The International Court of Justice on Wednesday ordered Russia to halt its military operations in Ukraine, issuing a preliminary but likely unenforceable order in a lawsuit by Kyiv alleging that the Kremlin justified its invasion on the false pretext of ending an alleged genocide in the Russian-speaking Luhansk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine. . Donetsk regions.
The World Court, the United Nations arm based in The Hague, has no independent authority to enforce its decisions, and Russia has already said the 15-member tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the dispute.
But the 13-2 decision, with only Russian and Chinese judges disagreeing, adds a legal dimension to the diplomatic condemnation and economic sanctions that the Kremlin’s intrusion has provoked around the world.
International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands.
Photo: Vyacheslav Prokofiev/Zuma Press
Separately, the International Criminal Court, also based in The Hague, launched an investigation into possible war crimes committed in Ukraine. While the International Court of Justice hears disputes between countries, the International Criminal Court can try those who are considered most guilty of atrocities.
ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan traveled to western Ukraine and Poland on Wednesday, holding a virtual meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and visiting a refugee center. He said he also sought to meet with Russian officials.
Mr Khan said he was working “to establish the truth and ensure that those responsible for international crimes are held accountable in court.” Those participating in hostilities “should be aware that by wearing uniforms or carrying weapons, they are not relieved of responsibility, but take on additional legal obligations.”
Actions against Russia are also pending before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, which has issued provisional measures ordering Moscow to stop “military attacks on the civilian population and civilian objects.”
ICJ President Joan Donoghue, reading out Wednesday’s decision at the Peace Palace in The Hague, said that Ukraine had presented plausible arguments and therefore Moscow should stop hostilities so as not to cause more damage while the trial is underway.
“The Court is keenly aware of the magnitude of the human tragedy taking place in Ukraine and is deeply concerned by the ongoing loss of life and human suffering,” said Judge Donoghue, an American and a former lawyer for the US State Department. According to her, Russia’s use of force “raises very serious questions of international law.”
The court’s decision states: “Ukraine believes that the Russian Federation has ‘turned the Genocide Convention on its head’ by making the false claim of genocide the basis for actions on its part that constitute gross violations of the human rights of millions of people across Ukraine.”
Both Russia and Ukraine are parties to the Genocide Convention and have given the world court the power to resolve disputes under this treaty. But only the UN Security Council can take action to enforce the court’s decisions, which is unlikely since Russia has veto power.
Russia failed to appear at a hearing in the Ukraine case last week, instead submitting a letter waiving the court’s jurisdiction over the dispute.
In a letter to the Magistrate’s Court, Moscow stated that it did not formally invoke the Genocide Convention when reporting its military operations to the UN, and that Russian officials’ comments on the alleged genocide could not give jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice.
“While President Putin’s address ‘to the citizens of Russia’, which was attached to the notification, could in certain contexts refer to genocide, this reference is not the same as referring to the Convention as a legal justification for its operation,” Russia argued, the conclusion said. .
The court disagreed, finding that Russian officials had been accusing Kyiv of genocide since 2014 and that a state agency in Moscow was preparing charges against Ukrainian officials. The opinion states that there was clearly enough dispute over the treaty to justify court intervention.
The court’s provisional measures are “binding,” Judge Donoghue said, “and thus create obligations under international law” for the states subject to them.
The court stated that it had no credible evidence to support Russia’s accusations of genocide.
However, Ukraine did not receive everything it asked for. The court refused Kiev’s request to oblige Moscow to report weekly on its actions to implement the decision of the International Court of Justice.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Does it make sense for a world court decision that cannot be enforced because Russia has veto power in the UN Security Council? Join the discussion below.
Judges Kirill Gevorgyan, a former Russian diplomat, and Xue Hanqin, a former Chinese diplomat and law professor, disagreed. Their written statements were not immediately available.
Judges from Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Jamaica, Japan, Lebanon, Morocco, Slovakia, Somalia and Uganda joined Judge Donoghue in the majority, as did Ukraine’s provisional judge.
Wednesday’s decision showed the court likely had jurisdiction but left the final decision on the matter to further proceedings.
The judges unanimously instructed Russia and Ukraine to refrain from actions “which may aggravate or prolong the dispute before the Court or make its resolution more difficult.”
In a virtual address to Congress on Wednesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky referred to Pearl Harbor and the events of 9/11 in a repeated call for a no-fly zone and asked the US to tighten sanctions and other economic sanctions on Russia. Photo: Drew Angerer/Press Pool
Write to Jess Bravin at [email protected]
Copyright © 2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8