intervention40 that under Article IX a
State Party to the Genocide Convention accused by other State Party of having
committed a breach of the Convention may file an application relating to the
interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present Convention and to ask the Court
to adjudicate and decide that it has not committed the alleged breaches of its
obligations.
39 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The
Gambia v. Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 22 July 2022, para. 11 I- I I 2
40 Para. 23 of the Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of Bulgaria
III. THE NATURE OF ARTICLE IX OF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION AND
THE PLACE OF THE CONVENTION WITHIN THE INTERNATIONAL
LEGAL SYSTEM
24. The Republic of Bulgaria recalls that the general principle of interpretation as envisaged
by the provision of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention requires a treaty to be
interpreted in light of its object and purpose. As represented in its Declaration of
Intervention the Republic of Bulgaria is of the view that the object and purpose of the
Genocide Convention further support the wide understanding of Article IX41
. The Court
held that:
"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'etre 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.''42
25. The Convention's object to protect "the most elementary principles of morality" is
fmther supp01ted by the provision of the Genocide Convention of prohibition of
genocide as a peremptory norm of general international law (Jus cogens norm)43. The
41 Para. 26 of the Decalaration of Intervention of the Republic of Bulgaria.
42 Reservations to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion of28 May 1951 , ICJ Reports 1951 , p. 23.
43 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.
Court has recognized a norm as Jus cogens norm the obligations protecting "essential
humanitarian values"44. 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".45
26. Given the essential function 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, the Republic of Bulgaria contends that the provisions of the Convention
shall be interpreted in good faith.
27. As observed by this Court, the principle of good faith requires Contracting Parties "to
apply [a treaty] in a reasonable way and in such a manner that its purpose can be
realized".46 Good faith interpretation and application of international law is essential to
building "trust and confidence [that] are inherent in international co-operation."47
28. Accordingly, the Republic of Bulgaria is of the view that the good faith principle of
interpretation is an important safeguard against abuses of the provisions of the
Genocide Convention and a dispute on the way of interpretation, application or
fulfillment of the present Convention falls within the jurisdiction of the Court under
Article IX thereof.
29. As already stated above, according to the provision of Article IX of the Genocide
Convention in order for a dispute to fall under the jurisdiction of the Court it should be
relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment "of the present Convention". As
outlined by the Court, its jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention is
"confined to obligations arising under the Convention itself'48. Accordingly, Article IX
44 Application of the Convention on the prevention and Punishment of the Crime a/Genocide (Bosnia
and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, !CJ Reports 2007, p. 147.
45 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia
and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, !CJ Reports 1996 (II), para. 31.
47 Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), !CJ Reports 1974, p. 7, at p. 142.
48 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia
v. Serbia), Judgment, I.CJ. Reports 2015, p. 3, para. 88.
cannot be interpreted as including to the jurisdiction of the Court the disputes on the
breach of rules of international law different from those laid down in the Convention49
.
30. However, Article 31, para 3, letter "c" of the Vienna Convention provides that as a
general rule of interpretation, together with the context it shall be taken into account
"any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties".
To that purpose, with regard to the Genocide Convention the Court stated that
"every State may only act within the limits permitted by international law"50.
31. As outlined in the Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of Bulgaria51 "an
international instrument has to be interpreted and applied within the framework of the
entire legal system prevailing at the time of the interpretation". 52 Article IX must be
interpret in order to define the place of the Genocide Convention in the international
legal order. The construction of Article IX of the Convention shall comply with the
understanding of its importance within the international legal system.
32. The Republic of Bulgaria further contends that with regard to the nature of the provision
of Article IX as a compromissory clause of the Genocide Convention, and the
understanding of the scope of the object and purpose of this instrument as a reflection
of "the most elementary principle of morality", that was created in a reaction to the
"denial of the right of existence on entire human group, a denial which shocks the
conscience of mankind and results in great losses of humanity"53, the proper
construction of Article IX includes under the jurisdiction of the Court a disputes on the
conformity of the acts undertaken by the Contracting Parties within the framework of
the entire legal system. Moreover, "the interpretation cannot remain unaffected by the
49 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,
paras. 147-148.
50 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia
and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, /. C.J. Reports 2007 (/), p. 22 1, para. 430.
51 Para. 23 of the Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of Bulgaria.
52 legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia, Advisory
opinion, ICJ, 21 June 1971 , p. 53.
53 Reservations to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion of28 May 195 1, ICJ Reports 1951, p.
23.
subsequent development of the law"54 and should ensure that the adequate safeguards
of the object and purpose of the Genocide Convention are ensured as a representation
of its values in light of the present days.
33. On the basis of the above, the Republic of Bulgaria contends that with regard to the
nature of the provision of Article IX as a compromissory clause of the Genocide
Convention and the role of the Convention within the international legal system as a
coherent order the "spirit and aims of the United Nations"55 are relevant rules of
international law, applicable to the Parties to the Convention in conformity with the
principle of systemic integration interpretation.
54 legal Consequences for States of the Contin11ed Presence of South Aji-ica in Namibia, Advisory
opinion, !CJ, 21 June 1971 , p. 53.
55 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and P11nishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional measures, Order, 16 March 2022, para. 58.
IV. CONCLUSION
34. The Republic of Bulgaria submits to the Court, for the reasons given in these Written
Observations, that the proper construction of Article IX of the Genocide Convention
vests the Court with the jurisdiction to adjudge and declare that
a. there is no violation of the Convention by the Applicant and
b. the failure to fulfil the Convention in good faith constitutes a violation of the
Convention.
35. The Republic of Bulgaria recalls that the Genocide Convention was negotiated as a
reaction to the "denial of the right of existence on entire human group, a denial which
shocks the conscience of mankind and results in great losses of humanity".56
Consequently, this instrument represents "the most elementary principle of morality".
The Republic of Bulgaria considers that this nature of the Genocide Convention defines
its place within the international legal system.
3 6. On the basis of the above, the Republic of Bulgaria contends that the jurisdiction of the
Court under the proper construction of the compromissory clause of Article IX should
be interpreted in conformity with the systemic integration principle "within the
framework of the entire legal system prevailing at the time of the interpretation"57 and
in the light of the object and purpose of the present instrument in order to ensure the so
represented values of the Genocide Convention and its role within the international
legal system.
Respec(fully submitted,
Dr. Dimana Dramova
Agent of the Republic of Bulgaria
56 Reservations to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion of28 May 1951 , !CJ Reports 1951 , p. 23.
57 legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia, Advisory
opinion, ICJ, 21 June 1971 , p. 53.