ICJ case study: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia)

July 2 1999

July 2 1999

When did Croatia filed a report to ICJ about the violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide?

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but Serbia took the case in 2010 after the country's transformation.

Who was the main “antagonistic “ party in the hearing, and how did it change over time?

The case was closed in January 2015 after over 23 years of debate. The delay was mostly due to Serbia's claims that It rejected the historical responsibility for Yugoslavia’s political decisions.

When was the case closed, and what are the political reasons behind its length?

They field an opposite claim that Croatia has committed crimes of Genocide against its population.

What was Serbia’s initial response to the inheriting the case?

1. Direct violence in the form of mental or physical abuse against a population of a specific ethnicity is widespread and proven by public hearings.

2. Dolus specialist- a specific intent to eradicate a population of a certain ethnicity that has to be proven by the state policy or can be inferred from a state pattern of conduct.

What are the two elements of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide that has to be proved for the ICJ to claim that genocide has been committed?

Genocide has not been committed against both Serbians and Croatians.

Genocide has not been committed against both Serbians and Croatians. What was the final ICJ decision over both genocide accusations?

Direct violence against the Croatian population has been proven, but its cause was determined not to be eradication but rather displacement.

Direct violence against the Croatian population has been proven, but its cause was determined not to be eradication but rather displacement. What was the reason behind this political decision in the case of Croatia?

Direct violence against the Croatian population has been proven, but its cause was determined not to be eradication but rather a defense of an individual and sovereignty.

What was the reason behind this political decision in the case of Serbia?