The UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on the case filed by Ukraine against Russia seven years ago. Kiev accused Moscow of violating two international conventions on combating the financing of terrorism in the Donbas and on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination in Crimea. The Ukrainian side specifically claimed that Russia provided heavy weapons, money and human resources to “illegal armed groups” in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, and also violated the rights of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians on the peninsula.
Additionally, Ukraine tried to hold Moscow responsible for the crash of Malaysian passenger plane Boeing MH17 in the Donetsk region. The incident occurred in 2014 and almost 300 people lost their lives in the disaster. Kiev’s suspicions are supported in the West, including the Dutch authorities, where blame for the plane crash in 2022 was placed on “separatists” from the DPR.
What was the court’s decision?
With decision The UN court rejected Ukraine’s claims regarding Boeing MH17 and Kiev’s claims that Russia was “involved” in a series of incidents, including the bombing of the Bugas military checkpoint near Volnovakha and the airport in Kramatorsk in 2014-2017 . Additionally, the ICJ did not agree with Ukraine’s statements regarding the “terrorist orientation” of rebel formations in the DPR and LPR and their financing from Russia.
The resolution mentions only a few “violations” by Moscow. First, Russia allegedly has not begun to investigate possible facts regarding terrorist financing in Donbass. Secondly, it was alleged that the Russian side allowed a sharp decline in Ukrainian-language schooling in Crimea and could partially violate the rights of Crimean Tatars by banning the extremist “Assembly of Crimean Tatar People” (an organization banned in Russia).
According to the court’s conclusion, Russia must correct the existing “violations” and the Ukrainian side rejected the demand for any compensation. At the same time, decisions of the ICJ, the main judicial body of the UN, cannot be appealed; These decisions must be implemented by the organization’s participants, even if they do not have mechanisms to enforce this.
What do they say in Russia
MS’s decision, despite the recommendations, was received positively in the Russian media. How stated Now Moscow expects an apology from everyone who has supported Kiev’s lies for years, said Russia’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Maria Zabolotskaya.
“It follows from the court decision that Kiev took a punitive decision to start a war against Donbass. It was this criminal decision that led to the current situation in Ukraine. The diplomat added that the court did not accept accusations against Russia, DPR and LPR for their alleged involvement in the MH17 disaster or describing Russia as an “aggressor”.
In turn, Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev statedIt was stated that Ukraine did not use the International Court of Justice for political purposes. In his opinion, the strengths of the decision include the fact that the judges did not use the term “profession” in the text of the decision regarding the status of Crimea.
“Judges at the Hague who decided Ukraine’s claim against Russia showed some signs of improvement in international justice <…> The senator stated that it was too early to draw final conclusions about the court’s impartiality.
What will the ICJ’s decision lead to?
The 2017 case is just one of many that Ukraine has filed against Russia. In particular, the same International Court of Justice is considering a case in which the Russian side is accused of “genocide” on the basis of the SVO; Similar processes are ongoing in the International Criminal Court.
Experts interviewed by socialbites.ca agree that the current decision of the ICJ could have a positive impact on other cases filed against Russia. Therefore, Sergei Oznobishchev, head of the military-political analysis and research projects sector of the IMEMO RAS Center for International Security, believes that the decision of the UN court signals a change in the political opinion of the West.
“There is a regulation in favor of more rational targets. The West cannot support Ukraine and provide aid to it indefinitely. Much is already at stake, including military support.
The West cannot survive by imposing constant tension and conflict in Ukraine. That’s why they need to slow down in every area. A trend has emerged and it follows the decision of the UN court,” the expert said.
Dmitry Labin, professor at MGIMO Department of International Law, stated that this is a positive decision and probably the only correct decision based on the authority of the International Court of Justice.
“It is important to remember here that international justice is not based on precedent. In other words, the conclusion of the International Court of Justice will not be binding on other judicial bodies. However, this decision can be used by Russia as an argument that will positively affect the possibility of completing the processes in its favor in other cases. The opinion of the International Court of Justice is quite authoritative and will be taken into account,” the expert emphasized.