Assessing The Effectiveness and Adequacy of Provisional Measures in Genocide Cases: A Comparative Study
In international law, provisional measures refer to orders directed at the parties in a pending dispute, requiring them to act or refrain from acting in a certain way to safeguard their rights until a final judgment is rendered. The vast majority of international courts are vested with the authority to issue provisional measures. As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) highlighted in the Nuclear Tests Case, provisional measures constitute an inherent power of the Court. Similarly, in the Fisheries Jurisdiction Case, the ICJ emphasized that the purpose of such measures is to preclude irreparable harm and ensure the protection of the parties’ rights until the conclusion of the case. In its LaGrand Case, the ICJ further underscored that provisional measures are binding. However, despite their binding nature, the enforcement of provisional measures still remains problematic. Given that their implementation is generally deemed to be ensured and enforced by the Security Council, even in cases involving the prevention of genocide -a jus cogens norm- provisional measures have failed to meet expectations. While the enforceability of provisional measures is frequently debated, their legal capacity is less scrutinized. However, the primary duty of the Court is to issue measures capable of preventing and precluding irreparable harm. Under the Genocide Convention, the ICJ has so far dealt with four cases -Bosnia, Myanmar, Ukraine, and Gaza- where the adequacy of the provisional measures ordered so far has been subject to criticism. In cases like Bosnia, Myanmar, and Gaza, the Court’s measures have been questioned for being insufficient, whereas in Ukraine, the Court’s approach has been contested for misconceptualizing the issue. Moreover, in certain cases, ICJ judges argued the insufficiency of provisional measures. This study will first outline the general framework and purpose of provisional measures. Subsequently, it will provide a comparative analysis of the provisional measures issued by the ICJ in the four genocide-related cases, opening a discussion on the adequacy and effectiveness of the Court’s orders.
1. Collier, J., & Lowe, V. (2000). The Settlement of Disputes in International Law: Institutions and Procedures. Oxford University Press.
2. Covenant of the League of Nations, 28 April 1919, 108 LNTS 188, Article 41.
3. Frowein, J. A. (2002). Provisional measures by the International Court of Justice - The LaGrand Case. ZaöRV, 62, 55.
4. Goldsworthy, P. J. (1974). Interim measures of protection in the International Court of Justice. American Journal of International Law, 68(2), 274.
5. International Court of Justice. (1951). Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case (United Kingdom v. Iran), Request for Provisional Measures, ICJ Reports, p. 93.
6. International Court of Justice. (1972). Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Interim Measures, ICJ Reports, p. 12, para. 16.
7. International Court of Justice. (1974). Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France), I.C.J. Reports, No. 58, para. 23.
8. International Court of Justice. (1978). Rules of Court, Adopted on April 14, 1978, and entered into force on July 1, 1978. Retrieved from https://www.icj-cij.org/en/rules (Accessed on January 24, 2025).
9. International Court of Justice. (1979). United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran Case (USA v. Iran), Order for Provisional Measures, ICJ Reports, p. 21.
10. International Court of Justice. (1984). Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua Case (Nicaragua v. United States), Order for Provisional Measures, ICJ Reports, p. 22.
11. International Court of Justice. (1991). Case concerning the Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark), Provisional Measures, ICJ Reports, para. 23.
12. International Court of Justice. (1993). Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)) Order of April 8, 1993, I.C.J. Reports, para. 52.
13. International Court of Justice. (1993). Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)) Order of September 13, 1993.
14. International Court of Justice. (1996). Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Provisional Measures, ICJ Reports, para. 35.
15. International Court of Justice. (1999). LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States), Provisional Measures, ICJ Reports, paras. 23-34.
16. International Court of Justice. (2000). Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 Case (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Provisional Measures, ICJ Reports, para. 72.
17. International Court of Justice. (2001). LaGrand Case, Judgment, para. 102.
18. International Court of Justice. (2003). Avena and Other Mexican Nationals Case, Provisional Measures, p. 19.
19. International Court of Justice. (2003). Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States), Provisional Measures, ICJ Reports, paras. 49-55.
20. International Court of Justice. (2007). Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), I.C.J. Reports, p. 197.
21. International Court of Justice. (2020). Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Provisional Measures, I.C.J. Reports, p. 9, para. 16.
22. International Court of Justice. (2022). Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of March 16, 2022, para. 86.
23. International Court of Justice. (2024). Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Provisional Measures, Orders of January 26, March 28, and May 24, 2024.
24. International Law Commission. (2022). Draft conclusions on identification and legal consequences of peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens). Adopted at the seventy-third session and submitted to the General Assembly (A/77/10, para. 43). Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2022, Vol. II, Part Two.
25. Kammerhofer, J. (2003). The binding nature of provisional measures of the International Court of Justice: The “settlement” of the issue in the LaGrand Case. Leiden Journal of International Law, 16, 67.
26. Kazansky, R., Musladin, M., & Ondrejmiskova, I. (2021). Bosnia and Herzegovina: From war to negative peace. Security Dimensions, 35, 50-64.
27. Kempen, B., & He, Z. (2009). The practice of the International Court of Justice on provisional measures: The recent development. ZaöRV, 69, 919.
28. Lauterpacht, H. (1966). The Function of Law in the International Community. Oxford University Press.
29. League of Nations. (1919). Covenant of the League of Nations, 108 LNTS 188, Article 41.
30. Lee-Iwamoto, Y. (2012). The repercussions of the LaGrand judgment: Recent ICJ jurisprudence on provisional measures. Japanese Yearbook of International Law, 55, 256-259.
31. Lemkin, R. (1944). Axis rule in occupied Europe: Laws of occupation, analysis of government, proposals for redress. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law.
32. Mani, V. S. (1970). Interim measures of protection: Article 41 of the ICJ Statute and Article 94 of the UN Charter. Indian Journal of International Law, 10, 367.
33. McIntyre, J. (2012). Declaratory judgments of the International Court of Justice. Hague Yearbook of International Law, 25, 107.
34. Miles, C. A. (2017). Provisional Measures before International Courts and Tribunals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Oellers-Frahm, K. (2012). Article 41. In A. Zimmermann, K. Oellers-Frahm, C. Tomuschat, & C. J. Tams (Eds.), The International Court of Justice: A Commentary (p. 1026). Oxford University Press.
36. Oxman, B. (1987). Jurisdiction and the power to indicate provisional measures. In L. F. Damrosch (Ed.), The International Court of Justice at a Crossroads (pp. 324-326). Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers.
37. Permanent Court of International Justice. (1939). Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria Case (Belgium v. Bulgaria), PCIJ Ser A/B No. 79, p. 199.
38. Quigley, J. (2005). The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
39. Reisman, W. M. (1969). The enforcement of international judgments. American Journal of International Law, 63(1), 14-15.
40. Sparling, M. (2019). Genocide in Myanmar. The Mirror-Undergraduate History Journal, 39(1), 49-59.
41. Thirlway, H. (1994). The indication of provisional measures by the International Court of Justice. In R. Bernhardt (Ed.), Interim Measures Indicated by International Courts (p. 7). Springer.
42. United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations, 1 UNTS 16, Article 94.
43. United Nations. (1945). Statute of the International Court of Justice, 33 UNTS 993, Article 41.
44. United Nations. (1948). Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 78 U.N.T.S. 276. Retrieved from https://inhak.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/Dokuman/2312020093827bm_11.pdf (Accessed on December 17, 2024).
45. United Nations. (2001). Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UN Doc. A/56/49(Vol.1)/Corr.4, Article 2.
46. Wolfrum, R. (2006). Interim (provisional) measures of protection. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law.
Copyright (c) 2025 Ali Osman Karaoğlu (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Downloads
Article Information
- Article Type Articles
- Submitted March 24, 2025
- Accepted June 20, 2025
- Published June 30, 2025
- Issue Volume 5 - Special Issue (June 2025)
- Section Articles
