Ukraine ‘sues’ Russia: Initial ruling

Previously, on February 26, Ukraine filed a “suit” against the Russian Federation to this Court. On March 7, the Court opened the first hearing to hear the two sides present their views and arguments, but only representatives of Ukraine were present with a group of lawyers; The Russian side sent a written submission.

After more than a week of consideration, the ICJ with 13/15 judges approved the provisional emergency measures at the request of Ukraine; The Russian and Chinese judges disagree.

Demands that Russia cease all military actions on the territory of Ukraine

First of all, in terms of jurisdiction to consider the case, the Court rejected the Russian side’s point of view. In the submission to the Court, Russia only relied on the argument of the right to self-defence to justify sending troops into Ukraine, without mentioning the genocide anymore as in the official statements of President Putin and many other officials. .

After the ICJ’s ruling, UN member states will be forced to express their attitudes more clearly about Russia’s actions towards Ukraine.

This tactic is to deny the connection between Russia’s actions and the genocide allegations, thereby denying the Court’s jurisdiction in this case according to the content of Ukraine’s lawsuit. But the Court has declared itself competent to consider the case, because before the statements of Mr. Putin and other Russian officials have repeatedly accused Ukraine of causing genocide in Donbass, Russia must send troops to save lives. Russia.

Therefore, Ukraine has a basis when based on article 9, the Genocide Convention to argue that the two sides have different views regarding genocide, so the case is brought to the Court for arbitration.

In terms of content, the ICJ said that there is currently no evidence that genocide against Russians in the Donbass as alleged by Russia, needs further investigation and consideration. Furthermore, the Court does not hold that the Genocide Convention permits a State to unilaterally use force in the territory of another State for the purpose of preventing or punishing the crime of genocide.

Therefore, the Court held that, “Ukraine has the right not to be subject to military action by the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine to prevent or punish the crime of genocide”.

Based on the above arguments, the Court requests the Russian Federation to stop all military actions on the territory of Ukraine, to ensure that all organizations and individuals affected by Russia do not have similar actions in the future. Thus, most of Ukraine’s requirements were met by the Court; Some requests are even more met than expected.

Ukraine only asks Russia and the forces under its influence to cease military actions with the aim of stopping and preventing genocide.

However, the Court has requested that Russia and the forces under its influence cease all military action in general on the territory of Ukraine, with the implication being that other reasons would be presented to justify the action. continued military action.

Resolve conflicts in a civilized and peaceful manner

The Court’s decision is final and binding on the parties to the lawsuit. But there’s a high chance that Russia will not comply, especially when the Court does not have the tools to enforce the award.

If so, plus the failure to appear at the Court, the actions of the Russian authorities show their disregard for international law, further worsening their image, isolating themselves before the international community. But who knows, the Court’s ruling may be the way out of the war, an excuse for Russia to withdraw its troops while preserving face, and is known for respecting international law.

In any case, after the ICJ’s ruling, UN member states will be forced to make their attitudes more clear about Russia’s actions towards Ukraine, since it is legally clear who is right and who is wrong. crooked guy.

Ukraine’s victory in the ICJ war shows that a small country can use legal tools to settle disputes and conflicts in a civilized and peaceful manner. In particular, this victory has strong spiritual significance for all.

“If Ukraine loses, justice loses, world peace loses” – Senior Lieutenant General Nguyen Chi Vinh’s interview answer is very suitable for this event. The Court’s decision is an initial victory not only for Ukraine. It is also the victory of international law, of Justice – as the Court’s name suggests – in a tragic war.

Nguyen Duc Lam