The UN International Court of Justice has issued a ruling in the seven year-old case brought by Ukraine against Russia. Kyiv accused Moscow of violating two international conventions that address the financing of terrorism and the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. The Ukrainian side contended that Russia supplied heavy weapons, funding, and personnel to what Kyiv described as illegal armed groups in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and that Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians on the peninsula faced rights violations.
Ukraine also sought accountability from Moscow for the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in the Donetsk region in 2014, a tragedy that claimed nearly 300 lives. Western authorities, including those in the Netherlands, have pointed to separatists from the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics as responsible, a line that influenced Western assessments of the incident.
What was the court’s decision?
The ICJ rejected Ukraine’s claims that Russia was involved in a series of incidents, including attacks on a Bugas military checkpoint near Volnovakha and the airport in Kramatorsk during 2014 to 2017. It also did not find support for Kyiv’s assertion that rebel formations in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions were terrorist in orientation or financed by Russia.
The resolution acknowledges only a handful of matters where Moscow was found to have violated obligations. First, the court noted that Russia had not begun an investigation into allegations of terrorist financing in Donbas. Second, it pointed out concerns about a significant decline in Ukrainian-language schooling in Crimea and possible violations of the rights of Crimean Tatars through restrictions on the Assembly of Crimean Tatar People, an organization banned within Russia.
According to the court’s conclusions, Russia is to address these violations. Ukraine, however, rejected any demand for compensation. The ICJ decisions, as the principal judicial body of the United Nations, are final and binding on the states involved and are expected to be implemented even if enforcement mechanisms are limited.
What do they say in Russia
Russian media welcomed the judgment, and Moscow called for formal apologies from supporters of Kyiv’s policies. Russia’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Maria Zabolotskaya, said the decision shows Kyiv acted to start the war in Donbas and that the court did not uphold accusations against Russia, the Donetsk and Luhansk republics, or Russia as an aggressor in the MH17 case.
Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev argued that Ukraine did not use the ICJ for political purposes and noted that the court’s text avoided labeling Crimea a certain way in legal terms. He suggested the judgment marks progress in international justice but admitted it was too soon to draw final conclusions about the court’s impartiality.
What will the ICJ’s decision lead to
The 2017 case is one of many Ukrainian actions against Russia. The ICJ continues reviewing another line of allegations related to genocide connected with Moscow’s actions in the broader conflict. Similar inquiries are also advancing at the International Criminal Court.
Experts cited by News Agency describe the ICJ ruling as potentially shaping future proceedings against Russia. Sergei Oznobishchev from the Institute for World Economy and International Relations notes that the decision may influence Western political calculations and the level of support for Ukraine in critical areas such as military assistance. His view is that Western governments might recalibrate their approach as they weigh strategic interests against ongoing tensions in the region.
Analysts also emphasize that international justice does not hinge on precedent and that ICJ conclusions are not automatically binding on other courts. Yet the court’s authority can serve as a persuasive argument in Russia’s broader legal strategy, affecting how similar cases are approached elsewhere. The decision’s gravity lies in its international legitimacy and its potential to inform future legal arguments.