NIRMA UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF LAW

B.COM., LLB (HONS.)

SEMESTER: IV

COURSE NAME: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

COURSE CODE: 2BL444

SUBMITTED TO:

MR. CHHOTE LAL YADAV

SUBMITTED BY:

21BBL087 DHRITI GOYAL

Title: The Role of the International Court of Justice
in Resolving Disputes between Russia and Ukraine

ABSTRACT

Numerous disagreements have arisen as a result of the ongoing war between Russia and
Ukraine, including territorial claims, abuses of human rights, and economic sanctions.
Both sides have requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to resolve these
disagreements. This essay discusses the ICJ's role in settling conflicts between Russia
and Ukraine, paying particular attention to its authority, processes, and efficiency. The
ICJ has the potential to play a significant role in resolving disputes between Russia and
Ukraine, but its effectiveness is limited by a number of factors, including the
unwillingness of both parties to submit to its jurisdiction. This is what this paper
concludes through a literature review, analysis, and argumentation.

INTRODUCTION

Territorial claims, abuses of human rights, and economic penalties are just a few of the
disagreements that have arisen as a result of the ongoing confrontation between Russia
and Ukraine. Both sides have requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to
resolve these disagreements. This essay discusses the ICJ's role in settling conflicts
between Russia and Ukraine, paying particular attention to its authority, processes, and
efficiency. The ICJ has the potential to play a substantial role in settling issues between
Russia and Ukraine, but this paper's research of the literature reveals that its efficiency
is limited by a number of variables, notably the unwillingness of both sides to submit
to its authority.1

1 Goldhaber, M., & Weiler, T. (2018). The International Court of Justice and the Ukraine Crisis: Recent
Developments. AJIL Unbound, 112, 212-217.
 RESEARCH PROBLEM

The function of the International Court of Justice in settling conflicts between Russia
and Ukraine is the research issue covered in this article. The area and the global world
have been greatly impacted by the continuing conflict between Russia and Ukraine that
started in 2014. Allegations of human rights abuses, violations of international treaties,
and territorial disputes have all been part of the war. In addition, the fighting led to
Russia's annexation of Crimea, which has drawn harsh criticism from the international
community.

The International Court of Justice's involvement in settling conflicts between Russia

and Ukraine assumes critical importance in this situation. The ICJ is the main court of
the United Nations, and it has the power to hear disputes between governments on a
variety of topics, including violations of international law, territorial conflicts, and
human rights. However, a number of circumstances, including as the unwillingness of
both parties to submit to the court's jurisdiction, the limited enforcement tools available
to the court, and the politicisation of international law, restrict its efficacy in settling
conflicts.

Therefore, the article is to evaluate the International Court of Justice's role in settling
conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and to look at the obstacles that prevent it from
being successful in this respect. The purpose of the study is to provide light on the ICJ's
capacity as a venue for resolving disputes in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and to suggest
improvements to its efficiency in this situation.

RESEARCH DESIGN

In order to assess the legal concerns brought up by the current war between Russia and
Ukraine and the role of ICJ in settling conflicts between the two countries, this research
piece adopts a qualitative research methodology and a case study technique. A common
method for analysing complicated legal and policy issues in international relations is
the case study approach, which entails a detailed investigation of a single case to
produce insights into more general theoretical and empirical topics.
The study uses a variety of secondary sources, such as books, journal articles, research
papers, and other resources that are openly accessible. A theoretical framework that
integrates pertinent legal and policy ideas, such as state sovereignty, international law,
the function of the ICJ, and the politics of international relations, serves as the basis for
the research.

The research is divided into three main sections to evaluate the legal issues brought up
by the war between Russia and Ukraine and the function of the ICJ. The war's legal and
historical context are examined in the first part, along with the nature and root causes
of the conflict. The second section explores the ICJ's jurisdiction, the legal framework
for resolving international conflicts, and the specific articles of international law that
apply to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The ICJ's function in settling
conflicts between nations is examined in the third section, along with the court's
efficacy in prior cases and the possibility that it may settle the Russia-Ukraine war.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the main court of the United Nations (UN),
and it has the authority to resolve international conflicts and offer legal advice. The
efficiency of the ICJ is nevertheless constrained by issues including governments'
unwillingness to adhere to its authority and the lack of direct enforcement measures.
Numerous cases involving the application of the international conventions for the
suppression of the financing of terrorism and the elimination of all forms of racial
discrimination have been brought before the ICJ as a result of the ongoing conflict
between Russia and Ukraine. The ICJ determined that it had jurisdiction in this issue
and ordered both parties to take action to stop racial prejudice and to stop funding
terrorism in Ukraine. Compliance with ICJ rulings has been patchy, though, in part
because of Russia's criticism of the court's alleged bias against it and its occasional
withdrawal from its jurisdiction.

ARGUMENTATION
I. The significance of legitimacy and the ICJ's function: The idea of legitimacy in
international relations and the ICJ's function in defending it are significant components
of the debate. A key element of international law known as legitimacy emphasises the
significance of an international system based on laws as well as the acceptance of
international institutions and norms by nations. One of the key organisations in charge
of safeguarding this idea is the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which offers a
lawful platform for the amicable settlement of disputes between governments. In the
view of the world community, it is a respectable and recognised organisation due to its
objectivity and commitment to legal norms.2

II. The ICJ's jurisdiction over the conflict between Russia and Ukraine: The jurisdiction
of the ICJ in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is another crucial part of the
debate. The ICJ has the power to resolve conflicts involving international law, including
conflicts between nations. The exact legal issues put up by the parties would determine
the ICJ's jurisdiction in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. For instance, Ukraine
has accused Russia of violating two international treaties that are under the ICJ's
purview: the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing
of Terrorism.3

III. The prospective effect of the ICJ's decisions on the dispute: The potential effect of
the ICJ's decisions on the dispute is also an important factor to take into account. By
defining the parties' legal responsibilities and offering a respectable venue for dispute
resolution, the ICJ's decisions have the ability to aid in the settlement of the conflict.
The ICJ's lack of enforcement measures and the underlying political and security factors
fuelling the conflict, however, hinder its capacity to settle the dispute. Because of this,
rather than being definitive, the ICJ's involvement in the dispute is essentially
consultative and symbolic.

IV. The applicability of earlier ICJ judgements to the war between Russia and Ukraine:
It is also important to take into account how prior ICJ decisions apply to the Russia-
Ukraine conflict. The Russia-Ukraine conflict may be affected by earlier ICJ

2 Klabbers, J. (2013). The Concept of International Legal Legitimacy. Cambridge University Press.

3 International Court of Justice. (n.d.). Jurisdiction of the Court. Retrieved from

judgements since they offer precedents and guiding concepts for the court to take into
account when making decisions, such as the Bosnia Genocide case and the Nicaragua
case. The Bosnia Genocide case, for instance, established the notion of state
responsibility for genocide, which may be pertinent to Ukraine's allegations against
Russia for its alleged backing of separatist fighters in eastern Ukraine. Russia's
allegations that its activities in Ukraine are motivated by a desire to protect its citizens
may be significant given that the Nicaragua decision established the norm of non-
interference in the affairs of other nations.

V. The difficulties the ICJ will have in settling the crisis between Russia and Ukraine:
The International Court of Justice has additional difficulties in settling the Russia-
Ukraine dispute on top of those already mentioned. The possible politicisation of the
case is one of the major difficulties. Due to the conflict's complicated political and
historical roots, it may be difficult for the ICJ to maintain its independence and
objectivity. The ICJ's authority is also restricted to matters of international law, so it
could find it difficult to resolve the fundamental political and security concerns that are
motivating the dispute. The possibility for non-compliance with ICJ judgements
presents another difficulty. The parties' willingness to abide by the ICJ's decisions
determines their efficacy in the absence of enforcement instruments.

VI. The possibility for other dispute resolution procedures: Although the ICJ is a crucial
venue for the settlement of disputes between nations, there may be some situations
where alternative processes are more advantageous. For instance, in mediation, a third-
party mediator helps the parties negotiate a settlement that is agreeable to both of them.
In addition to being more adaptable and non-confrontational than formal legal
processes, this strategy can enable the parties maintain their connection. In contrast,
arbitration entails a neutral third party rendering a legally binding judgement about the
issue. Compared to court processes, this method may be more cost- and time-effective
and provide better secrecy.4

VII. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine's larger effects on international law: The
war between Russia and Ukraine has significant ramifications for international law as
well as the overall international order. The weakening of the notion of state sovereignty

4 Panton, D. (2013). The use of mediation in international disputes. In Conflict Resolution and Peace
Education: Transformations across Disciplines (pp. 23-38). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
is one of the main consequences. Questions have been raised by the conflict regarding
the boundaries of national sovereignty and the capacity of international organisations
to step in and resolve domestic disputes. It has also brought attention to the difficulties
of applying international law in complicated and divisive circumstances. These
concerns, as well as the future of international law and international relations, will be
significantly impacted by how the case is handled by the ICJ and by its decisions. The
case has also shown how crucial it is for international organisations like the ICJ and the
UN to cooperate and coordinate more.5

ANALYSIS

The legal justifications in the ICJ cases involving Ukraine and Russia annexed Crimea,
which was formerly a part of Ukraine, in March 2014, and has subsequently supported
separatist organisations in eastern Ukraine, sparking hostilities between the two nations.
Ukraine brought two complaints before the ICJ against Russia, claiming that Russia's
acts were against international law. By discriminating against Crimean Tatars and ethnic
Ukrainians, Russia, according to Ukraine, has breached the International Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). By supporting
separatist organisations in eastern Ukraine, Russia was accused by Ukraine of breaking
the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
(ICSFT). On the other side, Russia has refuted these allegations and asserted that the
ICJ has jurisdiction over the matter.6

The foundation of Ukraine's complaint is the claim that Russia's activities in eastern
Ukraine and Crimea have broken a number of international legal agreements. The
territorial integrity of Ukraine, which is guaranteed by the United Nations Charter, the
Helsinki Final Act, and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, has
allegedly been violated by Russia's annexation of Crimea. By discriminating against
Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians, notably by limiting their access to work and

5 Cohen, R. (2014). International law and the war in Ukraine. International Affairs, 90(5), 1107-1127.

6 International Court of Justice (2021), "Application of the International Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation),"
education and limiting their freedom of movement, Russia has been charged by Ukraine
of breaking the CERD. Ukraine has also asserted that help provided by Russia to
separatist organisations in eastern Ukraine is a violation of the ICSFT.

On the other side, Russia has refuted these allegations and asserted that the ICJ has
jurisdiction over the matter. Russia has contended that because the issue is political in
character, the ICJ should not decide it. Additionally, Russia has asserted that because it
is not a party to the CERD, the ICJ lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue under the
CERD.

Impact of the ICJ's decisions in the Ukraine v. Russia cases, part two: The International
Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Russia to stop discriminatory actions in Crimea and
to stop sending money to separatist organisations in eastern Ukraine in the Ukraine v.
Russia proceedings. Even if these directives have not entirely ended the war, they have
helped to increase the political and legal pressure on Russia to abide by international
law. Both Ukraine and Russia must abide with the temporary restrictions, and additional
legal action may be taken if they are not. The temporary restrictions also convey to the
world community the ICJ's seriousness about the dispute and willingness to step in to
safeguard international law.7

The decisions of the ICJ have also affected politics. International pressure on Russia to
stop supporting separatist groups in eastern Ukraine and to abide by international law
has intensified as a result of the verdicts. The decisions have given Ukraine a foundation
on which to assert its rights against Russia in other international fora.

The possibility that the ICJ will help end the war: The decisions made by the ICJ in the
Ukraine v. Russia cases might have an impact on how Russia and Ukraine behave and
help end the conflict. The ICJ's capacity to address the fundamental political and
security factors fuelling the conflict, however, is constrained. Only legal disputes
between nations may be decided by the ICJ; political or security problems cannot be
settled. By outlining the parties' legal responsibilities and offering an appropriate forum
for dispute settlement, the ICJ's decisions may aid in the conflict's resolution. However,

7 International Court of Justice (2021), "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),"
the ICJ is ill-equipped to give a political solution, which is ultimately necessary to
resolve the dispute.

Although the ICJ has a chance to help end the conflict, it has little power to address the
fundamental political and security problems that are motivating it. Due to historical,
ethnic, linguistic, economic, and geopolitical considerations, the conflict between
Ukraine and Russia is intricate and varied. The underlying problems are complex and
need for political solutions that cannot be achieved through just legal methods. The
efficacy of the court's decisions has also been hampered by Russia's lack of cooperation
with the ICJ and its reluctance to acknowledge the court's jurisdiction in the case. The
failure of Russia to follow the ICJ's directives demonstrates the shortcomings of the
ICJ's enforcement procedures and the requirement for stronger international
cooperation to preserve international law.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the ICJ has the potential to be a major player in settling conflicts between
Russia and Ukraine, especially where they include violations of international law or
human rights. The ICJ offers a platform for governments to settle their disputes
amicably and impartially without using force or coercion, notwithstanding the
significant limitations that hinder its efficiency. Its decisions may help open the door
for a future peaceful settlement of the conflict by increasing the legal and political
pressure on Russia to abide by international law. Addressing the obstacles and fostering
a more cooperative and constructive approach to international law and dispute
resolution are important to increase the efficacy of the ICJ in resolving conflicts
between Russia and Ukraine.