## Facts

- Bosnia and Herzegovina sued the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro; ultimately Serbia) alleging violations of the Genocide Convention during the 1992–1995 conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- The claims included genocide and related forms of responsibility (complicity, conspiracy, incitement, attempt), as well as failures to prevent and punish genocide, including non-cooperation with an international criminal tribunal.
- Bosnia invoked Article IX of the Genocide Convention as the jurisdictional basis.
- In 1993, the court ordered provisional measures requiring the respondent to take steps to ensure that units or groups supported or influenced by it did not commit acts of genocide; the orders were later reaffirmed and strengthened.
- In 1996, the court rejected jurisdictional and admissibility objections and confirmed jurisdiction under Article IX.
- On the merits, the court assessed whether atrocities across Bosnia met the Convention’s definition of genocide, whether genocidal acts were attributable to Serbia under rules of state responsibility, and whether Serbia breached duties to prevent and punish genocide.

## Issues

1. Whether the court had jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention despite changes in the respondent state’s status and composition.
2. Whether acts committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina during 1992–1995 constituted genocide under Article II, including proof of specific intent to destroy a protected group in whole or in part.
3. Whether any genocide, including at Srebrenica, was attributable to Serbia (as commission by organs, de facto organs, or actors under Serbia’s effective control).
4. Whether Serbia was responsible for complicity, conspiracy, incitement, or attempt to commit genocide.
5. Whether Serbia breached its obligations to prevent and punish genocide and to comply with binding provisional measures, and what remedies were appropriate.

## Decision

- The court held it had jurisdiction under Article IX to decide the dispute against Serbia; Montenegro was not held responsible in the proceedings.
- The court found that, while widespread killings and other grave crimes occurred in multiple areas, genocide was established only for the events at Srebrenica in July 1995, based on proof of specific intent to destroy part of the Bosnian Muslim group.
- The court held the Srebrenica genocide was not attributable to Serbia because the perpetrators were not Serbia’s organs and Serbia lacked “effective control” over the specific genocidal operations.
- The court found Serbia not responsible for conspiracy, incitement, attempt, or complicity in genocide due to insufficient proof of Serbia’s specific genocidal intent.
- The court held Serbia breached its Article I obligation to prevent genocide by failing to take all measures within its power to prevent the Srebrenica genocide when it knew or should have known of a serious risk and had capacity to influence the perpetrators.
- The court held Serbia breached its obligation to punish genocide by failing to take all measures within its power to cooperate with international criminal proceedings, including failing to arrest and transfer indicted individuals such as Ratko Mladić.
- The court found Serbia failed to comply with the 1993 provisional measures because it did not take all measures within its power to prevent genocide.
- The court ordered satisfaction primarily through declaratory findings and required cooperation with international criminal mechanisms; it rejected broader claims for monetary compensation.

## Legal Principles

- Genocide under the Genocide Convention requires proof of enumerated acts committed with specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group “as such”; intent to expel or “ethnic cleansing” alone does not satisfy this standard.
- A state’s responsibility for commission of genocide depends on attribution under the law of state responsibility; general support to armed groups is insufficient without proof of the state’s effective control over the specific operations in which the genocidal acts occurred.
- Article I imposes an independent duty to prevent genocide that is an obligation of conduct, requiring a state to use all means reasonably available within its capacity when it knows or should know of a serious risk of genocide.
- The duty to punish genocide includes taking measures to bring perpetrators to justice and, where applicable, cooperating with competent international criminal tribunals, including arrest and transfer of indictees.
- Provisional measures indicated by an international court are binding; failure to take available steps to prevent genocide can constitute noncompliance with those measures.
- Where causation and quantification are not established for monetary relief, declaratory relief and orders to comply with continuing treaty obligations may constitute appropriate satisfaction.

## Conclusion

The court recognized the Srebrenica massacre as genocide but declined to attribute its commission to Serbia under the effective-control standard; it nonetheless held Serbia internationally responsible for failing to prevent the genocide, failing to punish perpetrators through cooperation with international criminal justice, and failing to comply with binding provisional measures.


Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia & Herzegovina v. Serb. & Mont.), Judgment, 2007 I.C.J. 43 (Feb. 26)