On Feb. 28, Ukrainian representatives presented oral arguments before the International Court of Justice, the UN’s principal judicial body, seeking so-called provisional orders directing Russia to “immediately suspend military operations commenced on 24 February 2022.”
Ukraine argued that Russia used false claims of genocide to justify an illegal invasion. Jean-Marc Thouvenin, one of the Ukrainian representatives, described Russia’s claims of genocide as “delusional.” Thouvenin referred the court to statements made by Russian President Vladimir Putin that Russia was invading “to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime.” This alleged genocide has been used as justification for invasion on several occasions by both Putin and the Russian representative to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia.
In addition to denying the Kremlin’s accusations of genocide, Ukraine has accused Russia of planning acts of genocide itself by “intentionally killing and inflicting serious injury on members of the Ukrainian nationality” with “genocidal intent.”
The request for provisional orders stems from Ukraine’s suit, filed February 26, alleging violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Both parties have ratified the treaty, which allows for submission of disputes to the Hague-based ICJ.
While the ICJ typically takes years to fully review a case, the court can decide on provisional orders within days. The court’s president, American judge Joan Donoghue, said Monday it will do so “as soon as possible.”
Regardless of when the ICJ issues potential provisional orders, they are unlikely to put an end to Russian military actions. As Donoghue herself has said in the past, “[while] the ICJ may be known by the nickname ‘World Court,’ ... there is no international sheriff.” If a nation chooses to ignore an ICJ judgment, and around one out of four do, the court will not enforce it. Compliance is a matter left to the states.
Moscow has clearly indicated it is not overly concerned or interested in any orders the ICJ might issue regarding its invasion of Ukraine. During oral arguments on Monday, the tables where the Russian delegation would normally have sat were conspicuously empty. The Russian ambassador to the Netherlands had informed the court that “his government did not intend to participate in the oral proceedings,” according to Donoghue.
However, Russia’s disregard for the provisional order proceedings does not render Ukraine’s underlying suit futile.
Ukraine also seeks a public declaration from the court that Russia’s accusations of genocide are false and that its military actions are illegal. Such an acknowledgement could further undermine Moscow’s position in the international community and bring to bear more diplomatic pressure from abroad.
Additionally, and perhaps just as importantly, such a declaration could diminish the Kremlin’s ability to control the narrative at home, where it faces heavy protests despite its claims of protecting ethnic Russians from genocide. The fact that Russia has ratified the ICJ under Article 93 of the UN Charter, submitted to its jurisdiction via various treaties, and holds a permanent seat on its tribunal, may make it more difficult for Moscow to convincingly dismiss an unfavorable verdict as mere Western propaganda.
Hopefully, these pressures, together with Western sanctions and Ukrainian resistance, will eventually deter Russian aggression. For now, though, Ukraine’s pleas for help are punctuated by Russian artillery.
“As I am speaking, the Russian Federation continues its relentless assaults on our cities, on our towns, on our villages, on our people,” Ukrainian representative Oksana Zolotaryova told the court.
“We can only guess how many more will be murdered ... if this senseless aggression does not stop.”
Brandt Henslee, a Salt Lake City native, is a lawyer specializing in international litigation and arbitration and a graduate of Harvard Law School.
from The Salt Lake Tribune https://ift.tt/cQqL5Zg
إرسال تعليق