FAQ
Status: 03/17/2022 5:48 p.m
The International Court of Justice has ordered Russia to stop the war in Ukraine. What does that mean? And what is the difference to the International Criminal Court, which also investigates?
ICJ and ICC – what is the difference?
The Hague is known to many as a city of international law. What is less known, however, is that there are two international courts with different tasks. First, there is the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has already made an emergency decision on the war in Ukraine. The ICJ is a United Nations court that began operating in 1946. Important: Individuals are not being sued or accused there. A state sues the other state for possible violations of international law. So Ukraine is suing Russia. International law – these are above all the rules that regulate the relationship between states.
Regardless of this, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has existed since 2002. He does not belong to the United Nations. Its basis is a separate international treaty. Important: At the ICC it is not states that are indicted, but individuals. From the individual soldier to the supreme commander. The ICC has jurisdiction over the following crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity, aggression and genocide.
What did the ICJ decide on the war in Ukraine?
One of the central sentences is that Russia must interrupt military operations. The court ordered several interim measures. A final decision is still pending and will take time. The content of the dispute revolves around the 1948 Genocide Convention.
Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly justified the war by saying that genocide was taking place in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine then asked in The Hague for clarification that this was not true. The Court does not currently have any “substantiated” evidence of genocide in Ukraine.
What are the consequences of the judgement?
No direct. The verdict will not stop Russian tanks. The decision is binding. However, the court has no means of enforcing its decisions.
International law often depends on the acceptance of states. In principle, the UN Security Council is responsible for giving effect to judgments of the ICJ. But Russia has a right of veto there.
Why does the decision still have a signal effect?
After all, the court of the United Nations massively shakes Putin’s central justification for the start of the war – that genocide is taking place in eastern Ukraine. Even the legal assessments from Haag are an important signal.
Russia did not take part in the March 7 hearing in The Hague. What is interesting, however, is that a written statement was subsequently submitted. It no longer mentions the danger of genocide as a reason for war, but only the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The ICJ is therefore not responsible for the case because Russia has not generally submitted.
Why was the emergency decision possible even though Russia does not recognize the court in principle?
That depends on the subject of the litigation. Russia and Ukraine have both ratified the “Genocide Convention”. It states that the ICJ is responsible for disputes surrounding the convention.
Ukraine’s move was to use the Russian arguments of alleged genocide. In this way, the Court of Justice has declared itself competent in the specific case.
What is the role of the ICC right now?
Karim Khan is the chief prosecutor of the ICC, i.e. the chief prosecutor there. He has been investigating war crimes in Ukraine since 2014. The background was the occupation of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
These investigations will now also include “any new alleged crimes” committed on the territory of Ukraine that fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC, Khan said in early March 2022. Currently, it is not about specific suspects, but about investigations into actions that could be war crimes.
armed uniformed men without insignia appeared in 2014 in the course of the annexation of Crimea. Russia later admitted that they were Russian soldiers.
Image: picture alliance/dpa
Why can the ICC investigate even though Russia and Ukraine are not contracting states?
Russia and Ukraine have not joined the ICC. From the prosecutor’s point of view, however, the court can still investigate possible crimes in Ukraine because Ukraine issued a so-called ad hoc recognition in two statements in 2014 and 2015 after the annexation of Crimea. In doing so, she had agreed to investigations on her national territory to this day. Only investigations into the offense of “aggression” are not legally possible in this way and are therefore excluded.
How realistic is it that Russian officials end up in the dock in The Hague?
This is probably unrealistic in the short term. In the medium and long term, however, the ICC can issue arrest warrants, for example. He then has no police of his own that he could send to Russia to arrest someone there. However, the possible suspects would have to think carefully about which countries they travel to. Because there was a risk of being arrested there. Of course, the prerequisite would always be that war crimes, for example, can be proven in court. Heads of state at the ICC do not enjoy immunity.
“Putin to The Hague” – a demand that is currently being raised at many rallies. But it is not realistic.
Image: AFP
Why is the German Attorney General already investigating possible war crimes?
According to the German Code of Crimes against International Law, it is possible for the Federal Public Prosecutor to also investigate certain crimes that were not committed in Germany and where there are no German perpetrators and victims. An example of this was the Koblenz trial of Syrian intelligence officials for crimes against humanity, which ended in early 2022.
However, in order for such investigations to lead to criminal proceedings in purely practical terms, the accused would have to be in Germany, as is the case in the Syrian trial. However, it is not yet possible to foresee whether this will be realistic. In German criminal proceedings, however, an incumbent foreign head of state would enjoy legal immunity. So far, the Attorney General has not listed any specific persons as suspects.