Ukraine initiated a case at the International Court of Justice in The Hague to contest President Vladimir Putin’s official explanation for entering the country as an effort to end a “genocide” of pro-Russian separatists.
Today the court issued a ruling. U.N. court orders Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine, in a largely symbolic ruling:
Russia was ordered to halt its invasion of Ukraine by the United Nations’ top court Wednesday, in a preliminary decision that appeared to have largely symbolic significance.
The court voted 13 to 2 in favor of ordering Russia to “suspend” military operations in Ukraine and to prevent armed units that are directed or supported by Russia from taking further action. Of the two judges in opposition, one was from Russia, the other from China. [Shocker.]
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a tweet that the order constituted a “complete victory in its case against Russia” and that “ignoring the order will isolate Russia even further.”
But while the court’s preliminary order is in theory binding under international law, there were no signs that Moscow would comply. No Russian representatives showed up when Ukraine argued its case last week. They subsequently submitted a document asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case.
A final ruling, potentially years away, would also be expected to have negligible impact.
The ICJ does not appear to have a viable path to enforce the decision. Sanctions could be imposed only by the U.N. Security Council, of which Russia is a permanent member and where it has a veto power. The court’s mission is to settle disputes between sovereign nations, and it cannot charge presidents or military leaders with war crimes, for example.
[T]he proceedings center on Russia’s official explanation for its invasion of Ukraine, which Russian President Vladimir Putin has said is intended to achieve the “denazification” of Ukraine and end a “genocide” in the country’s east. There is no evidence to support Russia’s claims.
Representatives of Ukraine argued last week that the Russian accusations represented a pretext for an illegal invasion.
In its order Wednesday, the court did not rule directly on the facts of the case and whether genocide was taking place but said Ukraine was “asserting a right that is plausible under the Genocide Convention.” To not impose preliminary measures now would open people to “irreparable harm,” the court said.
[In] the current case, Ukraine argued that the court has jurisdiction because both Russia and Ukraine have signed the 1948 treaty on the prevention of genocide.
Before the proceedings got underway, ICJ President Joan E. Donoghue had urged Russia’s foreign minister two weeks ago to “act in such a way” that a court order — including one that may order Russia to halt hostilities — can “have its appropriate effects.”
One of Russia’s longtime lawyers, Alain Pellet, resigned in the lead-up to the proceedings, writing in an open letter that it “has become impossible to represent in forums dedicated to the application of the law a country that so cynically despises it.”
In other news, Biden on Putin: ‘I think he is a war criminal’:
President Joe Biden called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “war criminal” on Wednesday as Russia intensifies its attack on Ukraine.
“I think he is a war criminal,” Biden said to reporters after remarks at the White House.
Biden’s designation reflects a shift from the administration’s previous stance. Officials, including Biden, had previously stopped short of saying war crimes were being committed in Ukraine, citing ongoing investigations into whether that term could be used.
But officials have been clear they believe atrocities are underway and that the intentional targeting of civilians would constitute war crimes.
“The President’s remarks speak for themselves,” press secretary Jen Psaki said afterward. She said Biden was “speaking from the heart.”
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In terms of legal consequences for those who might materially support Russian aggression (i.e. China) this is NOT purely symbolic: this ruling opens the door to sanctions and other legal consequences should other countries lend aid and assistance to Russia’s criminal war. The gears of international law are even more creaky and decrepit than our own, but they do have consequences.