Ukraine v. Russia : International Court Of Justice Concludes Hearing Ukraine's Application; Russia Refuses To Appear [LIVE UPDATES]

Ukraine argues that the conditions of irreparable harm and urgency are satisfied that require the indication of provisional measures with the minimum delay possible. 

Ukraine: Indeed it is an abuse of the rights granted through the Convention by each State party to other State parties. #Russia has taken a fundamental peremptory norm of international law codified in one of the most important human rights treaties and turned it into a sharade.

Ukraine: This conduct by Russia turns the Genocide Convention on its head. Asserting a right to commit aggression under the guise of a duty to prevent and punish a non existant genocide is not good faith performance of Arts I and IV of the Genocide Convention.

Ukraine: The Russian Federation has not fulfilled its obligations under the Genocide Convention in good faith. Rather it has used a baseless accusation to justify a so called special military operation in Ukraine commenced on Feb 24, 2022.

Ukraine: The ILC however considered that this is clearly implicit in the obligation to perform the treaty in good faith and preferred to state the pacta sunt servanda rule in as simple as form as possible.

Ukraine: It stipulates that while drafting Art 26 of the VCLT, some members felt that there would be advantage in also stating that a party most abstain from acts calculated to frustrate the object and purpose of the treaty.

Ukraine relies upon the International Law Commission's commentary on the Draft Articles that became the Vienna Convention. 

Ukraine: Art 26 of the VCLT sets forth the well established principle of "pacta sunt servanda"- every treaty enforced is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.

Ukraine: Ukraine has the right to demand good faith performance of the Genocide Convention consistent with the Convention's object and purpose.

Ukraine cites ICJ judgement in Nicaragua v US where the ICJ had held that the use of force could not have been the appropriate method to prevent alleged human rights violations.