## Facts

- Bosnia and Herzegovina filed an application instituting proceedings against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia alleging violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention and related matters.
- Bosnia also sought provisional measures; the Court indicated and later reaffirmed measures aimed at protecting rights under the Genocide Convention.
- Yugoslavia raised preliminary objections challenging the Court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of Bosnia’s application.
- Yugoslavia argued, among other points, that defects in Bosnia’s statehood or treaty succession, and questions about Bosnia’s internal authority to sue, defeated jurisdiction or admissibility.
- Bosnia invoked Article IX of the Genocide Convention as a basis for jurisdiction and advanced additional asserted bases of jurisdiction beyond the Convention.
- The Court issued a judgment on preliminary objections on July 11, 1996, determining whether the case could proceed to the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court had jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention over a dispute between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Yugoslavia concerning alleged genocide-related responsibility.
2. Whether objections relating to the parties’ international status (including treaty participation and UN-related status questions) negated jurisdiction ratione personae.
3. Whether a “dispute” existed within the meaning of Article IX at the preliminary stage, notwithstanding arguments about attribution and the characterization of the conflict.
4. Whether the application was inadmissible due to alleged defects in Bosnia’s internal constitutional authority or representation in instituting proceedings.
5. Whether any additional asserted bases of jurisdiction, apart from Article IX, could independently support jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Court rejected Yugoslavia’s preliminary objections (with note taken of one objection’s withdrawal).
- The Court held it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute on the basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention.
- The Court dismissed the additional bases of jurisdiction invoked by Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- The Court found Bosnia’s application admissible, allowing the case to proceed to the merits.

## Legal Principles

- Article IX of the Genocide Convention confers ICJ jurisdiction over disputes relating to the interpretation, application, or fulfillment of the Convention, including disputes concerning state responsibility for genocide.
- At the preliminary objections stage, jurisdiction may be affirmed where both parties are bound by the Convention and the pleadings show a legal dispute that, if proven, would fall within the Convention’s scope.
- A party’s capacity to act internationally, including to invoke compromissory clauses, is assessed primarily through its status and representation in international relations; internal constitutional disagreements generally do not bar admissibility absent a clear international defect.
- Arguments disputing statehood, treaty succession, or continuity do not necessarily defeat jurisdiction where the Court finds the parties bound by the Convention for purposes of Article IX.
- The Court may confine jurisdiction to the specific compromissory clause invoked and decline to rely on broader, contested jurisdictional theories.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Bosnia and Herzegovina’s claims presented a legal dispute under the Genocide Convention and that both parties were bound by that treaty for purposes of Article IX, rejected Yugoslavia’s jurisdictional and admissibility objections, declined to base jurisdiction on Bosnia’s additional asserted grounds, and permitted the case to proceed to the merits.


Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Yugoslavia), 1996 I.C.J. 595 (July 11)