#Ireland's🇮🇪 declaration of intervention is now available on the #ICJ's website: icj-cij.org/public/files/c…
Observations 🪡 #Ukraine #Russia 1/10
Observations 🪡 #Ukraine #Russia 1/10
https://twitter.com/CIJ_ICJ/status/1572276000792379392
Ireland, like almost all the other other interveners, invokes both its right to intervene pursuant to art 63 of the ICJ Statute as well as the nature of the obligations found in the Genocide Convention to justify its intervention. 2/ 
Ireland (only) invokes two provisions of the Convention as those it seeks to give its construction on: art I (prevention and punishment of genocide) and art IX (compromissory clause). 3/
On art I, presumably addressing Russia's contention in its communication that its "genocide" allegations do not concern "genocide" under Convention, 🇮🇪 argues that a party to Convention purporting to prevent "genocide" is understood to be purporting to act under the Convention.4/
Citing standards sources on reasonable and good faith application of treaties, it then argues that action purporting to prevent genocide on false claims is unreasonable and subverts Convention's object & purpose, violating obligation to interpret and apply in good faith. 5/
Moving on to art IX, it first seeks to define "dispute", quoting from a line of cases which have elaborated on this concept. Without much more, it concludes that "these criteria are clearly met in the present case". 6/
Ireland then considers the extent of jurisdiction. It argues that the Convention need not necessarily be invoked for dispute to arise regarding acts prohibited or required under Convention.
It notes the wording of art IX is non-exhaustive... 7/
It notes the wording of art IX is non-exhaustive... 7/
...thus extending to disputes on prevention of genocide.
Finally, like several other interveners, it points to the "any of the parties" formula in art IX as providing also the party accused of committing genocide the right to seise the Court. 8/
Finally, like several other interveners, it points to the "any of the parties" formula in art IX as providing also the party accused of committing genocide the right to seise the Court. 8/
To conclude, Ireland's declaration is brief and at times quite assertive or laconic, such as how subverting object and purpose of Convention constitutes a violation of the Convention (rather than an external obligation) or how there is "clearly" a dispute between the parties. 9/
Ultimately, these are issues which Ireland can elaborate upon if admitted as an intervener, or perhaps will suffice with its contentions on these issues being "grouped" (the vague term other interveners alluded to) with other interveners making similar arguments. 10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
