## Facts

- The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) filed an application on May 28, 2002, alleging Rwanda committed serious violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law through armed activities in eastern DRC, including occupation-related conduct and resource exploitation.
- The DRC sought provisional measures requiring Rwanda to cease military activities and protect civilians.
- On July 10, 2002, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declined to indicate provisional measures for lack of prima facie jurisdiction, while keeping the case on its list pending a full jurisdictional examination.
- The ICJ limited proceedings to jurisdiction and admissibility and received written pleadings from both States.
- The DRC asserted jurisdiction under Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute based on compromissory clauses in multiple multilateral treaties (including ICERD, CEDAW, the Genocide Convention, CAT, WHO and UNESCO constitutional instruments, and the Montreal Convention), and argued that peremptory norms (jus cogens) supported jurisdiction.
- Rwanda denied that any invoked instrument supplied consent to ICJ jurisdiction, citing reservations, non-participation, subject-matter limits, and unmet preconditions (e.g., negotiation or arbitration).

## Issues

1. Whether any treaty compromissory clause invoked by the DRC established Rwanda’s consent to ICJ jurisdiction for the dispute.
2. Whether Rwanda’s reservations to compromissory clauses (including to ICERD Article 22, CEDAW Article 29(1), CAT Article 30(1), and Genocide Convention Article IX) were effective to bar jurisdiction.
3. Whether the dispute fell within the subject-matter scope of the invoked treaty clauses, including the WHO/UNESCO constitutional provisions and the Montreal Convention.
4. Whether procedural preconditions to seise the ICJ (such as prior negotiation or arbitration) were satisfied where required.
5. Whether the jus cogens or erga omnes character of the alleged violations could supply, override, or dispense with the need for State consent to ICJ jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The ICJ held it had no jurisdiction to entertain the DRC’s application.
- The Court found that Rwanda’s reservations excluded ICJ jurisdiction under ICERD Article 22, CEDAW Article 29(1), CAT Article 30(1), and Genocide Convention Article IX.
- The Court held the Montreal Convention did not apply because the DRC’s claims did not concern unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation within that treaty.
- The Court concluded the WHO and UNESCO constitutional dispute-settlement clauses were inapplicable because the DRC’s claims did not arise out of the interpretation or application of those constitutive instruments.
- Where relevant, the Court determined that required preconditions (such as negotiation or arbitration) had not been shown to be met.
- Having found no jurisdictional basis, the Court did not rule on admissibility or the merits.

## Legal Principles

- ICJ jurisdiction depends on State consent; consent must be established for the конкрет dispute under a valid jurisdictional title.
- A reservation excluding an ICJ compromissory clause is capable of precluding jurisdiction as between the reserving State and another State in the absence of a binding basis that negates the reservation’s effect.
- The erga omnes nature of obligations, and the peremptory (jus cogens) status of a substantive norm, do not themselves create ICJ jurisdiction or remove the requirement of consent.
- Jurisdictional clauses tied to interpretation or application of a specialized agency’s constitution apply only to disputes within that instrument’s scope; broadly framed allegations of armed conflict violations do not automatically fall within such clauses.
- Treaty-based jurisdiction may fail where the dispute does not fall within the treaty’s subject-matter or where express procedural preconditions to adjudication are not satisfied.

## Conclusion

The Court dismissed the case at the threshold for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Rwanda had not consented to ICJ adjudication through any invoked treaty clause and that neither the gravity of the alleged conduct nor the jus cogens character of relevant prohibitions could substitute for a valid jurisdictional basis.


Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Rwanda), Judgment, 2006 I.C.J. 6 (Feb. 3)