ICJ: Ukraine v. Russian Federation: Order of 16 March 2022 in the Case Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Lukáš Mareček

doi:10.46282/blr.2022.6.2.307

Authors

Lukáš Mareček Comenius University Bratislava https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7212-676X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46282/blr.2022.6.2.307

Keywords:

Provisional Measures, Jurisdiction, Ukraine, Russian Federation, International Court of Justice

Abstract

The author of the paper writes about the order of the International Court of Justice indicating provisional measures on a basis of Ukraine’s request. The request was to a larger degree granted. In the paper, the author points out that the fact that the order was issued does not resolve the issue of jurisdiction, which remains to be decided and could be crucial for Ukraine to maintain in its argumentation as the link between the case and the Genocide Convention (1948) seems to be rather weak. Secondly, the author thinks about the consequences of the “not to aggravate the situation” measure which was imposed also on Ukraine.

Author Biography

Lukáš Mareček, Comenius University Bratislava

Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Law
Department of International Law and International Relations
Šafárikovo nám. 6,
818 00 Bratislava; Slovakia
lukas.marecek@flaw.uniba.sk

References

Al Jazeera and News Agencies (2022). Russia alleges Ukrainian helicopters struck Belgorod fuel depot. Al Jazeera, published on 1 April 2022. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/1/russia-alleges-ukrainian-helicopters-struck-belgorod-fuel-depot/ (accessed on 30.09.2022).

Al Jazeera Staff (2022). ‘No other option’: Excerpts of Putin’s speech declaring war. Al Jazeera, published on 24 February 2022. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/24/putins-speech-declaring-war-on-ukraine-translated-excerpts/ (accessed on 30.09.2022).

Bothe, M. (2003). Terrorism and the Legality of Pre-emptive Force. European Journal of International Law, volume 14(2), 227-240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/14.2.227 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/14.2.227

Gotev, G. (2022). In Putin’s words: Why Russia invaded Ukraine. Euractiv, published on 24 February 2022. Available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/in-putins-words-why-russia-invaded-ukraine/ (accessed on 30.09.2022).

Lando, M. (2015). Compliance with Provisional Measures Indicated by the International Court of Justice. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 8(1), 22-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idv029 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idv029

Mareček, L. (2022). Dočasné opatrenia [Provisional Measures]. Bratislava Legal Forum 2022, Not published yet.

Molier, G. (2006). Humanitarian Intervention and The Responsibility to Protect After 9/11. Netherlands International Law Review, 53(1), 37-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X06000374 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X06000374

Ozoráková, L. (2022). The Road to Finding a Definition for the Crime of Genocide – the Importance of the Genocide Convention. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 21(2), 278-301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341475 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341475

Pattison, J. (2010). Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility To Protect. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199561049.001.0001

Reisman, W. and Armstrong, A. (2006). The Past and Future of the Claim of Preemptive Self-Defense. American Journal of International Law, 100(3), 525–550. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0002930000031043 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0002930000031043

Schabas, W. (2022). Preventing Genocide and the Ukraine/Russia case. EJIL Talk!, published on 10 March 2022. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/preventing-genocide-and-the-ukraine-russia-case/ (accessed on 30.09.2022).

Trnovszká, L. (2016). Responsibility to Protect Doctrine – step forward to a more secure world?. Bratislava Legal Forum 2016: Trends in development and creativity in the area of international law at the beginning of the 21st century. Bratislava, Comenius University, Faculty of Law, pp. 41-48.

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, 43.

Declaration of Judge Ad Hoc Daudet. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220316-ORD-01-06-EN.pdf (accessed on 30.09.2022).

Declaration of Judge Bennouna. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220316-ORD-01-02-EN.pdf (accessed on 30.09.2022).

Declaration of Judge Xue. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220316-ORD-01-03-EN.pdf (accessed on 30.09.2022).

Declaration of Vice-President Gevorgian. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220316-ORD-01-01-EN.pdf (accessed on 30.09.2022).

Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Belgium), Provisional Measures, Order of 2 June 1999, I.C.J. Reports 1999, 138.

Military and Paramilitary Activities in und against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.

Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 253.

Order of 16 March 2022 in the case Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation).

Request for Indication of Provisional Measures Submitted by Ukraine. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220227-WRI-01-00-EN.pdf (accessed on 30.09.2022).

Separate Opinion of the Judge Robinson. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220316-ORD-01-04-EN.pdf (accessed on 30.09.2022).

Ukraine’s Request for the indication of provisional measures. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220227-WRI-01-00-EN.pdf (accessed on 30.09.2022).