Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-wjqwx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-21T05:22:56.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukr. v. Russ.) (Judgment on Preliminary Objections) (I.C.J.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2024

Catherine Drummond
Catherine Drummond*
Affiliation:
Catherine Drummond, Barrister, 3VB, is a practitioner in public international law, specialising in international disputes. She acts as counsel in cases before the International Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights, International Criminal Court, UN treaty bodies and international arbitration tribunals. She is based in the United Kingdom.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On February 2, 2024, the International Court of Justice (the Court) delivered its preliminary objections judgment in the case brought by Ukraine against Russia under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention).

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 63 , Issue 5 , October 2024 , pp. 847 - 945
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Society of International Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

ENDNOTES

1 Ukraine's Application (Feb. 26, 2022), ¶¶ 30(c)–(d) framed this as conduct that “has no basis in the Genocide Convention”. This was altered in the Memorial (July 1, 2022), ¶ 178(b)–(c) to assert that the conduct violated Articles I and IV of the Genocide Convention. The Court considered this a clarification of the same claims (¶ 128). President Donoghue regarded them to be materially changed and considered that such a change may have had an impact on the Court's jurisdiction ratione materiae (Separate Opinion of President Donoghue, in particular ¶¶ 24–25).

2 Former Judge of the Court, Sir Christopher Greenwood, famously referred to this practice as attempting “to force an ungainly foot into Cinderella's glass slipper.” See Greenwood, Challenges of International Litigation, Lauterpacht Centre Lecture (Oct. 7, 2011), https://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1180328.

3 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukr. v Russ.), Judgment, 2024 I.C.J. (Feb. 2) [hereinafter Judgment], ¶ 81.

4 Judgment, ¶¶ 47–51.

5 Id. ¶¶ 53–56. Judge Charlesworth interrogates this distinction at ¶¶ 5–7 of her Separate Opinion.

6 Id. ¶¶ 60–118.

7 Id. ¶¶ 124–129.

8 Id. ¶ 147 and see ¶¶ 139–140.

9 Id. ¶ 146.

10 Separate Opinion of President Donoghue, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Sebutinde and Robinson, and Separate Opinion of Judge Charlesworth.

11 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukr. v Russ.), Order of 16 March 2022, 2022 I.C.J. (Mar. 16). There is some debate about whether the Provisional Measures Order remains in force given it was not expressly lifted in the judgment, and if so whether the Court might rule on its breach at the merits stage: see Dai Tamada, Still Valid: Provisional Measures in Ukraine v. Russia (Allegations of Genocide), EJIL Talk! (Mar. 15, 2024), https://www.ejiltalk.org/still-valid-provisional-measures-in-ukraine-v-russia-allegations-of-genocide; Iryna Marchuk and Aloka Wanigasuriya, The Curious Fate of the False Claim of Genocide, Verfassungsblog (Feb. 24, 2024), https://verfassungsblog.de/the-curious-fate-of-the-false-claim-of-genocide.

12 Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukr. v. Russ.), Judgment, 2024 I.C.J. (Jan. 31).

13 See Marc Weller, Time for another Ukrainian Genocide Case?, EJIL Talk! (Feb. 6, 2024), https://www.ejiltalk.org/time-for-another-ukrainian-genocide-case.

14 Statute of the Court, art. 63; Rules of Court, arts. 82–84, 86.

15 This did not mean, however, that there was not considerable diversity of views on specific issues, such as whether the use of force could be used to prevent genocide.

16 Judgment, ¶¶ 92, 134.

17 Separate Opinion of Judge Charlesworth, ¶ 2.

18 See, e.g., Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Gamb. v. Myan.), I.C.J.; Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, I.C.J.; Obligation of States in respect of Climate Change, I.C.J.

19 Press Release, Int'l Court of Justice, Amendments to Articles 81, 82 and 86 of the Rules of Court, Press Release No. 2024/18 (Feb. 28, 2024), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/press-releases/0/000-20240228-wri-01-00-enc.pdf.

20 Judgment, ¶ 117.