International Court of Justice and Provisional Measures under the Genocide Convention: Curious Case of Ukraine v. Russian Federation

Atul Alexander

doi:10.17561/tahrj.v21.7781

Authors

Atul Alexander Assistant Professor (Law)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17561/tahrj.v21.7781

Keywords:

Genocide, Ukraine, Russia, International Court of Justice, Provisional Measures

Abstract

The ongoing Russian aggression on Ukraine has prompted Ukrainian President Zelensky to seek the assistance of States and international institutions. One such institution that Ukraine approached is the International Court of Justice (ICJ), requesting provisional measures. Ukraine contends that the Russian Federation has falsely claimed that acts of Genocide have occurred in the Luhansk and Donetsk oblast in Eastern Ukraine. In this article, the author details the provisional measures rendered by the ICJ; in doing so, it is contended that the interpretation of the ICJ vis-à-vis the Genocide Convention is flexible and broad, a stark contrast to its previous cases.

References

Abass, A. (2007). Proving State Responsibility for Genocide: The ICJ in Bosnia v. Serbia and the International Commission of Inquiry for Darfur, Fordham International Law Journal. 31(4). [Online]. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144225818.pdf

Akande, D. (1996). The Role of the International Court of Justice in the Maintenance of International Peace. African Journal of International and Comparative Law, 592. [Online]. Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/afjincol8&div=38&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals.

Alexander, A. (2022). Russia-Ukraine Dispute and Third-Party Intervention in ICJ: What to Expect? Berkeley Journal of International Law. [Online]. Available at: https://www.berkeleyjournalofinternationallaw.com/post/russia-ukraine-dispute-and-third-party-intervention-in-icj-what-to-expect. [Accessed 24 Oct 2022].

BBC (2022). Ukraine crisis: Vladimir Putin address fact-checked. [Online]. British Broadcasting Corporation News. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/60477712 [Accessed 18 April 2022].

Becker, M.A. (2020). The plight of the Rohingya: Genocide allegations and provisional measures in The Gambia v Myanmar at the International Court of Justice. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 21(2), pp. 428-449, p. 428. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3688935

Burns, D. L. (2010). Dolus Specialis: The International Criminal Tribunals’ Interpretations Of Genocidal Intent. [Online]. Available at: https://dra.american.edu/islandora/object/0910capstones%253A177/datastream/PDF/view [Accessed 31 March 2022].

Dugan, K. T. (2022). Are the Sanctions Against Russia Working or Not? [Online]. New York Magazine. Available at: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/04/are-the-sanctions-against-russia-working-or-not.html [Accessed 9 April 2022].

Glanville, L. (2021). Questioning the Coherence of an Extraterritorial Legal Obligation to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. OPINIO JURIS. [Online]. Available at: http://opiniojuris.org/2021/12/06/questioning-the-coherence-of-an-extraterritorial-legal-obligation-to-prevent-genocide-and-crimes-against-humanity/ [Accessed 13 April 2022].

Green, A. J., Henderson, C., Ruys, T. (2022). Russia’s attack on Ukraine and the jus ad bellum, Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, 9:1, 4-30. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2022.2056803

Kammerhofer, J. (2003). The Binding Nature of Provisional Measures of the International Court of Justice: the ‘Settlement’ of the Issue in the LaGrand Case. Leiden Journal of International Law, 16, pp 67-83. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156503001043.

Kempen B., He, Z. (2009). The Practice of the International Court of Justice on Provisional Measures: The Recent Development. Zeitschrift fur auslndisches offentliches Recht und V6lkerrecht, 69(3), p. 920. [Online]. Available at: https://www.zaoerv.de/69_2009/69_2009_4_a_919_930.pdf

Kounalakis, M., (2016). China’s position on international intervention: A media and journalism critical discourse analysis of its case for “Sovereignty” versus “Responsibility to Protect” principles in Syria. Global Media and China, 1(3). [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/2059436416654918.

KULICK, A., (2022). Provisional Measures after Ukraine v Russia. Journal of International Dispute Settlement. 13(2), pp. 323-340. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idac012.

Lauterpacht, H. (1958). The Development of International Law by the International Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 254.

Lee-Iwamoto, Y. (2012). The Repercussions of the LaGrand Judgment: Recent ICJ Jurisprudence of Provisional Measures. Japanese Yearbook of International Law, 55: 237-262, p. 237. [Online]. Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jpyintl55&div=12&id=&page=

Linderfalk, U. (2007). The Effect of Jus Cogens Norms: Whoever Opened Pandora's Box, Did You Ever Think About the Consequences? European Journal of International Law, 18(5), 856 [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm044.

Lopez, J., Worthington, B., (2022) What’s the Status of Ukraine’s Case Against Russia at the ICJ? 21 April 2022. LAWFARE. [Online]. Available at: https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-status-ukraines-case-against-russia-icj [Accessed 21 April 2022].

McGarry, B. (2022). Mass Intervention?: The Joint Statement of 41 States on Ukraine v. Russia, 30 May 2022, Blog of the European Journal of International Law. [Online]. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/mass-intervention-the-joint-statement-of-41-states-on-ukraine-v-russia/.

Mclaughlin, R. (2022), Keeping The Ukraine-Russia Jus Ad Bellum And Jus In Bello Issues Separate. [Online]. Lieber Institute. Available at: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/keeping-ukraine-russia-jus-ad-bellum-jus-in-bello-issues-separate/ [Accessed 7 March 2022].

Miles, C. A., (2017). Prejudice and Urgency in Provisional Measures before International Courts and Tribunals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 225-273.

Miles, C. (2018). Provisional Measures and the ‘New’ Plausibility in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. British Yearbook of International Law. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/bybil/bry011.

Nanda, V. P. (2022). Legal Implications of NATO's Armed Intervention in Kosovo. International Law Studies. [Online]. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1424&context=ils.

Northwestern. Ad Hoc Tribunals. Pritzker Legal Research Center. https://library.law.northwestern.edu/IntlCrimLaw/AdHoc [Accessed 30 March 2022].

Rabi, M. N. (2019). Obviously It Is Israeli Genocide Of The Palestinians! In Pursuit Of Truth In International Life And Law. International Journal of Legal Studies and Research, 38. [Online]. Available at: https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Obviously-it-is-Israeli-Genocide-of-the-Palestinians-In-Pursuit-of-Truth-in-International-Life-and-Law

Radio Free Europe (2019). Operation Allied Force The NATO Bombing Of Yugoslavia. [Online]. Available at: https://www.rferl.org/a/operation-allied-force-before-after/29831978.html [Accessed 1 April 2022].

Rael, A. (2021). Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Gambia v. Myanmar): The International Court of Justice's First Binding Decision to Hold Myanmar Accountable for Committing Genocidal Acts against the Rohingya Group. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 29(2), 377-390, p.386.

Ramsden, M. (2023). Strategic Litigation in Wartime: Judging the Russian Invasion of Ukraine through the Genocide Convention. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 56, no. 1: 181-210, p.195. [Online]. Available at: https://www.transnat.org/post/strategic-litigation-in-wartime.

Ranjan, P., Anil, A. (2022). Russia-Ukraine War, ICJ, and the Genocide. Convention, Indonesian Journal of International & Comparative Law, 9(1), 101-114.

Rieter, E. R. (2010). Preventing Irreparable Harm Provisional Measures in International Human Rights Adjudication. Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia, p.16.

Rosenne, S. (2004). 'Introducing the Topic', Provisional Measures in International Law: The International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Oxford: Oxford Academic, 22 March 2012.

Russell, M. (2022) Western sanctions and Russia What are they? Do they work. European Parliamentary Research Service. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/698930/EPRS_IDA(2022)698930_EN.pdf [Accessed 21 April, 2022].

Siddiqui, Z., Liu, N., Posthumus, D., Zvobgo, K. (2022). Could Putin Actually Face Accountability at the ICC? [Online]. Foreign Policy Magazine. Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/04/icc-investigation-russia-ukraine-putin-war-crimes / [Accessed 4 March 2022].

Stoica, V. (2021). Provisional Measures in Remedies before the International Court of Justice, 13–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.17.

Sztucki J. (1983). Interim Measures in the Hague Court. An Attempt at a Scrutiny. Deventer, Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, p. 293.

Tomuschat, C. (2007). Reparation in Cases of Genocide. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 5(4), pp. 905–912. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqm040.

United Nations (2022a). As Russian Federation’s Invasion of Ukraine Creates New Global Era, Member States Must Take Sides, Choose between Peace, Aggression, General Assembly Hears [Online]. United Nations Meetings Coverages and Press Releases. Available at: https://www.un.org/press/en/2022/ga12406.doc.htm [Accessed 7 March, 2022].

United Nations (2022b). General Assembly resolution demands end to Russian offensive in Ukraine. [Online]. United Nations News. Available at: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113152 [Accessed 13 March 2022].

United Nations (2022c). Human Rights Council to establish Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. [Online]. United Nations News. Available at: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113292 [Accessed 16 March 2022].

United Nations (2022d). Peace and Security. [Online]. United Nations News. Available at: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/02/1112802 [Accessed 12 March 2022].

United Nations (2022e). The Genocide Convention Background [Online]. United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml [Accessed 21 March 2022].

United Nations (2022f). Ukraine: World must unite in face of Russia’s ‘violation of international law’ [Online]. United Nations News, Global Perspective Human Perspectives. Available at: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113692 [Accessed 5 March 2022].

Vrdoljak, A. F. (2011). Genocide and Restitution: Ensuring Each Group's Contribution to Humanity. European Journal of International Law, 22(1), 29. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chr003.

Zyberi, G. (2007). The development and interpretation of international Human Rights and humanitarian law rules and principles through the case-law of the International Court of Justice. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 25(1), pp.117-139, at p. 136.

Zyberi, G. (2011). The International Court of Justice and Applied Forms of Reparation for International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Violations. Utrecht Law Review, 7(1), 204-215. At p.211. [Online]. Available at: DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.155.