You are here: Publications Archive World Court Digest
III. | The International Court of Justice |
2. | THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE |
2.6. | Agreement in Regard to Jurisdiction in the Course of the Proceedings |
¤
Application of the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia),
Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 11 July 1996,
I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 595
[pp. 620-621] 40. Lastly, at a later stage of the proceedings,
Bosnia and Herzegovina advanced two related arguments aimed at basing the
Court's jurisdiction in this case on still other grounds.
According to the first of those arguments, Yugoslavia, by various aspects of
its conduct in the course of the incidental proceedings set in motion by the
requests for the indication of provisional measures, had acquiesced in the
jurisdiction of the Court on the basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention.
As the Court has already reached the conclusion that it has jurisdiction on the
basis of that provision, it need no longer consider that question.
According to the second argument, as Yugoslavia, on 1 April 1993, itself
called for the indication of provisional measures some of which were aimed at
the preservation of rights not covered by the Genocide Convention, it was said,
in accordance with the doctrine of forum prorogatum (stricto
sensu), to have given its consent to the exercise by the Court, in the
present case, of a wider jurisdiction than that provided for in Article IX of
the Convention. Given the nature of both the provisional measures subsequently
requested by Yugoslavia on 9 August 1993 - which were aimed exclusively at the
preservation of rights conferred by the Genocide Convention - and the
unequivocal declarations whereby Yugoslavia consistently contended during the
subsequent proceedings that the Court lacked jurisdiction - whether on the basis
of the Genocide Convention or on any other basis - the Court finds that it must
confirm the provisional conclusion that it reached on that subject in its Order
of 13 September 1993 (I.C.J. Reports 1993, pp. 341-342, para. 34). The
Court does not find that the Respondent has given in this case a "voluntary
and indisputable" consent (see Corfu Channel, Preliminary Objection,
Judgment, 1948, I.C.J. Reports 1947-1948, p. 27) which would confer upon it
a jurisdiction exceeding that which it has already acknowledged to have been
conferred upon it by Article IX of the Genocide Convention.