The hearings were supposed to take place over two days: the first was devoted to the arguments of Ukraine, the second – to the arguments of Russia. Finally, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), based in The Hague (Netherlands), sat in session on Monday for only a few hours, as Moscow finally decided not to respond to Kiev’s accusations. “They are not brought to justice, they are on the battlefield to wage an aggressive war,” Anton Korynevych, head of the Ukrainian delegation, told the UN judicial body. And remember “Russian bombs and missiles falling on our cities”, about 15,000 people who spend most of their time in the corridors of the Kiev metro, “millions” of people in danger … “Let’s settle our differences.” civilized,” insisted the diplomat, Vladimir Zelensky’s representative in Crimea. Lay down your weapons and show us your evidence. »
What evidence is he talking about? Side note: On Saturday, February 26, two days after the start of the Russian offensive in Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky’s government filed a petition with the International Court of Justice. He accuses Russia of using false arguments to justify invading the country. “This war,” Russia said, “is a way to stop the genocide. On the very morning of the day he ordered the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian president declared: “We must stop this atrocity, this genocide (…).” This is a terrible lie of Putin and our fellow citizens, Ukrainians. are dying,” the diplomat concluded.
“Legally, Russia had the means to defend itself”
It is clear that by its request, Kyiv is asking the international organization to establish that the military action organized by Vladimir Putin has no legal grounds. And that’s why it’s illegal. Thus, it is not a matter of determining whether there is a violation of the sovereignty of the state – in this case the International Court of Justice is not authorized to do this – but whether the 1948 Genocide Convention was used to justify this Russian military action.
“Legally, Russia had the means to defend itself on Monday before the International Court of Justice,” says Elsa Marie, a doctor of public law and an expert in international law. Using the Genocide Convention, despite the fact that the essence of the case concerns the ongoing conflict, the Ukrainian approach in particular can be seen as an instrumentalization of the Court. All the more fragile is the argument on the part of Kyiv that Russia, if it really talks about the “denazification” of Ukraine, never directly relies on the 1948 Convention.
Precautionary measures?
Thus, if Putin’s actions are certainly reprehensible from a moral point of view, then from the point of view of international law? Briefing on such a request could take months, even years, but the IR should decide in the coming days – probably at the end of the week or the beginning of the next – about possible “provisional measures”, an emergency procedure that allows the situation to be frozen. But if they are ordered, will they be applied?
In theory, the measures taken by this organization are mandatory. In practice, however, the Court has no mandatory means. So, if it issues a ceasefire order while it looks into Ukraine’s request, who will enforce it on the ground? The absence of Moscow’s representatives in The Hague on Monday is not an encouraging sign. “Russia knows that international law matters. Otherwise, why would Russia justify its aggression? “Nevertheless, Anton Korinevich hoped.