Judgment of 12 November 2024

12 NOVEMBRE 2024
ARRÊT
APPLICATION DE LA CONVENTION INTERNATIONALE SUR L’ÉLIMINATION
DE TOUTES LES FORMES DE DISCRIMINATION RACIALE
(AZERBAÏDJAN c. ARMÉNIE)
___________
APPLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION
OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
(AZERBAIJAN v. ARMENIA)
12 NOVEMBER 2024
JUDGMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE 1-21
I. INTRODUCTION 22-28
II. FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: JURISDICTION RATIONE TEMPORIS 29-64
III. SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: JURISDICTION RATIONE MATERIAE IN
RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED LAYING OF LANDMINES AND BOOBY TRAPS BY
ARMENIA 65-77
IV. THIRD PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: JURISDICTION RATIONE MATERIAE IN RESPECT
OF ALLEGED ENVIRONMENTAL HARM 78-100
OPERATIVE CLAUSE 101
___________
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
YEAR 2024
2024
12 November
General List
No. 181
12 November 2024
APPLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION
OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
(AZERBAIJAN v. ARMENIA)
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
Historical context  Application filed by Azerbaijan on 16 September 2021  Azerbaijan
and Armenia parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (“CERD”)  Article 22 of CERD invoked as basis of jurisdiction  CERD entered
into force for Azerbaijan on 15 September 1996 and for Armenia on 23 July 1993  Armenia raised
three preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court.
*
First preliminary objection  Jurisdiction ratione temporis.
Objection limited to claims concerning acts that allegedly occurred between 23 July 1993 and
15 September 1996  No issue of retroactivity of treaties arises in so far as Armenia’s obligations
under CERD are concerned  Whether Article 22 of CERD provides jurisdictional basis to
entertain Azerbaijan’s claims in respect of acts that took place before Azerbaijan became party to
CERD  Temporal scope of Court’s jurisdiction linked to date on which obligations under CERD
took effect between the Parties.
- 2 -
Erga omnes partes character of certain obligations under CERD has no effect on temporal
scope of the Court’s jurisdiction  Between 23 July 1993 and 15 September 1996, Armenia owed
its obligations under CERD to all States which are parties to it, but not to States not parties 
Difference between inter-State communications procedure established under Articles 11 to 13 of
CERD and judicial mechanism provided for in Article 22 of CERD  Consequently, views adopted
by CERD Committee not relevant for the interpretation and application of compromissory clause 
15 September 1996 is the date for the determination of the temporal scope of the Court’s jurisdiction
under Article 22 of CERD.
Continuing or composite wrongful acts  Respondent’s responsibility with respect to the
Applicant would be engaged for actions or omissions after 15 September 1996  Relevant facts
which occurred before that date to be taken into consideration.
Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis for alleged acts that occurred before 15 September
1996  First preliminary objection upheld.
No need to examine arguments in relation to admissibility of the Application.
*
Second preliminary objection  Jurisdiction ratione materiae in respect of alleged laying of
landmines and booby traps by Armenia  Azerbaijan not claiming that alleged laying of landmines
and booby traps is itself a breach of Armenia’s obligations under CERD  Alleged laying of
landmines and booby traps as evidence in support of claim of ethnic cleansing  Second preliminary
objection rejected as being without object.
*
Third preliminary objection  Jurisdiction ratione materiae in respect of alleged
environmental harm.
Not excluded that conduct leading to harm to the environment may constitute racial
discrimination under CERD  Alleged deforestation and overexploitation of mineral resources
would be either commercially motivated or due to neglect and mismanagement of the environment 
Alleged destruction and deviation of watercourses would have impacted different ethnic groups 
Persons of Azerbaijani national or ethnic origin not present on the territories affected by the alleged
environmental harm  Alleged acts causing environmental harm, even if established, not capable
of falling under CERD.
- 3 -
Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae to entertain Azerbaijan’s claims relating to
environmental harm  Third preliminary objection upheld.
JUDGMENT
Present: President SALAM; Vice-President SEBUTINDE; Judges TOMKA, ABRAHAM, YUSUF,
XUE, BHANDARI, IWASAWA, NOLTE, CHARLESWORTH, BRANT, GÓMEZ ROBLEDO,
CLEVELAND, AURESCU, TLADI; Judges ad hoc DAUDET, KOROMA; Registrar GAUTIER.
In the case concerning the application of the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
between
the Republic of Azerbaijan,
represented by
HE Mr Elnur Mammadov, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Republic of Azerbaijan,
as Agent;
HE Mr Rahman Mustafayev, Ambassador of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the Kingdom of
the Netherlands,
as Co-Agent;
Mr Vaughan Lowe, KC, Emeritus Chichele Professor of Public International Law, University
of Oxford, member of the Institut de droit international, Essex Court Chambers, member
of the Bar of England and Wales,
Mr Samuel Wordsworth, KC, Essex Court Chambers, member of the Bar of England and
Wales, member of the Paris Bar,
Ms Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Professor of International Law and International
Organization at the University of Geneva, member of the Institut de droit international,
member of Matrix Chambers,
Mr Stefan Talmon, Professor of International Law, University of Bonn, Barrister, Twenty
Essex Chambers,
as Counsel and Advocates;
- 4 -
Mr Stephen Fietta, KC, Fietta LLP, Solicitor Advocate of the Senior Courts of England and
Wales,
Ms Oonagh Sands, Fietta LLP, member of the Bars of the State of New York and the District
of Columbia, Solicitor Advocate of the Senior Courts of England and Wales,
Mr Luke Tattersall, Essex Court Chambers, member of the Bar of England and Wales,
Ms Eileen Crowley, Fietta LLP, member of the Bar of the State of New York, solicitor of the
Senior Courts of England and Wales,
Mr Gershon Hasin, JSD, Fietta LLP, member of the Bar of the State of New York,
Ms Mercedes Roman, Fietta LLP, member of the Bar of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
Mr Sean Aughey, Essex Court Chambers, member of the Bar of England and Wales,
Mr Aditya Laddha, PhD candidate and assistant, Faculty of Law, University of Geneva,
Ms Miglena Angelova, Fietta LLP, member of the Paris Bar, Solicitor Advocate of the Senior
Courts of England and Wales,
as Counsel;
Mr Nurlan Aliyev, Counsellor, Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Ms Sabina Sadigli, First Secretary, Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan in the Kingdom of
the Netherlands,
Mr Vusal Ibrahimov, First Secretary, Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan in the Kingdom
of the Netherlands,
Mr Badir Bayramov, Second Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Azerbaijan,
Mr Shahriyar Hajiyev, Second Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Azerbaijan,
as Advisers,
and
the Republic of Armenia,
represented by
HE Mr Yeghishe Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International
Legal Matters,
as Agent;
- 5 -
Mr Lawrence H. Martin, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the District
of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Ms Alison Macdonald, KC, Barrister, Essex Court Chambers, London,
Mr Constantinos Salonidis, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the
State of New York and Greece,
Mr Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Professor of International Law, Dean of the Faculty of Law
of the University of Athens, member of the Institut de droit international, member of the
Permanent Court of Arbitration,
Mr Pierre d’Argent, Full Professor, Université catholique de Louvain, member of the Institut
de droit international, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of Brussels,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr Sean Murphy, Manatt/Ahn Professor of International Law, The George Washington
University Law School, associate member of the Institut de droit international, member of
the Bar of Maryland,
Mr Joseph Klingler, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the District of
Columbia and the State of New York,
Mr Peter Tzeng, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the District of
Columbia and the State of New York,
Ms Iulia Padeanu Mellon, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the
District of Columbia and Illinois,
Mr Amir Ardelan Farhadi, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of the State
of New York,
Ms Yasmin Al Ameen, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of the State of
New York,
Ms Diem Huong Ho, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of England and
Wales and the State of New York,
Mr Harout Ekmanian, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of the State of
New York,
Ms María Camila Rincón, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of Colombia,
as Counsel;
HE Mr Viktor Biyagov, Ambassador of the Republic of Armenia to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
HE Mr Andranik Hovhannisyan, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Armenia to the
United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva,
- 6 -
Mr Liparit Drmeyan, Head of the Office of the Representative of the Republic of Armenia on
International Legal Matters, Office of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia,
Mr Aram Aramyan, Head of the Department for the Protection of the Interests of the Republic
of Armenia in Interstate Disputes, Office of the Representative of the Republic of Armenia
on International Legal Matters, Office of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia,
Ms Kristine Khanazadyan, Head of the Department for Representation of the Interests of the
Republic of Armenia before International Arbitral Tribunals and Foreign Courts, Office of
the Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters, Office of
the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia,
Ms Zoya Stepanyan, Head of the International Human Rights Co-operation Division,
Department for Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Ms Viviana Kalaejian, Third Secretary, Embassy of the Republic of Armenia in the Kingdom
of the Netherlands,
Ms Nanami Hirata, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP,
as Advisers;
Ms Jennifer Schoppmann, Foley Hoag LLP,
Ms Deborah Langley, Foley Hoag LLP,
as Assistants,
THE COURT,
composed as above,
after deliberation,
delivers the following Judgment:
1. On 23 September 2021, the Republic of Azerbaijan (hereinafter “Azerbaijan”) filed in the
Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the Republic of Armenia
(hereinafter “Armenia”) concerning alleged violations of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965 (hereinafter “CERD” or
the “Convention”).
2. In its Application, Azerbaijan seeks to found the Court’s jurisdiction on Article 36,
paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court in conjunction with Article 22 of CERD.
- 7 -
3. On 23 September 2021, Azerbaijan also submitted a Request for the indication of
provisional measures, referring to Article 41 of the Statute and to Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules
of Court.
4. The Registrar immediately communicated to the Government of Armenia the Application
and the Request for the indication of provisional measures, in accordance with Article 40,
paragraph 2, of the Statute and Article 73, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court. He also notified the
Secretary-General of the United Nations of the filing by Azerbaijan of the Application and the
Request for the indication of provisional measures.
5. In addition, by a letter dated 27 September 2021, the Registrar informed all States entitled
to appear before the Court of the filing of the above-mentioned Application and Request.
6. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute, the Registrar notified the Member States
of the United Nations through the Secretary-General, and any other State entitled to appear before
the Court, of the filing of the Application, by transmitting to them the printed bilingual text.
7. Since the Court included upon the Bench no judge of the nationality of either Party, each
Party proceeded to exercise the right conferred upon it by Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute to
choose a judge ad hoc to sit in the case. Azerbaijan chose Mr Kenneth Keith and Armenia Mr Yves
Daudet.
8. By an Order dated 7 December 2021, the Court, having heard the Parties, indicated the
following provisional measures:
“(1) The Republic of Armenia shall, in accordance with its obligations under the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, take
all necessary measures to prevent the incitement and promotion of racial hatred,
including by organizations and private persons in its territory, targeted at persons of
Azerbaijani national or ethnic origin;
(2) Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend
the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.” (Application of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(Azerbaijan v. Armenia), Provisional Measures, Order of 7 December 2021, I.C.J.
Reports 2021, pp. 430-431, para. 76.)
9. In accordance with Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the Registrar addressed
to States parties to CERD the notifications provided for in Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute. In
addition, in accordance with Article 69, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, the Registrar addressed
to the United Nations, through its Secretary-General, the notification provided for in Article 34,
paragraph 3, of the Statute.
10. By an Order dated 21 January 2022, the Court fixed 23 January 2023 and 23 January 2024
as the respective time-limits for the filing of a Memorial by Azerbaijan and a Counter-Memorial by
Armenia. The Memorial was filed within the time-limit thus prescribed.
- 8 -
11. On 4 January 2023, Azerbaijan, referring to Article 41 of the Statute and Articles 73, 74
and 75 of the Rules of Court, filed a new Request for the indication of provisional measures. By an
Order dated 22 February 2023, the Court, having heard the Parties, rejected the request for the
indication of provisional measures and noted that the provisional measures indicated in its Order of
7 December 2021 remained in effect (Application of the International Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Azerbaijan v. Armenia), Provisional Measures, Order of
22 February 2023, I.C.J. Reports 2023, p. 43, para. 27).
12. On 21 April 2023, within the time-limit prescribed by Article 79bis, paragraph 1, of the
Rules of Court, Armenia raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and the
admissibility of the Application with respect to certain claims contained therein. Consequently, by
an Order of 25 April 2023, the Court, noting that, by virtue of Article 79bis, paragraph 3, of the Rules
of Court, the proceedings on the merits were suspended and taking account of Practice Direction V,
fixed 21 August 2023 as the time-limit within which Azerbaijan could present a written statement of
its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections raised by Armenia. The written
statement was filed within the time-limit thus fixed.
13. Following the resignation of Judge ad hoc Keith on 21 April 2023, Azerbaijan chose
Mr Abdul G. Koroma to replace him as judge ad hoc in the case.
14. By a letter dated 25 August 2023, the Registrar, acting pursuant to Article 69, paragraph 3,
of the Rules of Court, transmitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations copies of the written
proceedings filed thus far in the case, and asked whether the Organization intended to present
observations in writing under that provision in relation to the preliminary objections raised by
Armenia. By a letter dated 30 August 2023, the Office of Legal Affairs informed the Court that the
United Nations did not intend to submit any observations in writing within the meaning of Article 69,
paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court.
15. Pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, the Court, after ascertaining the
views of the Parties, decided to make accessible to the public the preliminary objections of Armenia
and the written statement of Azerbaijan on those preliminary objections, as well as the annexes
thereto, except Annexes 13 and 14 to the Preliminary Objections.
16. Public hearings on the preliminary objections raised by Armenia were held on 22, 23, 24
and 26 April 2024, at which the Court heard the oral arguments and replies of:
For Armenia: HE Mr Yeghishe Kirakosyan,
Mr Lawrence Martin,
Mr Pierre d’Argent,
Mr Constantinos Salonidis,
Ms Alison Macdonald,
Mr Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos.
For Azerbaijan: HE Mr Elnur Mammadov,
Mr Stephen Fietta,
Mr Vaughan Lowe,
Mr Stefan Talmon,
Mr Samuel Wordsworth,
- 9 -
Mr Sean Aughey,
Ms Laurence Boisson de Chazournes,
HE Mr Rahman Mustafayev.
*
17. In the Application, the following claims were made by Azerbaijan:
“Azerbaijan, in its own right and as parens patriae of its citizens, respectfully
requests the Court to adjudge and declare:
A. That Armenia, through its State organs, State agents, and other persons and entities
exercising governmental authority or acting on its instructions or under its direction
and control, has violated Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of CERD.
B. That Armenia, by aiding, assisting, sponsoring and supporting activities inconsistent
with CERD conducted by other persons, groups, and organizations has violated
Article 2 (1) (b), (d), and (e) of CERD.
C. That Armenia must take all steps necessary to comply with its obligations under
CERD, including to:
(a) Immediately cease and desist from any and all policies and practices of ethnic
cleansing that have been directed against Azerbaijanis;
(b) Immediately co-operate with de-mining operations by Azerbaijan and
international agencies in the formerly Occupied Territories, including through
the provision of comprehensive and accurate maps and other information on
the location of minefields, by ceasing and desisting from the laying of
landmines on the territory of Azerbaijan, and by other necessary and
appropriate measures;
(c) Immediately cease and desist from any acts that detrimentally impact
Azerbaijanis’ enjoyment of or access to their environment and natural
resources;
(d) Immediately cease and desist from the destruction of Azerbaijani heritage sites
and other pieces of Azerbaijani ethnic and cultural property, and from the
pursuit of the policy of cultural erasure;
(e) Immediately cease and desist from disseminating, promoting, or sponsoring
anti-Azerbaijani propaganda and hate speech, including via educational
institutions, the media, social media disinformation campaigns, and other
channels, and from glorifying individuals who have committed ethnically
motivated crimes against Azerbaijanis;
- 10 -
(f) Immediately cease and desist from any direct or indirect sponsorship or support
of persons and organizations that engage in discrimination against
Azerbaijanis, including VoMA;
(g) Publicly condemn discrimination against Azerbaijanis and adopt immediate
and positive measures to prevent and punish such acts of discrimination, in
accordance with CERD Articles 2 (1) (d) and (e) and Article 4;
(h) Ensure the investigation and punishment of acts of discrimination, including
but not limited to war crimes committed by Armenian forces, in accordance
with CERD Articles 2 and 4, and provide effective protection and remedies to
Azerbaijanis for harm caused by such acts;
(i) Publicly acknowledge its breaches of CERD and apologize for its conduct at
the highest levels of Government;
(j) Provide assurances and guarantees of non-repetition of Armenia’s illegal
conduct under CERD; and
(k) Make full reparation to Azerbaijan, including compensation in an amount to
be determined in a later phase in these proceedings, for the harm suffered as a
result of Armenia’s actions in violation of CERD.”
18. In the written proceedings on the merits, the following submissions were presented on
behalf of the Government of Azerbaijan in its Memorial:
“On the basis of the facts and legal arguments set out in this Memorial, in its own
right and as parens patriae of its citizens, Azerbaijan respectfully requests the Court to
adjudge and declare that:
1. Armenia, through its State organs, State agents and other persons and entities
exercising governmental authority or acting on its instructions or under its direction
or control, or with its support, sponsorship, or defense, is responsible for violations
of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of CERD by the following actions:
(a) The ethnic cleansing and cultural erasure of Azerbaijanis from the thenoccupied
territories, and establishment of an ethnically pure Armenian
settlement in those territories, including by:
(i) unlawful killings, violent expulsion, torture and other mistreatment of
hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis;
(ii) wholesale looting and destruction of Azerbaijani towns and other elements
of the built environment, including the destruction, vandalism, desecration,
and misappropriation of Azerbaijani cultural monuments and other markers
of Azerbaijani heritage;
- 11 -
(iii) differential destruction and degradation of the natural environment in areas
where Azerbaijanis resided prior to Armenia’s ethnic cleansing and
occupation;
(iv) barring of Azerbaijanis from access to the then-occupied territories and
from Armenia, including frustration of the right of internally displaced
Azerbaijanis and Azerbaijani refugees to return home; and
(v) institution of policies and practices to dispossess ethnic Azerbaijanis of
their lands and other property in the then-occupied territories and promote
the settlement of ethnic Armenians in those territories;
(b) The promotion of hatred and incitement to violence against Azerbaijanis by
Armenian public officials and allowing the promotion of hatred, incitement to
violence and actual violence against Azerbaijanis by private individuals and
armed hate groups operating in Armenia;
(c) The failure to take immediate and effective measures, particularly in the fields
of teaching and education, to promote tolerance and understanding between
Armenians and Azerbaijanis and to combat prejudices and racial
discrimination against Azerbaijanis;
(d) Sponsoring, defending, or supporting persons and organizations taking the
above racially discriminatory actions against Azerbaijanis; and
(e) The failure to provide Azerbaijanis with effective protections and remedies
against the above racially discriminatory actions;
2. Armenia, through its State organs, State agents and other persons and entities
exercising governmental authority or acting on its instructions, or under its direction
or control, or with its support, sponsorship, or defense, is responsible for violations
of the Court’s Order on Provisional Measures of 7 December 2021, including by
failure to take any action to prevent the incitement and promotion of racial hatred
by armed ethno-nationalist hate groups such as VoMA and POGA operating within
its territory;
3. Armenia is under an obligation to cease all actions in breach of its obligations under
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of CERD and the Court’s Order on Provisional Measures
of 7 December 2021, including all acts of discrimination and all sponsoring,
defense, or support of such acts, and to provide appropriate assurances and
guarantees of non-repetition, including a specific assurance that it will make public
statements calling on private groups to end their conduct described herein that is
inconsistent with CERD;
- 12 -
4. Armenia is under an obligation to take prompt, immediate and effective measures
in the fields of teaching, education, culture and information to combat prejudices
and racial discrimination against Azerbaijanis and to promote tolerance and
understanding between Armenians and Azerbaijanis;
5. Armenia is under an obligation to acknowledge its responsibility for its violations
of CERD, apologize publicly to the victims of those violations, and condemn racial
discrimination against Azerbaijanis;
6. Armenia is under an obligation to disclose to the families of missing Azerbaijanis
all information it may have about the missing individuals’ fates, including the
location of remains of the deceased, and to disclose publicly the location of any
mass grave sites that have not yet been disclosed;
7. Armenia is under an obligation to restore to Azerbaijanis immovable property in the
formerly occupied territories, and movable property wherever located, to the extent
such property was taken in violation of Articles 2 and 5 of CERD; to restore to the
Republic of Azerbaijan any misappropriated cultural objects from the formerly
occupied territories; to recognize and restore properties reflecting Azerbaijani
identity and history in Armenia and the formerly occupied territories; and to allow,
facilitate and not interfere with the return of Azerbaijani refugees to their homes in
Armenia and the return of Azerbaijani internally displaced persons to their homes
in the formerly occupied territories;
8. Armenia is under an obligation to compensate Azerbaijan, in its own right and as
parens patriae for its citizens, for the material and non-material damage caused by
its violations of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of CERD and the Court’s Order on
Provisional Measures of 7 December 2021, with such compensation to be quantified
in a separate phase of these proceedings; and
9. Such further or more specific relief pursuant to paragraphs 7 and 8 above that shall
be identified in a subsequent phase of these proceedings.
Azerbaijan reserves its rights to amend these submissions in the course of the
proceedings.”
19. In the preliminary objections, the following submissions were presented on behalf of the
Government of Armenia:
“143. In view of the foregoing, the Republic of Armenia respectfully requests the
Court to adjudge and declare that it lacks jurisdiction over the claims and contentions
described above and/or that those claims and contentions are inadmissible. Specifically,
the Republic of Armenia requests that the Court adjudge and declare:
(a) That it lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis with respect to Azerbaijan’s claims and
contentions concerning events that transpired prior to the entry into force of the
CERD as between the Parties on 15 September 1996, or that such claims and
contentions are inadmissible;
- 13 -
(b) That it lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae with respect to Azerbaijan’s claims and
contentions concerning the alleged placement of landmines and booby traps; and
(c) That it lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae with respect to Azerbaijan’s claims and
contentions concerning alleged environmental harm.
144. The Republic of Armenia reserves the right to amend and supplement this
submission in accordance with the provisions of the Statute and the Rules of Court. The
Republic of Armenia also reserves the right to submit further objections to the
jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of Azerbaijan’s claims in any
subsequent phase.”
20. In the written statement of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections,
the following submissions were presented on behalf of the Government of Azerbaijan:
“93. For the foregoing reasons, Azerbaijan requests that the Court dismiss each
of the preliminary objections that Armenia sets forth in its submission of 21 April 2023
on the ground that neither of those objections is a valid objection to the Court’s
jurisdiction or to the admissibility of Azerbaijan’s claims.
94. In the alternative, Azerbaijan requests that the Court dismiss each of those
preliminary objections on the ground that each raises issues that should be deferred to
the hearing on the merits.”
21. At the oral proceedings on the preliminary objections, the following submissions were
presented by the Parties:
On behalf of the Government of Armenia,
at the hearing of 24 April 2024:
“On the basis of its written and oral submissions, the Republic of Armenia
respectfully requests that the Court:
(a) Uphold the preliminary objection raised by the Republic of Armenia concerning the
jurisdiction ratione temporis of the Court, and adjudge and declare that it lacks
jurisdiction with respect to Azerbaijan’s claims and contentions concerning events
that transpired prior to the entry into force of the CERD as between the Parties on
15 September 1996;
(b) In the alternative, uphold the preliminary objection raised by the Republic of
Armenia concerning the admissibility of the claims, and adjudge and declare that
Azerbaijan’s claims and contentions concerning events that transpired prior to the
entry into force of the CERD as between the Parties on 15 September 1996 are
inadmissible;
(c) Uphold the preliminary objection raised by the Republic of Armenia concerning the
jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Court, and adjudge and declare that it lacks
jurisdiction with respect to Azerbaijan’s claims and contentions concerning the
alleged placement of landmines and booby traps; and
- 14 -
(d) Uphold the preliminary objection raised by the Republic of Armenia concerning the
jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Court, and adjudge and declare that it lacks
jurisdiction with respect to Azerbaijan’s claims and contentions concerning alleged
environmental harm.”
On behalf of the Government of Azerbaijan,
at the hearing of 26 April 2024:
“The Republic of Azerbaijan requests that the Court:
1. dismiss each of the preliminary objections that Armenia sets forth in its final
submission of 24 April 2024 on the ground that none of them is a valid objection to
the Court’s jurisdiction or to the admissibility of Azerbaijan’s claims; and
2. in the alternative, dismiss each of those preliminary objections on the ground that
each raises issues that should be deferred to the hearing on the merits.”
*
* *
I. INTRODUCTION
22. Azerbaijan and Armenia, both of which were Republics of the former Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics (hereinafter the “Soviet Union”), declared independence on 18 October 1991 and
21 September 1991, respectively.
23. The region which Azerbaijan calls Garabagh and Armenia calls Nagorno-Karabakh was,
in the Soviet Union, an autonomous entity (“oblast”) with a majority Armenian ethnic population,
lying within the territory of the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic. The Parties’ competing claims
over that region resulted in hostilities, to which Azerbaijan refers as “the First Garabagh War” and
Armenia refers as “the First Nagorno-Karabakh War”, that ended with a ceasefire in May 1994.
Further hostilities erupted in September 2020, in what Azerbaijan calls “the Second Garabagh War”
and Armenia calls “the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War”.
24. On 9 November 2020, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Prime Minister of
the Republic of Armenia and the President of the Russian Federation signed a statement referred to
by the Parties as “the Trilateral Statement”. Under the terms of this statement, as of 10 November
2020, “[a] complete ceasefire and termination of all hostilities in the area of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict [was] declared”. However, the situation between the Parties remained unstable and hostilities
again erupted in September 2022 and again in September 2023.
- 15 -
25. On 23 September 2021, Azerbaijan instituted the present proceedings under CERD. In its
Application, Azerbaijan alleges that Armenia has breached several provisions of CERD by virtue of
a decades-long State policy of racial discrimination. Specifically, Azerbaijan asserts that “Armenia
has engaged and is continuing to engage in a series of discriminatory acts against Azerbaijanis on
the basis of their ‘national or ethnic’ origin within the meaning of CERD”.
26. In its Application, Azerbaijan seeks to found the Court’s jurisdiction on Article 36,
paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court in conjunction with Article 22 of CERD (see paragraph 2
above). Article 22 of CERD provides as follows:
“Any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation
or application of this Convention, which is not settled by negotiation or by the
procedures expressly provided for in this Convention, shall, at the request of any of the
parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, unless
the disputants agree to another mode of settlement.”
27. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia are parties to CERD. Azerbaijan acceded to it on 16 August
1996 and Armenia on 23 June 1993. The Convention entered into force for each Party on the thirtieth
day after the date of the deposit of its instrument of accession, i.e. on 15 September 1996 and 23 July
1993, respectively. Neither Party entered any reservation to the Convention.
28. Armenia raises three preliminary objections. First, Armenia argues that the Court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain Azerbaijan’s claims concerning acts that took place prior to the entry into
force of CERD as between the Parties on 15 September 1996, or that such claims are inadmissible.
Secondly, Armenia contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae with respect to
Azerbaijan’s claims concerning the alleged placement of landmines and booby traps. Thirdly, it
submits that the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae with respect to Azerbaijan’s claims
concerning alleged environmental harm. The Court will address each of these objections in turn.
II. FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:
JURISDICTION RATIONE TEMPORIS
29. In their pleadings, the Parties do not dispute that claims relating to alleged acts that
occurred before 23 July 1993 are outside the temporal scope of the Court’s jurisdiction and that
claims concerning alleged acts that occurred after 15 September 1996 fall within the scope of the
Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis. They differ, however, as to whether the Court has jurisdiction
over Azerbaijan’s claims concerning alleged acts that occurred between 23 July 1993 and
15 September 1996, the period during which Armenia was a State party to CERD while Azerbaijan
was not. In its first preliminary objection, Armenia contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione
temporis over those claims or, alternatively, that they are inadmissible. The Court will begin by
considering the question of its jurisdiction ratione temporis.
30. The Parties present opposing views on a number of issues with regard to the first
preliminary objection.
- 16 -
31. According to Armenia, the date by which the temporal scope of the Court’s jurisdiction is
to be determined is the date on which CERD entered into force between the Parties, i.e. 15 September
1996, not the date on which Armenia became a party to the Convention, i.e. 23 July 1993. It argues
that the plain text of Article 22 makes clear that, for the Court to have jurisdiction, the dispute
concerning the interpretation or application of CERD must be between two States parties and
therefore only with regard to the alleged acts that occurred after the entry into force of CERD between
them.
32. In support of its position, the Respondent contends that Azerbaijan’s claims concerning
alleged acts that occurred prior to 15 September 1996 are not in conformity with the principle of
non-retroactivity of treaties. In its view, CERD does not, and cannot, apply to acts that preceded its
entry into force between the parties concerned, as Article 22 of CERD does not derogate from “the
customary international law principle of non-retroactivity of treaties, reflected in Article 28 of the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”. Armenia claims that Azerbaijan’s accession to CERD
“did not expand — retroactively — the pool of States to whom Armenia owed the substantive
obligations under CERD before that date”.
33. Moreover, Armenia maintains that Article 22 of CERD, as a compromissory clause, is
different from a general provision for the pacific settlement of disputes and from a declaration made
under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute. In its view, to extend the application of CERD to events
that took place prior to the entry into force of CERD as between the Parties would ignore the element
of reciprocity inherent in a compromissory clause accepting the Court’s jurisdiction. It argues that
the title of jurisdiction under CERD vests both substantively and procedurally only upon entry into
force as between the Parties.
34. Armenia contends that obligations under CERD are erga omnes partes in character, and
must be distinguished from erga omnes obligations under customary international law. In the present
case, the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 22 extends only to the former. Armenia maintains that it
is only upon entry into force of CERD as between two parties that each State begins to owe the other
inter partes obligations under the Convention. Accordingly, from 23 July 1993 to 15 September
1996, Armenia owed its treaty obligations only to those States that were parties to CERD during that
time. Azerbaijan could neither have invoked Armenia’s responsibility under CERD, nor had recourse
to Article 22 of the Convention, just as Azerbaijan itself had no obligations under CERD.
35. Lastly, Armenia rejects the Applicant’s alternative assertion that the alleged acts are of a
continuing or composite nature and constitute part of a single “ethnic cleansing campaign”. It
contends that Azerbaijan’s characterization of such acts as of a continuing or composite nature is an
attempt to sweep all of its claims into the temporal scope of the Court’s jurisdiction. It argues that
Azerbaijan has not even tried to articulate the component elements of “ethnic cleansing” that
constitutes a “composite breach” of CERD. In its view, when an act continues in such a way as to
straddle the “critical date”, the elements of the act that occurred before that date are outside of the
Court’s jurisdiction. Only the elements that occurred after that date come within the Court’s
- 17 -
jurisdiction ratione temporis. Accordingly, Armenia submits that all of its objections are of an
exclusively preliminary character.
*
36. In response, Azerbaijan maintains that the date on which CERD entered into force for it
was the earliest date it could bring claims against Armenia under Article 22 of CERD, which is
different from the date on which Armenia became bound by the substantive provisions of CERD.
For the purpose of assessing the temporal scope of the Court’s jurisdiction over its claims in the
present case, Azerbaijan argues that the latter date is decisive. It takes the view that the Court has
jurisdiction ratione temporis over its claims against Armenia in respect of any acts that occurred on
or after 23 July 1993, the date on which the substantive provisions of CERD entered into force for
Armenia.
37. Azerbaijan argues that its claims involve no retroactive application of CERD. It asserts
that retroactivity is relevant in two distinct contexts: procedurally, where the question is whether the
parties to a dispute have consented to the Court’s jurisdiction at the time the proceedings are instituted
in the Court; and substantively, where the question is whether the State is bound by the substantive
provisions of CERD at the time when the alleged acts occurred. In the present case, Azerbaijan argues
that the alleged acts underpinning its claims occurred after CERD’s entry into force for Armenia.
Moreover, both Parties had consented to the Court’s jurisdiction by 15 September 1996. Since
Azerbaijan instituted the present proceedings on 23 September 2021, there is no element of
retroactivity.
38. On the element of reciprocity, the Applicant contends that Article 22 imposes no temporal
limitation on the conferral of jurisdiction. It is of the view that the obligations enumerated under
CERD are not formulated as mere bilateral or mutual undertakings between two or more States; they
are formulated primarily to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals — the
ultimate beneficiaries of CERD. In seeking to protect those rights, Azerbaijan acts as an “injured
State” in the interests of its citizens and of itself and also as a “procedural trustee”, safeguarding
obligations that Armenia has owed to all States parties, erga omnes partes, since it acceded to CERD.
39. Azerbaijan argues that the question of the temporal scope of compromissory clauses in
certain human rights treaties has been settled by the Court. Referring to the Judgment of 11 July 1996
on the preliminary objections in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia),
Azerbaijan asserts that the Court found that it had jurisdiction to deal with claims concerning alleged
acts which occurred prior to the entry into force of the Genocide Convention between the parties on
the ground that neither the compromissory clause of the Genocide Convention nor the parties, by
way of reservation, imposed any temporal limitation on the Court’s jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court
considered that this finding was in accordance with the object and purpose of that Convention.
Azerbaijan contends that the Court’s reasoning in that case equally applies to CERD and to the Parties
in the present case.
- 18 -
40. Azerbaijan finally contends that, even if 15 September 1996 is defined as the critical date
by the Court to determine the temporal limit of the Court’s jurisdiction, its claims that involve
continuing or composite acts that began between 23 July 1993 and 15 September 1996 and continued
after the critical date nevertheless fall within the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis.
It asserts that Armenia’s continuing failure to take steps to eradicate racial discrimination may have
begun years before it ratified CERD, but emphasizes that what matters in the present case is that the
breach continues and “lasts for as long as [the wrongful] actions or omissions are repeated”.
According to Azerbaijan, “[a]cts and omissions fall outside the temporal scope of the Court’s
jurisdiction only if they were completed before the date of the entry into force of the treaty for the
acting State”. Moreover, it asserts that, should the Court wish to examine in detail all the facts relating
to the continuing or composite acts, Armenia’s objection would not have an exclusively preliminary
character.
* *
41. The Court notes that the date identified by each of the Parties as the “critical date” is used
to define a decisive point in time for the determination of the temporal scope of the Court’s
jurisdiction under Article 22 of CERD. The Parties’ contentions on the determination of the “critical
date”, in essence, concern Azerbaijan’s entitlement to invoke Armenia’s responsibility for the alleged
acts that occurred at a time when CERD was not in force between the Parties. In addressing that
issue, the Court considers that two questions debated by the Parties with regard to the interpretation
and application of Article 22 should be dealt with at the outset: first, whether the principle of
non-retroactivity of treaties has an effect on the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 22 of CERD; and
second, whether the erga omnes partes character of certain obligations under CERD may affect the
temporal scope of the Court’s jurisdiction under CERD.
42. Regarding the first question, the Court recalls that, under Article 22 of CERD, in order for
the Court to have jurisdiction, only States parties may submit their dispute to the Court for
adjudication and the subject-matter of the dispute must concern the interpretation or application of
the Convention. This Article specifies the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction ratione personae and
ratione materiae, but it contains no language defining the temporal scope of the Court’s jurisdiction.
43. The Court considers that Armenia’s reference to the principle of non-retroactivity of
treaties raises an issue concerning the relationship between the substantive provisions and the
compromissory clause of CERD. According to the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties, as
reflected in Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, unless a different intention
appears from a treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any
act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into
force of the treaty with respect to that party (Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or
Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012 (II), p. 457, para. 100; Application of
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2015 (I), p. 49, para. 95). This principle defines the temporal application of
the substantive provisions of a treaty for a State party and to which acts its treaty obligations apply.
It specifies from which point in time the responsibility of a State party may be engaged for its conduct
which is not in conformity with its obligations under the treaty.
- 19 -
44. In the present case, there is no disagreement between the Parties that Armenia was bound
by CERD during the period between 23 July 1993 and 15 September 1996 and that none of
Azerbaijan’s claims concerns acts that took place prior to Armenia’s accession to CERD. Therefore,
in so far as Armenia’s obligations under CERD are concerned, no issue of retroactivity arises. The
Court observes, however, that the question before it is not whether Armenia was bound by the
obligations under CERD during the relevant interval. Rather, the question is whether Article 22,
under which Azerbaijan has given its consent to the Court’s jurisdiction, provides a jurisdictional
basis for the Court to entertain Azerbaijan’s claims in respect of alleged acts that took place before
Azerbaijan became party to the Convention.
45. The Court considers that, subject to any reservation or express indication to the contrary,
the temporal scope of the Court’s jurisdiction under a compromissory clause is determined by the
scope of the temporal application of the substantive provisions of a treaty between the parties
concerned.
46. In the case concerning Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite
(Belgium v. Senegal), Senegal disputed Belgium’s right to invoke Senegal’s responsibility for the
breach of its obligation to prosecute alleged acts that occurred before Belgium became a party to the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Senegal contended that Belgium was seeking retroactive application of Article 7, paragraph 1, of this
Convention because the alleged acts of torture took place during the period between 1982 and 1990,
when Belgium was not a party to it. The Court noted that Senegal was bound by the obligation to
prosecute under the Convention against Torture from 26 June 1987, when the Convention entered
into force for it, while Belgium was entitled to invoke Senegal’s responsibility for breach of its
obligation to prosecute after the date on which Belgium became a party to the said Convention,
namely 25 July 1999. The Court noted that the complaint against the alleged offender was filed in
2000, the year after the Convention entered into force for Belgium, and concluded that Belgium was
entitled to request the Court to rule on Senegal’s compliance with its obligation under Article 7,
paragraph 1 (Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012 (II), p. 458, paras. 103-104).
47. In light of the above, the Court considers that, in the present case, the temporal scope of
the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 22 of CERD must be linked to the date on which obligations
under CERD took effect between the Parties, 15 September 1996, not the date on which Armenia
became bound by the Convention.
48. Notwithstanding the above finding, the Court now turns to the second question, concerning
the erga omnes partes character of the obligations under CERD and its effect on jurisdiction. The
Court observes that this is not the first time that it has been requested to pronounce on the relationship
between the nature of obligations and the scope of its jurisdiction. In the case concerning East Timor
(Portugal v. Australia), the Court made clear that “the erga omnes character of a norm and the rule
of consent to jurisdiction are two different things” (East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 102, para. 29). In the case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the
Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), the Court further
clarified that
“the mere fact that rights and obligations erga omnes may be at issue in a dispute would
not give the Court jurisdiction to entertain that dispute.
- 20 -
The same applies to the relationship between peremptory norms of general
international law (jus cogens) and the establishment of the Court’s jurisdiction: the fact
that a dispute relates to compliance with a norm having such a character, which is
assuredly the case with regard to the prohibition of genocide, cannot of itself provide a
basis for the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain that dispute. Under the Court’s Statute
that jurisdiction is always based on the consent of the parties.” (Jurisdiction and
Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2006, p. 32, para. 64.)
That position has been consistently upheld by the Court with regard to the question of jurisdiction.
49. The Court notes that, contrary to Azerbaijan’s contention, it did not address, in its decision
in the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia case, the broader issue of the application ratione
temporis of compromissory clauses in human rights conventions. Its finding in that case concerned
the application of the Genocide Convention in a particular context of State succession in the process
of the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Genocide Convention
remained applicable in the relevant territory at all times of the conflict (Application of the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v.
Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (II), pp. 610-612, paras. 17, 20
and 23, and p. 617, para. 34). The present case is different. There is no question that the Parties to
this case are both parties to CERD. Azerbaijan was not a party to CERD at the relevant time when
the alleged acts took place.
50. The Court considers that, although Article 22 of CERD contains no express indication on
the temporal scope of its application, the conferral of jurisdiction on the Court by the States parties
under this provision is governed by the relevant rules on jurisdiction, namely the principle of consent
and the principles of reciprocity and equality of States. Any exception to these principles cannot be
admitted unless expressly provided (see Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta),
Application for Permission to Intervene, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 22, para. 35; see also
Ambatielos (Greece v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objection, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1952,
pp. 40-41).
51. The Court observes that, during the interval between 23 July 1993 and 15 September 1996,
as Azerbaijan was not yet a party to CERD, there were no treaty relations between the Parties under
CERD. Procedurally, if Azerbaijan were permitted to make claims against Armenia for the latter’s
alleged acts that occurred during that period while Armenia could not exercise that right against
Azerbaijan for Azerbaijan’s conduct during the same period because of its non-party status, there
would be no reciprocity and equality between the Parties. Substantively, during the relevant period,
Armenia, as a State party, owed its obligations under CERD to all other States parties, but not to
States which were not parties to that Convention.
52. According to the customary rules of State responsibility as reflected in Articles 13 and 42
of the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts (hereinafter the “ILC Articles on State Responsibility”), an act of a State does not
constitute a breach of an international obligation unless the State is bound by that obligation at the
time when the alleged act occurs. When a State seeks to invoke the responsibility of another State, it
must show that the responsible State owes the obligation allegedly breached to the claimant State.
Accordingly, since between 23 July 1993 and 15 September 1996 Armenia did not owe obligations
under CERD to Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan has no right to invoke Armenia’s responsibility for the
alleged acts that occurred during that period.
- 21 -
53. In this connection, the Court notes that, in support of its position, Azerbaijan refers to the
decision rendered by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter the
“CERD Committee”) in the inter-State communication submitted by the State of Palestine against
Israel. According to Azerbaijan, the CERD Committee in that case took the view that Articles 11
to 13 of CERD “do not indicate that the use of the [inter-State] mechanism” is limited to “breaches
that have occurred after [CERD’s] ratification by the State party” that initiated the procedure (CERD
Committee, “Inter-State communication submitted by the State of Palestine against Israel:
preliminary procedural issues and referral to the Committee”, UN doc. CERD/C/100/3 (decision
adopted on 12 December 2019), p. 3, para. 14).
54. The Court observes that there is a difference in nature between the inter-State
communications procedure established under Articles 11 to 13 of CERD and the judicial mechanism
provided for in Article 22. The first aims to monitor compliance by States parties with their
obligations under the Convention and can be used “[i]f a State Party considers that another State
Party is not giving effect to the provisions of [the] Convention” (Article 11). The latter aims to settle
disputes relating to obligations which States, by becoming parties to the Convention, have accepted
to undertake vis-à-vis each other, and the judicial settlement may result in the engagement of the
respondent’s responsibility towards the applicant. This mechanism can therefore only be used to
settle disputes relating to events that occurred at a time when both States concerned were bound by
the obligations in question.
Consequently, the views adopted by the CERD Committee with regard to the exercise of its
competence in the context of the inter-State compliance mechanism are not relevant for the purposes
of the interpretation and application of the compromissory clause invoked in the present case as a
basis for the Court’s jurisdiction.
55. Based on the above considerations, the Court concludes that 15 September 1996 is the date
for the determination of the temporal scope of the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 22 of CERD in
the present case.
56. The Court now turns to address Azerbaijan’s assertion in relation to alleged continuing or
composite acts.
57. The notion of continuing wrongful acts has been applied in international judicial and
arbitral decisions. The conditions and consequences of such acts in the field of State responsibility
are provided for in the ILC Articles on State Responsibility (see Article 14 of the ILC Articles on
State Responsibility and the commentary in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001,
Vol. II, Part Two, pp. 59-62, paras. 1-14, and cases referred to therein). According to Article 14,
paragraph 2, of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility, the breach of an international obligation by
an act of a State having a continuing character extends over the entire period during which the act
continues and remains not in conformity with the international obligation.
58. The notion of composite wrongful acts has also been applied in the jurisprudence of
international courts and tribunals. Article 15, paragraph 2, of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility
provides that the breach of an international obligation in respect of composite acts extends over the
entire period starting with the first of the actions or omissions in a series and lasts for as long as these
actions or omissions are repeated and remain not in conformity with the international obligation. The
- 22 -
essential feature of such acts is that they are “a series of actions or omissions defined in aggregate as
wrongful” (see Article 15 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility and the commentary in
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, pp. 62-64, paras. 1-11, and
cases referred to therein).
59. The Court notes that whether an internationally wrongful act has a continuing or composite
character will depend on both the content of the obligation concerned and the circumstances of the
given case.
60. In the present case, Azerbaijan does not clarify whether its claims are based on continuing
acts or composite acts, but nevertheless suggests that the latter category of acts is included in the
former. It claims that Armenia’s cumulative or aggregated actions and omissions amount to a practice
of ethnic cleansing, which constitutes “a distinct breach” of CERD. It asserts that Armenia has
engaged in a long-standing systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing, which began before
15 September 1996 and continued after that date.
61. The Court notes that violations of certain obligations under CERD may be committed
through acts of a continuing or composite nature. To decide on Azerbaijan’s claim, the Court needs
to determine first whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that there existed a systematic
campaign of ethnic cleansing launched by Armenia against Azerbaijan during the relevant period
and, if so, whether there were continuing or composite wrongful acts for which Armenia should be
held responsible under CERD. These issues are for the merits. At the present stage, all the Court is
required to decide is to what extent, ratione temporis, the Court has jurisdiction over such alleged
conduct.
62. If the Court were to find, at the stage of its examination of the merits, a continuing or
composite wrongful act that commenced before the critical date of 15 September 1996 and continued
thereafter, it would follow that the Respondent’s responsibility with respect to the Applicant would
be engaged for the actions or omissions that took place after that date, which is when the relevant
obligations came into force between the Parties. In this regard, the Court would nevertheless not be
precluded from taking into consideration facts which occurred before that date, in so far as they are
relevant to its examination of the Respondent’s subsequent conduct which falls within its jurisdiction
(see Article 13 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility and the commentary in Yearbook of the
International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, p. 59, para. 9).
63. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis to
entertain Azerbaijan’s claims that are based on alleged acts that occurred during the interval between
23 July 1993 and 15 September 1996. The Respondent’s first preliminary objection to the Court’s
jurisdiction must therefore be upheld.
64. Since the Court has found that it lacks jurisdiction over Azerbaijan’s claims relating to
alleged acts that occurred before 15 September 1996, the proceedings in respect of those claims come
to an end. Therefore, there is no need for the Court to consider the arguments of the Parties in relation
to the question of admissibility.
- 23 -
III. SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: JURISDICTION RATIONE MATERIAE
IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED LAYING OF LANDMINES
AND BOOBY TRAPS BY ARMENIA
65. The Court will now examine Armenia’s second preliminary objection, according to which
the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae under CERD “with respect to Azerbaijan’s claims and
contentions concerning the alleged placement of landmines and booby traps”.
* *
66. Armenia argues that Azerbaijan made a separate claim that the use of landmines and booby
traps is a violation of its obligations under CERD, which Armenia contends is clear from the
Application instituting proceedings and the arguments developed in the Applicant’s Memorial. The
Respondent also argues that Azerbaijan presented the laying of landmines and booby traps as an
independent violation of CERD as part of its requests for the indication of provisional measures, in
which it sought an order from the Court that Armenia cease the laying of landmines on the territory
of Azerbaijan.
67. The Respondent submits that the laying of landmines and booby traps cannot constitute
racial discrimination within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention. It contends
that, even if Azerbaijan’s factual allegations are established, Armenia’s alleged use of landmines and
booby traps would not constitute a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference “based on”
national or ethnic origin within the meaning of that Article. According to Armenia, landmines and
booby traps are weapons that are indiscriminate by nature in so far as they are incapable of making
a distinction based on national or ethnic origin. In addition, Armenia asserts that these weapons were
deployed exclusively for defensive military purposes and only along the line of contact between
military forces. Armenia further asserts that, even assuming that it did deploy such weapons, the
laying of landmines and booby traps did not have the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the
equal recognition, enjoyment or exercise of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of ethnic
Azerbaijanis, as Article 1 of CERD also requires. It argues, moreover, that even if the laying of
landmines and booby traps could be said specially to affect members of a particular group, that group
could only be Azerbaijani citizens who are members of the armed forces and who are not all of
Azerbaijani national or ethnic origin. In this regard, Armenia notes that CERD does not prohibit
discrimination “based on” current nationality.
*
68. Azerbaijan contends that the second objection to the Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae
raised by Armenia must be rejected. It submits that it does not assert an independent CERD violation
based on the deployment by Armenia of landmines and booby traps on the territory of Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan maintains that it is the long-standing campaign of ethnic cleansing conducted by Armenia
through a variety of military means, not the laying of landmines and booby traps as such, that
constitutes a violation of CERD. It argues that the targeted deployment of landmines and booby traps
is one piece of evidence among others in support of its claim of ethnic cleansing directed towards
Azerbaijanis on the basis of their national or ethnic origin. It adds that the laying of landmines and
- 24 -
booby traps in areas to which ethnic Azerbaijanis could be expected to return represents just one
element of Armenia’s continued attempts to prevent ethnic Azerbaijanis from returning home.
69. Azerbaijan is of the view that an examination of the evidence submitted by each Party, in
particular its own evidence that Armenia planted and continues to plant landmines and booby traps
in areas to which Azerbaijanis could be expected to return, is a matter for the merits.
* *
70. In order to rule on its jurisdiction ratione materiae under CERD with respect to the alleged
laying of landmines and booby traps, the Court must first ascertain whether Azerbaijan, in its
Application instituting proceedings and Memorial, requested that the Court find that Armenia
violated CERD by the alleged laying of landmines and booby traps, or whether Azerbaijan intended
to establish that the use of the weapons in question was evidence supporting its claim regarding the
alleged campaign of ethnic cleansing conducted by Armenia.
71. The Court recalls that it is for it
“to determine on an objective basis the subject-matter of the dispute between the parties,
by isolating the real issue in the case and identifying the object of the applicant’s claims.
In doing so, the Court examines the application, as well as the written and oral pleadings
of the parties, while giving particular attention to the formulation of the dispute chosen
by the applicant.” (Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Preliminary
Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2021, p. 87, para. 42; Application of the
International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2019 (II), p. 575, para. 24.)
72. The Court notes that, although Azerbaijan requests in its Application that the Court adjudge
and declare that Armenia must “[i]mmediately co-operate with de-mining operations” through “the
provision of comprehensive and accurate maps . . . on the location of minefields” and by “ceasing
and desisting from the laying of landmines on the territory of Azerbaijan”, Azerbaijan does not ask
the Court to determine that the laying of landmines in itself constitutes a violation of the obligations
under CERD.
73. The Court further notes that, in its Memorial, Azerbaijan requests the Court to adjudge and
declare that Armenia is responsible for violations of CERD through various acts, including
“(a) [t]he ethnic cleansing and cultural erasure of Azerbaijanis from the then-occupied
territories, and establishment of an ethnically pure Armenian settlement in those
territories, including by:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 25 -
(iv) barring of Azerbaijanis from access to the then-occupied territories and from
Armenia, including frustration of the right of internally displaced Azerbaijanis
and Azerbaijani refugees to return home” (see paragraph 18 above).
74. In support of its claim, Azerbaijan presents the laying of landmines and booby traps as one
of the steps through which Armenia allegedly sought to “create, support, and maintain the
monoethnic character of the then-occupied territories” and as evidence of Armenia’s alleged attempts
to prevent the return of displaced Azerbaijanis.
75. The Court observes that Azerbaijan specifies in its Memorial that evidence relating to the
alleged laying of landmines and booby traps has been put forward in support of its claim that Armenia
has used military means as part of a policy of ethnic cleansing. In determining the subject-matter of
the dispute submitted to it, the Court has previously drawn a distinction between parties’ submissions
and certain arguments which were advanced as part of the submissions but that did not constitute “a
precise and direct statement of a claim” (Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1951, p. 126; Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 449, para. 32). The Court further recalls that the Rules of Court do not
preclude an applicant “from refining the legal arguments presented in its [a]pplication or advancing
new arguments in response to those made by the [respondent]” (Application of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab
Emirates), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2021, p. 92, para. 63).
76. In the present proceedings, the Court considers that Azerbaijan does not request the Court
to find that the laying of landmines and booby traps constitutes in itself a violation of the obligations
under CERD, and Armenia does not contest the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Court to entertain
Azerbaijan’s submission concerning the alleged policies and practices of ethnic cleansing. Since
Azerbaijan is not claiming that the alleged laying of landmines and booby traps is itself a breach of
Armenia’s obligations under CERD, Armenia’s second preliminary objection is without object. The
Court will consider the arguments and evidence submitted by Azerbaijan in support of its
submissions concerning alleged acts of ethnic cleansing at the merits stage.
77. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the second preliminary objection raised
by Armenia seeking to exclude from the jurisdiction of the Court the claims relating to the laying of
landmines and booby traps is without object and must therefore be rejected.
IV. THIRD PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: JURISDICTION RATIONE MATERIAE
IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED ENVIRONMENTAL HARM
78. The Court will now examine Armenia’s third preliminary objection, according to which
the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae under CERD to entertain Azerbaijan’s claims
concerning environmental harm. The Court notes that the third preliminary objection is limited to
the claims presented in Chapter II, Section D, and Chapter IV, Section D, of Azerbaijan’s Memorial
- 26 -
that Armenia has breached its obligations under Articles 2 and 5 of CERD by causing environmental
harm targeted at Azerbaijanis on the basis of their national or ethnic origin.
* *
79. Armenia argues that the acts of environmental harm complained of by Azerbaijan do not
constitute racial discrimination within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph 1, of CERD, because
Azerbaijan has not demonstrated the existence of a “distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference”
based on national or ethnic origin, within the meaning of that provision.
80. Armenia submits that environmental harm is indiscriminate by nature and thus cannot
amount to a distinction based on national or ethnic origin. It further contends that even if the
environmental harm alleged by Azerbaijan were attributable to Armenia — which Armenia denies —
any such damage would have occurred in areas inhabited by ethnic Armenians who intended to
continue living there and which were no longer inhabited by ethnic Azerbaijanis. Thus, the supposed
victims of the alleged environmental harm were not present to experience it.
81. Armenia acknowledges that, in some cases, environmental harm can be transboundary in
character, simultaneously affecting several geographic areas and populations. However, given the
nature of environmental harm, it denies that such harm can constitute a form of differential treatment
to target a particular group. In particular, as regards the alleged mismanagement of the Sarsang
Reservoir located in Nagorno-Karabakh, which, according to Azerbaijan, deprived more than
400,000 Azerbaijanis living in the downstream regions of water for domestic and agricultural
purposes, Armenia contends that the problems with the water supply from this war-damaged
reservoir affected the entire ethnic Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh. It maintains that it is
logically impossible for Azerbaijan to show that the purpose of the alleged mismanagement of the
reservoir was to disadvantage only ethnic Azerbaijanis living further downstream.
82. Armenia also argues that the actions and omissions alleged to have caused harm to the
environment were not capable of having the “purpose or effect” of nullifying or impairing ethnic
Azerbaijanis’ enjoyment, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms, since
ethnic Azerbaijanis were no longer living in Nagorno-Karabakh at the time of the alleged acts. It
adds that even if environmental harm did affect ethnic Azerbaijanis, it would have affected ethnic
Armenians even more since they lived in the areas in which the environmental harm allegedly
occurred.
83. Moreover, Armenia considers that the acts complained of by Azerbaijan with respect to
environmental harm do not fall within the right to health or the right to property within the meaning
of Article 5 of CERD. According to Armenia, the acts alleged to have caused environmental harm
are not capable of violating the right to health under CERD, because ethnic Azerbaijanis were no
longer living in the areas where the alleged environmental harm occurred, and because that right does
- 27 -
not encompass the “right to return to a healthy environment” invoked by Azerbaijan. Armenia adds
that environmental harm is equally incapable of violating the right to property, because that right, in
the context of CERD, relates primarily to the relationship between indigenous peoples and their land,
which is not at issue in the present case.
*
84. Azerbaijan considers that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain its claims concerning
alleged environmental harm and asks the Court to reject the third preliminary objection of Armenia.
It contends that the definition of racial discrimination in CERD refers to “all distinctions between
individuals”, which includes conduct by which environmental harm is directed towards a particular
group or concentrated in particular areas on the basis of the predominant race, colour, descent, or
national or ethnic origin of those areas’ inhabitants. Azerbaijan emphasizes that CERD does not
impose a standard for acts of discrimination relating to the environment that is different from that for
any other form of discrimination.
85. According to Azerbaijan, the environmental harm caused by Armenia was the result of a
difference in treatment based on national or ethnic origin and has impaired Azerbaijanis’ equal
exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Azerbaijan considers that
Armenia, by its actions and omissions, caused harm to areas populated by ethnic Azerbaijanis prior
to Armenia’s occupation, while Armenian-populated areas received different treatment. It alleges
that acts of harm to the environment, such as the construction of hydroelectric power plants,
deforestation and the abandonment of agricultural land, were disproportionately carried out in areas
historically populated by ethnic Azerbaijanis, while Armenian-populated areas were barely affected
and even benefited from the destruction and pillaging of Azerbaijani lands through the removal of
natural resources.
86. Azerbaijan contends in particular that Armenia deliberately diverted and mismanaged the
waters of the Sarsang Reservoir in order to deprive the Azerbaijanis living in the areas adjacent to
the “occupied territories” of access to the water needed for human consumption, sanitation and the
irrigation of crops.
87. Azerbaijan further contends that the acts of environmental destruction and degradation
allegedly committed by Armenia form part of its broader claim that Armenia carried out a campaign
of ethnic cleansing against Azerbaijanis, on the basis of their national or ethnic origin. According to
the Applicant, Armenia sought to deprive ethnic Azerbaijanis, upon their return, of their right to
enjoy their homeland, including the environment and the natural resources that form part of it.
88. Azerbaijan considers that Armenia cannot evade its responsibility under CERD by arguing
that Azerbaijanis did not live in the areas in which the alleged environmental damage took place,
when Azerbaijanis were forcibly expelled from those areas by Armenia and have an undisputed right
to return there. According to Azerbaijan, after the expulsion of Azerbaijanis from their homes,
Armenia continued its campaign of ethnic cleansing, notably by deliberately degrading the natural
- 28 -
environment of the territories in question to such an extent that it became unsustainable and
unhealthy, making life impossible for Azerbaijanis when they returned. Azerbaijan states that it is in
this context of displacement of ethnic Azerbaijanis and the creation of obstacles to their return that
Armenia is said to have committed discriminatory acts of environmental harm in breach of CERD.
89. Azerbaijan also maintains that Armenia’s environmental destruction disproportionately
impacted formerly Azerbaijani-populated areas. Azerbaijan contends that Armenia’s acts had the
purpose and effect of impairing ethnic Azerbaijanis’ equal exercise and enjoyment of human rights
and fundamental freedoms, in particular their rights to health and property, two of the rights set out
in Article 5 of CERD, as well as other interrelated rights protected under CERD, including the right
to return, the right to life, and the rights to food and water. Azerbaijan submits that the right to return
is inextricably linked to the right to health.
* *
90. To determine whether it has jurisdiction ratione materiae to entertain Azerbaijan’s claims
concerning environmental harm, the Court must ascertain whether the actions and omissions of the
Respondent complained of by the Applicant fall within the scope of CERD; in other words whether
the acts at issue, if established, are capable of constituting racial discrimination (see Allegations of
Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation: 32 States intervening), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of
2 February 2024, para. 136).
91. At this stage, the Court does not need to satisfy itself that the acts of which Azerbaijan
complains actually constitute “racial discrimination” within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph 1,
of CERD. Such a determination concerns “issues of fact, largely depending on evidence regarding
the purpose or effect of the measures alleged by [Azerbaijan], and [is] thus properly a matter for the
merits, should the case proceed to that stage” (Application of the International Convention for the
Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2019 (II), p. 595, para. 94). At this stage, the Court must ascertain whether
the alleged acts of environmental harm, if established, are capable of constituting violations of CERD
and thus fall within the scope of the Convention.
92. As the Court has previously noted,
“‘[r]acial discrimination’ under Article 1, paragraph 1, of CERD . . . consists of two
elements. First, a ‘distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference’ must be ‘based on’ one
of the prohibited grounds, namely ‘race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin’.
Secondly, such a differentiation of treatment must have the ‘purpose or effect of nullifying
or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human
rights’.” (Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing
of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Judgment of 31 January 2024,
para. 195.)
- 29 -
93. The Court notes that the environmental harm complained of by Azerbaijan consists in the
alleged degradation of forests and destruction of trees classified as natural monuments, destruction
and pillaging of water infrastructure such as pipes and irrigation systems, destruction and degradation
of agricultural land and vineyards, degradation of land and water quality through mining activities,
neglect and mismanagement of water infrastructure, including the Sarsang Reservoir, and diversion
of water resources.
94. The Court further notes that the alleged environmental harm is said to concern the districts
of Aghdam, Fuzuli, Gubadly, Jabrayil, Kalbajar, Lachin and Zangilan, which surround the
Nagorno-Karabakh region and had a majority ethnic Azerbaijani population before the hostilities that
ended in May 1994. The harm is alleged to have occurred during the period when these territories
were Armenian controlled, namely between 1994 and 2020. The Applicant acknowledges that these
seven districts remained largely uninhabited during “nearly thirty years of Armenian occupation”,
with the exception of persons of Armenian ethnic origin who settled there. It claims, however, that
Armenia’s conduct with regard to the environment was based on national or ethnic origin and had
the purpose and effect of preventing Azerbaijanis from returning to their homes and enjoying their
fundamental rights, including the rights to health and to property.
95. The Court recognizes that it is not to be excluded that conduct leading to harm to the
environment may, in some cases, constitute an act of racial discrimination under CERD. In the
present case, however, the Court notes that, according to Azerbaijan itself, the alleged degradation
of forests and destruction of trees in the districts formerly populated mainly by ethnic Azerbaijanis
took place in pursuance of agricultural and industrial activities and a failure to mitigate wildfires. In
particular, Azerbaijan submits that forests were cut “to make way for mines, hydropower plants, and
associated infrastructure . . . that would allow Armenia to benefit from the then-occupied territories’
abundant natural resources”. It also states that the logging of timber resources was generally not
concentrated near inhabited communities and was done “for commercial purposes”. Moreover, the
Court observes that Azerbaijan asserts that Armenia supported and facilitated the overexploitation of
mineral resources causing devastating environmental harm in districts formerly populated by ethnic
Azerbaijanis.
96. The Court is of the view that Armenia’s alleged actions and omissions concerning
deforestation and overexploitation of mineral resources would be either commercially motivated or
due to neglect and mismanagement of the environment. Thus, even if established and attributable to
Armenia, they would not constitute a differentiation of treatment based on a prohibited ground under
Article 1, paragraph 1, of CERD.
97. With regard to water infrastructure, Azerbaijan alleges that Armenia neglected and
mismanaged such infrastructure in the “then-occupied territories” and redirected important water
resources to benefit ethnic Armenians, which contributed to the degradation of agricultural land in
districts formerly populated by ethnic Azerbaijanis and resulted in depriving Azerbaijanis living in
areas of Azerbaijan adjacent to the “then-occupied territories” of potable water and water for
irrigation. The Court is of the view that the alleged destruction and deviation of watercourses would
have impacted different ethnic groups, not only ethnic Azerbaijanis. Such conduct, even if
- 30 -
established and attributable to Armenia, could not be based on a prohibited ground under Article 1,
paragraph 1, of CERD. With regard to the Sarsang Reservoir in particular, the Court notes that it is
not disputed that the reservoir, which was damaged during hostilities, supplied water to ethnic
Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as to ethnic Azerbaijanis living in downstream regions
adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh. Hence, its alleged mismanagement would have had adverse effects
on both populations. Therefore, Armenia’s alleged actions or omissions concerning the neglect and
mismanagement of water infrastructure, even if established and attributable to Armenia, would not
constitute a differentiation of treatment based on a prohibited ground under Article 1, paragraph 1,
of CERD.
98. The Court further observes that the Parties agree that persons of Azerbaijani national or
ethnic origin were not present on the territories affected by the alleged environmental harm when
Armenia controlled those territories. Moreover, nothing indicates that, at the time the alleged harm
took place, ethnic Armenians did not intend to continue living there.
99. Accordingly, in the present circumstances, the Court is not convinced that the alleged harm
to the environment results from acts capable of constituting racial discrimination against persons of
Azerbaijani national or ethnic origin within the meaning of Article 1 of CERD. Even if the alleged
acts that caused the environmental harm were established and attributable to Armenia, the Court
considers that they fall outside the scope of CERD, since they are neither capable of constituting a
differentiation in treatment based on national or ethnic origin, nor capable of nullifying or impairing,
by their purpose or by their effect, the enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of the human rights
of ethnic Azerbaijanis within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
100. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae
to entertain Azerbaijan’s claims relating to environmental harm. The third preliminary objection
raised by Armenia must therefore be upheld.
*
* *
101. For these reasons,
THE COURT,
(1) By fourteen votes to three,
Upholds the first preliminary objection raised by the Republic of Armenia;
IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Xue,
Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Aurescu, Tladi;
Judge ad hoc Daudet;
- 31 -
AGAINST: Judges Yusuf, Cleveland; Judge ad hoc Koroma;
(2) By sixteen votes to one,
Rejects the second preliminary objection raised by the Republic of Armenia;
IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Yusuf,
Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland,
Aurescu, Tladi; Judge ad hoc Daudet;
AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Koroma;
(3) By twelve votes to five,
Upholds the third preliminary objection raised by the Republic of Armenia;
IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Yusuf,
Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Aurescu; Judge ad hoc Daudet;
AGAINST: Judges Nolte, Charlesworth, Cleveland, Tladi; Judge ad hoc Koroma;
(4) Unanimously,
Finds that it has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 22 of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, subject to points 1 and 3 of the present operative
clause, to entertain the Application filed by the Republic of Azerbaijan on 23 September 2021.
Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace,
The Hague, this twelfth day of November, two thousand and twenty-four, in three copies, one of
which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of the
Republic of Azerbaijan and the Government of the Republic of Armenia respectively.
(Signed) Nawaf SALAM,
President.
(Signed) Philippe GAUTIER,
Registrar.
- 32 -
Judge TOMKA appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judge YUSUF appends
a declaration to the Judgment of the Court; Judge IWASAWA appends a separate opinion to the
Judgment of the Court; Judges NOLTE, CHARLESWORTH, CLEVELAND and TLADI append a joint
dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judge CHARLESWORTH appends a separate opinion
to the Judgment of the Court; Judge CLEVELAND appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of
the Court; Judge TLADI appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the Court.
(Initialled) N.S.
(Initialled) Ph.G.
___________