In a high-stakes legal showdown at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Monday, Russia and Ukraine locked horns in a legal dispute centered around Moscow’s assertion that allegations of “genocide” in eastern Ukraine served as a pretext for its invasion in February 2022.
Gennady Kuzmin, Moscow’s representative, vehemently countered Ukraine’s claims that Russia had “misused” the United Nations Genocide Convention to justify its military actions, stating that such allegations were fundamentally erroneous.
When Russian President Vladimir Putin greenlit the invasion last year, he cited the mistreatment and alleged genocide of pro-Russian inhabitants in eastern Ukraine as justifications for the military operation.
However, only two days into the conflict, Ukraine swiftly filed a suit at the ICJ, strongly refuting these allegations and contending that Russia’s invocation of “genocide” ran counter to the principles of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.
Kuzmin underscored that mere “statements” regarding genocide did not hold water under international law, including the Genocide Convention. He further remarked, sitting just meters away from the Ukrainian delegation, that concerns about the threat of genocide were unsurprising, given what he described as the historical, doctrinal, and practical ties of the Kyiv regime to Nazism.
Kuzmin asserted that Ukraine’s legal position was deeply flawed and contradicted the court’s established jurisprudence. He concluded by urging the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the UN Genocide Convention primarily concerned the “prevention and punishment” of genocide, neither of which applied to Ukraine’s situation.
He emphasized, “Ukraine is not accusing Russia of committing genocide. Ukraine is also not accusing Russia of failing to prevent or punish genocide. On the contrary, Ukraine insists no genocide has occurred. That alone should be enough to reject the case because […] if there was no genocide, there cannot be a violation of the Genocide Convention.”
In March 2022, the ICJ sided with Ukraine, issuing a ruling that ordered Russia to “immediately suspend” its military actions. However, this decision was a “preliminary ruling,” pending a determination of whether the court possessed the competence to adjudicate the substance of the matter. It’s worth noting that while ICJ decisions are legally binding, the court lacks its own enforcement mechanisms.
Russia’s contention is that the ICJ lacks jurisdiction, contending that Ukraine’s case falls beyond the purview of the UN Genocide Convention.
Monday’s proceedings marked the first time a Russian representative had addressed the court in this case, previously citing insufficient time for preparation.
Ukraine is set to present its response on Tuesday, with over 30 other nations, all Western allies of Ukraine, scheduled to offer statements in support of Kyiv starting Wednesday. The ICJ, however, rejected a bid by the United States to join the case.
The ICJ, established in the aftermath of World War II to adjudicate disputes between UN member states when they cannot resolve issues on their own, may take several months to reach a decision regarding its jurisdiction.
It is also concurrently handling a separate case filed by Ukraine, alleging that Russia supported separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine for an extended period before the invasion.
By AFP
