In a significant development, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declared jurisdiction in the case brought by Ukraine against Russia over the latter’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. The case, filed at The Hague-based ICJ just days after Russia’s invasion, focuses on Ukraine’s accusation that Russia falsely used the genocide law to justify its brutal actions.

Kyiv contends that Moscow invoked the genocide treaty improperly to legitimize its invasion, rejecting Russia’s claims of preventing a genocidal attack on ethnic Russians in the eastern Donbas region. Ukrainian representative Anton Korynevych welcomed the decision, emphasizing the court’s role in determining that Ukraine is not responsible for the alleged genocide falsely attributed to it by Russia since 2014 in Donbas.

While the case centers on the 1948 Genocide Convention, Ukraine does not accuse Russia of committing genocide. Instead, it asserts that Russia violated the genocide treaty by using it as a justification for the invasion. Ukraine argues that there was no imminent risk of genocide in the east of the country, where it had been engaged in conflict with Russian-backed forces since 2014.

Moscow, on the other hand, claims that Ukraine is using the case as a means to challenge the overall legality of Russia’s military action and has requested the case’s dismissal. A record 32 states, including numerous European nations, Australia, and Canada, have submitted statements supporting Kyiv.

The recent ICJ ruling establishes jurisdiction over Ukraine’s request for a declaration that it has not committed genocide. However, the court will not adjudicate on whether Russia’s invasion or recognition of the independence of areas in eastern Ukraine violate the Genocide Convention, as these aspects fall under different international laws.

This ruling marks a crucial procedural step, ensuring the continuation of the case. The 1948 UN Genocide Convention defines genocide as crimes committed with the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” While ICJ rulings are legally binding, enforcement lies beyond the court’s authority.