Suchergebnisse

Submitted by the Committee on Foreign Relations. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Record is based on bibliographic data in CIS US Congressional Committee Hearings Index. Reuse except for individual research requires license from Congressional Information Service, Inc. ; Indexed in CIS US Congressional Committee Hearings Index Part V ; Mode of access: Internet.

1Human rights — Genocide — Definition of genocide — Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 — Actus reus of genocide — Mens rea — Specific intent to destroy protected group as such — Nature of intent — Proof — Whether existence of intent can be inferred from pattern of conduct — Relationship between genocide and other violations of humanitarian law and human rights — Ethnic cleansing — Responsibility for genocide — Complicity in genocide — Duty to prevent genocide — Duty to punish genocide — Whether including duty of co-operation with International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia — Massacre at SrebrenicaInternational Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Res judicata — Whether issue of jurisdiction implicitly determined at Preliminary Objections stage can be reopened at merits stage — Whether respondent State party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice at relevant time — Estoppel — Whether relevant — Provisional measures — Binding character of measures indicated before Court first stated that its measures had legal effect — Reparation for failure to comply with provisional measures — Evidence — Burden of proof — Standard of proof — Methods of proof — Relevance of findings by International Criminal Tribunal for the former YugoslaviaInternational criminal law — Genocide — Definition of genocide — Obligations under Genocide Convention — Role of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia — Proof of genocideInternational tribunals — International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia — Duty of States to co-operate with Tribunal — Relationship to obligations under Article VI of the Genocide Convention — Relationship between International Court of Justice and International Criminal Tribunal for the former YugoslaviaState responsibility — Attribution — Concept of de facto organs of State — Responsibility of State for acts of persons and groups under its effective control — Nature of effective control test — Whether requiring proof of control over specific operation — Whether general control sufficient — Complicity — Genocide — International Law Commission Articles on State Responsibility, Articles 4, 8 and 162State succession — Distinction between successor State and continuing State — Yugoslavia — Claim by Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be the continuation of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia — Separation of Montenegro from State union of Serbia and Montenegro — Whether Serbia the continuation of the State unionWar and armed conflict — War crimes — Crimes against humanity — Genocide — Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992-5 — Massacre at Srebrenica

1Human rights — Jus cogens character of certain human rights norms — Prohibition of genocide — Genocide Convention, 1948 — Status — Nature of rights and obligations under Genocide Convention — Character as obligations erga omnesInternational Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Principles on which jurisdiction based — Whether Court should adopt strict approach to jurisdiction — Disputes clause in multilateral treaty — Genocide Convention, 1948, Article IX — Jurisdiction ratione personae — Whether Convention in force between claimant and respondent — Date at which Convention must be in force — Jurisdiction ratione materiae — Scope of Convention — Nature of disputes covered by Article IX — Jurisdiction ratione temporis — AdmissibilityInternational Court of Justice — Counter-claims — Rules of Court, Article 80 — Definition of counter-claim — Requirement of direct connection between counter-claim and original claim — Meaning — Connection in fact and in law — Discretion of Court — Procedure — Whether Court obliged to hold oral proceedings on admissibility of counter-claimInternational criminal law — Genocide — Genocide Convention, 1948 — Definition — Nature of obligations under Genocide Convention — Whether conferring rights and imposing responsibility upon StatesInternational organizations — United Nations — Admission of new member — Significance — Admission of Bosnia and Herzegovina as member — Whether establishing Statehood of Bosnia and Herzegovina — Recognition of President of Bosnia and HerzegovinaRecognition — Of States and governments — Significance — Whether establishing that entity is a State — Whether signifying acceptance of claim to succession — Recognition of particular individual as Head of State — Significance of non-recognition — Whether treaty in force between States which do not recognize one another — Subsequent act of mutual recognition — Dayton — Paris Agreement between Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Federal Republic of YugoslaviaState responsibility — Acts of State organs — Relationship between State responsibility and individual criminal 2responsibility — Genocide — Genocide Convention, 1948 — Whether State can be responsible for genocide contrary to the Convention — Whether dispute regarding alleged responsibility of State for genocide falling within Article IX of the Convention — Prohibition of genocide as obligation owed erga omnes — SignificanceState succession — Dissolution of State — Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia — Emergence of Bosnia and Herzegovina as State — Treaty obligations of former Yugoslav State — Genocide Convention, 1948 — Whether Bosnia and Herzegovina succeeding to obligations of former Yugoslavia — Concept of automatic succession to certain treaties — Whether part of customary international law — Date on which Bosnia and Herzegovina became party to Genocide ConventionStates — Existence — Admission to United Nations — Circumstances in which State created — Significance of recognition and non-recognitionTreaties — Application — Genocide Convention, 1948 — Nature of rights and obligations — Interpretation — Succession of new StatesWar and armed conflict — Character of conflict — Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina — Whether internal or international — Allegations of genocide — Whether affected by character of conflict

1Human rights — Genocide — Definition of genocide — Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 — Actus reus of genocide — Mens rea — Specific intent to destroy protected group — Dolus specialis — Proof — Whether existence of intent can be inferred from pattern of conduct — Relationship between genocide and other violations of humanitarian law and human rights — Ethnic cleansing — Responsibility for genocide — Whether genocide established in principal claim — Whether genocide established in counter-claim — Armed conflict in territory of Croatia in 1991-95 — Whether breaches of Genocide ConventionInternational Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Scope — Consent to jurisdiction — Basis for jurisdiction — Article IX of Genocide Convention — Court confined to disputes regarding genocide — Whether dispute between Parties falling within Article IX of Genocide Convention — Respondent raising preliminary objections relating to jurisdiction of Court and admissibility of Application — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain Croatia's ApplicationInternational Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Scope — Basis for jurisdiction — Article IX of Genocide Convention — Whether Court having jurisdiction — Respondent's first preliminary objection — Capacity to participate in proceedings before Court — Articles 34 and 35 of Statute of Court — Whether Parties satisfying general conditions — Whether Respondent having access to Court on basis of Article 35(1) of Statute — Admission to United Nations on 1 November 2000 — Whether Respondent acquiring status of party to Statute of Court on 1 November 2000 — Whether Court "open" to Respondent — Issues of jurisdiction ratione materiae — Declaration and Note of 27 April 1992 — Nature and effect on position of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in relation to Genocide Convention — Whether declaration having effect of notification of succession to treaties — Whether Respondent party to Genocide Convention, including Article IX, at date of institution of proceedings until at least 1 November 2000 — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain Croatia's ApplicationInternational Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Scope — Basis for jurisdiction — Article IX of Genocide Convention — Whether Court having jurisdiction — Respondent's second preliminary 2objection — Issues of jurisdiction ratione temporis — Whether claims based on acts and omissions which took place prior to 27 April 1992 beyond jurisdiction of Court and inadmissible — Distinction between objection to jurisdiction and objection to admissibility — Whether second preliminary objection possessing an exclusive preliminary character — Whether possible to determine questions raised by objection without determining issues properly pertaining to merits — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain Croatia's ApplicationInternational Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Scope — Basis for jurisdiction — Article IX of Genocide Convention — Whether Court having jurisdiction — Respondent's third preliminary objection — Whether claims referring to submission of persons to trial within jurisdiction of Court — Whether claims concerning provision of information on missing Croatian citizens within jurisdiction of Court — Whether claims concerning return of cultural property within jurisdiction of Court — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain Croatia's ApplicationInternational Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Scope — Basis for jurisdiction — Article IX of Genocide Convention — Issues of jurisdiction and admissibility to be determined at merits stage — Issues of jurisdiction ratione temporis — Whether Court's jurisdiction extending to acts prior to 27 April 1992 — Whether provisions of Genocide Convention retroactive — Logic — Article 28 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Whether acts said to have occurred before 27 April 1992 falling within scope of jurisdiction under Article IX due to Article 10(2) of International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility — Whether acts said to have occurred before 27 April 1992 falling within scope of jurisdiction under Article IX due to law of State succession — Whether Respondent bound by obligations under Genocide Convention — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain Croatia's Application with respect to acts prior to 27 April 1992State succession — Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia — Dissolution — Republics becoming independent States — Distinction between successor State and continuing State — Federal Republic of Yugoslavia claiming to be continuation of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia — Serbia and Montenegro — Republic of Serbia — Consent to jurisdiction of International Court 3of Justice — Whether Serbia sole Respondent — Treaty commitments — Genocide Convention — Whether Federal Republic of Yugoslavia party by succession to Genocide Convention — Membership of United Nations — Status and position of Respondent State in relation to the Statute of the International Court of Justice and to Genocide ConventionTreaties — Accession — Parties — Signature — Ratification — Genocide Convention — Process by which State becoming bound by treaty as successor State or remaining bound by treaty as continuing State — Signature of Genocide Convention by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 11 December 1948 — Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia depositing instruments of ratification, without reservation, on 29 August 1950 — Whether the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia party by succession to Genocide Convention from beginning of its existence as a State — Declaration and Note of 27 April 1992 — Nature and effect on position of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in relation to Genocide Convention — Whether Serbia party to Convention at date of Application on 2 July 1999Treaties — Interpretation — Application — Genocide Convention — Applicable law — Article II of Genocide Convention — Constituent elements of genocide — Actus reus and mens rea of genocide — Dolus specialis — Requirement of specific intent to destroy group in whole or part — Evidence — Mens rea of genocide — Meaning and scope of destruction of group — Destruction of group in part — Evidence of dolus specialis — Actus reus of genocide — Relationship between Genocide Convention and international humanitarian law — Meaning and scope of physical acts — Whether genocide established in principal claim — Whether alleged acts established — Whether falling into categories listed in Article II of Genocide Convention — Whether committed with intent to destroy protected group, in whole or in part — Quantitative element — Geographic location — Pattern of conduct — Whether genocide established in counter-claim — Whether breaches of Genocide ConventionInternational criminal law — Genocide — Definition of genocide — Obligations under Genocide Convention — Role of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia — Proof of genocide4Evidence before international courts and tribunals — Evidence — Burden of proof — Standard of proof — Methods of proof — Relevance of findings by International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia — Whether conclusive evidence crimes committed — Whether conclusive evidence regarding attribution of actsState responsibility — Attribution — Responsibility of State for acts of State organs — Engagement of international responsibility of acts unlawful even if author of acts acting contrary to instructions or exceeding authority — International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility 2001 — Relevance — Determination of responsibility of State if genocide established — Whether genocide established — Whether breaches of Genocide ConventionWar and armed conflict — Armed conflict in territory of Croatia as it had existed within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991-95 — Allegations of acts of genocide — Whether breaches of Genocide Convention

On February 3, 2015, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered judgment in the case between Croatia and Serbia.1 Croatia had instituted proceedings on July 2, 1999 and claimed that during the armed conflict which erupted in 1991, Serbia had violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention). In its counter-claim, Serbia alleged that rather Croatia had violated the Convention, particularly during Operation Storm in 1995. This Serbian counter-claim was unanimously rejected. Croatia's claim was also rejected, but with Judge Cançado Trindade and Judge ad hoc Vukas dissenting. The most vigorous disagreement between the judges did not concern the merits though, but rather focused on one remaining jurisdictional issue.