Tokens: 16
.
I
pointed
out
above
that
the
ICJ
,
which
has
jurisdiction
to
interpret
the
Genocide
Convention
,
had
done
so
by
scrutinising
the
travaux
préparatoires
.
The
ICJ
discloses
the
scope
of
genocide
as
it
was
accepted
at
the
time
of
the
Genocide
Convention
’s
adoption
in
1948
.
It
is
true
that
it
had
this
possibility
several
decades
later
,
but
this
does
not
change
the
fact
that
we
have
an
authoritative
interpretation
of
the
Genocide
Convention
as
it
would
also
have
applied
several
decades
earlier
.
The
ICJ
does
not
mention
that
it
is
engaged
in
evolutive
interpretation
,
taking
into
account
subsequent
developments
(
contrast
Legal
Consequences
for
States
of
the
Continued
Presence
of
South
Africa
in
Namibia
(
South
-
West
Africa
)
Notwithstanding
Security
Council
Resolution
276
(
1970
)
,
Advisory
Opinion
of
21
June
1971
,
ICJ
Reports
1971
,
§
53
)
.
On
the
contrary
,
the
requirements
to
establish
an
act
of
genocide
remain
stringent
.
The
present
case
,
however
,
shows
that
the
European
Court
of
Human
Rights
continues
to
have
a
problem
with
the
application
of
law
over
time
(
see
my
concurring
opinion
in
O’Keeffe
v.
Ireland
[
GC
]
,
no
.
35810/09
,
ECHR
2014
)
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O