lexrussicaLex russicaLex Russica1729-59202686-7869MSAL10.17803/1729-5920.2017.127.6.189-198lexrussica-356Research ArticleЗАРУБЕЖНОЕ ПРАВОFOREIGN LAWAre there exceptions to the jus standi requirement before the International Court's of Justice? A critical appraisal of the Judgment in Croatia/Serbia Case - General observations about ius standi requirement before the ICJКресаМ.KrecaM.Lex-russica@yandex.ruМеждународный суд ООН; Европейский Суд по правам человека; Международный арбитражный суд; Венецианская комиссияInternational Court of Justice; European Court of Human Rights; Permanent Court of Arbitration; Venice Commission20170106201706189198Copyright © Креса М., 20172017Креса М.Kreca M.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://lexrussica.msal.ru/jour/article/view/356

В статье рассматривается толкование принципа jus standi Международным судом ООН в случаях применения Конвенции о геноциде «Хорватия против Федеративной Республики Югославия/Сербия». Определено, что позиция Суда в отношении правомерности использования силы по иску, выдвинутому Федеративной Республикой Югославия против десяти стран - членов НАТО, находится в остром противоречии с его позицией в деле «Хорватия/СФР Югославия/Сербия». В своем последнем решении Суд фактически сформулировал исключение из принципа jus standi на основании последствий нескольких факторов: a) так называемого принципа Мавроматтиса; b) принципа релевантного осуществления правосудия; c) принципа competence de la competence; d) владение собственностью судом. Автором сделан вывод о том, что ни один приведенный аргумент не может служить основанием исключения из такого обязательного требования, как jus standi, и, соответственно, позиция Суда в деле «Хорватия против Сербии» представляется продиктованной экстраправовыми факторами.

The author discusses the interpretation of jus standi requirement by the International Court of Justice in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. FR of Yugoslavia/Serbia). He finds out that the position of the Court in that regard taken in Case regarding Legality of Use of Force instituted by FR Yugoslavia against ten NATO members is in sharp contradiction to its position in Croatia/FRY/Serbia case. In the later judgment the Court, in fact, has formulated an exception to the jus standi requirement on the basis of combined effects of the few considerations: a) the so-called Mavrommatis rule; b) principle of sound administration of justice; c) principle competence de la competence; d) seisen of the Court. The author comes to the conclusion that none of the arguments forwarded is not capable to serve as the basis for the exception to the mandatory requirement of jus standi and that, accordingly, the position of the Court in Croatia/Serbia Case seems to be dictated by extra-legal considerations.

Международный суд ООНгеноциддело Хорватия против Сербиимеждународное уголовное правоjus standiInternational Court of JusticegenocideCroatia/Serbia Caseinternational criminal lawjus standiReferencesJowitt s Dictionary of English Law, 2nd ed., Vol. 2, p. 1115Jowitt s Dictionary of English Law, 2nd ed., Vol. 2, p. 1115Judgment No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 2, p. 34.Judgment No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 2, p. 34.CR 2008/11, pp. 33-34, para. 8 (Crawford).CR 2008/11, pp. 33-34, para. 8 (Crawford).Ambatielos (Greece v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objection, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 40.Ambatielos (Greece v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objection, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 40.Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibillity, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, pp. 428-429, para. 83.Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibillity, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, pp. 428-429, para. 83.Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 6, 1925, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 6, p. 14.Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 6, 1925, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 6, p. 14.Nicaragua v. United States of America (Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, pp. 428429, para. 83).Nicaragua v. United States of America (Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, pp. 428429, para. 83).Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. FR of Yugoslavia/Serbia), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Owada, para. 24.Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. FR of Yugoslavia/Serbia), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Owada, para. 24.Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 295, para. 36.Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 295, para. 36.G. Schwarzenberger, „International Law as Applied by International Court'ss and Tribunals", International Judicial Law, Vol. IV, 1986, pp. 434-435G. Schwarzenberger, „International Law as Applied by International Court'ss and Tribunals", International Judicial Law, Vol. IV, 1986, pp. 434-435Faclere, The Oermanent Court's of International Justice, 1932, p. 63Faclere, The Oermanent Court's of International Justice, 1932, p. 63R. Kolb, Theorie du ius cogens international Essai de relecture du concept, 2001, pp. 344-348R. Kolb, Theorie du ius cogens international Essai de relecture du concept, 2001, pp. 344-348See Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment, No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 34.See Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment, No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 34.Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, Judgment No. 6, 1925, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 6, p. 14.Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, Judgment No. 6, 1925, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 6, p. 14.In that regard, strictly and without exception, the Court has treated the issue in eight Legality of Use of Force cases (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), pp. 298- 299, paras. 46; pp. 310-311, para 79; pp. 314-315, para. 91 and p. 327, para. 126.In that regard, strictly and without exception, the Court has treated the issue in eight Legality of Use of Force cases (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), pp. 298- 299, paras. 46; pp. 310-311, para 79; pp. 314-315, para. 91 and p. 327, para. 126.Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004, (I), pp. 327-328, para. 127.Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004, (I), pp. 327-328, para. 127.isheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 53, para. 11isheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 53, para. 11Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1959, p. 143Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1959, p. 143Judgment, para. 86Judgment, para. 86G. Schwarzenberger, International Law, Vol. I, 1945, p. 376G. Schwarzenberger, International Law, Vol. I, 1945, p. 376Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), pp. 298-299, para. 46Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), pp. 298-299, para. 46see also the ten cases in the provisional measures phase (Yugoslavia v. Belgium), I.C.J. Reports 1999 (I), p. 132, para. 20see also the ten cases in the provisional measures phase (Yugoslavia v. Belgium), I.C.J. Reports 1999 (I), p. 132, para. 20and Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Jurisdiction of the Court's, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 53, para. 11and Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Jurisdiction of the Court's, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 53, para. 11South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. reports 1966, p. 36, para. 57.South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. reports 1966, p. 36, para. 57.I. Shihata, The Power of the International Court to Determine its own Jurisdiction, Competence de la Competence, 1965, p. 304.I. Shihata, The Power of the International Court to Determine its own Jurisdiction, Competence de la Competence, 1965, p. 304.G. Fitzmaurice, „The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951-1954: Questions of Jurisdiction, Competence and Procedure", British Year Book of International Law, 1958, p. 15G. Fitzmaurice, „The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951-1954: Questions of Jurisdiction, Competence and Procedure", British Year Book of International Law, 1958, p. 15Martime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 23, para. 43Martime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 23, para. 43Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1953, p. 122Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1953, p. 122Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 299, para. 46Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 299, para. 46see also I.C.J. Reports 1998,p. 26, para. 44see also I.C.J. Reports 1998,p. 26, para. 44Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (II), p. 613, para. 26Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (II), p. 613, para. 26Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 257, para. 30; pp. 257-258, para. 31Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 257, para. 30; pp. 257-258, para. 31Barselona Traction, I.C.J. Reports 1964, pp. 6, 42: Oil Platforms, I.C.J. Reports 1998, pp. 190-203, para. 33; p. 205, para 43Barselona Traction, I.C.J. Reports 1964, pp. 6, 42: Oil Platforms, I.C.J. Reports 1998, pp. 190-203, para. 33; p. 205, para 43see also the Polish Upper Silesia case, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 6, 1925, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 6, p. 14see also the Polish Upper Silesia case, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 6, 1925, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 6, p. 14Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 34Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 34

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.