";s:4:"text";s:6361:" In April 2014, Ukraine lodged an Article 12 (3) Declaration before the ICC accepting ad hoc jurisdiction from November 21, 2013, through February 22, 2014, corresponding to the violent crackdown of the Euromaidan protests, when Ukrainians took to the streets to protest former Ukrainian President Yanukovych’s failure to ratify a treaty with the European Union. However, in the same ruling, judges rejected Ukraine’s request for measures aimed at blocking Russian support for rebels in eastern Ukraine, saying Kyiv did not provide enough evidence to back up its claim that Moscow sponsored “terrorism” by funding and arming the rebels. Some people were saying that maybe Ukraine was too ambitious to raise that particular issue but the government has chosen that particular claim. If it follows that sort of orders and if those orders were taken, I think that could assist quite a lot. Friday’s ruling was limited to the issue of jurisdiction and did not address the merits of Ukraine’s complaints in the case, which related to Russia arming rebels in eastern Ukraine and reining in the rights of ethnic Tartars and other minorities following its annexation of Crimea.
So here, of course, as long as the case goes on, we can’t say there are winners or losers. The international lawyer applauds Ukraine’s success in the specific measures ordered under the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and says that “it was too early” for the Court to judge the other Convention. What does it all mean? That brings me to another point, and that is that the purpose of law, and that includes international law, is to ensure that dignity, rights and obligations of all parties that they are respected regardless of power. The move did not come as […] International Court of Justice 2017-2020 â All rights reserved. The other on the financing of terrorism—this convention was very new for the court in the sense that there hasn’t been a case directly dealing with the interpretation of this convention. There have been the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements. Historically speaking or, as a matter of practice, how long could it take to get a judgement? The court has to fix timing for the parties to prepare, for Ukraine to prepare its memorial—that is the main document, the main submission to the court. It’s been raised many, many times with the Security Council. Matters have been far from plain sailing for the parties in the Ukrainian conflict, and Kiev was determined to remind international … Neither party has given full access to monitors. ICJ Case: Ukraine vs. Russian Federation, Explained - YouTube At hearings in June, Russia argued that Ukraine was using the two treaties as a way of bringing broader arguments about the annexation of Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine before the world court. Oral proceedings on the request for provisional measures held on 6th -9th March 2017 not only demonstrated that parties disagreed on the major points of the dispute, but also revealed that both parties had adopted “alternative facts”, at times making it … The decision concerned the choice of provisional measures based on claims that Russia supports terrorism in Donbas and ethnic discrimination against Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in annexed Crimea. This is a very complex picture; it is not just the International Court of Justice. Since 2014, an estimated 10,000 lives have been lost as a result of the conflict in annexed Crimea and occupied Ukrainian territories. That has happened between Luhansk and Donetsk. The court did that in other cases, sometimes. Quite a lot of negotiations and bargaining are going on there, but you have not had very much on Crimea. The sovereign and territorial integrity of a country may be threatened.