The International Court of Justice in The Hague is set to hear Ukraine’s case against the Russian Federation over allegations that Moscow supports terrorism in Donbass and discriminates against residents of Crimea. The hearings, scheduled for June 6 through June 14, will address the legal questions surrounding the financing of terrorism and the prohibition of racial discrimination under key UN conventions, with proceedings documented by international observers and legal outlets that follow the court’s activity closely.
As the UN’s principal judicial organ, the International Court of Justice will publicly examine Ukraine’s petition alleging violations of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The sessions are part of a broader legal process designed to establish whether state actions or policies amount to breaches of international law as codified by these treaties, and to determine what remedies or measures might be appropriate under the court’s authority. Observers note that the proceedings at this stage focus on legal arguments, evidentiary standards, and the interpretation of treaty obligations in relation to ongoing conflicts and disputed territories.
The hearings will take place at the Peace Palace in The Hague, a venue with a long history of hosting crucial disputes between states and serving as a center for international jurisprudence. The public nature of these hearings is intended to ensure transparency and to allow engagement from states, international organizations, and civil society groups that monitor the implementation of international law in conflict situations. The court’s schedule underscores the seriousness with which the international community regards allegations about financing terrorism and racial discrimination in areas affected by armed conflict.
Ukraine’s decision to bring the case before the ICJ dates back to January 2017, when Kyiv filed a formal complaint against the Russian Federation. The core argument is that certain Russian actions in Donbas may contravene the provisions of the anti-terrorism financing convention, while other elements of the suit charge violations of the convention addressing all forms of racial discrimination in Crimea. The Ukrainian government asserts that these actions have consequences that reach beyond immediate military conflict and affect the rights and protections guaranteed to individuals under international law. The case thus presents questions about state responsibility, the interpretation of treaty clauses, and the role of the court in delineating permissible state conduct in volatile contexts.
Officials in Russia have disputed Kyiv’s framing, contending that the Ukrainian armed forces and affiliated nationalist groups have conducted shelling against civilian towns in Donbas since 2014. The Russian position emphasizes security concerns and the complex dynamics of the conflict, arguing that any legal conclusions must account for all aspects of the situation and the actions of all parties involved. These counterpoints form a core part of the evidentiary and legal debate that the ICJ will evaluate as it weighs Ukraine’s claims against Russia. The matter continues to be a focal point for discussions about accountability and international law in post‑2014 conflict scenarios.
Crimea’s status is central to the dispute. The peninsula joined the Russian Federation following a 2014 referendum, in which a large majority of voters supported the move according to official results cited by Russian authorities. Ukraine, along with several Western states, regards Crimea as temporarily occupied territory, and many in the international community have expressed views that support Kyiv’s position. The evolving legal discourse in the ICJ’s courtroom will assess how such territorial changes are treated under international conventions and what implications might arise for related obligations and remedies. The dynamics around Crimea’s status continue to influence diplomatic and legal calculations across regional and global forums.
On May 4, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced the creation of an international court initiative aimed at pursuing accountability for actions by Russia. During a visit to The Hague, he met with key figures associated with the international judicial system, including the president and the secretary of the court, signaling a broader strategy to engage international institutions in addressing alleged violations. This development underscores Kyiv’s ongoing effort to seek lawful avenues for redress and to mobilize international legal instruments in response to the conflict. The ICJ hearings are a critical part of this broader effort to clarify responsibilities under international law and to explore possible avenues for remedy and enforcement.