Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law Logo Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law

You are here: Publications Archive World Court Digest

World Court Digest

I. Substantive International Law - First Part
4. SUBJECTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
4.2. States
4.2.6. Succession of States

¤ Legality of Use of Force
(Yugoslavia v. Belgium)
Request for the Indication of
Provisional Measures
Order of 2 June 1999

[p. ] 31. Whereas Belgium contends that the Courts jurisdiction in this case cannot in any event be based, even prima facie, on Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, for, under this provision, only "States parties to the ... Statute" may subscribe to the optional clause for compulsory jurisdiction contained therein; and whereas, referring to United Nations Security Council resolutions 757 (1992) of 30 May 1992 and 777 (1992) of 19 September 1992, and to United Nations General Assembly resolutions 47/1 of 22 September 1992 and 48/88 of 20 December 1993, it contends that "the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is not the continuator State of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as regards membership of the United Nations", and that, not having duly acceded to the Organization, it is in consequence not a party to the Statute of the Court and cannot appear before the latter;
32. Whereas Yugoslavia, referring to the position of the Secretariat, as expressed in a letter dated 29 September 1992 from the Legal Counsel of the Organization (doc. A/47/485), and to the latter's subsequent practice, contends for its part that General Assembly resolution 47/1 "[neither] terminate[d] nor suspend[ed] Yugoslavia's membership in the Organization", and that the said resolution did not take away from Yugoslavia "[its] right to participate in the work of organs other than Assembly bodies";

33. Whereas, in view of its finding in paragraph 30 above, the Court need not consider this question for the purpose of deciding whether or not it can indicate provisional measures in the present case;1

[pp. S.O. Oda] 3. I consider that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is not a Member of the United Nations and thus not a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

Following the unrest in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s and the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, some of its former Republics achieved independence and then applied for membership of the United Nations. On 22 May 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia became Members of the United Nations, followed on 8 April 1993 by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. However, the Claim by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to continue automatically the membership in the United Nations of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not recognized.

On 22 September 1992 the General Assembly, pursuant to Security Council resolution 757 (1992) of 30 May 1992 and Security Council resolution 777 (1992) of 19 September 1992, adopted resolution 47/1 stating that

"the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cannot continue automatically the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations"

and decided that it "should apply for membership in the United Nations". The letter addressed to the Permanent Representatives of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia dated 29 September 1992 from the Under-Secretary-General, the Legal Counsel of the United Nations, stated that while the above-mentioned General Assembly resolution neither terminated nor suspended Yugoslavia's membership in the Organization,

"the General Assembly has stated unequivocally that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cannot automatically continue the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations".

In fact, there seems to have been an understanding that this rather exceptional situation would be resolved by the admission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the United Nations as a new Member. However, no further developments have occurred and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has not been admitted to the United Nations, as a "peace-loving State[s] which accept[s] the obligations contained in the [United Nations] Charter" (United Nations Charter, Art. 4).

4. The Court is open to the States parties to its Statute (Art. 35). Only States parties to the Statute are allowed to bring cases before the Court. It therefore follows, in my view, that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, not being a Member of the United Nations and thus not a State party to the Statute of the Court, has no standing before the Court as an applicant State. The Applications presented by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should therefore be declared inadmissible for this reason alone and should be removed from the General List of the Court.

1Cf. Orders of 2 June 1999, Legality of Use of Force, Yugoslavia v. Canada (�� 30-32), Yugoslavia v. Netherlands (�� 31-33), Yugoslavia v. Portugal (�� 30-32), Yugoslavia v. United Kingdom (��26-28), Yugoslavia v. Spain (�� 26-28).