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 IRELAND
5 July 2023
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On 5 June 2023, the International Court of Justice (‘the Court’) decided that the declarations
of intervention under Article 63 of the Statute of the Court (‘the Statute’) submitted by,
amongst others, Ireland (‘Order on Admissibility of the Declarations 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) (‘the Proceedings’)
were admissible1. The Court fixed 5 July 2023 as the time-limit for the filing of the Written
Observations referred to in Article 86, paragraph 1, of the Rules of the Court (‘the Rules’)2.
2. Ireland’s intervention under Article 63 of the Statute involves the exercise of a right by a
State party to a convention the construction of which is in question before the Court3. As
determined by the Court in the Order on Admissibility of the Declarations of Intervention,
the construction of Article IX and of other provisions of the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (‘Genocide Convention’)4 concerning the
Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae is in question at the present stage of the Proceedings5.
In accordance with the Order on Admissibility of the Declarations of Intervention, these
Written Observations will solely concern the construction of Article IX and other provisions
of the Genocide Convention that are relevant for the determination of the Court’s
jurisdiction ratione materiae in the Proceedings6. References to other rules and principles
of international law outside the Genocide Convention in these Written Observations will
only concern the construction of the Convention’s provisions, in accordance with the
customary rule of interpretation reflected in Article 31, paragraph 3 (c), of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties (‘Vienna Convention’)7. Ireland will not address other
matters, such as the dispute between the Parties, the evidence, the facts or the application
of the Genocide Convention in the present case8.
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) https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/caserelated/
182/182-20230605-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf, paras 99 and 102(1).
2 Ibid, para. 102(3).
3 Ibid, para. 26.
4 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted 9 December 1948, entered
into force 12 January 1951) 78 UNTS 277.
5 Order on Admissibility of the Declarations of Intervention (n 1), p. 26.
6 Ibid, para. 99.
7 Ibid, para. 84.
8 Ibid, para. 84.
3. Upon the Court’s invitation to coordinate with other intervening States, Ireland has agreed
the substance of its position with other Member States of the European Union, namely
Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg and Sweden. Parts II and III
of the present written observation are therefore in the same terms as the corresponding Parts
of the Written Observations of those intervening states. However, in order to meet the strict
time-limit set by the Court, and for logistical reasons, Ireland files these Written
Observations separately in its national capacity.
II. CONSTRUCTION OF ARTICLE IX AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
GENOCIDE CONVENTION RELEVANT FOR JURISDICTION RATIONE
MATERIAE
4. In its order of 16 March 2022 indicating provisional measures, the Court affirmed its
jurisdiction prima facie on the basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention9.
5. Ireland wishes to make four observations on the construction of the Genocide Convention
at the present stage of the proceedings.
6. First, applying the rules of treaty interpretation (Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention
that reflect rules of customary international law10), it is important to recall the broad scope
of Article IX of the Genocide Convention, which includes disputes about the ‘fulfilment’
of obligations under the Convention.
7. Second, Article IX of the Genocide Convention applies to disputes about abusive
allegations of genocide under the Genocide Convention.
8. Third, Article IX of the Genocide Convention applies to disputes about unlawful action as
a means for prevention and punishment of genocide under the Genocide Convention.
9. Fourth, any party to the dispute may seize the Court under Article IX, including the party
which is the victim of an abusive allegation of genocide or any unlawful action as a means
for prevention and punishment of genocide.
9 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, paras. 28-49.
10 Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) [2023] ICJ Judgment of 6 April 2023 https://www.icjcij.
org/sites/default/files/case-related/171/171-20230406-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf, para. 87.
A. Article IX of the Genocide Convention is formulated in broad terms and covers
disputes about the ‘fulfilment’ of the Convention
10. 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.’
11. Ireland contends that the notion of ‘dispute’ is already well-established in the case law of
the Court. It concurs with 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 parties11. In order for
a dispute to exist, ‘[i]t must be shown that the claim of one party is positively opposed by
the other’12. The two sides must ‘hold clearly opposite views concerning the question of
the performance or non-performance of certain international obligations’13. 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’14.
12. In that respect, the document communicated by the Russian Federation to the Court on 7
March 2022 seems to construe the notion of a dispute unduly narrowly by insisting that
Article IX cannot be used to establish jurisdiction of the Court for disputes relating to the
use of force or issues of self-defence under general international law15. However, it follows
from the consistent jurisprudence of the Court that certain facts or omissions may give rise
to a dispute that falls within the ambit of more than one treaty16. Hence, a parallel dispute
11 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 11.
12 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.
13 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, I.C.J. Reports 2018, p. 406, at p. 414,
para. 18; ICJ, Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v.
Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 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, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p.
74.
14 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of 22 July 2022, p. 27, para. 71.
15 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Document of the Russian Federation of 7 March 2022, paras. 8-15.
16 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 of 3 February 2021, para. 56.
arising out of the same facts about the use of force between two States does not create an
obstacle to the jurisdiction of the Court under Article IX of the Genocide Convention,
provided that its other conditions are fulfilled.
13. In particular, such a dispute must relate ‘to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of
the present Convention’. Ireland contends that Article IX is a broad jurisdictional clause,
allowing the Court to adjudicate upon disputes concerning the fulfilment by a Contracting
Party of its obligations under the 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’17.
14. The ordinary meaning of the phrase ‘relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment
of the Convention’ may be considered by reference to three points.
15. The first point (‘relating to’) establishes a link between the dispute and the Convention.
16. The second point (‘interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention’)
encompasses three terms. While ‘interpretation’ is typically understood as the process of
‘explaining the meaning’ of a legal norm, ‘application’ is the ‘action of putting something
into operation’ in a given case18. The term ‘fulfilment’ partially overlaps with the latter,
and it may be understood to refer to an application that ‘meets the requirements’ of a
norm19. Nevertheless, the addition of the term ‘fulfilment’ supports a broad interpretation
of Article IX20. It appears that ‘by inserting all the three alternative terms, the drafters had
sought to ‘give a coverage as exhaustive as possible to the compromissory clause’ and to
‘close down all possible loopholes’21.
17 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, I.C.J. Reports 1996
(II), p. 627, para. 5 (emphasis in the original).
18 C. Tams, Article IX, note 45, in: Tams/Gerster/Schiffbauer, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
Genocide, A Commentary (Beck 2014).
19 C. Tams (n 18), Article IX, note 45.
20 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Joint Declaration of Intervention of the Governments of Canada and the
Kingdom of the Netherlands of 7 December 2022, para. 29.
21 C. Tams (note 18), Article IX, note 45; R. Kolb, Scope Ratione Materiae, in: Paola Gaeta (ed), The UN
Genocide Convention: A Commentary, (OUP 2009), p. 451.
17. The third point (‘of the Convention’) makes clear that the compromissory clause refers
back to all the provisions of the Convention. In other words, Article IX does not create
further substantive rights or obligations for the parties; the substantive legal norms that are
subject to the Court’s jurisdiction must be found elsewhere in the Convention. At the same
time, the renvoi relates to the entire life of the Convention, including breaches thereof22.
18. For example, there can be a dispute about the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the
Convention when one State alleges that another State has committed genocide23. In that
scenario, the Court verifies the factual basis for such an allegation: if it is not satisfied that
there were any acts of genocide actually being committed by the respondent State, it may
decline its jurisdiction24.
19. While this scenario of (alleged) responsibility for acts of genocide constitutes an important
type of dispute about the ‘interpretation, application or fulfilment’ of the Convention, it is
not the only one. In the case Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia, the applicant alleged
several violations of the Convention by the respondent, including a failure to prevent and
punish genocide under Article I25, and the Court affirmed its jurisdiction ratione materiae26.
In the case The Gambia v. Myanmar (pending), the applicant claims that the respondent not
only bears responsibility for prohibited acts under Article III, but also for violations of 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 V27. In these examples,
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.
Therefore, there can also be disputes about ‘non-action’ as a violation of the substantive
obligations under Article I, IV and V.
22 R. Kolb, Scope Ratione Materiae (note 21), p. 453 with an account of the case law.
23 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. 75, para. 169.
24 Case Concerning Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. France), Provisional Measures, Order of 2 June
1999, I.C.J. Reports 1999, p. 363, at pp. 372-373, paras. 24-31. Later, the ICJ declined its jurisdiction on the
ground that Serbia and Montenegro did not have access to the Court, at the time of the institution of the
proceedings, under Article 35 of the Statute (see e.g. ICJ, Case Concerning Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and
Montenegro v. France), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 15 December 2004, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 595).
25 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 11 July 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 595, at
p. 614, para. 28 and p. 603, para. 4.
26 Ibid, pp. 615-617, paras. 30-33.
27 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of 22 July 2022, p. 12, para. 24, Points (1) (c), d) and (e).
20. The ordinary meaning of Article IX makes it clear that there is no need to establish
genocidal acts in order to affirm the Court’s jurisdiction. Rather, the Court has jurisdiction
over the question whether genocidal acts have been or are being committed or not28.
21. The context of the phrase (‘relating to …’) further confirms this reading. In particular, the
unusual feature of the words ‘including’ in the intermediate sentence indicates a broader
scope of Article IX of the Convention when compared to a standard compromissory
clause29. 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 Convention30.
22. 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 about the performance of treaty obligations by one or more States parties. In other
words: ‘With a view to the question of positive fulfilment, the court has jurisdiction over
the question whether a Contracting Party (…) has not violated its obligation to prevent and
punish genocide. In a negative way, the Court can also adjudicate whether a Contracting
Party has failed to fulfil these obligation’31.
23. Finally, the object and purpose of the Convention gives further support to the wide
interpretation 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
28 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 of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J.
Reports 2020, p. 14, para. 30.
29 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.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 75, para. 169.
30 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 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’).
31 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Declaration of Intervention of the Principality of Liechtenstein of 15
December 2022, para. 20.
in the Convention’32. The erga omnes nature of the obligations under the Convention also
underpins the paramount significance of the text for the international community as a
whole, entrusting the International Court of Justice in 1948 with a particularly important
mission to enforce it in the interests of all States.
24. Famously, in its 1951 Advisory Opinion, the Court held33:
‘The objects of such a convention must also be considered. 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'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.’
25. The Convention’s object to protect the ‘most elementary principles of morality’ also
requires that a State party does not abuse its provisions for other purposes. It also strongly
supports a reading of Article IX, according to which disputes relating to the interpretation,
application and fulfilment of the Convention include disputes about the abuse of the
Convention’s substantive provisions to justify a State’s action vis-à-vis another State party
to the Convention. Such abuse can take two forms: abusive allegations and/or or abusive
action, which will now be examined in the next two sections.
B. Article IX of the Genocide Convention Applies to Disputes About Abusive
Allegations of Genocide
26. Ireland now wishes to turn to one of the scenarios of a dispute under Article IX more
precisely, namely the abusive allegation of one State that another State has committed
genocide.
32 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of 22 July 2022, p. 36, para. 107.
33 Reservations to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 23.
27. In doing so, it has carefully reviewed the question of whether the Convention enables a
State to seize the Court of a dispute concerning allegations of genocide made by another
State34.
28. Ireland contends that Article IX of the Genocide Convention applies also to disputes relating
to abusive allegations of genocide, as they raise the question of compliance with Article I
of the Convention, which provides context for the construction of Article IX. Article I of
the Convention reads:
‘The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or
in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and
to punish.’
29. According to Article I of the Genocide Convention, all States parties are obliged to prevent
and punish genocide. As the Court already emphasised, in fulfilling their duty to prevent
genocide, Contracting Parties must act within the limits permitted by international law35.
Moreover, carrying out the duty under Article I must be done in good faith (Article 26 of
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and general international law36). As the
Court has observed, the principle of good faith ‘obliges the Parties to apply [a treaty] in a
reasonable way and in such a manner that its purpose can be realized’37. Good faith
interpretation thus operates as a safeguard against misuse of the Genocide Convention. As
‘one of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal obligations’,
good faith is also directly linked to the ‘trust and confidence [that] are inherent in
international co-operation’38.
34 For a discussion of this question, see e.g. Order on Provisional Measures (n 9), Declaration of Judge
Bennouna, para. 2.
35 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.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 221, para. 430;
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. 57.
36 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1998, p. 275, 296, para. 38: ‘The Court observes that the principle of good faith is a well-established
principle of international law. It is set forth in Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations; it is
also embodied in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969.’
37 Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 7, at p. 79, para. 142.
38 Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 7, at p. 142.
30. In Ireland’s view, the notion of ‘undertake to prevent’ implies that each State party must
assess whether a genocide or a serious risk of genocide exists prior to taking action pursuant
to Article I39. Such an assessment must be based on substantial evidence40.
31. Importantly, the UN Human Rights Council called upon all States, ‘in order to deter future
occurrences of genocide, to cooperate, including through the United Nations system, in
strengthening appropriate collaboration between existing mechanisms that contribute to the
early detection and prevention of massive, serious and systematic violations of human
rights that, if not halted, could lead to genocide’.41
32. It constitutes good practice to rely on the results of independent investigations under UN
auspices42 before qualifying a situation as genocide.
33. Moreover, the Genocide Convention provides guidance concerning the lawful means by
which the Contracting Parties may prevent and punish genocide. While ‘Article I does not
specify the kinds of measures that a Contracting Party may take to fulfil this obligation’,43
‘the Contracting Parties must implement this obligation in good faith, taking into account
other parts of the Convention, in particular Articles VIII and IX, as well as its Preamble’.44
Rather than making an abusive allegation of genocide against another State without having
discharged its due diligence obligations, a State may seize the United Nations’ political or
judicial organs45.
34. It follows that an abusive allegation by one State against another State runs contrary to the
former State’s obligations to apply Article I of the Convention in good faith and distort the
terms of the Convention. Accordingly, Article IX also covers such disputes.
39 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.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at pp. 221-222,
paras. 430-431.
40 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.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 90, para. 209.
41 UN Human Rights Council, Resolution 43/29: Prevention of Genocide (29 June 2020), UN Doc
A/HRC/RES/43/29, para. 11.
42 See for example the reliance of The Gambia on the reports of the Independent International Fact-Finding
Mission on Myanmar established by the UN Human Rights Council before bringing a case to the Court; for
details see Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The
Gambia v. Myanmar), Judgment of 22 July 2022, at pp. 25-27, paras. 65-69.
43 Order on Provisional Measures (n 9), para. 56.
44 Ibid.
45 Order on Provisional Measures (n 9) Separate Opinion of Judge Robinson, para. 30.
C. Article IX of the Genocide Convention Applies to Disputes about Unlawful Action
as Means of Preventing and Punishing Genocide
35. Another important scenario coming within the scope of Article IX of the Convention are
disputes about otherwise unlawful action as a means of preventing and punishing genocide.
As described in the previous section, the correct construction of Article I is that a State is
under a due diligence obligation to gather evidence from independent sources before
making any allegation of genocide against another State.
36. In the same vein, a State may not take unlawful action based on such abusive allegations.
37. Rather, the scope of the ‘undertaking to prevent’ should be read in light of the final recital
in the preamble, which emphasizes the need for ‘international co-operation’. Referring to
the preamble is an accepted method of treaty interpretation, as stressed by the Court for
example in the Whaling case46. Moreover, under Article VIII States may call upon the
competent organs of the United Nations to take action, and Article IX provides for judicial
settlement. All this speaks in favour of a duty under the Convention to employ multilateral
and peaceful means to prevent genocide. Such reading is in accordance with Chapter VI
of the UN Charter on the peaceful settlement of disputes, the continuance of which is likely
to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. Article IX also gives
effect to the parties’ pre-existing obligations under Article 2(3) of the UN Charter and
customary international law to settle all their disputes peacefully47. Ireland emphasizes
that all States parties shall be engaged in preventing and punishing genocide worldwide for
the benefit of humankind, and not in order to protect their own interests.
38. It follows from the obligation to carry out a good faith assessment of the existence of
genocide or serious risk of genocide that, where a State has not carried out such an
assessment, it cannot invoke the ‘undertak[ing] to prevent’ genocide in Article I of the
Convention as a justification for its conduct. This includes conduct which involves the
threat or use of force, as underlined by the Court in the Oil Platforms case 48.
46 See e.g. Australia v. Japan (New Zealand intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2014, p. 226, at p. 215, para.
56 (referring to the preamble of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling to discern its object
and purpose).
47 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand of 28 July 2022, para. 25.
48 Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1996, pp. 811-812, para. 21. See also Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention
39. A State may not claim to enforce international law by violating international law. As the
Court explained in the Bosnian Genocide case (cf. para. 29 above), ‘it is clear that every
State may only act within the limits permitted by international law’49. In other words,
Article I of the Genocide Convention imposes an obligation on States parties ‘not only to
act to prevent genocide, but to act within the limits permitted by international law to prevent
genocide’50.
40. In conclusion, the jurisdiction of the Court extends to disputes concerning unlawful action
for the stated purpose of preventing and punishing alleged genocide51.
D. Any party to the dispute may seize the Court under Article IX of the Genocide
Convention
41. Finally, Ireland wishes to comment on the view according to which a State cannot invoke
the compromissory clause under Article IX of the Convention ‘only to have the Court
confirm its own compliance’52.
42. As noted in Section B above, the concepts of ‘dispute’ and ‘fulfilment’ in Article IX are
sufficiently broad to allow the Court to issue a declaration that the applicant State bears no
responsibility for a breach under the Convention, as alleged by another State. Moreover,
the plain wording of Article IX confirms that ‘any of the parties’ to the dispute may seize
the Court. Thus, where there is a dispute concerning whether a State
has engaged in conduct contrary to the Convention, the State accused of such conduct
has the same right to submit the dispute to the Court as the State that has made the
accusation with the effect that the Court will have jurisdiction over that dispute53.
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Declaration of Intervention of
Australia of 30 September 2022, para. 41.
49 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.
50 Order on Provisional Measures (n 9), Separate Opinion of Judge Robinson, para. 27.
51 Order on Provisional Measures (n 9), p. 11, para. 45;
52 Order on Provisional Measures (n 9), Declaration of Vice-President Gevorgian, para. 8.
53 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Declaration of Intervention of the United Kingdom of 1 August 2022, para.
34; Declaration of Intervention of Australia of 30 September 2022, paras. 35-36; Declaration of Intervention of
Norway of 10 November 2022, para. 21.
43. In addition, the already mentioned erga omnes partes character of the Genocide Convention
speaks against a narrowly construed right to seek the judicial protection of the Court. On
the contrary, such an interpretation would risk precluding a victim State from seeking relief
from the Court in the face of abuse of the Convention. This would undermine the
Convention’s credibility and efficiency as a universal instrument for the prevention of
genocide, as well as the role of the Court as a critical avenue for redress against abuses of
the law.
44. More generally, nothing prevents a requesting State from invoking the compromissory
clause of a given Convention to ask the Court for a negative declaration that it has not
breached its international obligations under the Convention in question. For example, in
the Lockerbie case, Libya had requested several Court findings that it had complied with
Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the of the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation on the basis of Article 14 of the Convention54.
The United States objected and argued that none of the provisions quoted by the applicant
concerned obligations binding upon it as respondent55. The Court rejected the preliminary
objection. It held that there was a specific dispute before it on the interpretation and
application of Article 7 – read in conjunction with Article 1, Article 5, Article 6 and Article
8 of the Montreal Convention – which fell to be decided by the Court on the basis of Article
1456. The Court thus assumed jurisdiction over the applicant’s request for a determination
that it had not violated the Montreal Convention.
45. Moreover, Ireland notes that it may not even be necessary for the Court to enter into
consideration of whether Article IX also covers ‘non-violation complaints’. In its
application, Ukraine respectfully requests the Court to:
‘(a) Adjudge and declare that, contrary to what the Russian Federation claims, no acts
of genocide, as defined in by Article III of the Genocide Convention have been committed
in the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts of Ukraine’.
(b) Adjudge and declare that the Russian Federation cannot lawfully take any
action under the Genocide Convention in or against Ukraine aimed at
preventing or punishing an alleged genocide, on the basis of its false claims of
54 Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident
at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1998, p. 115, at p. 123, para. 25.
55 Ibid, p. 124, para. 26
56 Ibid, p. 127, para. 28.
genocide in the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts of Ukraine.
(c) Adjudge and declare that the Russian Federation's recognition of the
independence of the so-called 'Donetsk People's Republic' and 'Luhansk
People's Republic' on 22 February 2022 is based on a false claim of genocide
and therefore has no basis in the Genocide Convention.
(d) Adjudge and declare that the 'special military operation' declared and
carried out by the Russian Federation on and after 24 February 2022 is based
on a false claim of genocide and therefore has no basis in the Genocide
Convention.
(e) Require that the Russian Federation provide assurances and guarantees of
non-repetition that it will not take any unlawful measures in and against
Ukraine, including the use of force, on the basis of its false claim of genocide.
(f) Order full reparation for all damage caused by the Russian Federation as a
consequence of any actions taken on the basis of Russia's false claim of
genocide.’
46. While it is for the Court to clarify the precise meaning of the requests, none of the reliefs
sought expressly mention the question of ‘compliance’ of Ukraine with the Convention. In
particular, point (a) could also be understood as a request to the Court to declare that
Russia’s allegation that genocide had taken place in the oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk
were abusive. Under such reading, the jurisdiction of the Court would have to be
ascertained in line with the interpretation of Article IX of the Convention advanced in
Section C. above.
III. CONCLUSION
47. Ireland puts forward four observations on the construction of the Genocide Convention.
First, Article IX thereof is formulated in broad terms to include disputes about the fulfilment
of obligations under the Convention. Second, it applies to disputes relating to false and
abusive allegations of genocide under the Genocide Convention. Third, it also applies to
disputes about otherwise unlawful action as a means of preventing and punishing genocide
under the Genocide Convention. Fourth, any party to the dispute may seize the Court under
Article IX, including the party that is the victim of an abusive allegation or unlawful action
as a means of preventing and punishing genocide.
48. In conclusion, the ordinary meaning of Article IX of the Convention, its context and the
object and purpose of the entire Convention show that a dispute regarding acts carried out
by one State against another State based on abusive claims of genocide falls under the
notion of ‘dispute between Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, 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.
Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Court extends to disputes concerning unlawful action for
the stated purpose of preventing and punishing alleged genocide.
_____________________
Frank Groome
Co-Agent of the Government of Ireland
5 July 2023
Written observations of Ireland on the subject-matter of its intervention