Interesting analysis from Marko Milanovic, but I’m afraid I’m less optimistic than he is regarding #Ukraine’s prospects against #Russia for receiving some kind of (legal) relief at the #ICJ in the form of provisional measures. 1/9
https://twitter.com/ejiltalk/status/1497931698251644937
There are essentially three tests which must be met to receive provisional measures: prima facie jurisdiction; plausibility of rights and link between them and measures requested; and risk of irreparable prejudice and urgency (most recently: icj-cij.org/public/files/c…). 2/
As many have pointed out, the #GenocideConvention compromissory clause provides the consent of the parties to the #ICJ’s jurisdiction, the two states no longer having reservations thereto. However, prima facie jurisdiction must also relate to the alleged rights claimed. 3/
As @MF_Lando pointed out, this overlaps with the issue of plausibility.
It is not clear what plausible right under the Convention protection thereof is being requested. Based on #ICJ’s recent PM orders, genocide disinformation probably won’t be enough to sustain plausibility. 4/
It is not clear what plausible right under the Convention protection thereof is being requested. Based on #ICJ’s recent PM orders, genocide disinformation probably won’t be enough to sustain plausibility. 4/
https://twitter.com/MF_Lando/status/1468425255089623040
This is not to say that #Ukraine’s case on its merits is hopeless. Jurisdiction under #GenocideConvention extends i.a. to disputes regarding its interpretation. The #ICJ may also render declaratory judgments regarding the interpretation of treaties in force b/w the parties. 5/ 
(🇷🇺 may argue that its claims of genocide were not in the meaning of the Convention but rather under customary international, meaning there is no existing dispute, but that’s another issue and prob not one which would constitute an obstacle at any provisional measures stage.) 6/
Neither is it unprecedented to institute proceedings in order to negate an interpretation of a treaty governing the relations of two states which has been made another state, as basically occurred in the US Nationals in Morocco case. 7/
However, important to emphasise that in such instances it would be the claimed right of the respondent (🇷🇺) which is the subject of litigation (and which may or – as is manifest in this case – may not be plausible and at risk of harm) and not the applicant (🇺🇦). 8/
It of course remains to be seen what precisely is the nature of #Ukraine’s application. As of this moment, the most that can be discerned is from @MFA_Ukraine press release. 9/9
https://twitter.com/OriPomson/status/1497935806832467970
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
