The Monetary Gold Principle and States’ Obligations Triggered by a Serious Risks of Atrocities Being Committed by Another State

Abstract This article explores whether the Monetary Gold Principle applies to cases brought before the International Court of Justice against a state for its failure to comply with its obligations triggered by a serious risk that another state might commit atrocities. The focus is on the obligations to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and to prevent genocide. The article considers that the duty to ensure respect and the duty to prevent genocide are primary rules of international law that embody both positive and negative obligations. Compliance with these duties is independent of whether another state actually commits genocide or violations of international humanitarian law. Rather, these duties are triggered by the awareness of a serious risk of genocide or of violations of international humanitarian law. Accordingly, if claims before the International Court of Justice are framed on the basis of this awareness, the Court can exercise its jurisdiction even without the participation in the proceedings of the third state.