State Responsibility for Genocide: A Follow-Up

The article comments on the recent judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Geno- cide case, and discusses several issues which arise from it. It fi rst briefl y explains the several constraints under which the Court had to operate in deciding this case, most notably its lim- ited jurisdiction, the legally very strict defi nition of genocide, and the litigation strategies of the two parties. The article then turns to examining two specifi c issues that the Court did not address in a fully satisfactory manner, namely the question of Serbia's responsibility for the acts of the Scorpions paramilitary group, as well as the Court's refusal to ask Serbia to pro- duce certain confi dential military documents. The Court's analysis of state responsibility for complicity in genocide and state responsibility for failing to prevent genocide is then addressed. The article fi nally criticizes the Court's reasoning when it comes to reparation and remedies. The respondent in the case went through three transformations while the case was pending. It was fi rst called the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), following the break-up of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992. It then changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro after the overthrow of Milo š evi ć in 2000, while it is now Serbia, since Montenegro declared independence in 2006. For the sake of simplicity it will be referred to throughout this article as Serbia, while the applicant will be referred to solely as Bosnia.