Legality of Use of Force (Serbia & Montenegro v. United Kingdom)
Procedural History:
Claim of illegal use of force against various NATO states.
Overview:
[The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) (F.R. Y.) (P) brought a claim in the International Court of Justice against various NATO states (D), including the United Kingdom (D), in 1999. The I.C.J. first considered the issue of jurisdiction.] [The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) (F.R.Y.) (P) brought a claim in the International Court ofJustice against various NATO states (D), including the United Kingdom (D) in 1999. Before considering the claim, the I.C.J. had to determine if it had jurisdiction to hear the case, which would only be the case if the F.R.Y. (P) was at the time of the claim a U.N. member state. Its predecessor state, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was a member state at the time.]
Issue:
Must the legal position of a state within the United Nations be determined and clearly defined by the competent organs of the United Nations?
Rule:
the legal position of a state within the UN must be determined and clearly defined by the competent organs of the UN.
Analysis:
The I.C.J.’s opinion focused on the F.RY.’s (P) status within the United Nations. But note that non-U.N. members may also become parties to the LCJ.’s statute under Article 93(2). Remember also that while a state that is a party to the LC.J.’s statute is entitled to participate in cases before the LC.J., being a party to the statute does not automatically give the I.C.J. jurisdiction over disputes involving those parties.
Outcome:
-The legal position of a state within the United Nations must be determined and clearly defined by the competent organs of the United Nations. The legal position of the F.R.Y. (P) remained ambiguous between 1992 and 2000, the period during which its claim against certain NATO states (D), including the United Kingdom (D), was filed. The U.N. Security Council and General Assembly both decided that the F.R.Y. (P) could not automatically continue the membership of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations, and that the F.R.Y. (P) should reapply for membership. These resolutions were approved by a majority of member voters, but they cannot be construed as conveying an authoritative determination of the F.R.Y.’s (P) legal status in the United Nations, because certain events made the F.R.Y.’s (P) status seem ambiguous-the General Assembly assessed annual contributions to the United Nations, the F.R.Y. (P) maintained that it continued the legal personality of the S.F.R.Y., and the Secretariat of the United Nations kept up the practice of the status quo ante that was in place up to the dissolution of the S.F.R.Y. But the situation cleared when the elected president of the F.R.Y. (P) in 2000 requested admission to the United Nations from the Secretary-General, which then recommended the state’s admission. F.R.Y. (P) was admitted in late 2000. In hindsight, then, the F.R.Y. (P) was not a member of the United Nations when it began this action in 1999. Therefore, there was no jurisdiction to hear its claim.
Procedural History:
Claim of illegal use of force against various NATO states.
Overview:
[The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) (F.R. Y.) (P) brought a claim in the International Court of Justice against various NATO states (D), including the United Kingdom (D), in 1999. The I.C.J. first considered the issue of jurisdiction.] [The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) (F.R.Y.) (P) brought a claim in the International Court ofJustice against various NATO states (D), including the United Kingdom (D) in 1999. Before considering the claim, the I.C.J. had to determine if it had jurisdiction to hear the case, which would only be the case if the F.R.Y. (P) was at the time of the claim a U.N. member state. Its predecessor state, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was a member state at the time.]
Issue:
Must the legal position of a state within the United Nations be determined and clearly defined by the competent organs of the United Nations?
Rule:
the legal position of a state within the UN must be determined and clearly defined by the competent organs of the UN.
Analysis:
The I.C.J.’s opinion focused on the F.RY.’s (P) status within the United Nations. But note that non-U.N. members may also become parties to the LCJ.’s statute under Article 93(2). Remember also that while a state that is a party to the LC.J.’s statute is entitled to participate in cases before the LC.J., being a party to the statute does not automatically give the I.C.J. jurisdiction over disputes involving those parties.
Outcome:
-The legal position of a state within the United Nations must be determined and clearly defined by the competent organs of the United Nations. The legal position of the F.R.Y. (P) remained ambiguous between 1992 and 2000, the period during which its claim against certain NATO states (D), including the United Kingdom (D), was filed. The U.N. Security Council and General Assembly both decided that the F.R.Y. (P) could not automatically continue the membership of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations, and that the F.R.Y. (P) should reapply for membership. These resolutions were approved by a majority of member voters, but they cannot be construed as conveying an authoritative determination of the F.R.Y.’s (P) legal status in the United Nations, because certain events made the F.R.Y.’s (P) status seem ambiguous-the General Assembly assessed annual contributions to the United Nations, the F.R.Y. (P) maintained that it continued the legal personality of the S.F.R.Y., and the Secretariat of the United Nations kept up the practice of the status quo ante that was in place up to the dissolution of the S.F.R.Y. But the situation cleared when the elected president of the F.R.Y. (P) in 2000 requested admission to the United Nations from the Secretary-General, which then recommended the state’s admission. F.R.Y. (P) was admitted in late 2000. In hindsight, then, the F.R.Y. (P) was not a member of the United Nations when it began this action in 1999. Therefore, there was no jurisdiction to hear its claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment