Thread by @mariekedehoon

So let's go legal: Art 1 Genocide Convention provides for the obligation to prevent #genocide. Putin alluded to this in speech Monday when he claimed a genocide in #Ukraine and that they therefore could/had to intervene. This is false: it's not a justification for use of force.

https://twitter.com/mariekedehoon/status/1497910709287542785

Plus there is no genocide in #Ukraine, so more form of gaslighting. See for further analysis of his argumentations to appear as if his armed force is lawful/legitimate instead of the violation of art 2(4) UN Charter and act of aggression that it is, this:

https://twitter.com/mariekedehoon/status/1496241866538377216?s=20&t=Wi1e-HVsvGdWv_dcRcKTfw

Since #Russia referred to "#Genocide", #Ukraine now says: apparently we have a dispute over the interpretation and application of the notion of "genocide" and since we are both state parties to that treaty, we will invoke Article IX Genocide Convention.

Normally, International Court of Justice only has jurisdiction if both parties consent, which #Russia does not. But with some treaties, there's a "compromissory clause" such as Art IX Genocide Conv. Then unilateral submission of dispute to #ICJ is possible

https://twitter.com/mariekedehoon/status/1497911377528250370?s=20&t=Wi1e-HVsvGdWv_dcRcKTfw

That's what #Ukraine just did. Question is: when not about a genocide but about manipulating the term to then violate international law (art 2(4)), can #ICJ discuss that case? I think maybe yes, since art IX also says "fulfilment" next to interpretation/application. #lawfare

So can #lawfare-type twisting of international law, manipulating legal terms in bad faith, be in and of itself be a violation of the treaty? Super interesting, right? Legal argumentation to follow in next many years perhaps. But for now, a podium for provisional measures by #ICJ.

Let's also not forget there is already a #Ukraine v #Russia at the ICJ related to Russia's interference in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea: icj-cij.org/en/case/166. Basis there is ICERD (discrimination) and ICSFT (financing terrorism). Stage: replies due in 2022, judgment in 2023?

ICERD and ICSFT also have compromissory clauses. So really #Ukraine wanted to ask the #ICJ to rule over whether #Russia violates territorial integrity, non-intervention principle and support/effective control in the conflict. But jurisdiction possible on basis of ICERD and ICSFT.

In short, argument on ICERD relates to discrimination in Crimea and on ICSFT on Russia's support (financing) to insurgents whose crimes allegedly fall under scope of this financing terrorism treaty. #MH17 also, since 1971 #Montreal Convention is one of the treaties in the annex.

#ICJ also issued provisional measures in this case in 2017. It ordered unanimously: "parties shall refrain from any action that might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve". Well, another obligation violated. icj-cij.org/public/files/c…