pravoПравоприменениеLaw Enforcement Review2542-15142658-4050Dostoevsky Omsk State University10.52468/2542-1514.2024.8(2).149-157pravo-933Research ArticleПРАВОПРИМЕНЕНИЕ В МЕЖДУНАРОДНОМ ПРАВЕTHE LAW ENFORCEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL LAWРешение Международного суда ООН от 31 января 2024 г. по существу спора Украины против Российской ФедерацииJudgment on the merits of the International Court of Justice of January 31, 2024, case Ukraine vs Russian Federationhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0448-8253КиселеваО. А.KiselevaO. A.

Киселева Ольга Анатольевна – кандидат юридических наук, доцент кафедры международного права; ResearcherID: HII-9133-2022

199034, Санкт-Петербург, Университетская наб., 7/9

Olga A. Kiseleva – PhD in Law, Associate Professor, Department of International Law; ResearcherID: HII-9133-2022

7/9, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034

olga.kiseleva@spbu.ruСанкт-Петербургский государственный университетРоссияSt. Petersburg UniversityRussian Federation20242206202482149157Copyright © Киселева О.А., 20242024Киселева О.А.Kiseleva O.A.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://enforcement.omsu.ru/jour/article/view/933

Представлен анализ одного из самых ожидаемых и неожиданных для многих решений Международного Суда Организации Объединенных Наций от 31 января 2024 г. по делу 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). Данное решение является неоднозначным событием, которое требует многофакторного анализа. Позиции Суда в исследованном акте позволяют делать выводы не только по вопросам самого спора, по существу которого он вынесен, но и в поддержку жизнеспособности институтов международного правосудия. Международный Суд предпочел воздержаться от оценок весьма спорных фактов конфликта в Украине, а остался на позиции исключительно правовой оценки подлежащих исследованию по существу заявленного спора требований. Цели, поставленные перед истцом в данном процессе еще как минимум в 2014 г. (в ходе начала подготовки искового заявления по данному делу), не достигнуты.

The subject

The subject. The number of authors who consistently try in their works to “bury” international justice, as well as international law itself, behind the ideas of politicization, bias and unenforceability, has grown significantly today. The political and legal developments of modern international law should still be assessed comprehensively and in detail. First of all, legal events are the is Judgment on the merits of the International Court of Justice of January 31, 2024, case of 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 vs. Russian Federation).

Materials and methods

Materials and methods. This research carried out a scientific analysis of the Judgment on the merits of the ICJ dated January 31, 2024. The subject of the study also included other law enforcement acts of the International Court of Justice in this case and in other cases, as well as normative acts of international law.

Discussion

Discussion. The judgment on the merits of the UN International Court of Justice dated January 31, 2024 was one of the most expected and unexpected for many. It is an ambiguous event that requires multifactor analysis. The author analyzed the procedure for considering this dispute, the stated subject and basis of the dispute in conjunction with the decisions of the Court itself on jurisdiction, and assessed the adopted final decisions on the merits of the dispute. It is safe to say that for Russia this decision of the Court is in many ways positive. The positions of the Court in the examined act allow us to draw conclusions not only on the issues of the dispute itself, on the merits of which it was decided, but also regarding the advisability of preserving international justice, which has shown viability and independence.

The main results and conclusions. The author analyzes the case review process, the subject of the dispute, which was declared by the applicant and actually considered by the Court, in conjunction with the judgments of the Court on the issue of jurisdiction, and the author gave a legal assessment of the final judgment on the merits of the case. It is safe to say that this Court,s judgment has a positive meaning in many aspects for Russian Federation. The positions of the Court in the act examined allow us to draw conclusions not only on the issues of the case itself, on the merits of which it was rendered, but also on the expediency of preserving international justice, which has shown viability and independence.

In addition, the International Court limited itself to proving Russia's guilt in only two minor episodes of international legal violations of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 1999 and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1965. The Court avoided from orders for damages.

Международный Суд ООНрешение по существу спорамеждународное правосудиеконвенцияфинансирование терроризмарасовая дискриминациясредстваУкраинаРоссийская ФедерацияThe International Court of Justicejudgment on the meritsinternational justiceconventionfinancing of terrorismracial discriminationfundsUkraineRussian FederationReferencesGoldenziel J. An Alternative to Zombieing: Lawfare Between Russian and Ukraine and the Future of International Law / J. Goldenziel // Cornell Law Review. – 2023. – Vol. 108, iss. 1. – P. 1–14.Goldenziel J. An Alternative to Zombieing: Lawfare Between Russian and Ukraine and the Future of International Law. Cornell Law Review, 2023, vol. 108, iss. 1, pр. 1–14.Goldenziel J. Law as a Battlefield: The U.S., China, and the Global Escalation of Lawfare / J. Goldenziel // Cornell Law Review. – 2020. – Vol. 106, iss. 5 – P. 1085–1171.Goldenziel J. Law as a Battlefield: The U.S., China, and the Global Escalation of Lawfare. Cornell Law Review, 2020, vol. 106, iss. 5, pp. 1085–1171.dos Reis F. Moving “red lines”: The Russian–Ukrainian war and the pragmatic (mis-)use of international law / F. dos Reis, J. Grzybowski // Global Constitutionalism. – Published online August 10, 2023. – P. 1–23.dos Reis F., Grzybowski J. Moving “red lines”: The Russian–Ukrainian war and the pragmatic (mis-)use of international law. Global Constitutionalism, published online August 10, 2023, pp. 1–23.Tropin Z. Lawfare as part of hybrid wars: The experience of Ukraine in conflict with Russian Federation / Z. Tropin // Security and Defence Quarterly. – 2021. – Vol. 33, № 1. – Р. 5–29.Tropin Z. Lawfare as part of hybrid wars: The experience of Ukraine in conflict with Russian Federation. Security and Defence Quarterly, 2021, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 5–29.Кадышева О. В. Неизвестная «санкционная война» и возможности международного правосудия / О. В. Кадышева // Международное правосудие. – 2022. – № 4 (44). – С. 95–111.Kadysheva O. Unknown “sanctions war” and the possibilities of international justice. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie = International Justice, 2022, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 95–111. (In Russ.).Исполинов А.С. Эволюция правового статуса оговорок: от «правила единогласия» Лиги Наций до Руководства Комиссии международного права по оговоркам 2011 года / А.С. Исполинов // Право. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. – 2020. – № 3. – С. 134–161. – DOI: 10.17323/2072-8166.2020.3.134.161.Ispolinov A.S. The Evolution of Legal Status of Reservations: from League of Nations Unanimity Rule to the International Law Commission 2011 Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki = Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2020, no. 3, pp. 134–161. DOI: 10.17323/2072-8166.2020.3.134.161. (In Russ.).Dimetto M. «To Fall, or Not to Fall, That Is the (Preliminary) Question»: Disputes, Compromissory Clauses and Swinging Jurisdictional Tests at the ICJ / M. Dimetto // The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals. – 2022. – Vol. 21, № 1. – P. 5–34.Dimetto M. «To Fall, or Not to Fall, That Is the (Preliminary) Question»: Disputes, Compromissory Clauses and Swinging Jurisdictional Tests at the ICJ. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 2022, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 5–34.Fontanelli F. Once Burned, Twice Shy. The Use of Compromissory Clauses before the International Court of Justice and Their Declining Popularity in New Treaties / F. Fontanelli // Rivista di diritto internazionale. – 2021. – Vol. 104, № 1. – P. 7–39.Fontanelli F. Once Burned, Twice Shy. The Use of Compromissory Clauses before the International Court of Justice and Their Declining Popularity in New Treaties. Rivista di diritto internazionale, 2021, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 7–39.Исполинов А. С. Яблоко раздора: досудебная процедура в международном правосудии и в практике Суда ЕАЭС / А. С. Исполинов, О. В. Кадышева // Международное правосудие. – 2021. – № 2 (38). – С. 93–110.Ispolinov A., Kadysheva O. An apple of discord: pre-trial procedure in international justice and in the jurisprudence of the EAEU Court. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2021, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 93–110. (In Russ.).Пименова C. Д. Обеспечительные меры в практике международных судов и трибуналов / С. Д. Пименова. – М. : Статут, 2023. – 202 c.Pimenova S.D. Interim measures in the practice of international courts and tribunals. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2023. 202 p. (In Russ.).Пименова С. Д. Украина против России: комментарий к определению Международного суда об обеспечительных мерах от 16 марта 2022 года / С. Д. Пименова // Журнал ВШЭ по международному праву. – 2023. – Т. 1, № 1. – С. 92–98.Pimenova S. Ukraine v. Russia: a Commentary on the Order of 16 March 2022 on the Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures. Zhurnal VShE po mezhdunarodnomu pravu = HSE University Journal of International Law, 2023, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 92–98. (In Russ.).Пименова С. Д. Обеспечительные меры в практике Международного Суда ООН / С. Д. Пименова // Международное правосудие. – 2020. – № 2 (34). – С. 88–102.Pimenova S. Provisional measures in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie = International Justice, 2020, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 88–102. (In Russ.).Lando М. Plausibility in the Provisional Measures Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice / М. Lando // Leiden Journal of International Law. – 2018. – Vol. 31, № 3. – P. 641–668.Lando М. Plausibility in the Provisional Measures Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. Leiden Journal of International Law, 2018, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 641–668.Hill-Cawthorne L. International Litigation and the Disaggregation of Disputes: Ukraine-Russia as a Case Study / L. Hill-Cawthorne // International & Comparative Law Quarterly. – 2019. – Vol. 68. – P. 779–815.Hill-Cawthorne L. International Litigation and the Disaggregation of Disputes: Ukraine-Russia as a Case Study. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 2019, vol. 68, pp. 779–815.Терехова Л. А. Постановление Европейского Суда по правам человека как основание для пересмотра решения национального суда / Л. А. Терехова // Правоприменение. – 2017. – Т. 1, № 1. – С. 173–183. – DOI: 10.24147/2542-1514.2017.1(1).173-183.Terekhova L. European Court of human rights judgement as a basis for review of the national courts' judgement. Pravoprimeneni = Law Enforcement Review, 2017, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 173–183. DOI: 10.24147/2542-1514.2017.1(1).173-183.Klein N. Iran and Its Encounters with the International Court of Justice / N. Klein // Melbourne Journal of International Law. – 2021. – Vol. 21, № 3. – P. 620–652.Klein N. Iran and Its Encounters with the International Court of Justice. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 2021, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 620–652.Пименова С. Д. Спор о некоторых иранских активах (Иран против США): упущенная возможность Международного Суда ООН и процессуальные уловки сторон / С. Д. Пименова // Международное правосудие. – 2023. – № 3 (47). – С. 3–17.Pimenova S. The case of certain Iranian assets (Iran v. Usa): missed opportunity for the ICJ and procedural tricks of the parties. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie = International Justice, 2023, no. 3 (47), pp. 3–17. (In Russ.).Ochoa-Ruiz N. Exploring the Limits of International Law relating to the Use of Force in Self-defence / N. Ochoa-Ruiz, E. Salamanca-Aguado // European Journal of International Law. – 2005. – Vol. 16, iss. 3. – P. 499–524.Ochoa-Ruiz N., Salamanca-Aguado E. Exploring the Limits of International Law relating to the Use of Force in Self-defence. European Journal of International Law, 2005, vol. 16, iss. 3, pp. 499–524.Cannizzaro E. Fragmenting International Law through Compromissory Clauses? Some Remarks on the Decision of the ICJ in the Oil Platforms Case / E. Cannizzaro, B. Bonafé // European Journal of International Law. – 2005. – Vol. 16, iss. 3. – P. 481–497.Cannizzaro E., Bonafé B. Fragmenting International Law through Compromissory Clauses? Some Remarks on the Decision of the ICJ in the Oil Platforms Case. European Journal of International Law, 2005, vol. 16, iss. 3, pp. 481–497.Dautaj Y. Jurisdictional Immunities and Certain Iranian Assets: Missed Opportunities for Defining Sovereign Immunity at the International Court of Justice / Y. Dautaj, W. F. Fox // Cornell International Law Journal. – 2020. – Vol. 53, № 3. – Р. 379–427.Dautaj Y., Fox W.F. Jurisdictional Immunities and Certain Iranian Assets: Missed Opportunities for Defining Sovereign Immunity at the International Court of Justice. Cornell International Law Journal, 2020, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 379–427.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.