hidden by order of the International Court of Justice
(Rubric “Point of view”)
Anton Korinevich
Timur Short
March 16, 2022 United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) decided to decide on interim measures in the case of Ukraine “On charges of genocide in accordance with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”.
The dispute was initiated by Ukraine in response to Orwellian, fabricated and unfounded accusations of genocide by Russia. As the writer put it: “When there is a gap between your true goals and your stated ones, you instinctively add to long words and shabby idioms.”
The legal basis of the dispute was Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocideadopted in 198.
Ukraine and Russia are parties to the Convention. And, according to Art. IX of the Convention, all disputes concerning the interpretation, application or implementation of this Convention shall be submitted for consideration International Court of Justice at the request of either party to the dispute. That is, the Court’s jurisdiction over these matters is almost indisputable.
It was this opportunity that Ukraine used to debunk the distorted and distorted accusations of genocide by the Russian Federation and to launch a legal offensive to bring Russia to international responsibility for violating mandatory rules of international law.
It is important that these fake, false accusations of Ukraine were used by Russia as beautiful house to continue the aggressive war against Ukraine, which was unleashed in 2014 and escalated on a large scale in 2022.
Make legal chess and checkmate
Russia distorted reality and violated all the fundamental rules of international law.
Therefore, these fakes are very important in the real substantiated accusations of the Russian Federation itself in distorting, abusing and violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. That Convention, which is a national work after the tuning fork of horrors The Holocaust. It is important not just to debunk the state fakes of the Russian Federation, but to legally refute them and actually accuse the Russian Federation of unprovoked aggression against Ukraine in the UN Security Council. Thus, make a legal chess and checkmate in the highest international judicial body.
Such a legal move to refute accusations of violating international law is not common in international jurisprudence. This approach uses the creativity of Ukraine’s legal position, which has driven Russia into legal tsugwang by introducing the possibilities provided for in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
It is also important that Ukraine made this move quickly – after the beginning of a new wave of Russian aggression on February 24, 2022.
On February 26, Ukraine filed a lawsuit and a statement to the UN Security Council requesting the application of interim measures. The court session took place on March 7, and on March 16 the Court issued an order to apply interim measures. The order fully meets the requirements of Ukraine, and in some ways even exceeds expectations. The Court of Orders of Russia carries out the following temporary measures:
- the possibility to stop military operations, to begin on February 24, 2022 on the territory of Ukraine;
- to support that any military or any other organization or person under Russian control does not continue military operations (13 judges “for”, 2, Russian and Chinese judges – “against”).
This is a legal enshrinement in the order of the UN International Court of Justice of the fact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, its illegality and groundlessness. Since the Court does not have direct jurisdiction to qualify a, the decision of indirect action on its existence and international illegality of the Russian Federation.
The decision states that “Armed attack cannot cover up genocide victims”. Thus, in fact, the Court has shown the existence of Russian aggression and the inadmissibility of justifying aggression by accusations of genocide.
Another important point mentioned in the decision is the unfoundedness of the accusation by Russia: “The court has no evidence to support Russia’s allegation of genocide in Ukraine». This completely negates any accusations of the Russian Federation, carries out their lies and reduces them to the rank of Russian state policy and propaganda.
It is significant that the main decision is made by the majority of judges of the UN Security Council – 13 against 2 (voted “against” only judges from Russia and China). This is an additional argument about the quality of Ukraine’s legal position and those destroyed not only as a result of the crime against genocide and prevention of the Russian Federation, but also about other fundamental principles and norms of international law.
What does it give?
This decision also has an important political and legal aspect. As the order becomes a strong legal basis based on the authority of the UN Security Council, for other legal and political qualifications and assessments of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in other international courts, international organizations, states and the international community as a whole, decisions on references against Russia and its leadership .
Justifying the urgency of the issue, which is a mandatory procedural element of the decision, the Court points out that the issues are immediate and subsequent military operations, can lead to malicious tragic consequences for the population, as the so-called “special military operation” in Russia has already claimed many lives. among the civilian population and the destruction of civilian objects, citing a resolution of the UN General Assembly on the protection of Russian aggression in Ukraine.
It is this reference that points to the interconnectedness of all Ukraine’s efforts to prove the legitimacy of Russia’s actions, notes opposition to all international institutions and mechanisms for carrying out Russia’s aggression, and holding them accountable for their actions. Resolutions, statements of all states and international organizations are an important contribution to the justification and protection of Ukraine’s position, its protection of territorial integrity.
The order for interim measures has another important procedural meaning.
The first paragraph of the order recognizes the Court in its jurisdiction prima facie, jurisdiction at first sight, which makes it highly likely that the Court will recognize jurisdiction over the dispute as a whole. The same can be said about the probability of Ukraine’s victory in this case on the merits of the stated requirements – the text and arguments of the order, as well as the number of judges who supported it, indicate that Ukraine’s chances are high.
In addition to two specific responsibilities of the Russian Federation, he ordered both sides to refrain from actions that assess the specifics. This is a traditional formula for the Court’s decisions on the application of preliminary measures, aimed at preventing the circumstances that led to the violation of international law, in this case the Russian aggression against Ukraine.
What is Ukraine asking for?
On the agenda of the case on the merits. This is a long one, as an option to apply the order on the application of temporary measures. As to the merits of the dispute, Ukraine asks the Court to find that:
● no crime of “genocide” was committed by Ukraine in the territories of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts;
● Russia has no right to take any action against Ukraine in order to prevent and punish this fictional “genocide”;
● Russia’s recognition of the so-called “DPR” and “LPR” was realized on the basis of fiction and cannot be based on the provisions of the Convention.
Ukraine also asks the Court to oblige Russia to provide non-repetition of illegal acts, including guarantees of illegal use of force; to pay reparations for the damage caused by the violation.
This UN Security Council order on the application of preliminary measures, as well as the future settlement of the dispute on the merits, are steps to bring Russia to international responsibility for aggression and other gross violations of international law against Ukraine.
Anton Korinevich – Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
Timur Short – Vice President of the Ukrainian Association of International Law
Opinions expressed in the section “Point of view” convey the views of the authors themselves and do not fully reflect the position of the editors