Resolution criteria

• Resolves Yes if, by 23:59 UTC on December 31, 2035, the ICJ in any judgment (contentious case or advisory opinion) expressly states that it is departing from, overruling, or no longer following the approach to inferring genocidal intent applied in Application of the Genocide Convention (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment of February 3, 2015 (especially the “only reasonable inference” standard on intent). Resolution will be based on the text of the ICJ judgment and its official summary/press release. (icj-cij.org)

• Resolves No if no such explicit departure is stated by the Court by the deadline, including if later judgments reach different outcomes without saying they depart from the Croatia v. Serbia approach, or if only separate/individual opinions argue for departure. (icj-cij.org)

Background

• On February 3, 2015, the ICJ rejected Croatia’s genocide claim against Serbia by 15 votes to 2 and rejected Serbia’s counter‑claim unanimously. The Court accepted that killings and serious harm occurred but held Croatia had not proven the specific genocidal intent; it emphasized that intent must be the only reasonable inference from the evidence. (icj-cij.org)

• The “only reasonable inference” articulation traces to Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (2007), which framed how patterns of conduct can (and often cannot) evidence genocidal intent. (icj-cij.org)

Considerations

• ICJ judgments have no binding force except between the parties to that case (no formal stare decisis), so “overturning” here requires explicit language by the Court indicating departure from the Croatia v. Serbia approach. (icj-cij.org)

• Revision of the 2015 judgment itself is time‑barred after 10 years under Article 61 of the ICJ Statute; thus, any “overturning” would have to occur via later jurisprudence, not by revising that case. (icj-cij.org)