MIL OSI Translation. Region: Russian Federation –
MESSAGE TO THE MEDIA
8 November the UN international court in the Hague announced its decision on jurisdictionin objections raised by Russia to achieve a “Ukraine against the Russian Federation”, which was initiated in January 2017 with Kiev, who accused Russia of violating the International Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism of 1999 (MBFT) and the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination 1965 (ICERD).
For MKFT the Court rejected one of the key requirements of Ukraine, implying that Russia should bear international legal responsibility as a state sponsor of terrorism in Ukraine. The court supported the position of Russia, according to which the issues related to the financing of terrorism by the state and its officials, regardless of the absurdity of such accusations against Russia, in principle, not regulated MKFT and cannot be the subject of consideration in this case. However, the Court virtually ignored the other jurisdictional objections from Moscow, allowing Ukraine to transfer imposed by the Russian side of the dispute over MKFT in consideration of the merits. This position of the Court is difficult to explain since at the stage of provisional measures in 2017, the court upheld the reasoning of Russia, came to the conclusion that the allegations of Ukraine about the alleged violated her rights under MBFT are not grounded (“plausible”).
The court did not take jurisdictional objections from the Russian side of the ICERD. In particular, it is not agreed that before seeking protection in the International court of justice, the state, the plaintiff shall first apply in the specially created under the auspices of the ICERD Committee on the elimination of racial discrimination, designed to oversee the implementation of the Convention and to respond to its violation. Ukraine did not.
Was not taken into account the objections of Russia in connection with the failure by Kiev to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies as a precondition to Court. At this stage, the Court did not evaluate the actual direction of the Ukrainian accusations, and was not engaged in the qualification of specific actions as potential cases of racial discrimination.
In the end Ukraine managed to overcome a preliminary stage and to transfer the trial in the dispute on the merits of both conventions. The Court’s decision on his jurisdiction does not prejudge the outcome of the case, including taking into account the fact that 8 December 2020 Russia has yet to present its counter-arguments on the merits.
The Russian Federation expects that at the stage of consideration of dispute in essence, the international court of justice to fully take into account Russia’s position and eventually leave unsatisfied all Ukrainian claims.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is a translation. Apologies should the grammar and/or sentence structure will not be perfect.