actual ‘dispute’ concerned alleged breaches of international humanitarian law, which
was beyond CERD’s scope
12 ; and third, that Georgia had not complied with prior
dispute resolution processes required under the Convention.
13 In the second round of
oral submissions, Russia additionally argued that the requirements for granting
provisional measures were not met.
14 The Court indicated provisional measures
against Russia,
15 distinguishing its finding of jurisdiction for this purpose—for
which a prima facie basis sufficed—from a finding on the merits.
16
Russia raised similar objections to the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the dispute,
17
concentrating on the absence of a dispute, as Georgia had not previously raised the
issue of racial discrimination to Russia.
18 The lack of communication supported
Russia’s objection that the procedural conditions requiring negotiations were not
met.
19 It was on this ground that the Court held it lacked jurisdiction.
20
2.1.2 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. Russia)
21
The second dispute in the ICJ was instituted unilaterally by Ukraine on 16 January
2017.
22 Here the claim concerned alleged breaches of two human rights conventions
in the context of alleged acts of terrorism in Ukraine, particularly in Crimea: CERD,
and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
(‘ICSFT’),
23 through dispute resolution mechanisms under those conventions.
12 Id., para. 21.
13 Id., para. 25. See CERD, Art. 11.
14 Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), Verbatim Record of 10 September 2008, paras.
35–36 (Kolodkin).
15 Racial Discrimination (Provisional Measures) [2008] ICJ Rep 353, para. 149 (‘Racial Discrimination (Provisional Measures)’).
16 Id., para. 85.
17 Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), Memorial of the Russian Federation of
1 December 2009.
18 Id., Chapter III.
19 Id., Chapter IV.
20 Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), para. 180.
21 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. Russia) (Provisional Measures) [2017] ICJ Rep 104 (‘Application of CERD and ICSFT
(Provisional Measures)’).
22 Id., Application Instituting Proceedings of 16 January 2017.
23 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (New York,
9 December 1999, in force 10 April 2002) 2178 UNTS 197 (‘ICSFT’).
290
G. Kynaston and R. Brown
was beyond CERD’s scope
12 ; and third, that Georgia had not complied with prior
dispute resolution processes required under the Convention.
13 In the second round of
oral submissions, Russia additionally argued that the requirements for granting
provisional measures were not met.
14 The Court indicated provisional measures
against Russia,
15 distinguishing its finding of jurisdiction for this purpose—for
which a prima facie basis sufficed—from a finding on the merits.
16
Russia raised similar objections to the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the dispute,
17
concentrating on the absence of a dispute, as Georgia had not previously raised the
issue of racial discrimination to Russia.
18 The lack of communication supported
Russia’s objection that the procedural conditions requiring negotiations were not
met.
19 It was on this ground that the Court held it lacked jurisdiction.
20
2.1.2 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. Russia)
21
The second dispute in the ICJ was instituted unilaterally by Ukraine on 16 January
2017.
22 Here the claim concerned alleged breaches of two human rights conventions
in the context of alleged acts of terrorism in Ukraine, particularly in Crimea: CERD,
and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
(‘ICSFT’),
23 through dispute resolution mechanisms under those conventions.
12 Id., para. 21.
13 Id., para. 25. See CERD, Art. 11.
14 Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), Verbatim Record of 10 September 2008, paras.
35–36 (Kolodkin).
15 Racial Discrimination (Provisional Measures) [2008] ICJ Rep 353, para. 149 (‘Racial Discrimination (Provisional Measures)’).
16 Id., para. 85.
17 Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), Memorial of the Russian Federation of
1 December 2009.
18 Id., Chapter III.
19 Id., Chapter IV.
20 Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), para. 180.
21 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. Russia) (Provisional Measures) [2017] ICJ Rep 104 (‘Application of CERD and ICSFT
(Provisional Measures)’).
22 Id., Application Instituting Proceedings of 16 January 2017.
23 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (New York,
9 December 1999, in force 10 April 2002) 2178 UNTS 197 (‘ICSFT’).
290
G. Kynaston and R. Brown