Bosnian genocide case

Last updated
Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro
Seal of the International Court of Justice.png
The seal of the ICJ
Court International Court of Justice
Full case name The Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro)
Decided26 February 2007
Citation General List No. 91
Transcript Written and oral proceedings
Court membership
Judges sitting Rosalyn Higgins (President), Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Vice-President), Raymond Ranjeva, Shi Jiuyong, Abdul G. Koroma, Hisashi Owada, Bruno Simma, Peter Tomka, Ronny Abraham, Kenneth Keith, Bernardo Sepúlveda Amor, Mohamed Bennouna, Leonid Skotnikov, Ahmed Mahiou (ad hoc judge appointed by Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Milenko Kreća (ad hoc judge appointed by Serbia and Montenegro)
Case opinions
The Court affirms that it has jurisdiction; Serbia has not committed genocide; Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of genocide; Serbia has not been complicit in genocide; Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent the Srebrenica genocide; Serbia has violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention by having failed to transfer Ratko Mladić to ICTY; Serbia has violated its obligation to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Court

Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro [2007] ICJ 2 (also called the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice. [1]

Contents

Facts

The claim filed by Dr. Francis Boyle, an adviser to Alija Izetbegović during the Bosnian War, alleged that Serbia had attempted to exterminate the Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) population of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The case was heard in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands, and ended on 9 May 2006.

Preliminary issues

The Respondent, Serbia and Montenegro ("Serbia") first raised an issue of jurisdiction. Serbia contends that the ICJ has no jurisdiction over it as it was not a continuator State of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ("SFRY"). [2] As such, it was not party to the Genocide Convention when the then proceedings were instituted, neither was it party to the Statute of the Court. [2] Bosnia and Herzegovina ("Bosnia") argues that res judicata applies, as the issues raised by Serbia has already been resolved in the 1996 Judgment of the same set of proceedings that dealt with preliminary objections. [2] The Court ruled that res judicata applies to preclude reconsideration of the jurisdictional issues raised by Serbia. [2]

The second major contention pertains to the scope and meaning of Article IX of the Genocide Convention. [3]

There was a dispute about the obligations of Treaty Parties. Yugoslavia submitted to the ICJ an argument that the only obligations of the state parties to the convention are to prevent and punish genocide by legislation, prosecution or extradition. Yugolavia's argument that the state party could not be held responsible itself for acts of genocide was rejected by the ICJ. [3] [4]

The Court held that interpretation of the Convention turns on the ordinary meaning of its terms read in their context and in light of its object and purpose. [3] The Court notes that the purpose of the convention is to criminalize genocide as crime under international law, and to enshrine an unqualified, independent undertaking by the contracting parties to prevent and punish genocide. [3] On these observations, the Court held that the obligation to prevent genocide necessarily implies the prohibition of the commission of genocide, as "it would be paradoxical if States were thus under an obligation to prevent, so far as within their power, commission of genocide by persons over whom they have a certain influence, but were not forbidden to commit such acts through their own organs, persons over whom they have such firm control that their conduct is attributable to the State concerned under international law.". [3]

Judgment

The ICJ held that the Srebrenica massacre was a genocide. It stated the following:

The Court concludes that the acts committed at Srebrenica falling within Article II (a) and (b) of the Convention were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such; and accordingly that these were acts of genocide, committed by members of the VRS in and around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995. [5]

The Court found—although not unanimously—that Serbia was neither directly responsible for the Srebrenica genocide, nor that it was complicit in it, but it did rule that Serbia had committed a breach of the Genocide Convention by failing to prevent the genocide from occurring and for not cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in punishing the perpetrators of the genocide, in particular General Ratko Mladić, and for violating its obligation to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Court. [6] [7] The then vice-president of the Court, Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, dissented on the grounds that "Serbia's involvement, as a principal actor or accomplice, in the genocide that took place in Srebrenica is supported by massive and compelling evidence." [8]

The Court found:

(1) by ten votes to five,

Rejects the objections contained in the final submissions made by the Respondent [Serbia] to the effect that the Court has no jurisdiction; ...

(2) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that Serbia has not committed genocide, through its organs or persons whose acts engage its responsibility under customary international law, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

(3) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

(4) by eleven votes to four,

Finds that Serbia has not been complicit in genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

(5) by twelve votes to three,

Finds that Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995;

(6) by fourteen votes to one,

Finds that Serbia has violated its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by having failed to transfer Ratko Mladić, indicted for genocide and complicity in genocide, for trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and thus having failed fully to co-operate with that Tribunal;

(7) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that Serbia has violated its obligation to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Court on April 8 and September 13, 1993 in this case, inasmuch as it failed to take all measures within its power to prevent genocide in Srebrenica in July 1995;

(8) by fourteen votes to one,

Decides that Serbia shall immediately take effective steps to ensure full compliance with its obligation under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to punish acts of genocide as defined by Article II of the Convention, or any of the other acts proscribed by Article III of the Convention, and to transfer individuals accused of genocide or any of those other acts for trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and to co-operate fully with that Tribunal;

(9) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that, as regards the breaches by Serbia of the obligations referred to in subparagraphs (5) and (7) above, the Court's findings in those paragraphs constitute appropriate satisfaction, and that the case is not one in which an order for payment of compensation, or, in respect of the violation referred to in subparagraph (5), a direction to provide assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, would be appropriate.
— ICJ press release [9]

Dissenting opinion

The vice-president of the International Court of Justice, Judge Al-Khasawneh, dissented:

Serbia's involvement, as a principal actor or accomplice, in the genocide that took place in Srebrenica is supported by massive and compelling evidence — Disagreement with the Court's methodology for appreciating the facts and drawing inferences therefrom — The Court should have required the Respondent to provide unedited copies of its Supreme Defence Council documents, failing which, the Court should have allowed a more liberal recourse to inference — The "effective control" test for attribution established in the Nicaragua case is not suitable to questions of State responsibility for international crimes committed with a common purpose — The "overall control" test for attribution established in the Tadić case is more appropriate when the commission of international crimes is the common objective of the controlling State and the non-State actors — The Court's refusal to infer genocidal intent from a consistent pattern of conduct in Bosnia and Herzegovina is inconsistent with the established jurisprudence of the ICTY — The FRY's knowledge of the genocide set to unfold in Srebrenica is clearly established — The Court should have treated the Scorpions as a de jure organ of the FRY — The statement by the Serbian Council of Ministers in response to the massacre of Muslim men by the Scorpions amounted to an admission of responsibility — The Court failed to appreciate the definitional complexity of the crime of genocide and to assess the facts before it accordingly. [8]

Significance

Serbia's violations of its obligations stem not only from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide but also from two "provisional protective measures" issued by the International Court of Justice in April and September 1993. The then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was ordered explicitly "to do everything in its power to prevent the crimes of genocide and to make sure that such crimes are not committed by military or paramilitary formations operating under its control or with its support." The judges concluded that despite this explicit order, Serbia did nothing in July 1995 to prevent the Srebrenica massacre, although it "should normally have been aware of the serious danger that acts of genocide would be committed." [10]

In reaching this decision, the court referred to the standard set by Nicaragua v. United States , [11] in which the United States was found not to be legally responsible for the actions of the Contra guerrillas despite their common goal and widely publicised support in the Iran-Contra Affair.

Furthermore, according to the ICJ's judgement, "it is established by overwhelming evidence that massive killings in specific areas and detention camps throughout the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina were perpetrated during the conflict" and that "the victims were in large majority members of the protected group, the Bosniaks, which suggests that they may have been systematically targeted by the killings." Moreover, "it has been established by fully conclusive evidence that members of the protected group were systematically victims of massive mistreatment, beatings, rape and torture causing serious bodily and mental harm, during the conflict and, in particular, in the detention camps." The Court accepted that these acts, on the part of the Serb forces, had been committed, but that there was inconclusive evidence of the specific intent to destroy the Bosniaks as a group in whole or in part. This includes the period up to 19 May 1992, when Bosnian Serb forces were under the formal control of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [12]

ICJ President Dame Rosalyn Higgins noted that while there was substantial evidence of events in Bosnia and Herzegovina that may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity, the Court had no jurisdiction to make findings in that regard, as the case dealt "exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and not in the broader sense sometimes given to this term." [10] [13]

The Court further decided that, following Montenegro's declaration of independence in May 2006, Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro's successor, was the only Respondent party in the case, but that "any responsibility for past events involved at the relevant time the composite State of Serbia and Montenegro." [14]

In reviewing the case in the judgement of Jorgić v. Germany Jorgić v. Germany], [15] on 12 July 2007 the European Court of Human Rights quoted from the ICJ ruling on the Bosnian genocide case to explain that ethnic cleansing was not enough on its own to establish that a genocide had occurred:

"The term 'ethnic cleansing' has frequently been employed to refer to the events in Bosnia and Herzegovina which are the subject of this case ... General Assembly resolution 47/121 referred in its Preamble to 'the abhorrent policy of "ethnic cleansing", which is a form of genocide', as being carried on in Bosnia and Herzegovina. ... It [i.e., ethnic cleansing] can only be a form of genocide within the meaning of the Convention, if it corresponds to or falls within one of the categories of acts prohibited by Article II of the Convention. Neither the intent, as a matter of policy, to render an area 'ethnically homogeneous', nor the operations that may be carried out to implement such policy, can as such be designated as genocide: the intent that characterizes genocide is 'to destroy, in whole or in part' a particular group, and deportation or displacement of the members of a group, even if effected by force, is not necessarily equivalent to destruction of that group, nor is such destruction an automatic consequence of the displacement. This is not to say that acts described as 'ethnic cleansing' may never constitute genocide, if they are such as to be characterized as, for example, 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part', contrary to Article II, paragraph (c), of the Convention, provided such action is carried out with the necessary specific intent (dolus specialis), that is to say with a view to the destruction of the group, as distinct from its removal from the region. As the ICTY has observed, while 'there are obvious similarities between a genocidal policy and the policy commonly known as "ethnic cleansing"' (Krstić, IT-98-33-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 562), yet '[a] clear distinction must be drawn between physical destruction and mere dissolution of a group. The expulsion of a group or part of a group does not in itself suffice for genocide.' ..."

— ECHR quoting the ICJ. [16]

Trial schedule

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ ICJ 2
  2. 1 2 3 4 ICJ (26 February 2007). "The Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) [2007] Judgment, ICJ General List No. 91" (PDF). pp. 80–104. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 March 2011. Retrieved 10 November 2007.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 ICJ (26 February 2007). "The Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) [2007] Judgment, ICJ General List No. 91" (PDF). pp. 142–201. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 March 2011. Retrieved 10 November 2007.
  4. ↑ Vyver, Johan D. (1999). "Prosecution and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide". Fordham International Law Journal. 23 (2): 287. Retrieved 7 September 2022.
  5. ↑ ICJ (26 February 2007). "The Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) [2007] Judgment, ICJ General List No. 91" (PDF). p. 108 § 297. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 March 2011. Retrieved 10 November 2007.
  6. ↑ Simons, Marlise (27 February 2007). "Court Declares Bosnia Killings Were Genocide". The New York Times.
  7. ↑ "Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro—judgment" (PDF). International Court of Justice . 2007-02-26. Retrieved 2021-03-13., pp. 164-187 § 388-438
  8. 1 2 ICJ. "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) – Judgment: Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Al-Khasawneh" (PDF). International Court of Justice. p. 241. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-06-29.
  9. ↑ ICJ press room (26 February 2007). "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro): Press release 2007/8". Archived from the original on 13 February 2010. Retrieved 10 November 2007.
  10. 1 2 "Serbia found guilty of failure to prevent and punish genocide". Sense Tribunal. 26 February 2007. Archived from the original on 2009-07-30.
  11. ↑ International Court of Justice (26 February 2007). "Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro - Judgment" (PDF). p. 115 § 276.[ permanent dead link ]
  12. ↑ Hoare, Marko Attila (9 March 2007). "The International Court of Justice and the decriminalisation of genocide". www.bosnia.org.uk/about/default.cfm Bosnian Institute]. Archived from the original on 28 September 2007. Retrieved 28 March 2007.
  13. ↑ "Courte: Serbia failed to prevent genocide, UN court rules". Associated Press. 26 February 2007. Archived from the original on 10 August 2007.
  14. ↑ Higgins, Judge Rosalyn (26 February 2007). "Press release by the ICJ: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro): Statement to the Press by H.E. Judge Rosalyn Higgins". Archived from the original on 17 June 2014.
  15. ↑ Jorgić v. Germany
  16. ↑ ECHR (12 July 2007). "Jorgić v. Germany". Strasbourg. Judgement §45 citing Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro ("Case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide") the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found under the heading of "intent and 'ethnic cleansing'" § 190.

Related Research Articles

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), or the Genocide Convention, is an international treaty that criminalizes genocide and obligates state parties to pursue the enforcement of its prohibition. It was the first legal instrument to codify genocide as a crime, and the first human rights treaty unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, on 9 December 1948, during the third session of the United Nations General Assembly. The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951 and has 153 state parties as of June 2024.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Srebrenica massacre</span> 1995 mass murder by the Bosnian Serb Army

The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica during the Bosnian War. It was mainly perpetrated by units of the Bosnian Serb Army of Republika Srpska under Ratko Mladić, though the Serb paramilitary unit Scorpions also participated. The massacre was the first legally recognised genocide in Europe since the end of World War II.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bosnian genocide</span> Murder of Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats during the Bosnian War

The Bosnian genocide took place during the Bosnian War of 1992–1995 and included both the Srebrenica massacre and the wider crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing campaign perpetrated throughout areas controlled by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS). The events in Srebrenica in 1995 included the killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys, as well as the mass expulsion of another 25000–30000 Bosniak civilians by VRS units under the command of General Ratko Mladić.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Republika Srpska (1992–1995)</span> Former proto-state

Republika Srpska was a self-proclaimed statelet in Southeastern Europe under the control of the Army of Republika Srpska during the Bosnian War. It claimed to be a sovereign state, though this claim was only partially recognized by the Bosnian government in the Geneva agreement, the United Nations, and FR Yugoslavia. For the first six months of its existence, it was known as the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Manjača camp</span> Serbian concentration camp during the Bosnian War

Manjača was a concentration camp which was located on mount Manjača near the city of Banja Luka in northern Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian War and the Croatian War of Independence from 1991 to 1995. The camp was founded by the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and authorities of the Republika Srpska (RS) and was used to collect and confine thousands of male prisoners of Bosniak and Croat nationalities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trnopolje camp</span>

The Trnopolje camp was an internment camp established by Republika Srpska military and police authorities in the village of Trnopolje near Prijedor in northern Bosnia and Herzegovina, during the first months of the Bosnian War. Also variously termed a concentration camp, detainment camp, detention camp, prison, and ghetto, Trnopolje held between 4,000 and 7,000 Bosniak and Bosnian Croat inmates at any one time and served as a staging area for mass deportations, mainly of women, children, and elderly men. Between May and November 1992, an estimated 30,000 inmates passed through. Mistreatment was widespread and there were numerous instances of torture, rape, and killing; ninety inmates died.

Nikola Jorgić was a Bosnian Serb from the Doboj region who was a soldier of a paramilitary group located in his native area. On 26 September 1997, he was convicted of genocide in Germany. This was the first conviction won against participants in the Bosnian Genocide. Jorgić was sentenced to four terms of life imprisonment for his involvement in the Bosnian genocide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council Resolution 819</span> United Nations resolution adopted in 1993

United Nations Security Council resolution 819, adopted unanimously on 16 April 1993, after reaffirming resolutions 713 (1991) and all (1992) subsequent resolutions, the Council expressed concern at the actions of Bosnian Serb paramilitary units in towns and villages in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina, including attacks on civilians, the United Nations Protection Force and disruption to humanitarian aid convoys. The resolution marked the UN's first civilian "safe area" being declared; it failed to prevent the Srebrenica massacre.

<i>Croatia–Serbia genocide case</i> 2015 International Court of Justice decision

The Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was heard before the International Court of Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Siege of Srebrenica</span> 1992 - 1995 siege during the Bosnian War

The siege of Srebrenica was a three-year siege of the town of Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina which lasted from April 1992 to July 1995 during the Bosnian War. Initially assaulted by the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and the Serbian Volunteer Guard (SDG), the town was encircled by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) in May 1992, starting a brutal siege which was to last for the majority of the Bosnian War. In June 1995, the commander of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) in the enclave, Naser Orić, left Srebrenica and fled to the town of Tuzla. He was subsequently replaced by his deputy, Major Ramiz Bećirović.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars</span>

Serbia, as a constituent subject of the SFR Yugoslavia and later the FR Yugoslavia, was involved in the Yugoslav Wars, which took place between 1991 and 1999—the war in Slovenia, the Croatian War of Independence, the Bosnian War, and Kosovo. From 1991 to 1997, Slobodan Milošević was the President of Serbia. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has established that Milošević was in control of Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia during the wars which were fought there from 1991 to 1995.

An atrocity crime is a violation of international criminal law that falls under the historically three legally defined international crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Ethnic cleansing is widely regarded as a fourth mass atrocity crime by legal scholars and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in the field, despite not yet being recognized as an independent crime under international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War</span> Deportations and persecutions that occurred during the Yugoslav Wars

Ethnic cleansing occurred during the Bosnian War (1992–95) as large numbers of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) and Bosnian Croats were forced to flee their homes or were expelled by the Army of Republika Srpska and Serb paramilitaries. Bosniaks and Bosnian Serbs had also been forced to flee or were expelled by Bosnian Croat forces, though on a restricted scale and in lesser numbers. The UN Security Council Final Report (1994) states while Bosniaks also engaged in "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law", they "have not engaged in "systematic ethnic cleansing"". According to the report, "there is no factual basis for arguing that there is a 'moral equivalence' between the warring factions".

The Mothers of Srebrenica, also known as the Mothers of the Enclaves of Srebrenica and Žepa, is an activist and lobbying group based in the Netherlands that represents 6,000 survivors of the siege of Srebrenica during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s. The organization is best known for bringing a civil action against the United Nations for a breach of duty of care for the failure to prevent the genocide at Srebrenica.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bosnian genocide denial</span> Denial of Bosnian genocide

Bosnian genocide denial is the act of denying the occurrence of the systematic genocide against the Bosniak Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or asserting it did not occur in the manner or to the extent that has been established by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) through proceedings and judgments, and described by comprehensive scholarship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rohingya genocide case</span> 2019 International Court of Justice case

The Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , commonly referred to as the Rohingya genocide case, is a case which is currently being heard by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The case was brought forward by the Republic of The Gambia, on behalf of 57 members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in 2019.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genocides in history</span>

Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part. The term was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin. It is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) of 1948 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group's conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

<i>Ukraine v. Russian Federation</i> (2022) International Court of Justice case

Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is a case brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It was submitted by Ukraine on 26 February 2022 against Russia following the latter's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which Russia sought to justify in part by claims that Ukraine was engaged in acts of genocide within the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts. Ukraine said that these claims gave rise to a dispute under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and based its application on the ICJ's jurisdiction to resolve disputes involving the convention. On 16 March 2022, the court ruled that Russia must "immediately suspend the military operations" in Ukraine, while waiting for the final decision on the case.

References

ICJ documents
Journals
News articles
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.