Noble motives, unjustified reasoning: a comment on allegations of genocide under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)
The International Court of Justice recently delivered its Provisional Measures Order on the Ukrainian Genocide case, demanding an immediate suspension of the Russian military operation against Ukraine. This article examines three legal issues deriving from this order. Firstly, it evaluates the estab...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Foundation for Law and International Affairs
2022
|
| _version_ | 1826312818535694336 |
|---|---|
| author | Cao, Y |
| author_facet | Cao, Y |
| author_sort | Cao, Y |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | The International Court of Justice recently delivered its Provisional
Measures Order on the Ukrainian Genocide case, demanding an immediate suspension of
the Russian military operation against Ukraine. This article examines three legal issues
deriving from this order. Firstly, it evaluates the establishment of the ICJ’s prima facie
jurisdiction under the compromissory clause of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It finds that the Order inexplicably departed from
the ICJ’s jurisprudence in the Legality of Use of Force cases, and that the existence of
indispensable external jus ad bellum issues in the present case should have deprived the
ICJ of its jurisdiction. Secondly, it assesses the plausibility of the rights sought, and finds
that there is no plausible right under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide to be free from military attacks based on a claim of preventing and
punishing, since the parties could not have intended so. Thirdly, it analyzes the link
between the claimed rights and the provisional measure granted and finds that this
requirement is not satisfied in this case because the provisional measure indicated will also
protect a right under jus ad bellum, which falls outside the ICJ’s jurisdiction. In view of the
above, this article argues that although the Order might achieve the political objective of
mitigating the conflict, the ICJ’s reasoning has been unconvincing or at least incomplete in
legal terms, which risks undermining the ICJ’s reputation and reliability as well as the
coherence and credibility of international law. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T08:28:29Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:f6827ad0-253b-4187-98d5-50dca4f2fbe8 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-23T08:26:39Z |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publisher | Foundation for Law and International Affairs |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:f6827ad0-253b-4187-98d5-50dca4f2fbe82024-04-18T15:46:59ZNoble motives, unjustified reasoning: a comment on allegations of genocide under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:f6827ad0-253b-4187-98d5-50dca4f2fbe8EnglishSymplectic ElementsFoundation for Law and International Affairs2022Cao, YThe International Court of Justice recently delivered its Provisional Measures Order on the Ukrainian Genocide case, demanding an immediate suspension of the Russian military operation against Ukraine. This article examines three legal issues deriving from this order. Firstly, it evaluates the establishment of the ICJ’s prima facie jurisdiction under the compromissory clause of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It finds that the Order inexplicably departed from the ICJ’s jurisprudence in the Legality of Use of Force cases, and that the existence of indispensable external jus ad bellum issues in the present case should have deprived the ICJ of its jurisdiction. Secondly, it assesses the plausibility of the rights sought, and finds that there is no plausible right under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to be free from military attacks based on a claim of preventing and punishing, since the parties could not have intended so. Thirdly, it analyzes the link between the claimed rights and the provisional measure granted and finds that this requirement is not satisfied in this case because the provisional measure indicated will also protect a right under jus ad bellum, which falls outside the ICJ’s jurisdiction. In view of the above, this article argues that although the Order might achieve the political objective of mitigating the conflict, the ICJ’s reasoning has been unconvincing or at least incomplete in legal terms, which risks undermining the ICJ’s reputation and reliability as well as the coherence and credibility of international law. |
| spellingShingle | Cao, Y Noble motives, unjustified reasoning: a comment on allegations of genocide under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) |
| title | Noble motives, unjustified reasoning: a comment on allegations of genocide under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) |
| title_full | Noble motives, unjustified reasoning: a comment on allegations of genocide under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) |
| title_fullStr | Noble motives, unjustified reasoning: a comment on allegations of genocide under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) |
| title_full_unstemmed | Noble motives, unjustified reasoning: a comment on allegations of genocide under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) |
| title_short | Noble motives, unjustified reasoning: a comment on allegations of genocide under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) |
| title_sort | noble motives unjustified reasoning a comment on allegations of genocide under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide ukraine v russian federation |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT caoy noblemotivesunjustifiedreasoningacommentonallegationsofgenocideundertheconventiononthepreventionandpunishmentofthecrimeofgenocideukrainevrussianfederation |