|
[p.111]
The International Court of Justice,
Composed as above,
After deliberation,
Having regard to Articles 41 and 48 of the Statute of the Court and to
Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court,
Makes the following Order:
1. Whereas, by an Application filed in the Registry of the Court on 23 June
1999, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (hereinafter "the Congo")
instituted proceedings against the Republic of Uganda (hereinafter "Uganda")
in respect of a dispute concerning "acts of armed aggression perpetrated by
Uganda on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in flagrant
violation of the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the
Organization of African Unity";
[p 112]
2. Whereas in that Application the Congo founds the jurisdiction of the
Court on the declarations made by the two States under Article 36, paragraph
2, of the Statute;
3. Whereas in the said Application the Congo states that the "armed
aggression by Ugandan troops on Congolese territory has involved inter alia
violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo", and that "[t]he extent of the invasion of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo has been such that it currently involves
fighting in seven provinces: Nord-Kivu, Sud-Kivu, Maniema, Orientale
Province, Katanga, Equateur and Kasai Oriental"; whereas the Congo recalls
"all the efforts undertaken by the Congolese Government with a view to
enforcing its right to secure the withdrawal of . . . foreign troops", in
particular within the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity;
and whereas the Congo observes that "[b]y . . . providing unlimited aid to
rebels in the form of arms and armed troops, in return for the right to
exploit the wealth of the Congo for their own benefit, Uganda has defied the
international community and created a dangerous precedent", that "the
invasion of its territory, which has required - and still requires -
inordinate financial efforts, has paralysed the majority of the country's
economic sectors, to the detriment of the Congolese people", and that
"Uganda has prevented the peaceful settlement of the rebellion - an internal
problem of the Democratic Republic of the Congo";
4. Whereas in its Application the Congo also contends that the "armed
aggression by Ugandan troops on Congolese territory has involved . . .
violations of international humanitarian law and massive human rights
violations"; whereas it states more particularly that "the various human
rights violations perpetrated by the Ugandan Republic" have been set out in
two White Papers prepared by the Ministry of Human Rights, annexed to the
Application; and whereas it cites massacres, rapes, abductions and murders,
arrests, arbitrary detentions, inhuman and degrading treatment, systematic
looting of private and public institutions and seizure of property of the
civilian population";
5. Whereas in the Application the Congo refers to "the serious violations
committed by Uganda", citing inter alia "the major principles of
international law"; and whereas in this connection it refers to violations
of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter, of Articles 3 et
seq. of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity, of the rules set
out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, and of the provisions of the
1949 Geneva Conventions, of the Additional Protocols of 1977, of the New
York Convention of 1984 against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and of the Montreal Convention of 1971
for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation;
6. Whereas the Congo adds that by its Application it "seeks to secure [p
113] the cessation of the acts of aggression directed against it, which
constitute a serious threat to peace and security in central Africa in
general and in the Great Lakes region in particular", and that it "also
seeks reparation for acts of intentional destruction and looting, and the
restitution of national property and resources appropriated for the benefit
of Uganda";
7. Whereas the Congo concludes its Application with the following
submissions:
"Consequently, and whilst reserving the right to supplement and amplify the
present request in the course of the proceedings, the Democratic Republic of
the Congo requests the Court to:
Adjudge and declare that:
(a) Uganda is guilty of an act of aggression within the meaning of Article 1
of resolution 3314 of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 14
December 1974 and of the jurisprudence of the International Court of
Justice, contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter;
(b) further, Uganda is committing repeated violations of the Geneva
Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, in flagrant
disregard of the elementary rules of international humanitarian law in
conflict zones, and is also guilty of massive human rights violations in
defiance of the most basic customary law;
(c) more specifically, by taking forcible possession of the Inga
hydroelectric dam, and deliberately and regularly causing massive electrical
power cuts, in violation of the provisions of Article 56 of the Additional
Protocol of 1977, Uganda has rendered itself responsible for very heavy
losses of life among the 5 million inhabitants of the city of Kinshasa and
the surrounding area;
(d) by shooting down, on 9 October 1998 at Kindu, a Boeing 727 the property
of Congo Airlines, thereby causing the death of 40 civilians, Uganda has
also violated the Convention on International Civil Aviation signed at
Chicago on 7 December 1944, the Hague Convention of 16 December 1970 for the
Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and the Montreal Convention of
23 September 1971 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of
Civil Aviation.
Consequently, and pursuant to the aforementioned international legal
obligations, to adjudge and declare that:
(1) all Ugandan armed forces participating in acts of aggression shall
forthwith vacate the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
(2) Uganda shall secure the immediate and unconditional with-[p 114]drawal
from Congolese territory of its nationals, both natural and legal persons;
(3) the Democratic Republic of the Congo is entitled to compensation from
Uganda in respect of all acts of looting, destruction, removal of property
and persons and other unlawful acts attributable to Uganda, in respect of
which the Democratic Republic of the Congo reserves the right to determine
at a later date the precise amount of the damage suffered, in addition to
its claim for the restitution of all property removed";
8. Whereas on 23 June 1999 the Registrar notified the Ugandan Government, by
facsimile and by letter, of the filing of that Application, and a certified
copy of the Application was transmitted to that Government; whereas, in
accordance with Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute and Article 42 of
the Rules of Court, copies of the Application were transmitted to the
Members of the United Nations through the Secretary-General, as well as to
the other States entitled to appear before the Court; and whereas, by an
Order of 21 October 1999, the Court fixed 21 July 2000 and 21 April 2001 as
the time-limits for the filing, respectively, of the Memorial of the Congo
and the Counter-Memorial of Uganda;
9. Whereas on 19 June 2000 the Congo submitted to the Court a request for
the indication of provisional measures, citing Article 41 of the Statute of
the Court and Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court; and whereas in
that request the Congo, citing Article 74, paragraph 4, of the Rules of
Court, also asked the President of the Court to exercise the power conferred
upon him by that paragraph to "call upon the Republic of Uganda to act in
such a way as will enable any order the Court may make on the request for
provisional measures to have its appropriate effects";
10. Whereas in this request for the indication of provisional measures the
Congo states that:
"[s]ince 5 June last, the resumption of fighting between the armed troops of
the Republic of Uganda and another foreign army has caused substantial
damage to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and to its population";
whereas the Congo points out that "[t]hese actions have been unanimously
condemned, in particular by the United Nations Security Council"; whereas it
contends that
"[d]espite promises and declarations of principle, the Republic of Uganda
has pursued its policy of aggression, brutal armed attacks and acts of
oppression and looting",
and that "[t]his is, moreover, the third Kisangani war, coming after those
of August 1999 and May 2000 and having been instigated by the Republic of
Uganda . . ."; and whereas the Congo further observes that these [p 115]
acts "represent just one further episode constituting evidence of the
military and paramilitary intervention, and of occupation, commenced by the
Republic of Uganda in August 1998", and "reflect in particular the conflicts
between the foreign forces engaged in organized looting of the natural
resources and the assets and equipment of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo";
11. Whereas in the request for the indication of provisional measures the
Congo argues that "each passing day causes to the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and its inhabitants grave and irreparable prejudice", and that it is
"urgent that the rights of the Democratic Republic of the Congo be
safeguarded in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the
Statute of the Court";
12. Whereas the Congo adds that its request "is a direct outgrowth of the
dispute which it brought" before the Court, and that "[t]here can be no
doubt as to the prima facie jurisdiction of the Court";
13. Whereas at the conclusion of its request the Congo asks the Court to
indicate as a matter of urgency the following provisional measures:
"(1) the Government of the Republic of Uganda must order its army to
withdraw immediately and completely from Kisangani;
(2) the Government of the Republic of Uganda must order its army to cease
forthwith all fighting or military activity on the territory of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and to withdraw immediately and completely
from that territory, and must forthwith desist from providing any direct or
indirect support to any State, group, organization, movement or individual
engaged or preparing to engage in military activities on the territory of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
(3) the Government of the Republic of Uganda must take all measures in its
power to ensure that units, forces or agents which are or could be under its
authority, or which enjoy or could enjoy its support, together with
organizations or persons which could be under its control, authority or
influence, desist forthwith from committing or inciting the commission of
war crimes or any other oppressive or unlawful act against all persons on
the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
(4) the Government of the Republic of Uganda must forthwith discontinue any
act having the aim or effect of disrupting, interfering with or hampering
actions intended to give the population of the occupied zones the benefit of
their fundamental human rights, and in particular their rights to health and
education;
(5) the Government of the Republic of Uganda must cease forth-[p 116]with
all illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo and all illegal transfer of assets, equipment or persons to its
territory;
(6) the Government of the Republic of Uganda must henceforth respect in full
the right of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to sovereignty, political
independence and territorial integrity, and the fundamental rights and
freedoms of all persons on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo would, at all events, respectfully
remind the Court of the powers conferred upon it by Article 41 of its
Statute and Article 75 of the Rules of Court, which authorize it in the
present case to indicate all such provisional measures as it may deem
necessary in order to bring to an end the intolerable situation which
continues to obtain in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in
particular in the Kisangani region";
14. Whereas, immediately upon receiving the text of the request for the
indication of provisional measures, the Registrar transmitted a certified
copy thereof to the Agent of Uganda, in accordance with Article 73,
paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court; and whereas the Registrar also notified
the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the filing of the request;
15. Whereas, by letters dated 19 June 2000, the President of the Court
addressed the Parties in the following terms:
"Acting in conformity with Article 74, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court, I
hereby draw the attention of both Parties to the need to act in such a way
as to enable any Order the Court will make on the request for provisional
measures to have its appropriate effects";
16. Whereas, by letter dated 20 June 2000, the Registrar informed the
Parties that the Court had designated 26 June 2000 as the date for the
opening of the hearings provided for in Article 74, paragraph 3, of the
Rules of Court, at which they would have the opportunity to present their
observations on the request for the indication of provisional measures;
17. Whereas, at the public hearings held on 26 and 28 June 2000, oral
observations on the request for the indication of provisional measures were
presented:
On behalf of the Congo: by Mr. Michel Lion, Agent,
H.E. Mr. She Okitundu,
Mr. Ntumba Luaba,
Mr. Olivier Corten;
[p 117]
On behalf of Uganda: by H. E. Bart M. Katureebe, Agent,
Mr. Ian Brownlie,
Mr. Paul S. Reichler;
**
18. Whereas at the hearings the Congo essentially reiterated the line of
argument developed in its Application and in its request for the indication
of provisional measures; whereas it observed that Article 41 of the Statute
confers "a substantial power of discretion on the Court, by providing that
it may indicate provisional measures" and that "[t]he only condition
expressly laid down is that the circumstances should require the adoption of
such measures"; whereas the Congo asserted that "this was undeniably so in
the present case having regard to the extreme gravity of the situation on
the ground", which was characterized by the military and paramilitary
presence of the Ugandan army on Congolese territory, repeated clashes
between the armed forces of Uganda and those of another neighbouring country
in the city of Kisangani, the persistence and aggravation of economic
rivalry aimed at the seizure of the wealth of the Congo, and the persistence
and aggravation of acts of oppression directly affecting the civilian
population;
19. Whereas at the hearings the Congo, citing the Court's jurisprudence,
argued more particularly that the requirements of urgency and of the risk of
irreparable damage, conditions precedent for the indication of provisional
measures, were satisfied in the present case; whereas it stated inter alia
that "each passing day, the territory of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo continues to be occupied, its resources and assets are systematically
plundered, its inhabitants abducted, injured or killed", that "it is
difficult to conceive of damage more 'irreparable' than this", and that "[n]o
form of material restitution, compensation or redress can fully make good
the deaths, suffering and humiliation undergone daily by the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and its inhabitants"; whereas it added that "[w]hen an
armed conflict develops and endangers not only the rights and interests of
the State but also the lives of its inhabitants, the urgency of provisional
measures and the irreparable nature of the damage cannot be in doubt"; and
whereas it pointed out that, "in two recent cases, the life of a single
individual justified the indication of measures intended to avert an
irreparable event" and that "[a] fortiori, measures should be indicated as a
matter of urgency in circumstances where . . . hundreds, if not thousands,
of persons are being condemned to certain death . . .";
20. Whereas the Congo further observed that "the fact that certain Ugandan
high authorities have officially stated that they agree to withdraw their
forces from the Kisangani region and that the beginnings of a withdrawal
have in fact taken place can . . . in no way call into question" the need
for the indication of measures as a matter of urgency, and that [p 118]
"these statements [did not] concern . . . the whole of Congolese territory";
and whereas it pointed out, moreover, that, under the Court's jurisprudence,
"the existence of obligations whereby one or other Party agrees to put an
immediate end to the acts underlying the request for the indication of
provisional measures does not prevent the Court from acceding to that
request";
21. Whereas at the hearings the Congo also contended that there was "a
sufficient connection between the measures requested and the rights
protected"; whereas it stated, on the basis of a comparison of the text for
the request of the indication of provisional measures with that of the
Application instituting the proceedings, that the "categories of act
referred to are similar" and that the "rules of law applicable are similar",
arguing more particularly as follows:
"However, at this preliminary stage of a request for the indication of
provisional measures, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is not asking the
Court to condemn Uganda, to require it to pay compensation by way of
reparation, or even to declare - at any event not in the operative part of
the order for the indication of provisional measures - that Uganda has
violated international law. The withdrawal of troops, or the ending of
support for irregular armed groups, are required not as consequences of a
finding that Uganda has violated international law, but simply as measures
preserving the rights of the Democratic Republic of the Congo until the
Court is able to decide the dispute on the merits. Under such conditions,
the requests made correspond, mutatis mutandis, to those which the Court has
indicated in other precedents which are not without relevance to the present
case, such as those in the Military Activities, Frontier Dispute and
Genocide cases, or in the Land and Maritime Boundary case";
22. Whereas at the hearings the Congo further contended that the Court has
prima facie jurisdiction "to entertain the dispute which is the
subject-matter of the Application", having regard to the declarations of
acceptance of its compulsory jurisdiction deposited by the two Parties; and
whereas in this regard it added the following:
"In the Military Activities case, the Court found that it had prima facie
jurisdiction precisely because it was dealing with two declarations of
acceptance deposited under Article 36, paragraph 2, of its Statute, even
though the validity of one of these declarations (that of Nicaragua) had
been challenged and the other (that of the United States) contained a
reservation which was directly pertinent to the case concerned (I.C.J.
Reports 1984, p. 181, para. 26). A fortiori, the Court must hold itself to
have prima facie jurisdiction in the present case, since it is dealing with
two declarations whose validity is [p 119] unquestioned and which contain no
reservation which might prevent the Court from exercising its jurisdiction";
23. Whereas at the hearings the Congo stated finally that "[t]here is
nothing in the political and diplomatic context of the present case which
might prevent the Court from taking the measures which the circumstances
require"; whereas it pointed out that "the Security Council has adopted a
resolution - resolution 1304 of 16 June 2000 - in which it was demanded that
Uganda withdraw its forces not only from Kisangani but from all Congolese
territory, without further delay"; whereas it observed that "[t]he
withdrawal of Ugandan forces is in substance what the Congo is asking the
Court to indicate, not as a political measure with a view to the maintenance
of international peace and security, but as a judicial measure"; and
whereas, referring to the Court's jurisprudence, it argued that "[i]t is
not, however, possible to derive from these parallel powers of the Security
Council and of the Court any bar to the exercise by the latter of its
jurisdiction"; and whereas, recalling that resolution 1304 "does not concern
Uganda alone, but also Rwanda", the Congo pointed out that "although on 23
June 1999 three separate Applications were filed, one of them against
Uganda, another against Rwanda, it is only in respect of Uganda that the
Democratic Republic of the Congo has considered it appropriate to submit a
request for the indication of provisional measures"; whereas it observed
that "[t]hese particular circumstances are clearly not such as would prevent
the Court from indicating the provisional measures which are the
subject-matter of the present proceedings"; and whereas it explained that
"[t]he Court [was] not being asked to enjoin a State not party to the
proceedings to follow a particular course of conduct", adding the following:
"The Court is accordingly fully entitled to rule on a request which concerns
the State of Uganda specifically and exclusively, even though it is not
precluded, should it see fit, from indicating proprio motu, on its own
initiative, provisional measures directed at other States in the context of
other legal disputes, provided that such legal disputes fall within its
prima facie jurisdiction";
*
24. Whereas at the hearings Uganda gave the following account of events:
"The Congolese forces that overthrew President Mobutu in May 1997 were led
by Mr. Kabila, the current President. At the outbreak of the fighting,
President Mobutu's army abandoned Eastern Congo, leaving no central
governmental presence or authority. At the invitation of Mr. Kabila, Ugandan
forces entered Eastern Congo to work in collaboration with his forces to
arrest the activities of the anti-Uganda rebels. [p 120]
Ugandan forces remained in Eastern Congo after Mr. Kabila became President
in May 1997, again at his invitation. The central Government in Kinshasa,
which was in the process of creating a new army and a police force, had no
capability to exercise authority in this remote region of the country. This
arrangement with President Kabila was formalized by written agreement dated
27 April 1998 . . . This agreement expressly recognizes the existence of
armed irregulars conducting military activities across the Ugandan/Congolese
border, and it provides for joint action by Ugandan and Congolese armed
forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to stop them";
whereas it added that "Uganda has no territorial interests in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo", that "[t]here is a complete political vacuum in
Eastern Congo" and that "[t]here is no one else to restrain the anti-Uganda
rebels or guarantee the security of Uganda's border"; and whereas at the
hearings Uganda stated:
"At the time of lodging the Application on 23 June 1999, the Government of
Uganda and the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, along
with other parties to the conflict, were already actively involved in direct
negotiations aimed at resolving the conflict and establishing a framework
for peace in the region. This was eventually achieved when the Lusaka
Agreement was signed . . . Uganda therefore views any moves to seek
alternative ways of solving the dispute as an act of bad faith and
ultimately as a form of undermining the entire peace process";
whereas it explained that "on its part, [it] has endeavoured to fulfil all
its obligations laid down in the Lusaka Agreement", and that "with respect
to the events in Kisangani, Uganda has fully complied with the United
Nations resolutions in the matter and completely withdrawn its troops from
the city"; whereas it stated itself "ready to withdraw all its troops from
the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in accordance with the
Lusaka Agreement and in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council"; and whereas it stressed that any immediate
and unilateral withdrawal of its forces, as now being requested by the
Congo, would be in fundamental conflict with the Lusaka Agreement and the
Kampala Disengagement Agreement, under which the Congo itself agreed that
"foreign forces would be withdrawn [from its territory] subject to a precise
timetable and following a sequence of defined events";
25. Whereas at the hearings Uganda also asserted that "both the Application
and the request for provisional measures are based on preposterous
allegations that are not backed by any evidence whatsoever [p 121] before
this Court", and that there was "no amassing of troops on our common border
with the Democratic Republic of the Congo or on any border with any of the
neighbouring States"; and whereas in consequence it asked the Court to
"reject the Application for interim measures so that the Parties can
concentrate on implementing the resolution of the Security Council and in
fulfilling their obligations under the Lusaka Agreement which has gained
regional and international acceptance as the most viable means of ending the
current conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo";
26. Whereas at the hearings Uganda contended that "in the circumstances the
request of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is inadmissible, and this
for the reason that as a matter of law the Court is prevented from
exercising its powers under Article 41 of the Statute"; whereas in this
connection it referred to the Orders made by the Court on 14 April 1992 in
the cases concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971
Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom) and (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United
States of America); and whereas it argued that "the subject-matter of the
request for interim measures is essentially the same as the matters
addressed by . . . Security Council resolution [1304] of 16 June [2000]" and
that "the principles invoked by the Court in the Lockerbie cases of 1992
must . . . apply";
27. Whereas at the hearings Uganda argued in the alternative that
"even if the Court had a prima facie competence by virtue of Article 41,
there are concerns of propriety and judicial prudence which strongly
militate against the exercise of the discretion which the Court has in the
indication of interim measures";
whereas it pointed out that "the Congolese request has the same
subject-matter as the Security Council resolution", that "the Republic of
Uganda accepts the resolution which was, in any event, adopted in accordance
with Chapter VII of the Charter and is therefore binding", and that,
"pursuant to the resolution, the Republic of Uganda has withdrawn all its
forces from Kisangani"; and whereas it accordingly concluded that "the
request has in practical terms been rendered redundant"; whereas Uganda
asserted that "all the relevant States and other interested parties have
expressly agreed to the resolution of outstanding issues exclusively by
recourse to the modalities established by the Lusaka Agreement and the
subsequent peace process", and that "[t]he Lusaka Agreement is the relevant
regional public order system and in the text of the Security Council
resolution this is effectively recognized"; whereas Uganda contended that
"the Court should not grant interim measures because the requesting State
has not complied with the normal and necessary [p 122] standards of
procedural fairness"; whereas it stated that "the Court has not yet received
the Memorial of the requesting State", that "[t]he Application is, of
course, available . . . but the allegations contained in the Application
have no relation to the Republic of Uganda or its armed forces", that "the
request itself is deficient in substance and is unsupported by any
evidence", and that there is a problem of "adequate notice to the respondent
State" (request submitted on 19 June 2000, Congo's argument presented on 26
June 2000); whereas it made the point, "on the question of procedural
fairness", that the "requesting State has seen fit to single out Uganda in
these proceedings", although "[the Lusaka Agreement] was signed by six
States, all of which are bound by the provisions for disengagement, not just
Uganda", and "the Security Council resolution of 16 June calls on 'all
parties' . . . to cease hostilities and makes several references to the
Rwandan forces"; and whereas Uganda referred also to the principle of the
Monetary Gold case";
28. Whereas at the hearings Uganda stressed that "any action . . . by [its]
armed forces . . . has been in accordance with the principles of the United
Nations Charter"; and whereas it explained, with reference to "activities of
armed bands operating from Congolese territory", that "[i]n responding to
these threats to its territorial integrity and security, Uganda acted by
virtue of Article 51 of the Charter";
29. Whereas at the hearings Uganda argued that there was an "absence of any
clear link between the request and the original claim", as the latter "[did]
not . . . relate to any conflict between Ugandan and Rwandan armed forces";
and whereas it asserted that "the [Congo's] request [fails to satisfy] the
requirement of urgency or the risk of irreparable damage" and that there
cannot "be an element of urgency after the Congo has waited for almost a
year before making a complaint";
30. Whereas at the hearings Uganda stated that "the Lusaka Agreement is a
comprehensive system of public order, signed by the Heads of State of six
African States and the leaders of three Congolese rebel groups", and that
"it is a binding international agreement that constitutes the governing law
between and among the parties to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, and between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda in
particular"; whereas it maintained that "the parties to the Lusaka
Agreement, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda,
continue to express their full support for the Agreement", and that "[t]he
Security Council and the Secretary-General have repeatedly declared that
[this] Agreement is the only viable process for achieving peace within the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and for achieving peace between the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and its neighbours"; and whereas Uganda
emphasized that "the specific interim measures requested by the Democratic
Republic of the Congo directly conflict with the Lusaka Agreement, and with
the Security Council resolutions - including resolution 1304 . . . - calling
for implementation of the Agreement"; [p 123]
31. Whereas, in response to the arguments put forward by Uganda, the Congo
contended inter alia, with regard to the requirement of urgency, that "at
all events, the fact that a request may not have been submitted cannot
support a claim of lack of urgency", and pointed out that "the three attacks
on Kinsangani, one of them just weeks ago, have once again demonstrated the
dangers and irreparable risks to which its inhabitants are exposed as a
result of the continuing presence of foreign armies on Congolese territory";
whereas, as regards one of Uganda's arguments deriving from Security Council
resolution 1304, the Congo stated that "no incompatibility can be shown
between the text of the resolution and the text of the requests"; whereas,
as to Uganda's argument on the "absence of Rwanda", the Congo observed,
citing the Court's case-law, that an applicant State is "entitled to isolate
procedurally a specific relationship with another State"; and whereas, in
response to Uganda's argument on the Lusaka Agreement, the Congo observed
that this Agreement "can in no circumstances negate [the rules on the
prohibition of the use of force and on the prohibition of aggression and of
occupation]", and that it "merely prescribes the procedures for a withdrawal
but cannot in any event compromise the requirement of withdrawal";
***
32. Whereas the two Parties have each made a declaration recognizing the
jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the
Statute; whereas the declaration of Uganda was deposited with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations on 3 October 1963 and that of the
Congo (formerly Zaire) on 8 February 1989; whereas neither of the two
declarations includes any reservation; and whereas Uganda stated in its
declaration that it was made on the sole condition of reciprocity;
33. Whereas on a request for the indication of provisional measures the
Court need not, before deciding whether or not to indicate such measures,
finally satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction on the merits of the case,
yet it may not indicate them unless the provisions invoked by the Applicant
appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which the jurisdiction of the
Court might be founded;
34. Whereas the Court considers that the declarations made by the Parties in
accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute constitute a prima
facie basis upon which its jurisdiction in the present case might be
founded;
**
35. Whereas, in its request for the indication of provisional measures, the
Congo refers to resolution 1304 (2000), adopted by the United [p 124]
Nations Security Council on 16 June 2000; whereas that resolution was
adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of
the United Nations; and whereas, in the said resolution, the Security
Council:
"1. Calls on all parties to cease hostilities throughout the territory of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and to fulfil their obligations under
the Ceasefire Agreement and the relevant provisions of the 8 April 2000
Kampala disengagement plan;
2. Reiterates its unreserved condemnation of the fighting between Ugandan
and Rwandan forces in Kisangani in violation of the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and demands
that these forces and those allied to them desist from further fighting;
3. Demands that Ugandan and Rwandan forces as well as forces of the
Congolese armed opposition and other armed groups immediately and completely
withdraw from Kisangani, and calls on all parties to the Ceasefire Agreement
to respect the demilitarization of the city and its environs;
4. Further demands:
(a) that Uganda and Rwanda, which have violated the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, withdraw all
their forces from the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
without further delay, in conformity with the timetable of the Ceasefire
Agreement and the 8 April 2000 Kampala disengagement plan;
(b) that each phase of withdrawal completed by Ugandan and Rwandan forces be
reciprocated by the other parties in conformity with the same timetable;
(c) that all other foreign military presence and activity, direct and
indirect, in the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo be
brought to an end in conformity with the provisions of the Ceasefire
Agreement;
5. In this context demands that all parties abstain from any offensive
action during the process of disengagement and of withdrawal of foreign
forces;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to keep under review arrangements for
deployment of the personnel of the United Nations Organization Mission in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC), as authorized and in
conditions defined by resolution 1291 (2000), to monitor the cessation of
hostilities, disengagement of forces and withdrawal of foreign forces as
described in paragraphs 1 to 5 above and to assist in the planning of these
tasks, and requests also the Secretary-General to recommend any adjustment
that may become necessary in this regard;
7. Calls on all parties, in complying with paragraphs 1 to 5 above, [p 125]
to cooperate with the efforts of MONUC to monitor the cessation of
hostilities, disengagement of forces and withdrawal of foreign forces;
8. Demands that the parties to the Ceasefire Agreement cooperate with the
deployment of MONUC to the areas of operations deemed necessary by the
Special Representative of the Secretary-General, including by lifting
restrictions on the freedom of movement of MONUC personnel and by ensuring
their security;
9. Calls on all the Congolese Parties to engage fully in the National
Dialogue process as provided for in the Ceasefire Agreement, and calls in
particular on the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to
reaffirm its full commitment to the National Dialogue, to honour its
obligations in this respect and to cooperate with the Facilitator designated
with the assistance of the OAU and to allow for the full participation of
political opposition and civil society groups in the dialogue;
10. Demands that all parties cease all forms of assistance and cooperation
with the armed groups referred to in Annex A, Chapter 9.1 of the Ceasefire
Agreement;
11. Welcomes efforts made by the parties to engage in a dialogue on the
question of disarmament, demobilization, resettlement and reintegration of
members of all armed groups referred to in Annex A, Chapter 9.1 of the
Ceasefire Agreement, and urges the parties, in particular the Government of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Government of Rwanda, to
continue these efforts in full cooperation;
12. Demands that all parties comply in particular with the provisions of
Annex A, Chapter 12 of the Ceasefire Agreement relating to the normalization
of the security situation along the borders of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo with its neighbours;
13. Condemns all massacres and other atrocities carried out in the territory
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and urges that an international
investigation into all such events be carried out with a view to bringing to
justice those responsible;
14. Expresses the view that the Governments of Uganda and Rwanda should make
reparations for the loss of life and the property damage they have inflicted
on the civilian population in Kisangani, and requests the Secretary-General
to submit an assessment of the damage as a basis for such reparations;
15. Calls on all the parties to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo to protect human rights and respect international humanitarian
law; [p 126]
16. Calls also on all parties to ensure the safe and unhindered access of
relief personnel to all those in need, and recalls that the parties must
also provide guarantees for the safety, security and freedom of movement for
United Nations and associated humanitarian relief personnel;
17. Further calls on all parties to cooperate with the International
Committee of the Red Cross to enable it to carry out its mandate as well as
the tasks entrusted to it under the Ceasefire Agreement;
18. Reaffirms the importance of holding, at the appropriate time, an
international conference on peace, security, democracy and development in
the Great Lakes region under the auspices of the United Nations and of the
OAU, with the participation of all the Governments of the region and all
others concerned;
19. Expresses its readiness to consider possible measures which could be
imposed in accordance with its responsibility under the Charter of the
United Nations in the case of failure by parties to comply fully with this
resolution;
20. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter";
36. Whereas the Court notes Uganda's argument that the Congo's request for
the indication of provisional measures concerns essentially the same issues
as this resolution, that the said request is accordingly inadmissible, and
that the request is, moreover, moot, since Uganda fully accepts the
resolution in question and is complying with it; whereas Security Council
resolution 1304 (2000), and the measures taken in its implementation, do not
preclude the Court from acting in accordance with its Statute and with the
Rules of Court; whereas in particular, as the Court has already had occasion
to observe,
"while there is in the Charter
'a provision for a clear demarcation of functions between the General
Assembly and the Security Council, in respect of any dispute or situation,
that the former should not make any recommendation with regard to that
dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requires, there is no
similar provision anywhere in the Charter with respect to the Security
Council and the Court. The Council has functions of a political nature
assigned to it, whereas the Court exercises purely judicial functions. Both
organs can therefore perform their separate but complementary functions with
respect to the same events' (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and
against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and
Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, pp. 434-435, para. 95);"
(Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide, Provisional Measures, Order of 8 April 1993, I.C.J. Reports
1993, p. 19, para. 33); [p 127]
and whereas in the present case the Security Council has taken no decision
which would prima facie preclude the rights claimed by the Congo from
"be[ing] regarded as appropriate for protection by the indication of
provisional measures" (Questions of Interpretation and Application of the
1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie
(Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of
14 April 1992, p. 15, para. 40);
37. Whereas the Court has taken note of the Lusaka Agreement, to which
Security Council resolution 1304 (2000) refers a number of times; whereas
that Agreement constitutes an international agreement binding upon the
Parties; whereas it does not, however, preclude the Court from acting in
accordance with its Statute and with the Rules of Court;
38. Whereas, furthermore, the Court is not precluded from indicating
provisional measures in a case merely because a State which has
simultaneously brought a number of similar cases before the Court seeks such
measures in only one of them; and whereas, pursuant to Article 75, paragraph
1, of its Rules, the Court may in any event decide to examine proprio motu
whether the circumstances of the case require the indication of provisional
measures;
**
39. Whereas the power of the Court to indicate provisional measures under
Article 41 of the Statute of the Court has as its object to preserve the
respective rights of the parties pending the decision of the Court, and
presupposes that irreparable prejudice shall not be caused to rights which
are the subject of dispute in judicial proceedings; whereas it follows that
the Court must be concerned to preserve by such measures the rights which
may subsequently be adjudged by the Court to belong either to the Applicant
or to the Respondent; and whereas such measures are only justified if there
is urgency;
40. Whereas the rights which, according to the Congo's Application, are the
subject of the dispute are essentially its rights to sovereignty and
territorial integrity and to the integrity of its assets and natural
resources, and its rights to respect for the rules of international
humanitarian law and for the instruments relating to the protection of human
rights; and whereas it is upon the rights thus claimed that the Court must
focus its attention in its consideration of this request for the indication
of provisional measures;
41. Whereas the Court is in possession of information on the facts of this
case, and in particular that contained in the above-mentioned Security
Council resolution 1304 (2000) of 16 June 2000; whereas, however, the
Court's duty at this stage of the proceedings is limited to examining
whether the circumstances brought to its attention require the indication of
provisional measures; and whereas it cannot make definitive findings of fact
or of imputability, since the right of each of the Parties to submit [p 128]
arguments in respect of the merits must remain unaffected by the Court's
decision;
42. Whereas it is not disputed that at this date Ugandan forces are present
on the territory of the Congo, that fighting has taken place on that
territory between those forces and the forces of a neighbouring State, that
the fighting has caused a large number of civilian casualties in addition to
substantial material damage, and that the humanitarian situation remains of
profound concern; and whereas it is also not disputed that grave and
repeated violations of human rights and international humanitarian law,
including massacres and other atrocities, have been committed on the
territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
43. Whereas, in the circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that persons,
assets and resources present on the territory of the Congo, particularly in
the area of conflict, remain extremely vulnerable, and that there is a
serious risk that the rights at issue in this case, as noted in paragraph 40
above, may suffer irreparable prejudice; whereas the present urgency in the
situation cannot be in any way affected by the fact that the Congo did not
present its request for provisional measures at the same time as its
Application; and whereas the Court consequently considers that provisional
measures must be indicated as a matter of urgency in order to protect those
rights; whereas Article 75, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court empowers the
Court to indicate measures that are in whole or in part other than those
requested;
44. Whereas, independently of requests for the indication of provisional
measures submitted by the parties to preserve specific rights, the Court
possesses by virtue of Article 41 of the Statute the power to indicate
provisional measures with a view to preventing the aggravation or extension
of the dispute whenever it considers that circumstances so require (Land and
Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Provisional Measures, Order
of 15 March 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996, pp. 22-23, para. 41); whereas, having
regard to the information at its disposal, and in particular the fact that
the Security Council has determined, in its resolution 1304 (2000), that the
situation in the Congo "continues to constitute a threat to international
peace and security in the region", the Court is of the opinion that there
exists a serious risk of events occurring which might aggravate or extend
the dispute or make it more difficult to resolve;
**
45. Whereas, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that
the circumstances require it to indicate provisional measures, as provided
for in Article 41 of the Statute of the Court;
46. Whereas a decision in the present proceedings in no way prejudges the
question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of [p 129]
the case, or any questions relating to the merits themselves, and leaves
unaffected the right of the Governments of the Congo and of Uganda to submit
arguments in respect of those questions;
***
47. For these reasons,
The Court,
Indicates, pending a decision in the proceedings instituted by the
Democratic Republic of the Congo against the Republic of Uganda, the
following provisional measures:
(1) Unanimously,
Both Parties must, forthwith, prevent and refrain from any action, and in
particular any armed action, which might prejudice the rights of the other
Party in respect of whatever judgment the Court may render in the case, or
which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more
difficult to resolve;
(2) Unanimously,
Both Parties must, forthwith, take all measures necessary to comply with all
of their obligations under international law, in particular those under the
United Nations Charter and the Charter of the Organization of African Unity,
and with United Nations Security Council resolution 1304 (2000) of 16 June
2000;
(3) Unanimously,
Both Parties must, forthwith, take all measures necessary to ensure full
respect within the zone of conflict for fundamental human rights and for the
applicable provisions of humanitarian law.
Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at the
Peace Palace, The Hague, this first day of July two thousand, in three
copies, one of which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the
others transmitted to the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
and the Government of Uganda, respectively.
(Signed) Gilbert Guillaume,
President.
(Signed) Philippe Couvreur,
Registrar.[p 130]
Judges ODA and KOROMA append declarations to the Order of the Court.
(Initialled) G. G.
(Initialled) Ph. C.
[p 131]
Declaration of Judge Oda
1. I voted in favour of the Court's Order only because I could not but agree
that, in order to restore peace in the region, the measures indicated by the
Court in this Order should be taken by the Parties - measures on which few
would ever disagree.
2. I believe, however, that the Court is not in a position at this time to
grant provisional measures for the reason that the present case, brought
unilaterally by the Democratic Republic of the Congo against Uganda on 23
June 1999, is - and has from the outset been - inadmissible.
*
3. The Applicant claims that the disputes are related to "acts of armed
aggression perpetrated by Uganda on the territory of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo". Various relevant resolutions adopted by the Security Council
in the past few years appear to indicate that the "armed aggression" might
be the result of political turmoil in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
caused by fighting between rival factions and government forces and
involvement in that internal friction by the armed forces of foreign
countries, including Uganda.
4. The mere allegation by the Applicant that there has been "armed
aggression" perpetrated by the Respondent in its territory does not mean
that legal disputes exist between these Parties concerning (i) the alleged
breach of the Applicant's rights by the Respondent or the alleged failure of
the Respondent to observe its international legal obligations to the
Applicant, and (ii) the denial by the Respondent of the Applicant's
allegations.
The Applicant in this case did not, in its Application, show us that both
Parties had attempted to identify the legal disputes existing between them
and to resolve those disputes by negotiation. Without such a mutual effort
by the Parties, a mere allegation of armed aggression cannot be deemed
suitable for judicial settlement by the Court.
The issues arising from unstable conditions in a disintegrating State cannot
constitute legal disputes before this Court, whose main function is to deal
with the rights and obligations of States. Unilateral referral to the Court
of acts of armed aggression in which a State is directly involved does not
fall within the purview of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Court's Statute.
5. I do not need to point out that the United Nations Charter provides for
the settlement, through the Security Council, of disputes raising issues of
armed aggression and threats to international peace, of the type seen [p
132] in the present case. In fact, the Security Council, as well as the
Secretary-General acting on its instructions, has made every effort over the
past several years to ease the situation and restore peace in the region.
*
6. I contend that the Application in the present case is inadmissible. I am
aware that the issue of admissibility may well be dealt with at the merits
stage of the case. I believe, however, that the present case lacks, even
prima facie, the element of admissibility. The jurisprudence of the Court
shows that judgments rendered by the Court and provisional measures
indicated by it in advance of the merits phase have not necessarily been
complied with by the respondent States or by the parties.
If the Court agrees to be seised of the application or request for the
indication of provisional measures of one State in such circumstances, then
the repeated disregard of the judgments or orders of the Court by the
parties will inevitably impair the dignity of the Court and raise doubt as
to the judicial role to be played by the Court in the international
community.
7. It is a principle that the Court's jurisdiction is founded on the consent
of the States parties to the dispute and that declarations under the
optional clause accepting the Court's compulsory jurisdiction may be made
only if they arise from the bona fide will of the State. One can hardly
believe that the present case stems from any legal dispute between two
parties appearing willingly and in good faith before the Court.
If the Court admits applications or grants requests for provisional measures
on the condition that an application is admissible, I am afraid that States
that have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article
36, paragraph 2, of the Court's Statute will be inclined to withdraw their
declarations, and fewer States will accede to the compromissory clauses of
multilateral treaties.
*
8. Furthermore, in the present case, I note that a State appearing before
the Court is not represented by a person holding high office in the
Government acting as Agent, but by a private lawyer from another, highly
developed, country. This has rarely been the case in the history of the
Court and reinforces my feeling that a question arises as to whether the
case is brought to the Court in the interest of the State involved or for
some other reason. I would like to repeat here a passage from an article I
published a few months ago:
"I personally wonder, in the light of the increasing number of unilateral
applications, whether the offhand or casual unilateral referral of cases by
some States (which would simply appear to be insti-[p 133]gated by ambitious
private lawyers in certain developed countries), without the Government of
the State concerned first exhausting diplomatic channels, is really
consistent with the purpose of the International Court of Justice as the
principal judicial organ of the United Nations. I see what may be termed an
abuse of the right to institute proceedings before the Court. Past
experience appears to indicate that irregular procedures of this nature will
not produce any meaningful results in the judiciary." (Oda, S., "The
Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: A Myth? - A
Statistical Analysis of Contentious Cases", The International and
Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 49 (2000), p. 265.)
(Signed) Shigeru Oda.
[p 134]
Declaration of Judge Koroma
By this Order, the Court recognized on the basis of information available to
it and took judicial notice that, since the recent outbreak of hostilities
in Kisangani resulting in a serious breach of the peace, the Congolese
civilian population has suffered irreparable harm and injury with hundreds
killed and thousands injured; that national assets, including monuments,
have also been destroyed; that for these reasons unless measures are
urgently taken to safeguard the rights of the Congolese population and to
preserve human life, they may be further imperilled. The matter is
therefore, without question, one of urgency and exceptional gravity. The
Court, in the case concerning the United States Diplomatic and Consular
Staff in Tehran (Provisional Measures, Order of 15 December 1979, I.C.J.
Reports 1979, p. 20, para. 42) and in that concerning the Land and Maritime
Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria) (Provisional
Measures, Order of 15 March 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I), p. 23, para. 42),
held that death and injury to persons are to be considered irreparable
damage. The Court has made an analogous determination in this case. The
legal criteria for granting the Order were, accordingly, all satisfied.
While the Order recognizes that Security Council resolution 1304 (2000) of
16 June 2000 calls on all parties to cease hostilities, the Court, as a
court of law and given its position as the principal judicial organ of the
United Nations, juridically assessed the issues and has cast its Order in
accordance with judicial norms. The Order must, therefore, be seen in the
light of Article 59 of the Statute of the Court and Article 94 of the United
Nations Charter. The Order enjoins both Parties to take all measures
necessary to respect fundamental human rights and the applicable provisions
of humanitarian law, and to prevent their armed forces, or other groups
under their authority or control, from taking any action which might
prejudice the rights of the other Party in respect of any judgment the Court
may render in the case, or which might aggravate or extend the dispute.
Thus, in endeavouring to preserve the peace as well as preserve the rights
of the Parties, the Order is to be seen as part of the process of the
judicial settlement of the dispute. It is, accordingly, of special
significance for the Parties, who should refrain from any action which might
aggra-[p 135]vate or extend the dispute, thereby preventing further harm to
the population in the zone of conflict.
The Order in no way prejudges the facts or the merits of the case.
(Signed) Abdul G. Koroma.
|
|