Ukraine loses against Russia at International Court of Justice (ICJ), why no MSM headline?

The complaint involves the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, funding separatism in Donbas, and denying Ukrainian language education in Crimea.

Ukraine’s 7-year case against Russia at the ICJ has ended in a whimper, with the ICJ:

• Refusing to rule on allegations that Moscow was responsible for shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine in 2014, and denying reparations for the victims.

• Ordering Russia to investigate any plausible allegations of terrorism financing but denying Ukraine’s request for reparations from Russia for civilian victims of the the civil war in the Donbas.

• Finding that Russia has not tried to erase the Tatar culture but has faulted in not supporting Ukrainian-language education in Crimea.

No matter the ICJ’s noble provisions regarding Israel last week, I’m surprised that Russia wasn’t persecuted. The voting of the judges, however, was more contentious.

ICJ PRESS RELEASE

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
31 January 2024

The Court delivers its Judgment in the case

THE HAGUE, 31 January 2024. The International Court of Justice today handed down its Judgment in the case concerning 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 (Ukraine v. Russian Federation).

It is recalled that, on 16 January 2017, Ukraine filed an Application instituting proceedings against the Russian Federation concerning alleged violations of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 9 December 1999 (ICSFT) and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965 (CERD).

As basis for the jurisdiction of the Court, the Applicant invoked Article 24 of the ICSFT and Article 22 of CERD.

It is further recalled that the proceedings were instituted by Ukraine following events which ccurred from early 2014 in eastern Ukraine and in the Crimean peninsula, and that the case before the Court is limited in scope and brought only under the provisions of the ICSFT and CERD. The Court is not called upon to rule in this case on any other issue currently in dispute between the Parties.

With regard to the ICSFT, the Applicant alleged that the Russian Federation failed to take measures to prevent and suppress the commission of offences of terrorism financing. In particular, the Applicant referred to acts and armed activities in eastern Ukraine allegedly perpetrated by armed groups linked to two entities that refer to themselves as the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (DPR) and the “Luhansk People’s Republic” (LPR). Other acts to which the Applicant referred were allegedly perpetrated by armed groups and individuals in other parts of Ukraine. With regard to CERD, the Applicant referred to events which took place in Crimea from early 2014, after the Russian Federation took control of the territory of the Crimean peninsula, alleging that the Russian Federation engaged in a campaign of racial discrimination depriving Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea of their political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights, in violation of its obligations under CERD.

On 19 April 2017, the Court delivered its Order on the Request for the indication of provisional measures filed by Ukraine together with its Application. It found, inter alia, that, with regard to the situation in Crimea, the Russian Federation must, in accordance with its obligations under CERD,

• (a) refrain from maintaining or imposing limitations on the ability of the Crimean Tatar community to conserve its representative institutions, including the Mejlis; and

• (b) ensure the availability of education in the Ukrainian language.

The written proceedings in the case concluded on 19 January 2023. Public hearings on the merits were held from 6 to 14 June 2023. The final submissions of the Parties can be found on the website of the Court in verbatim records 2023/9 and 2023/10, respectively.

Ukraine requested the Court to adjudge and declare that the Russian Federation has violated its obligations under the ICSFT and CERD, and that it must comply with those obligations and make reparation for the harm caused to Ukraine. Ukraine also contended that the Russian Federation has failed to comply with the Court’s Order on provisional measures of 19 April 2017.

In the operative clause of today’s Judgment, which is final, without appeal and binding on the Parties, the Court:

• (1) By thirteen votes to two,
  
  Finds that the Russian Federation, by failing to take measures to investigate facts contained in information received from Ukraine regarding persons who have allegedly committed an offence set forth in Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, has violated its obligation under Article 9, paragraph 1, of the said Convention;
  
  IN FAVOUR : President Donoghue; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Pocar;
  
  AGAINST : Judge Xue; Judge ad hoc Tuzmukhamedov;

• (2) By ten votes to five,
  
  Rejects all other submissions made by Ukraine with respect to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism;
  
  IN FAVOUR: Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Brant; Judge ad hoc Tuzmukhamedov;
  
  AGAINST : President Donoghue; Judges Sebutinde, Bhandari, Charlesworth; Judge ad hoc Pocar;

• (3) By thirteen votes to two,
  
  Finds that the Russian Federation, by the way in which it has implemented its educational system in Crimea after 2014 with regard to school education in the Ukrainian language, has violated its obligations under Articles 2, paragraph 1 (a), and 5 (e) (v) of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination;
  
  IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Xue, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Pocar;
  
  AGAINST: Judge Yusuf; Judge ad hoc Tuzmukhamedov;

• (4) By ten votes to five,
  
  Rejects all other submissions made by Ukraine with respect to the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination;
  
  IN FAVOUR: Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte,Brant; Judge ad hoc Tuzmukhamedov;
  
  AGAINST : President Donoghue; Judges Sebutinde, Bhandari, Charlesworth; Judge ad hoc Pocar;

• (5) By eleven votes to four,
  
  Finds that the Russian Federation, by maintaining limitations on the Mejlis, has violated its obligation under paragraph 106 (1) (a) of the Order of 19 April 2017 indicating provisional measures;
  
  IN FAVOUR : President Donoghue; Judges Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth; Judge ad hoc Pocar;
  
  AGAINST : Judges Tomka, Xue, Brant; Judge ad hoc Tuzmukhamedov;

• (6) By ten votes to five,
  
  Finds that the Russian Federation has violated its obligation under paragraph 106 (2) of the Order of 19 April 2017 indicating provisional measures to refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute between the Parties, or make it more difficult to resolve;
  
  IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Judges Tomka, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Pocar;
  
  AGAINST : Judges Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue; Judge ad hoc Tuzmukhamedov;

• (7) By eleven votes to four,
  
  Rejects all other submissions made by Ukraine with respect to the Order of the Court of 19 April 2017 indicating provisional measures.
  
  IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Salam, Iwasawa, Brant; Judge ad hoc Tuzmukhamedov;
  
  AGAINST : Judges Sebutinde, Nolte, Charlesworth; Judge ad hoc Pocar.”

READ

• 42-page summary of Judgement

• 117-page full Judgement

REACTION

Mainstream Media (MSM) is not providing fair coverage on what should be a headline story. For example, on YouTube:

• DW has yet to upload a related news item. They may still, but its notable that they first posted two videos ‘Does Boris Nadezhdin stand a chance against Russia's president Putin?’ and ‘Boris Nadezhdin: Standing up against the Ukraine war and Putin’.

• CNN also posted a story about Boris Nadezhdin, and added two videos warning of a threat to the USA by Chinese hackers (Russia must be relieved). It has not yet mentioned the judgement.

• NBC posted ‘U.S. should fund Ukraine or risk sending bad signal about Taiwan’. It has not yet mentioned the judgement.

• BBC attended the inauguration of Putin’s bid for relection, turning their invitation into a negative news item. It has not yet mentioned the judgement.

• Fox News, EuroNews and CBC News haven’t mentioned Russia at all.

France, however, has:

AN INCONVENIENT UKRAINIAN FACT

There’s no daylight for Russian-speaking Ukrainians deprived of their rights in Ukraine but there’s hope for Hungarian-speaking Ukrainians when Zelensky wants Hungary to vote with the EU on sending billions to Ukraine. It’s called the politics of morals.

ANOTHER JUDGEMENT ON FRIDAY

Ukraine has chance of a smaller victory on 2 February 2024 when the ICJ decides whether Russia falsely used the Genocide Convention to justify its invasion of Ukraine in 24 February 2022.