## Facts

- Croatia filed an application in 1999 alleging that, during the 1991–1995 armed conflict linked to the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, the respondent State committed genocide against ethnic Croats on Croatian territory, in breach of the 1948 Genocide Convention.
- Croatia invoked Article IX of the Genocide Convention as the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over a dispute concerning State responsibility for genocide and related Convention obligations.
- The respondent raised preliminary objections in 2002 challenging jurisdiction and admissibility, including arguments about its status as a party to the Genocide Convention and the temporal reach of the Court’s jurisdiction.
- The respondent also objected that certain requested forms of relief—concerning the trial of named individuals, information about missing persons, and the return of cultural property—fell outside Article IX.
- The Court’s 2008 judgment addressed only the preliminary objections, determining whether the case could proceed to the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court had jurisdiction ratione personae under Article IX of the Genocide Convention over the dispute at the time the application was filed.
2. Whether objections to jurisdiction and admissibility ratione temporis (including as to acts alleged before a key date tied to Convention binding force) could be decided at the preliminary stage.
3. Whether submissions concerning trials of individuals, missing persons, and cultural property were within the scope of a dispute “relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide” under Article IX.

## Decision

- The Court rejected the objection to jurisdiction ratione personae and held that it had jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention.
- The Court held that the ratione temporis objection was not of an exclusively preliminary character and joined it to the merits.
- The Court rejected the objection seeking to exclude the submissions concerning trials, missing persons, and cultural property at the preliminary-objections stage.
- The case was permitted to proceed to the merits, subject to later determination of the temporal scope of jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Jurisdiction under Article IX exists where there is a dispute concerning the interpretation, application, or fulfilment of the Genocide Convention, including State responsibility for genocide and related Convention obligations.
- A State’s party status to a treaty for jurisdictional purposes may be assessed in light of its declarations and consistent conduct indicating acceptance or continuation of treaty obligations.
- An objection is not “exclusively preliminary” when resolving it would require substantial factual and legal determinations closely connected to the merits; such an objection may be joined to the merits.
- Submissions seeking measures such as prosecution, information on missing persons, or return of property may remain within the case at the preliminary stage if sufficiently connected to alleged obligations under the Genocide Convention.

## Conclusion

The Court confirmed its jurisdiction under Article IX over Croatia’s Genocide Convention claim, declined to decide the temporal-jurisdiction objection at the preliminary stage by joining it to the merits, and refused to exclude ancillary submissions that were plausibly linked to Convention obligations, allowing the dispute to proceed in full to the merits.


Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croat. v. Serb.), Judgment on Preliminary Objections, 2008 I.C.J. 412 (Nov. 18)