Chapter I International Court of Justice In 2007, the International Court of Justice (icj) de- River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay). The Court or livered four Judgments, made five Orders and had 12 its President also made Orders on the conduct of the contentious cases pending before it. In a 1 November proceedings in the cases concerning Maritime Delimi- address to the General Assembly, the icj President, tation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine); Ahma- Judge Rosalyn Higgins, reported that after prodi- dou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic gious efforts, the backlog of cases before the Court Republic of the Congo); Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay was expected to be cleared by 2008. States that were (Argentina v. Uruguay); and Dispute regarding Naviga- considering bringing cases before the Court could tional and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). be confident that it would respond promptly. She re- In the case concerning Certain Questions of Mutual called that 2007 marked the one hundredth anniver- Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France), sary of the Hague Peace Conference, where the idea pleadings were submitted within the fixed time limits. of a standing international court was born. She noted that the previous two decades had seen the burgeon- During the year, there were no new developments ing of international courts and tribunals equipped to in the cases concerning Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project deal with disputes arising under the growing reach (Hungary/Slovakia) [YUN 1998, p. 1186]; Armed Activi- of international law, and the interest of States in the ties on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Court had continued to flourish. The icj President the Congo v. Uganda) [YUN 1999, p. 1209]; Application of also expressed concern regarding the adoption of a the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the General Assembly resolution on the conditions of Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia and Montenegro) service and compensation for officials other than [ibid., p. 1210]; and Certain Criminal Proceedings in France Secretariat officials, which, she stated, would create (Republic of the Congo v. France) [YUN 2002, p. 1263]. inequality among judges. Icj activities in 2007 were covered in two reports to the General Assembly, for the periods 1 August 2006 Judicial work of the Court to 31 July 2007 [A/62/4] and 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2008 [A/63/4]. On 1 November 2007, the Assembly During 2007, the Court delivered a Judgment on took note of the 2006/07 report (decision 62/509). the merits of the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Application of the Convention on the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia Prevention and Punishment of the and Montenegro); a Judgment on the admissibility of the Application of Guinea in the case concerning Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Demo- v. Serbia and Montenegro) cratic Republic of the Congo); a Judgment in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Bosnia and Herzegovina instituted proceedings in Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nica- 1993 [YUN 1993, p. 1138] against Serbia and Montene- ragua v. Honduras) (revised case title); and a Judgment gro, then known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, on the preliminary objections raised by the Respond- for alleged violations of the 1948 Convention on the ent in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Geno- Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia). cide, adopted by the General Assembly in resolution It held public hearings in the cases concerning Mar- 260 A (III) [YUN 1948-49, p. 959]. The Court delivered itime Delimitation between Nicaragua and Honduras in its Judgment in 1996 [YUN 1996, p. 1179], rejecting the the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras); Territorial preliminary objections raised by Serbia and Montene- and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia); and gro in 1995 [YUN 1995, p. 1307]. In 1997, Serbia and Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Mid- Montenegro filed a Counter-Memorial that included dle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore). counterclaims against Bosnia and Herzegovina [YUN The Court made an Order on a request for the 1997, p. 1315]. Bosnia and Herzegovina filed a Reply in indication of provisional measures submitted by the 1998 [YUN 1998, p. 1186], and Serbia and Montenegro Respondent in the case concerning Pulp Mills on the filed a Rejoinder in 1999 [YUN 1999, p. 1204]. 1325 1326 Legal questions By an Order of 10 September 2001, the President of after the Court’s Judgment, and the Court should re- the Court placed on record the withdrawal by Serbia serve the subsequent procedure for that purpose; and and Montenegro of the counterclaims submitted in its Serbia and Montenegro should provide guarantees and Counter-Memorial [YUN 2001, p. 1184]. assurances that it would not repeat the wrongful acts. Serbia and Montenegro had submitted to the Court, Bosnia and Herzegovina further asked the Court to on 4 May 2001, a document entitled “Initiative to the adjudge and declare that, in failing to comply with the Court to reconsider ex officio Jurisdiction over Yugo- Orders for indication of provisional measures rendered slavia”. Submissions presented in the document were, by the Court on 8 April 1993 [YUN 1993, p. 1138] and 13 firstly, that the Court had no jurisdiction ratione per- September 1993 [ibid., p. 1139], Serbia and Montenegro sona over Serbia and Montenegro and, secondly, that had been in breach of its international obligations and the Court should suspend proceedings on the merits of was under an obligation to Bosnia and Herzegovina the case until a decision on the jurisdictional issue had to provide for the latter violation symbolic compensa- been rendered. In a 12 June 2003 letter, the icj Regis- tion, the amount of which was to be determined by trar informed the Parties that the Court had decided the Court. that it could not effect a suspension of the proceedings Serbia and Montenegro requested the Court to ad- in the circumstances of the case . judge and declare that it had no jurisdiction because [YUN 2003, p. 1302] Serbia and Montenegro, as the respondent State, had Public hearings on the merits of the case were held no access to the Court at the relevant moment, or, from 27 February to 9 May 2006 [YUN 2006, p. 1478]. in the alternative, that the Court had no jurisdic- At the conclusion of the hearings, the Parties presented tion over Serbia and Montenegro because Serbia and submissions to the Court. Bosnia and Herzegovina re- Montenegro never remained or became bound by ar- quested the Court to adjudge and declare that Serbia ticle IX of the Convention, and because there was no and Montenegro had violated its obligations under other ground on which jurisdiction over Serbia and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment Montenegro could be based. Serbia and Montenegro of the Crime of Genocide by: intentionally destroying further requested that, in case the Court determined in part, through its organs or entities under its con- that jurisdiction existed, the Court should adjudge trol, the non-Serb national, ethnic or religious group and declare that the submissions of Bosnia and Herze- within, but not limited to, the territory of Bosnia and govina relating to alleged violations of the obligations Herzegovina, including in particular the Muslim under the Convention be rejected as lacking a basis population; complicity in genocide and/or aiding and either in law or in fact; that the acts and/or omis- abetting individuals, groups and entities engaged in sions for which Serbia and Montenegro was alleged acts of genocide; conspiring and inciting to commit to be responsible were not attributable to it; that, genocide; failing to prevent genocide; failing to pun- without prejudice to the foregoing, the relief available ish acts of genocide or any other act prohibited by the to Bosnia and Herzegovina as the applicant State in Convention; and failing to transfer individuals accused the proceedings, in accordance with the appropriate of genocide or any other act prohibited by the Con- interpretation of the Convention, was limited to the vention to the International Criminal Tribunal for the rendering of a declaratory judgment; that any ques- Former Yugoslavia, and to cooperate fully with the Tri- tion of legal responsibility for alleged breaches of the bunal. It also asked the Court to adjudge and declare Orders for the indication of provisional measures did that the violations of international law set out in the not fall within the competence of the Court to pro- submission constituted wrongful acts attributable to vide appropriate remedies to an applicant State in the Serbia and Montenegro that entailed its international context of contentious proceedings; and that the re- responsibility and, accordingly, that Serbia and Mon- quest in the submissions of Bosnia and Herzegovina tenegro should take steps immediately to ensure full be rejected. compliance with its obligations to punish acts of geno- In its Judgment delivered on 26 February 2007, the cide under the Convention or any other acts prohibited Court, by 10 votes to 5, rejected the objections con- by the Convention and transfer individuals accused tained in the final submissions made by Serbia and of such acts to the International Criminal Tribunal Montenegro to the effect that it had no jurisdiction. It for the Former Yugoslavia (icty) and cooperate fully affirmed that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the with the Tribunal; that Serbia and Montenegro must dispute on the basis of article IX of the Convention. redress the consequences of its international wrongful By two separate votes of 13 votes to 2, it found that acts and pay; and that Bosnia and Herzegovina had Serbia—the successor state to Serbia and Montenegro the right to receive, in its own right and as parens pa- following Montenegro’s independence in 2006 [YUN triae for its citizens, full compensation for the damages 2006, p.