No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
1. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro).
The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina instituted proceedings against Yugoslavia on 20 March 1993 alleging violations of the 1949 Genocide Convention and requesting an indication of provisional measures which was made in an order of 8 April 1993.1 This was reaffirmed in an order of 13 September 1993,2 following a second request for provisional measures made by Bosnia and Herzegovina on 27 July 1993 and a request made by Yugoslavia on 10 August 1993.3 By an order of 16 April 19934 the following time limits were set for the filing of the written pleadings: Bosnia and Herzegovina, memorial, 15 October 1993; Yugoslavia, counter-memorial, 15 April 1994. By an order of 7 October 19935 these were extended to: Bosnia and Herzegovina, memorial, 15 April 1994; Yugoslavia, counter-memorial, 15 April 1995 and, by order of 21 March 1995,6 the date for the submission of the Yugoslavian counter-memorial was again extended to 30 June 1995. On 26 June 1995 Yugoslavia submitted preliminary objections which were rejected by the Court in its order of 11 July 1996.7 By an order of 23 July 19968 the time limit for filing the Yugoslav counter-memorial was fixed as 23 July 1997. The counter-memorial was filed on 22 July 1997 and contained counterclaims against Bosnia and Herzegovina and, in an order of 17 December 1997,9 the Court held them to be admissible and that they formed a part of the current proceedings. These counter-claims were subsequently withdrawn at the request of Bosnia and Herzegovina, this being noted by the Court in its order of 10 September 2001.10 The order of 17 December 199711 set the following time limits for the written pleadings on the merits: Bosnia and Herzegovina, reply, 23 January,1998; Yugoslavia, rejoinder, 23 July 1998. By an order of 22 January 199812 these were extended to: Bosnia and Herzegovina, reply, 23 April 1998; Yugoslavia, rejoinder, 22 January 1999. By an order of 11 December 199813 the time limit for the submission of the Yugoslav rejoinder was further extended, to 22 February 1999.
1 ICJ Rep 1993, 3.Google Scholar
2 ICJ Rep 1993, 325.Google Scholar
3 See Gray, C, Case Note (1994) 43 ICLQ 705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 ICJ Rep 1993, 29.Google Scholar
5 ICJ Rep 1993,470.Google Scholar
6 ICJ Rep 1995, 80.Google Scholar
7 ICJ Rep 1996, 595. See Gray, C, Case Note (1997) 46 ICLQ 688. On 24 Apr 2001Yugoslavia filed an application for revision of this Judgment which the Court declared inadmis-sible in its Judgment of 3 Feb 2003. See N Tsagourias, Case Note, above at 731.Google Scholar
8 ICJ Rep 1996,797.Google Scholar
9 ICJ Rep 1997, 243.Google Scholar
10 ICJ Rep 2001,572.Google Scholar
11 ICJ Rep 1997, 243.Google Scholar
12 ICJ Rep 1998, 3.Google Scholar
13 Ibid, 743.
14 ICJ Rep 1997, 7.Google Scholar
15 See Okowa, PN, Case Note (1998) 47 ICLQ 688.Google Scholar
16 ICJ Press Communique No 98/28.Google Scholar
17 ICJ Press Communique No 98/31.Google Scholar
18 ICJ Rep 1999,1042.Google Scholar
19 ICJ Rep 2000,146.Google Scholar
20 ICJ Press Communique No 2002/33.Google Scholar
21 ICJ Rep 1999,124 (Belgium); 259 (Canada); 363 (France); 422 (Germany); 482 (Italy); 542(Netherlands); 656 (Portugal); 761 (Spain); 826 (United Kingdom); 916 (United States of America).Google Scholar
22 See Gray, C, Case Note (2000) 49 ICLQ 730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 ICJ Rep 1999, 988.Google Scholar
24 ICJ Rep 2000,149.Google Scholar
25 ICJ Rep 2001,13.Google Scholar
26 ICJ Rep 2002,192.Google Scholar
27 ICJ Press Communique No 2004/17.Google Scholar
28 ICJ Rep 1999,1022.Google Scholar
29 ICJ Rep 2000, llland see Kritsiotis, D, Case Note (2001) 50 ICLQ 662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 ICJ Rep 2001, 660.Google Scholar
31 ICJ Press Communique No 2002/32.Google Scholar
32 ICJ Press Communique No 2003/12.Google Scholar
33 IbidIbid, No 2003/24.
34 ICJ Press Communique No 2003/39.Google Scholar
35 ICJ Rep 1999, 1015.Google Scholar
36 ICJ Rep 2000, 3.Google Scholar
37 Ibid, 108.
38 ICJ Press Communique No 2002/34.Google Scholar
39 ICJ Rep 2000, 6Google Scholar
40 ICJ Rep 2002,216.Google Scholar
41 ICJ Rep 2001, 565.Google Scholar
42 ICJ Rep 2002,296.Google Scholar
43 ICJ Press Communique No 2004/14.Google Scholar
44 ICJ Press Communique No 2001/34.Google Scholar
45 ICJ Rep 2002,189.Google Scholar
46 ICJ Press Communique No 2002/41.Google Scholar
47 ICJ Press Communique No 2003/31.Google Scholar
48 Ibid, No 2003/35.
49 ICJ Rep 2002, 219. See Brown, C, Case Note (2003) 52 ICLQ 781.Google Scholar
50 ICJ Rep 2002, 299.Google Scholar
51 ICJ Press Communique No 2003/9. See Ghandhi, S, Case Note, above at 738.Google Scholar
52 ICJ Press Communique No 2003/9.Google Scholar
53 Ibid, No 2003/17.
54 Ibid, No 2003/45.
55 ICJ Press Communique No 2004/16.Google Scholar
56 Ibid, No 2002/37.
57 Ibid, No 2003/14.
58 Ibid, No 2003/20. See D Turns, Case Note, above at 747.
59 ICJ Press Communique No 2003/21.Google Scholar
60 Ibid, No 2003/28.
61 Ibid, No 2003/44.
62 Ibid, No 2004/5.
63 ICJ Press Communiques Nos 2004/1 and 2004/2 respectively.Google Scholar
64 Ibid, No 2004/4.
65 Ibid, No 2004/12.
66 Ibid, No 2003/26.
67 Ibid, No 2003/2.