Angleterre
Ecosse
Des nouvelles de la Section France
Dame Rosalyn Higgins
President of the International Court of Justice,
Annual dinner
Association des juristes franco-britanniques
26 February 2007
Dear colleagues, I imagine that, before sitting down, you might want me to say a few words on the International Court’s Judgment in the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case, which was delivered today. It has been one of our most complex and fact-intensive cases. As preliminary matters, we have had to confirm our jurisdiction in complex circumstances I will not enter into here, and decide who is currently the Respondent party given that, since the oral hearings, Montenegro has declared its independence.
The Judgment included long and detailed findings of fact based on the Court’s own analysis of the evidence, with reference to relevant findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The Court found it clearly established that massive killings and other atrocities were perpetrated during the conflict throughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the evidence has not convincingly shown that those acts were committed with the specific intent required for the crime of genocide, that is, the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the group as such. However, it did find that the killings in Srebrenica in July 1995 were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina in that area and that these were therefore acts of genocide.
The Court then turned to whether it was Serbia that was responsible for genocide in Srebrenica. It found that all the evidence indicated that the decision to kill the adult male population of the Muslim community in Srebrenica was taken by some members of the VRS (Army of the Republika Srpska) Main Staff. The army of Serbia and Montenegro was not itself actively engaged, nor was there an “evidence trail” to show the orders came from Belgrade.
Nonetheless, the Court found that the Respondent had violated its obligation to prevent the Srebrenica genocide. This obligation is contained in Article 1 of the Genocide Convention. It requires States that are aware, or should normally have been aware, of the serious danger that acts of genocide would be committed, to employ all means reasonably available to them to prevent genocide. Serbia could, and should, have acted to prevent the genocide, but did not.
The Court further held that the Respondent had violated its obligation to punish the perpetrators of genocide, including by failing to co-operate fully with the ICTY with respect to General Ratko Mladic.
With the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case now finished, the Court has 12 cases on its docket. We have committed ourselves to a very full schedule of hearings and deliberations, with more than one case being in progress at all times. We currently are deliberating on a case between Guinea and the DRC concerning the diplomatic protection of nationals residing abroad. Next week, we will hold hearings in a case between Nicaragua and Honduras concerning the delimitation of their maritime border in the Caribbean Sea. In June, we will hear another case involving Nicaragua, this time preliminary objections in a territorial and maritime dispute with Colombia. And in November, we will hear arguments on the merits in a case between Malaysia and Singapore concerning sovereignty over certain areas.
I thank you again for inviting me to this Annual Dinner. I am delighted to be in Paris and to see respected colleagues and friends here tonight. I wish you all the best in your important work promoting the exchange of ideas between judges, lawyers and jurists working in the French and British legal systems.
|
