Sterling Professor of International Law Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School was among a team of lawyers to argue on behalf of Ukraine at a hearing on Monday, March 7. According to the international court, which is the United Nations’ primary judicial organ, Ukraine filed the matter to adjudicate claims under the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”
According to Yale, initial proceedings began on Saturday, Feb. 26, after Ukraine said Russia created a “judicial dispute” as a result of its military actions. Russia claims “acts of genocide have occurred in the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts of Ukraine” and are using that accusation as the basis for a “special military operation” in its neighboring country.
Representatives from the Russian Federation declined to participate in oral arguments and instead issued a written response informing the court they would not be participating in the proceedings.
In his remarks, Koh offered a harsh criticism of the attack. He said the invasion is a “singular case that until now, most have contemplated only in the hypothetical: a Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council decides, with planned premeditation, to commit naked aggression and war crimes by launching a broad and brutal military campaign against an innocent neighbor and its civilian population, based on the false pretext that the target state is committing genocide.”
From Twitter
Columbia Law School @ColumbiaLaw
"WATCH: On March 2, national security law expert #CLSProf @MattWaxman1 and Visiting Professor @MonicaHakimi discussed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the responses of other governments, and the potential implications for the international legal order."
“The tragedy we are all watching in the streets of Kyiv, Kharkiv, Mariupol, Kherson, Volnovakha, and so many other Ukrainian cities is precisely what our modern international legal system was designed to prevent,” Koh said. “If this Court does not act decisively against this level of aggression and atrocity, based on outrageous abuse of one of the world’s most important human rights treaties… why should any Permanent-5 U.N. Member see international law as a meaningful obstacle to what it might perceive as ‘necessary military action’?”
From Twitter
"The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent Zelensky signs law allowing seizure of Russian property in Ukraine. It allows Ukraine to confiscate property that belongs to the Russian Federation or its residents without any compensation. The parliament passed it on March 3."
In addition to Koh, Harvard Law School expert on weapons and international human rights Bonnie Docherty said the manner in which Russia has conducted the invasion presents its own problems and creates additional legal challenges. Docherty said, in particular, the use of “cluster munitions” is especially dangerous both during and after the conflict.
“Cluster munitions … leave behind many unexploded submunitions. I’ve reported on cluster missions in many conflicts—Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Georgia—and every place I’ve been, there are always a large number of failed submunitions,” said Docherty. “This means there’s the potential not just for immediate harm, but for long-term harm and danger to civilians—particularly kids, who sometimes think these are toys and pick them up. Farmers may hit them with their plows. Or in cities, they can lead to displacement or danger for people returning to their homes.”
According to the article, the weapons are prohibited under the Convention on Cluster Munitions treaty of 2008, although that treaty was not signed by Ukraine or Russia.
For more information regarding upcoming legal proceedings, visit the International Court of Justice here: https://www.icj-cij.org/en