Decisions of the International Court of Justice in Gambia v. Myanmar and South Africa v. Israel Cases as a New Perspective od Adjudication of Crime of Genocide

Abstract

Тhe author analyses the effects of decisions of the inter national court of Justice in two recent genocide cases – Gambia v. myan mar and south africa v. israel – as an element of progressive development of the Law of the court in adjudicating of the crime of genocide. the court in its decisions, both in the Judgement on Preliminary objections in Gambia v. myanmar case as well as the orders on provi sional measures in both cases, introduced the concept of obligations erga omnes partes in terms of obligations owed to a group of states, so breach of those obligations enables all states members of a group to invoke the responsibility for breach. the essential meaning of the obligations erga omnes partes, under stood as secondary rules of international law, lies in the horizontal expan sion of the jurisdiction of the court ratione personae based on the subject matter of the dispute without deviating from the principle of consent as a fundamental principle of which icJ rests. He concludes that, despite the fact that they are not free of legal difficulties, obligations erga omnes partes are valuable step in promotion of the rule of law in international community