Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2022)

Last updated

Ukraine v. Russian Federation
Seal of the International Court of Justice.png
Court International Court of Justice
Full case nameAllegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Started26 February 2022
Transcript(s) www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220307-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf
Court membership
Judges sitting

Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) is a case brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It was submitted by Ukraine on 26 February 2022 against Russia following the latter's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which Russia sought to justify in part by claims that Ukraine was engaged in acts of genocide within the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts. [1] Ukraine said that these claims gave rise to a dispute under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and based its application on the ICJ's jurisdiction to resolve disputes involving the convention. [2] [3] On 16 March 2022, the court ruled that Russia must "immediately suspend the military operations" in Ukraine, while waiting for the final decision on the case. [4] [5]

Contents

Application

Ukraine's application sought to "establish that Russia has no lawful basis to take action in and against Ukraine for the purpose of preventing and punishing any purported genocide". Its main contention was that "the Russian Federation has falsely claimed that acts of genocide have occurred in the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts of Ukraine, and on that basis recognized the so-called 'Donetsk People's Republic' and 'Luhansk People's Republic', and then declared and implemented a 'special military operation' against Ukraine". [2] Ukraine sought to establish that these acts by Russia had no basis in the Genocide Convention, and sought full reparation for these wrongful acts. [6]

Ukraine also accused Russia of planning "acts of genocide in Ukraine" and asserted that Russian Armed Forces were "intentionally killing and inflicting serious injury on members of the Ukrainian nationality—the actus reus of genocide under Article II of the Genocide Convention". [2]

Provisional relief proceedings

Initial hearings in the case took place on 7 March 2022 at Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands—the seat of the court—to determine Ukraine's entitlement to provisional relief. [7] The Russian delegation did not appear for these proceedings, [8] but submitted a written statement. [9]

On 16 March 2022, the court ruled 13–2 that Russia must "immediately suspend the military operations" it commenced on 24 February 2022 in Ukraine, [4] with Vice-President Kirill Gevorgian of Russia and Judge Xue Hanqin of China dissenting. [5] The court also unanimously called for "[b]oth Parties [to] refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve". [4] In addition to a brief summary of its decision, [4] the ICJ issued a 20-page order explaining its reasoning. [10] Six judges filed separate statements explaining their individual views on the case, including Vice-President Gevorgian and Judge Xue. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

While the court's decisions are binding on member states, the court has no means of enforcing its orders directly. [17] [18] In rare cases, countries have ignored rulings in the past. [17] [19]

Court's reasoning

The court first determined that it had jurisdiction to order provisional relief "pursuant to Article IX of the Genocide Convention", which empowers the ICJ to resolve disputes over the interpretation, application, or fulfillment of the convention. The court explained that Article IX applied because Russia and Ukraine had a dispute over whether genocide is occurring in Donetsk and Luhansk.

The court then found that Ukraine had "a plausible right not to be subjected to military operations by the Russian Federation for the purpose of preventing and punishing an alleged genocide" in its territory. One reason for this finding was that there was no evidence before the court substantiating Russia's allegations of genocide. The court also found it "doubtful" that the convention, in light of its object and purpose, authorizes a contracting party's unilateral use of force in the territory of another state for the purpose of preventing or punishing an alleged genocide. [20]

The court then determined that there was a plausible link between Ukraine's asserted rights under the Genocide Convention and the main provisional relief it sought—the suspension of Russia's military operations—although it found that such a link was lacking for two other forms of relief requested by Ukraine. The two rights asserted by Ukraine were the right "not to be subject to a false claim of genocide" and the right to "not to be subjected to another State's military operations on its territory based on [an abuse] of the Genocide Convention".

Finally, the court ruled that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to Ukraine's rights and the situation in Ukraine was sufficiently urgent to warrant provisional relief. On this issue, the court found that "the civilian population affected by the present conflict is extremely vulnerable. The 'special military operation' being conducted by the Russian Federation has resulted in numerous civilian deaths and injuries. It has also caused significant material damage, including the destruction of buildings and infrastructure. Attacks are ongoing and are creating increasingly difficult living conditions for the civilian population. Many persons have no access to the most basic foodstuffs, potable water, electricity, essential medicines or heating. A very large number of people are attempting to flee from the most affected cities under extremely insecure conditions." [10]

Separate statements

Vice-president Gevorgian and Judge Xue disagreed that the ICJ had jurisdiction, writing that Ukraine was really seeking a ruling on the legality of the Russian invasion, and that this did not raise a genuine dispute under the Genocide Convention. [11] [13] Judge Mohamed Bennouna also expressed doubts about the applicability of the Genocide Convention, but said that "I voted in favour of the Order indicating provisional measures in this case because I felt compelled by this tragic situation, in which terrible suffering is being inflicted on the Ukrainian people, to join the call by the ICJ to bring an end to the war." [12]

Judge ad hoc Yves Daudet wrote separately to criticize the ICJ for ordering both Ukraine and Russia "to refrain from any act that might aggravate or extend the dispute", arguing that "this measure of non-aggravation of the dispute should have been directed solely at the Russian Federation, which I recall was designated by the United Nations General Assembly as the perpetrator of aggression against Ukraine." [16] The remaining two judges' separate opinions provided additional supporting reasons for the court's order. [14] [15]

Reactions to decision

Shortly after the decision was released, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy hailed the ruling as a complete victory for his country, [5] saying that ignoring the order would further isolate Russia. [19] [21] UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the decision reinforced his repeated appeals for peace. [18]

The following day, Group of Seven foreign ministers released a joint statement accusing Russia of conducting an "unprovoked and shameful war" and calling on the country to abide by the court's decision. [22] [23] Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov rejected the decision, saying that Russia could not "take this decision into account" and that without consent from both sides the decision was not valid. [24]

Following an extraordinary summit in Brussels, NATO leaders released a joint statement condemning Russian attacks on civilians and calling on Russia to immediately suspend military operations as ordered by the court. [25]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Court of Justice</span> Primary judicial organ of the United Nations

The International Court of Justice, also called the World Court, is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between nations, and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. It is one of the six organs of the United Nations (UN), and is located in The Hague, Netherlands.

Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation to the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that some international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as to the concept of jus cogens – that certain international law obligations are binding on all states.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), or the Genocide Convention, is an international treaty that criminalizes genocide and obligates state parties to pursue the enforcement of its prohibition. It was the first legal instrument to codify genocide as a crime, and the first human rights treaty unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, on 9 December 1948, during the third session of the United Nations General Assembly. The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951 and has 152 state parties as of 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bosnian genocide</span> Murder of Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats during the Bosnian War

The Bosnian genocide refers to either the Srebrenica massacre or the wider crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing campaign throughout areas controlled by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) during the Bosnian War of 1992–1995. The events in Srebrenica in 1995 included the killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys, as well as the mass expulsion of another 25,000–30,000 Bosniak civilians by VRS units under the command of General Ratko Mladić.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International criminal law</span> Public international law

International criminal law (ICL) is a body of public international law designed to prohibit certain categories of conduct commonly viewed as serious atrocities and to make perpetrators of such conduct criminally accountable for their perpetration. The core crimes under international law are genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bosnian genocide case</span> 2007 International Court of Justice decision

Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro [2007] ICJ 2 is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice.

<i>Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 case</i> 2002 International court of Justice case

Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) [2002] ICJ 1 was a public international law case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with a judgment issued on 14 February 2002.

An atrocity crime is a violation of international criminal law that falls under the historically three legally defined international crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Ethnic cleansing is widely regarded as a fourth mass atrocity crime by legal scholars and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in the field, despite not yet being recognized as an independent crime under international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Xue Hanqin</span> Judge of the International Court of Justice

Xue Hanqin is a Chinese jurist at the International Court of Justice. On 29 June 2010, she was elected to fill the vacancy created by Shi Jiuyong's resignation on 28 May 2010. She is one of three female judges serving on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and one of only four women elected as members of the Court to date. Xue is the fifth Chinese judge at the ICJ, and the third representing the People's Republic of China.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Julia Sebutinde</span> Ugandan judge

Julia Sebutinde is a Ugandan jurist. She is currently serving her second term on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) following her re-election on 12 November 2020. She also is the current chancellor of Muteesa I Royal University, a university owned by Buganda kingdom. She has been a judge on the court since March 2012. She is the first African woman to sit on the ICJ. Before being elected to the ICJ, Sebutinde was a judge of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. She was appointed to that position in 2007. On February 6, 2024, Julia Sebutinde was elected Vice-President of the International Court of Justice.

Kirill Goratsiyevich Gevorgian is a Russian-Armenian jurist and diplomat. From 2003 to 2009, he served as Russia's ambassador to the Netherlands. In 2014, he was elected to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for a term beginning the following year.

<i>Ukraine v. Russian Federation</i> (2017) Case at the International Court of Justice

The case Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination is a case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). On January 16, 2017, a representative of Ukraine filed a lawsuit at the International Court of Justice to hold the Russian Federation liable for committing acts of "terrorism" and discrimination against Ukraine. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Terrorist Financing Convention and International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rohingya genocide case</span> 2019 International Court of Justice case

The Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , commonly referred to as the Rohingya genocide case, is a case which is currently being heard by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The case was brought forward by the Republic of The Gambia, on behalf of 57 members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in 2019.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine</span> Russian war crimes in Ukraine

Since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Russian military and authorities have committed many deliberate attacks against civilian targets, massacres of civilians, torture and rape of women and children, torture and mutilitation of Ukrainian prisoners of war, and indiscriminate attacks in densely populated areas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">On conducting a special military operation</span> 2022 speech by Russian president Vladimir Putin

"On conducting a special military operation" was a televised broadcast by Russian president Vladimir Putin on 24 February 2022, announcing the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine violated international law. The invasion has also been called a crime of aggression under international criminal law, and under some countries' domestic criminal codes – including those of Ukraine and Russia – although procedural obstacles exist to prosecutions under these laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine</span>

During the Russian invasion of Ukraine, national parliaments including those of Poland, Ukraine, Canada, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ireland declared that genocide was taking place. Scholars and commentators including Eugene Finkel, Timothy D. Snyder and Gregory Stanton; and legal experts such as Otto Luchterhandt and Zakhar Tropin, have made claims of varying degrees of certainty that Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine. A comprehensive report by the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights concluded that there exists a "very serious risk of genocide" in Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Child abductions in the Russo-Ukrainian War</span> Forced Russian adoption of Ukrainian children

During the Russo-Ukrainian War, Russia has forcibly transferred thousands of Ukrainian children to areas under its control, assigned them Russian citizenship, forcibly adopted them into Russian families, and created obstacles for their reunification with their parents and homeland. The United Nations has stated that these deportations constitute war crimes. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Children's Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova for their alleged involvement. According to international law, including the 1948 Genocide Convention, such acts constitute genocide if done with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a nation or ethnic group.

During the build-up to its invasion of Ukraine, Russia falsely accused Ukraine of genocide against Russian speakers in the Donbas region. Ukraine fought a war against Russian proxy forces in the Donbas War from 2014 to 2022. Russia's president Vladimir Putin used this claim of genocide to justify the invasion of Ukraine. There is no evidence to support the allegation and it has been widely rejected.

<i>South Africa v. Israel</i> (Genocide Convention) 2023 case at International Court of Justice

The proceedings instituted by South Africa against Israel on 29 December 2023 before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are officially referred to as Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip .

References

  1. ↑ Hinton, Alexander (25 February 2022). "Putin's claims that Ukraine is committing genocide are baseless, but not unprecedented". The Conversation . Archived from the original on 7 March 2022. Retrieved 7 March 2022.
  2. 1 2 3 Poskakukhin, Andrey (27 February 2022). "Ukraine institutes proceedings against the Russian Federation and requests the Court to indicate provisional measures" (PDF). International Court of Justice . pp. 1–2. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 February 2022. Retrieved 7 March 2022.
  3. ↑ "Application Instituting Proceedings" (PDF). International Court of Justice. 26 February 2022.
  4. 1 2 3 4 "Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation): The Court indicates provisional measures" (PDF) (Press release). International Court of Justice. 16 March 2022. Retrieved 16 March 2022.
  5. 1 2 3 Quell, Molly (16 March 2022). "International Court of Justice orders Russia to cease hostilities in Ukraine". The Globe and Mail . Retrieved 16 March 2022.
  6. ↑ "International Court of Justice, 2022 16 March General List No. 182, Order" (PDF). International Court of Justice Official Website. Retrieved 22 April 2022.
  7. ↑ Wintour, Patrick (7 March 2022). "International court of justice to fast-track ruling on Russian invasion". The Guardian . London. Archived from the original on 7 March 2022. Retrieved 7 March 2022.
  8. ↑ Schnell, Mychael (7 March 2022). "Russian representatives skip UN court hearing on Ukraine". The Hill . Archived from the original on 7 March 2022. Retrieved 7 March 2022.
  9. ↑ "Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)". International Court of Justice . Archived from the original on 13 March 2022. Retrieved 14 March 2022.
  10. 1 2 "Allegations of Genocide Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation): Order on Provisional Measures" (PDF). International Court of Justice. 16 March 2022.
  11. 1 2 "Declaration of Vice-President Gevorgian" (PDF).
  12. 1 2 "Declaration of Judge Bennouna" (PDF).
  13. 1 2 "Declaration of Judge Xue" (PDF).
  14. 1 2 "Separate Opinion of Judge Robinson" (PDF).
  15. 1 2 "Declaration of Judge Nolte" (PDF).
  16. 1 2 "Declaration of Judge ad hoc Daudet" (PDF).
  17. 1 2 The Associated Press (16 March 2022). "Russia and Ukraine express optimism around diplomatic talks, as Kyiv comes under heavy fire". CBC News . Retrieved 16 March 2022.
  18. 1 2 "International Court orders Russia to 'immediately suspend' military operations in Ukraine". United Nations News. 16 March 2022. Retrieved 16 March 2022.
  19. 1 2 Noack, Rick (16 March 2022). "U.N. court orders Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine, in a largely symbolic ruling". The Washington Post . Retrieved 16 March 2022.
  20. ↑ "International Court of Justice, 2022 16 March General List No. 182, Order" (PDF). International Court of Justice Official Website. Retrieved 22 April 2022. The Court can only take a decision on the Applicant's claims if the case proceeds to the merits. At the present stage of the proceedings, it suffices to observe that the Court is not in possession of evidence substantiating the allegation of the Russian Federation that genocide has been committed on Ukrainian territory. Moreover, it is doubtful that the Convention, in light of its object and purpose, authorizes a Contracting Party's unilateral use of force in the territory of another State for the purpose of preventing or punishing an alleged genocide.
  21. ↑ Borger, Julian (16 March 2022). "UN international court of justice orders Russia to halt invasion of Ukraine". The Guardian . Retrieved 16 March 2022.
  22. ↑ The Associated Press (17 March 2022). "Russian forces pound Ukraine's capital, target western city of Lviv". CBC News . Retrieved 18 March 2022.
  23. ↑ G7 Foreign Ministers (17 March 2022). "G7 Chair's Statement on today's G7 call" (Press release). Federal Foreign Office . Retrieved 18 March 2022.{{cite press release}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  24. ↑ "Kremlin, As Expected, Rejects ICJ Ruling To Halt Ukraine Invasion". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty . 17 March 2022. Retrieved 18 March 2022.
  25. ↑ "Statement by NATO Heads of State and Government" (Press release). Brussels: NATO. 24 March 2022. Retrieved 30 March 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.