As the list of contentious cases concerning issues of state responsibility brought before the International Court of Justice (the Court) continues to grow, a closer consideration is demanded of the most common remedy granted by the Court – the declaratory judgment. In particular, while the Court continues to issue declarations intended to constitute ‘appropriate satisfaction’, it also appears that the Court is – or is attempting – to use declarations more creatively in certain circumstances. This immediately provokes a question as to not only the proper role of declaratory judgments, but also whether and to what extent variations in the nature of the obligations owed by states, or the nature of their internationally wrongful acts, gives rise to a coherent differentiation in the remedies granted by the Court.

No abstract

Over the course of his distinguished career, one of the central focus points in the work of Judge James Crawford was the role for the International Court of Justice in multilateral disputes and those engaging community norms. There are two judicial procedures in respect of which the multilateral or communitarian nature of the dispute is particularly contentious: standing, and intervention. This paper considers the Court’s most recent jurisprudence in respect of these procedures, with particular attention paid to Crawford’s own engagement with this field as both a scholar and Judge.

The Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russia) case involves an unprecedented number of Article 63 declarations of intervention. We consider the specific arguments made in individual declarations, but also the mass nature of the declarations. In order to do this in a systematic manner, we employ empirical methods to identify those declarations and arguments that are more central and those that are more unique. Using citation network analysis, we identify the main and central arguments presented by states in their declarations. Moreover, we find evidence that states have co-operated in the preparation of their intervention declarations, using Article 63 as an opportunity to collectively condemn Russia as well as offer their joint interpretation of the Genocide Convention. But while all states come to support Ukraine, the interventions are not necessarily helpful to Ukraine’s case.