PIL_LOT_02 Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo (Congo v Rwanda)

Topic: Unilateral declarations

Facts: Congo filed in the ICJ proceedings against Rwanda for a dispute concerning violations
of human rights and international humanitarian law, namely acts of armed aggression
perpetrated on the territory of Congo in flagrant disregard of the sovereignty and territorial
integrity as guaranteed by the Charters of UN and the Organization of African Unity. These
acts were also in breach of the International Bill of Human Rights and other relevant
instruments.
Congo based the Court’s jurisdiction to try the case on Article 36 of the ICJ on law of treaties
and certain articles in 7 international conventions and 2 constitutions. The treaties involved
were:
 Genocide Convention – Rwanda’s accession to the convention did not consider itself
bound by the dispute clause among contracting parties. However the Rwandan
Minister of Justice announced in the UN that they were withdrawing their
accession but did not act on it.
 Convention on Privileges Immunities of the Specialized Agencies Article IX – Rwanda
not a party.
 Convention on Racial Discrimination and against Women – did not become bound by
the dispute clause in its accession to the treaty and failure to make a proposal for
arbitration to Rwanda respectively.
 Article 75 World Health Organization Constitution – Congo failed to show that there was
a question concerning the interpretation or application of the WHO Constitution on
which itself and Rwanda had opposing views, or that it had a dispute with that State in
regard to this matter and failed to show that it attempted to negotiate and reconcile with
Rwanda.
 Article XIV Unesco Convention – only for referral questions or disputes concerning the
Constitution, but only in respect of its interpretation. The Court considers that such is
not the object of the Congo’s Application.
 Article 14, Montreal Convention - gives the Court jurisdiction in respect of any dispute
between Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of the
Convention, on condition that: it has not been possible to settle the dispute by
negotiation, following failure resulting to arbitration. The court finds that, in any event,
the Congo failed to sufficiently comply with the requirements.
 Article 66, Vienna Convention – rules contained in the Vienna Convention are not
applicable, save in so far as they are declaratory of customary international law.
 Article 66 and Convention Against Torture – Rwanda not a party
Issue: WON has Court acquired jurisdiction based on a withdrawn accession to a dispute
clause in one of the treaties alleged to give the court jurisdiction despite that said declaration
of Rwanda not having been acted upon by them.
Ruling: No, The International Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction based on a treaty in which
one party to such a treaty excludes dispute settlement obligations under the treaty before
becoming a party and fails to take formal acts to bring about withdrawal of the reservation.
Rwanda may have committed itself, though this withdrawal was effectuated by the Rwanda
minister of justice, Rwanda never for once take formal acts to bring about withdrawal of
reservation.
Deciding on whether to withdraw reservation with a state’s domestic legal order is not the
same as implementation of that decision by the national authorities within the international
legal order, which can only come to pass by notification to the other state parties to the
parties in question through the Secretary-General of the United Nations.