Recent Developments

On February 3, 2015, the International Court of Justice rendered a final judgment in the Croatian Genocide case.' Between 1991 and 1995, ethnic Serbs and Croats had systematically killed, tortured, and raped members of each other's ethnic group on Croatian territory.2 The Court thus found that the actus reus of genocide (genocidal acts) had been established, 3 but it applied very high standards of proof for establishing the dolus specialis of genocide (genocidal intent),4 leading it to dismiss both Croatia and Serbia's claims of genocide. 5 Since the Court's first pronouncement of the high standards of proof for genocide in the 2007 Bosnian Genocide case, 6 many commentators have criticized it,7 while others have expressed their support. 8 Yet even this latter group of commentators would acknowledge that the standards, even if completely justifiable, have not been adequately justified by the Court. In accordance with the civil law tradition,9 the International Court of Justice has historically refrained from articulating consistent standards of proof°10 Instead, it has employed flexible terminology such as "(in)sufficient, "satisfqying],," 2 "convincing,"' 13 "conclusive," ' 14 and