ICJ see no potential racial discrimination in alleged acts of environmental harm

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

Azerbaijan’s allegations concerning the claim based on alleged laying of landmines and boobytraps fall within broader CERD claims

According to Judge Tomka, Azerbaijan’s right to bring claims against Armenia for events occurring before applicant’s accession to CERD is a matter of (in)admissibility

Establishing the existence of continuing or composite wrongful acts would require examination of evidence, reserved for the merits phase of the proceedings

Views of CERD Committee are irrelevant for the court’s jurisdiction under CERD

Allowing Azerbaijan to invoke Armenia’s responsibility under CERD during the disputed period would violate principles of reciprocity and equality between states; Armenia did not owe substantive CERD obligations towards Azerbaijan in the disputed period

Erga omnes nature of obligations does not serve as basis for court’s jurisdiction

Judge Tomka considers that principle of non-retroactivity did not warrant upholding of Armenia’s first preliminary objection

Temporal scope of court’s jurisdiction is linked to temporal scope of substantive CERD obligations between the parties

No issue of non-retroactivity arises with respect to Armenia’s substantive obligations under CERD

Parties disagree on applicability of CERD when Armenia was a CERD party and Azerbaijan was not

Background: Following Armenia’s application, Azerbaijan itself turns to ICJ alleging that Armenia breached CERD by engaging in long-standing systematic ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis

After summarizing parties’ positions, ICJ concludes that acts of arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance also fall under CERD

General anti-Armenian sentiment, if established on the merits, may show violation of CERD

CERD does not differentiate between members of armed forces and civilians; both groups of claims fall under CERD, provided that discriminatory treatment is based on national or ethnic origin

CERD and international humanitarian law apply simultaneously in armed conflicts

To clear jurisdictional hurdle, the court must only find that Azerbaijan’s acts, if established, would be capable of violating CERD

Parties’ positions remained substantially unaltered until last meeting in September 2021

Exchanges on modalities, scope and timing of negotiations fell under Article 22 of CERD

Parties’ correspondence shows that subject-matter of negotiations coincided with subject-matter of CERD

Negotiation requirement under Article 22 of CERD is met when negotiations have failed or have become futile or deadlocked

Background: Armenia petitions ICJ with allegations of racial discrimination after decades-old conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh triggers new armed hostilities

ICJ considered that cumulative appreciation of evidence is irrelevant when individual documents do not support applicant’s claim

General obligation to settle dispute by peaceful means does not entail specific obligation to negotiate

Legitimate expectations do not form part of general international law

Archives