Croatian genocide suit in ICJ jurisdiction

The International Court of Justice has today declared itself competent to handle a lawsuit filed by Croatia against Serbia for charges of genocide. The decision was announced by Court President Rosalyn Higgins, who outlined the reasoning of the 17-member panel of judges. Croatian genocide suit in ICJ jurisdiction Following today's decision, unless the two sides reach an out-of-court settlement--which seems unlikey--a debate will be held on the nature of the suit on whether genocide was committed in Croatia, and whether Serbia was responsible for it. Serbia will then a have a year to prepare its defense and launch a potential counter-suit against Croatia for genocide against Serbs, for which the Belgrade legal team has already been readying itself. The case would be unlikely to begin for another two years The ICJ rejected Belgrade's argument that the case was outside the Court's purview as Serbia could not be held responsible for crimes perpetrated at a time when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia did not exist and was not a UN member, and therefore not a signatory of the Convention on Genocide. 10 of the 17 judges voted that the Court was competent to hear the case. The court ruled that although the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s status in the UN had been “unclear”, the authorities in Belgrade had recognized the ICJ’s jurisdiction in the Nineties, in responding to Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia’s suits and in lodging its own suit against NATO member-states. Under the ruling, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s declaration of April 1992, submitted to the UN General Assembly, was tantamount to announcing its assumption of all international commitments stemming from membership of international organizations and conventions, including the Convention on Genocide. As a result, the Court’s jurisdiction in proceedings launched between 1992 and 2000 had been clearly established, Higgins explained. In the suit lodged in 1999, Croatian claimed that Belgrade was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Croatian citizens, as a form of genocide, because it “directly controlled the activities of its armed forces, intelligence agents and various paramilitary units that perpetrated crimes in Croatia, in the Knin region, and in eastern and western Slavonia and Dalmatia.” The International Court of Justice (FoNet, archive) The two sides' arguments Belgrade contests the court’s jurisdiction and contends that Serbia cannot be held responsible for crimes perpetrated at a time when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia did not exist and was not a UN member. However, Zagreb claims that Belgrade had special relations with the UN that included “attributes of membership” and recourse to the ICJ. Should the ICJ declare itself competent, the case would begin. Zagreb wants the ICJ to find Serbia guilty of breaching the Convention on Genocide, to order that all the perpetrators should be punished, to order a return of all Croatian cultural property, and to order Serbia to pay war reparations of an amount to be set by the Court. If the ICJ rules that it is competent to hear the case, Serbia still has the possibility to respond by lodging a counter-action. However, that is a political decision that would have to be taken by the Serbian government, which has still to announce its tactics on the matter. Optimists continue to believe that Belgrade and Zagreb will ultimately reach an out-of-court settlement, which is one of the possible options that Serbia has already unsuccessfully offered to Croatia. Croatia first lodged the genocide suit in 1999. Zagreb called for Serbia to be found guilty of breaching the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide during the 1991-95 war. In recent years, the ICJ has declared itself competent to hear Bosnia-Hercegovina’s case against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and has only once declared a case outwith its jurisdiction—the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s suit against NATO member-states over the 1999 air strikes.

Croatian genocide suit in ICJ jurisdiction

Following today's decision, unless the two sides reach an out-of-court settlement--which seems unlikey--a debate will be held on the nature of the suit on whether genocide was committed in Croatia, and whether Serbia was responsible for it.

Serbia will then a have a year to prepare its defense and launch a potential counter-suit against Croatia for genocide against Serbs, for which the Belgrade legal team has already been readying itself. The case would be unlikely to begin for another two years

The ICJ rejected Belgrade's argument that the case was outside the Court's purview as Serbia could not be held responsible for crimes perpetrated at a time when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia did not exist and was not a UN member, and therefore not a signatory of the Convention on Genocide.

10 of the 17 judges voted that the Court was competent to hear the case.

The court ruled that although the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s status in the UN had been “unclear”, the authorities in Belgrade had recognized the ICJ’s jurisdiction in the Nineties, in responding to Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia’s suits and in lodging its own suit against NATO member-states.

Under the ruling, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s declaration of April 1992, submitted to the UN General Assembly, was tantamount to announcing its assumption of all international commitments stemming from membership of international organizations and conventions, including the Convention on Genocide.

As a result, the Court’s jurisdiction in proceedings launched between 1992 and 2000 had been clearly established, Higgins explained.

In the suit lodged in 1999, Croatian claimed that Belgrade was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Croatian citizens, as a form of genocide, because it “directly controlled the activities of its armed forces, intelligence agents and various paramilitary units that perpetrated crimes in Croatia, in the Knin region, and in eastern and western Slavonia and Dalmatia.”

The two sides' arguments

Belgrade contests the court’s jurisdiction and contends that Serbia cannot be held responsible for crimes perpetrated at a time when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia did not exist and was not a UN member.

However, Zagreb claims that Belgrade had special relations with the UN that included “attributes of membership” and recourse to the ICJ.

Should the ICJ declare itself competent, the case would begin.

Zagreb wants the ICJ to find Serbia guilty of breaching the Convention on Genocide, to order that all the perpetrators should be punished, to order a return of all Croatian cultural property, and to order Serbia to pay war reparations of an amount to be set by the Court.

If the ICJ rules that it is competent to hear the case, Serbia still has the possibility to respond by lodging a counter-action.

However, that is a political decision that would have to be taken by the Serbian government, which has still to announce its tactics on the matter.

Optimists continue to believe that Belgrade and Zagreb will ultimately reach an out-of-court settlement, which is one of the possible options that Serbia has already unsuccessfully offered to Croatia.

Croatia first lodged the genocide suit in 1999.

Zagreb called for Serbia to be found guilty of breaching the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide during the 1991-95 war.

In recent years, the ICJ has declared itself competent to hear Bosnia-Hercegovina’s case against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and has only once declared a case outwith its jurisdiction—the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s suit against NATO member-states over the 1999 air strikes.