Legality of Use of Force (Serbia & Montenegro v. United Kingdom)

View this case and other resources at:

Citation. I.C.J. 2004 I.C.J 1307

Brief Fact Summary.

A claim against various NATO states (D) including the United Kingdom (D) was brought before the International Court of Justice by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) (F.R.Y.) (P) in 1999. The I.C.J. first considered the issue of jurisdiction.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

The legal position of a state within the United Nations must be determined and clearly defined by the competent organs of the United Nations.

Facts.

A claim against various NATO states (D) including the United Kingdom (D) was brought before the International Court of Justice by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) (F.R.Y.) (P) in 1999. The I.C.J. first considered the issue of jurisdiction I order to determine whether F.R.Y. (P) was a U.N. member state at the time the claim was made. Its predecessor state, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a member state at the time.

Issue.

Must the legal position of a state within the United Nations be determined and clearly defined by competent organs of the United Nations?

Held.

Must the legal position of a state within the United Nations be determined and clearly defined by competent organs of the United Nations?

Discussion.

The opinion of the I.C.J. was focused on the F.R.Y.’s (P) status within the United Nations. It is also worthy of note that non-U.N. members may become parties to the I.C.J.’s statute under Article 93(2).  Also, a state that id a party to the I.C.J.’s statute is entitled to participate in cases before the I.C.J., being a party to the statute does not automatically give the I.C.J. jurisdiction over disputes involving those parties.