Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef

also be assessed by legal criteria, since it is clear that every State may only act withinthe limits permitted by international law; seen thus, a State’s capacity to influence mayvary depending on its particular legal position vis-à-vis the situations and personsfacing the danger, or the reality of genocide. On the other hand, it is irrelevant whetherthe State whose responsibility is in issue claims, or even proves, that even if it hademployed all means reasonably at its disposal, they would not have sufficed to preventthe commission of genocide. As well as being generally difficult to prove, this isirrelevant to the breach of the obligation of conduct in question, the more so since thepossibility remains that the combined efforts of several States, each complying with itsobligation to prevent, might have achieved the result – averting the commission ofgenocide – which the efforts of only one State were insufficient to produce.’405. The UN and the State of the Netherlands were in breach of their obligation to do all intheir power to prevent genocide. That is shown by the facts described in this writ ofsummons. The State of the Netherlands dispatched Dutchbat without sufficientarmament and with insufficient training. The armaments that were sent were notemployed when that was necessary. The UN and the State of the Netherlands shouldhave protected the population in accordance with the agreements and promises made.Air power was not deployed, or at least not in time and insufficiently. Further, the airstrike that was finally deployed was halted by the interference of the State of theNetherlands. In the result, every effort was not made to prevent the commission ofgenocide. Worse still, The Netherlands actively halted the little action that wasundertaken to prevent genocide. In addition, the observed war crimes should have beenreported, which would have saved many lives. It is here repeated that the ICJ has heldthat it is not relevant for the breach of Article I Genocide Convention whether thegenocide would have been prevented by the deployment of the available means.406. When assessing whether a breach of Article I Genocide Convention has beencommitted, it is not relevant that the conduct that is called into question (or at least thefailure that is questioned), occurred prior to the genocide that was committed from 13July 1995. The prevention of genocide is after all by definition a course of conduct that© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com169