•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) 2007 judgment in Bosnia v. Serbia turned on evidentiary gaps. Although the ICJ recognized that genocide had been committed at Srebrenica, it declined to hold Serbia complicit, reasoning that the record did not prove awareness of genocidal purpose. Intelligence was piecemeal, contemporaneous witnesses were scarce, and the ICJ refused to infer knowledge absent direct proof.

Two decades later, the evidentiary environment looks radically different. In October 2024, ninety-nine American healthcare professionals who had volunteered in Gaza sent an open letter to the White House reporting that children with gunshot wounds to the head or chest were treated on a near-daily basis. As neutral observers, their testimony provided unusually credible and specific evidence of deliberate violence against children. Unlike in 2007, such testimony is now generated and disseminated as events unfold, reaching both the public and state decision-makers.

This testimony exemplifies a broader transformation: contemporary conflicts now generate real-time, neutral, and professionally credible accounts of atrocity, made publicly available and transmitted directly to states. When evidentiary saturation exists, marked by multiple streams of dense, credible, and redundant information delivered to those with authority to act, plausible deniability collapses, and international law should recalibrate how it defines “knowledge” in cases of state complicity, whether under ARSIWA for war crimes or the Genocide Convention. (from author)

Download

Share

COinS