User:Johnraymassoud/sandbox

In addition to a brief summary of its decision, the ICJ issued a 20-page order explaining its reasoning. Six judges filed separate statements explaining their individual views on the case.

Court's reasoning
The court first determined that it had jurisdiction to order provisional relief "pursuant to Article IX of the Genocide Convention," which empowers the ICJ to resolve disputes over the interpretation, application, or fulfillment of the Convention. The court explained that Article IX applied because Russia and Ukraine have a dispute over whether genocide is occurring in Donetsk and Luhansk.

The court then determined that there was a plausible link between Ukraine's asserted rights under the Genocide Convention and the main provisional relief it sought—the suspension of Russia's military operations—although it found that such a link was lacking for two other forms of relief requested by Ukraine. The two rights asserted by Ukraine were the right "not to be subject to a false claim of genocide" and the right to "“not to be subjected to another State’s military operations on its territory based on [an abuse] of the Genocide Convention." The court said that Ukraine had "a plausible right not to be subjected to military operations by the Russian Federation for the purpose of preventing and punishing an alleged genocide" in its territory.

Finally, the court ruled that the situation in Ukraine was sufficiently urgent to warrant provisional relief. On this front, the court found that "the civilian population affected by the present conflict is extremely vulnerable. The 'special military operation' being conducted by the Russian Federation has resulted in numerous civilian deaths and injuries. It has also caused significant material damage, including the destruction of buildings and infrastructure. Attacks are ongoing and are creating increasingly difficult living conditions for the civilian population. Many persons have no access to the most basic foodstuffs, potable water, electricity, essential medicines or heating. A very large number of people are attempting to flee from the most affected cities under extremely insecure conditions."

Separate statements
Judges Gevorgian and Xue disagreed that the ICJ had jurisdiction, writing that Ukraine was really seeking a ruling on the legality of the Russian invasion, and that this did not raise a genuine dispute under the Genocide Convention. Judge Mohamed Bennouna also expressed doubts about the applicability of the Genocide Convention, but said that he "voted in favour of the Order indicating provisional measures in this case because I felt compelled by this tragic situation, in which terrible suffering is being inflicted on the Ukrainian people, to join the call by the [ICJ] to bring an end to the war."

Judge ad hoc Yves Daudet wrote separately to criticize the ICJ for ordering both Ukraine and Russia "to refrain from any act that might aggravate or extend the dispute," arguing that "this measure of non-aggravation of the dispute should have been directed solely at the Russian Federation, which I recall was designated by the United Nations General Assembly as the perpetrator of aggression against Ukraine." The remaining two judges' separate opinions provided additional supporting reasons for the court's order.

= Russian Invasion (Original Draft) = The apparent consensus among international law experts is that the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine violated international law. This article discusses the international legal provisions Russia is said to have violated, as well as Russia's legal justifications for the invasion and the responses of international law experts to those justifications. The legality of the Russian invasion per se is a distinct subject from whether individual political officials or combatants have engaged in war crimes or crimes against humanity. For a discussion of the latter topic, see War crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

War in Donbas
In March 2014, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine. Around the same time, protests by pro-Russian separatist groups took place in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, collectively called the Donbas. Russia took advantage of these protests to launch a coordinated political and military campaign against Ukraine. These events led to an ongoing military conflict between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian forces in the Donbass, during which the separatist-controlled areas were organized into two quasi-states: the Luhansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic. These self-declared governments were not recognized by any governments other than Russia and its ally Syria.

Leadup to Russian Military Action
Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was preceded by a massive military buildup. Russia began increasing its military presence near its border with Ukraine in March and April 2021. Although the Russian government repeatedly denied that it intended to invade Ukraine, the US government released intelligence of Russian invasion plans in December 2021, including satellite photographs showing Russian troops and equipment near the Ukrainian border. As these events unfolded, Russian officials accused Ukraine of inciting tensions, Russophobia, and repression of Russian speakers, while also making multiple security demands of Ukraine, NATO, and non-NATO EU allies.

On February 21, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a televised speech questioning the legitimacy of Ukraine's statehood and indicating that he intended to immediately recognize the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Start of and Justifications for Invasion
On February 24, Putin gave another speech announcing a "special military operation" in Ukraine. Putin claimed that Russian military intervention in Ukraine was necessary to "protect people who have been subjected to abuse and genocide" by the Ukrainian government and to "protect Russia and our people." Putin also said that the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics—which the Russian government had formally recognized only two days before Putin's speech—had requested assistance in their fight against the Ukrainian government. The stated aims of Russia's "special military operation" included "the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine." Scholars decried Putin's allegations of genocide and comparison of Ukraine to a Nazi state as baseless.

Shortly after Putin's speech, the Ukrainian government reported airstrikes and artillery attacks in Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Dnipro, as well as on the border with Russia. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy declared martial law and called for a general mobilization. The conflict remains ongoing.

United Nations Charter
Russia has been a member of the United Nations (UN) since December 1991, when it took over the seat of the recently defunct USSR. The 1945 UN Charter sets out the conditions under which UN member states may legally resort to war or the used of armed force in general (a concept referred to as jus ad bellum).

Legality of Russia's Use of Force Against Ukraine
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter provides that all members of the UN "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." Along similar lines, Article 2(3) of the Charter requires all member states to "settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

Many experts on international law and foreign affairs have opined that the Russian invasion of Ukraine violated these principles, namely Article 2(4)'s prohibition on the "use of force" against other states. As detailed below, they have also generally rejected the Russian government's official legal justifications for the invasion of Ukraine.

Self-Defense Justification
Russia has argued that its use of force against Ukraine is lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which preserves the rights of UN member states to defend themselves against "an armed attack" and to engage in "collective self-defense." Specifically, Russia has claimed that it may use force against Ukraine in order to defend the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, which Russia recognizes as independent states. International law and foreign policy experts such as John B. Bellinger III, Gabriella Blum, Naz Modirzadeh, and Anthony Dworkin have criticized this argument.

Bellinger and Dworkin have explained that Russia cannot rely on a self-defense justification because Ukraine has not threatened or attacked any other nation. All four scholars have also suggested that even if Ukraine were planning an attack against Donetsk or Luhansk, Russia could not invoke Article 51's collective self-defense provision because these regions are not recognized as separate states under international law. Allen Weiner of Stanford Law School has made a similar argument, likening Russia's collective self-defense arguments to a hypothetical situation where an entity calling itself the independent "Republic of Texas" invited a foreign government to send troops to fight against the United States.

Genocide/Humanitarian Intervention Justification
Likewise, experts have been unpersuaded by Russia's argument that its invasion is justified on humanitarian grounds to protect Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine, namely the Donbass. Some commentators have questioned whether international law (including the UN Charter and the Genocide Convention) even allows nations to use force against another country to remedy genocide or human rights violations, as the legality of humanitarian intervention is heavily disputed. In any event, many have simply characterized Russia's humanitarian justifications for the invasion as pre-textual and unsupported by the facts, saying there is no evidence that Ukraine is committing any acts against Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk that would amount to genocide.

Comparisons to Western Interventions in Other Countries
Russia has also tried to justify its invasion of Ukraine by comparing its actions to interventions by the United States and its allies in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. The main response to these comparisons has been to simply dismiss them as legally irrelevant because one illegal act does not make a different act legal. For example, Professors Blum and Modirzadeh have remarked that "these arguments would carry little weight in any court of law" because "even if [they were] true, one illegal use of force does not justify another." Professor Ingrid Wuerth has likewise said that Russia's arguments go "nowhere in terms of a legal or moral justification for Russia's own actions," although she agrees with Russia "that other powerful countries have undermined international law's prohibition on the use of force and protections of territorial integrity."

UN Responses to Russian Invasion
On February 26, 2022, Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have called for Russia to immediately cease its attack on Ukraine. China, India, and the United Arab Emirates abstained from the vote; the 11 remaining members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution. Days later, a UN General Assembly resolution condemning the Russian invasion was passed with an overwhelming 141-5 vote majority, with 35 nations abstaining.

Crimes of Aggression
Because it violates the UN Charter, and is more than a minor border incursion, Russia's military intervention in Ukraine also qualifies as a "crime of aggression" under Article 8bis(1) of the Rome Statute, which is defined as “an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.”

International Court of Justice
In late February 2022, Ukraine sued Russia in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The lawsuit rejects Russia's claims that Ukraine was engaging in a genocide in Donbass and requests a court order requiring Russia to immediately halt its military operations in Ukraine. It also accuses Russia of "engag[ing] in a military invasion of Ukraine involving grave and widespread violations of the human rights of the Ukrainian people." Ukraine is represented by the law firm Covington & Burling in the lawsuit.

Russia boycotted an initial hearing held in the case on March 7, 2022, and later said it did not send anyone to attend because of the "absurdity" of Ukraine's lawsuit. At the end of the hearing, the ICJ indicated that it would decide Ukraine's application for an emergency order calling for a halt to hostilities "as soon as possible."

International Criminal Court
On February 28, 2022, the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced its intent to investigate alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity taking place in Ukraine since November 21, 2013. A formal ICC investigation began that same week. Although ICC prosecutors normally have to go through an approval process to begin an investigation—a process that can take months—the Ukraine investigation was fast-tracked following an unprecedented number of requests by ICC member states to begin the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
The ICC has jurisdiction over crimes of aggression as well as three other crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes). In general, it can prosecute these crimes if they were committed by a national of an ICC member state, in the territory of a member state, or in a state that has consented to ICC jurisdiction. The ICC can also prosecute crimes referred to it by the UN Security Council. Neither Ukraine nor Russia are members of the ICC, but the ICC's head prosecutor has said the ICC still has jurisdiction to investigate because Ukraine signed two declarations consenting to ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory beginning in November 2013.

Obstacles to Prosecuting Crime of Aggression
However, there are at least two potential obstacles to putting Russian political or military leaders on trial for crimes of aggression. First, the ICC does not try defendants in absentia, which means that a way must be found to bring leaders accused of crimes to The Hague. Second, unlike the other crimes over which the ICC has jurisdiction, crimes of aggression can only be prosecuted against leaders from states that are members of the ICC unless the UN Security Council makes a referral. Russia is not an ICC member and has the permanent power to veto resolutions of the Security Council.

One way to circumvent this second limitation might be to constitute a special international tribunal to deal specifically with crimes of aggression against Ukraine. However, some have questioned the utility of such a tribunal. Another alternative that would overcome both limitations would be to put leaders on trial in the domestic court systems of the approximately 20 countries that allow both universal jurisdiction over crimes of aggression and trials in absentia.