Forcibly Transferring Ukrainian Children to the Russian Federation: A Genocide?

Ioffe, Yulia

doi:10.1080/14623528.2023.2228085

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ukrainians are internationally acknowledged as a national group, and they were acknowledged as such by Russia. There is also supporting evidence that Russians, and Putin and Lvova-Belova in particular, identified the children 101 that were forcibly transferred to Russia as Ukrainian (Ioffe, 2023).60 Therefore, Ukrainians are protected as a group by the Genocide Convention and Ukrainian children can serve as part of the protected group. As the preceding section discussed, the elements of the actus reus of the crime of the forcible transfer of children, the remaining is what evidence there is to support the existence of a special intent to destroy the Ukrainians in whole or in part.…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…In light of the controversy over the inclusion of cultural genocide in the Convention, the UN Ad Hoc committee and the Sixth committee discussed the forcible transfer of children. In the end, the Convention included the prohibition of forcible transfer of children -mainly because it could also be seen as a technique of biological genocide, but also because of the work of the Greek delegation in the Sixth committee (Ioffe, 2023). Greece promoted this prohibition because during the Greek civil war, Greek children had been victims of abduction and forcible transfer to countries in Eastern Europe under communist control (Kourtis, 2023).…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in fact, the camps are a part of the 'larger plan' of Russia's leadership to re-educate the overall Ukrainian population and to 'suppress the Ukrainians' sense of history, language and nation' (Ioffe, 2023: 28). This plan has been applied mainly in the occupied territories of Ukraine, where Russian authorities have consistently tried to replace Ukrainian textbooks with Russian (Ioffe, 2023).…”

Section: The Facts: Re-education Camps and Adoption Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Russian government has also legalised the transfer of Ukrainian children to the facilities and their adoption through domestic legislation that changed adoption laws and facilitated a quick process of granting Russian citizenship to Ukrainian children without parental care (Ioffe, 2023;Dixon and Abbakumova, 2022). This legislation aimed, as confirmed by Lvova-Belova, to turn the temporary guardianship of the "orphans" into permanent guardianship (Ioffe, 2023).…”

Section: The Facts: Re-education Camps and Adoption Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Russia's state media and highest-ranking officials, including Putin, have orchestrated and carried out incitement against the Ukrainian people.62 Russia has denied the existence of the Ukrainian nation and identity, implying that people who identify themselves as Ukrainian threaten the "unity" of Russians and Ukrainians (New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy et al, 2022;Coynash 2022) and, according to Putin, deserve punishment for their "treason".63 Russia has also referred to Ukrainians as "subhuman, animals, epitome of evil and Nazis" (Ioffe, 2023: 27) and has claimed the need for the "denazification" of Ukraine (Coynash, 2022) -equating nazification with Ukrainians' belief that they have a unique national and cultural identity (Ioffe, 2023).…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Forcible Transfer of Children from Ukraine as Genocide

Moodrick-Even Khen

2024

Int. J. Child. Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On 17 March 2023, Pre-Trial Chamber ii of the International Criminal Court (icc) issued secret warrants of arrest for President Putin and the Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation, Ms. Lvova-Belova, for the commission of the war crime of forcible transfer of children. This article argues that there are “reasonable grounds to believe”, as the icc Statute requires for the arrest warrant stage, that both Putin and Lvova-Belova bear individual criminal responsibility for the forcible transfer of Ukrainian children as a crime of genocide; however, two types of considerations – general and particular – prevented the issuing of arrest warrants for genocide crimes. In Section 2, after a short historical-legal review of the formulation of Article 2(e) of the Genocide Convention (gc), the article notes that despite the significant number of cases of children being transferred and removed from their families that have taken place since the gc was adopted, the provision has been dormant and considered anachronistic and was rarely applied by an international or a local court. Section 3 proceeds with a legal analysis of the elements of the crime of the forced transfer of children and the genocidal special intent. Section 4 parses the case study of the forcible transfer of children from Ukraine as a crime of genocide. Section 5 analyses the litigation of the crime of genocide in the icc through the only case of genocide the court has addressed so far: the arrest warrant for Sudan’s former president, Omar al-Bashir. Section 6 concludes with a forecast that despite the sufficient legal basis for issuing arrest warrants for Putin and Lvova-Belova, practical and political considerations would impede the icc from doing so.

show abstract

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Facts: Re-education Camps and Adoption Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Facts: Re-education Camps and Adoption Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Forcible Transfer of Children from Ukraine as Genocide

Moodrick-Even Khen

2024

Int. J. Child. Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Self-Defence As Remedial Self-Determination: Continuity in Russian Narratives to Justify Imperialism and the Use of Force

Pelliconi

2024

Neth Int Law Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The principle of self-determination is at the centre of the Russian Federation’s (Russia’s) ‘justifications’ for using force against Ukraine and supporting the separatist entities in its eastern provinces, as demonstrated by official statements of Russia’s representatives and the oral and written submissions to the inter-state proceedings on the application of the Genocide Convention before the International Court of Justice (Ukraine v. Russia). In particular, Russia construes self-defence as an exercise of remedial self-determination, supporting territorial separation and the creation of satellite states or their annexation by the Federation. This is in continuity with Russia’s policies and argumentations utilised in other contexts such as Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. These cases differ in their context and history but share the same remedial approach to external self-determination as a purported justification to use force. This is also in partial continuity with the tradition of Soviet approaches to self-determination. Like other states’ self-indulgent ‘exceptionalism’ in international law, Russia’s cherry-picking application of self-determination reveals its instrumental usage to camouflage imperialistic aggression and expansionistic ambitions.

show abstract

The moral and strategic clarity of supporting Ukraine’s self-defense: Why accepting Russian colonialism should remain a taboo

Oksamytna

2024

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to Toal’s article “The Territorial Taboo: Explaining the Public Aversion to Negotiations in the Ukraine War Support Coalition”, I argue that the alleged silencing of those who push for Ukraine’s territorial concessions to Russia is an exaggerated problem. The reason why such voices are not gaining traction is because, as of summer 2024, neither Ukraine nor key European states had a majority in favor of territorial concessions. This is reassuring: it means that there is little appetite for endorsing Russian colonialism and abandoning Ukrainians on the occupied territories to Russian terror in the hope of an illusory “peace”. In contrast to the majority opinion, Toal calls for sacrificing (a part of) Ukraine in order to freeze the conflict and reduce great power tensions. To make such a colonial proposition seem palatable, Toal tries to shift the blame for the continuation of the war from Russia, the aggressor, to Ukraine, the victim. In reality, Ukrainians want peace, just not on Russia’s terms. Any settlement that does not involve the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity is unjust and likely unsustainable. It would give Russia an opportunity to re-arm, extracting resources from the newly occupied Ukrainian territories. Russian officials showed no intention of abiding by any potential agreements with Ukraine, reiterating their goal of destroying the Ukrainian nation and state. Since aggression against Ukraine did not attract widespread opposition within Russia and garnered quite a few enthusiastic supporters, a change in Russian policy seemed improbable as of summer 2024. The continuation of armed resistance against the Russian invasion is Ukraine’s only choice.

show abstract

Forcibly Transferring Ukrainian Children to the Russian Federation: A Genocide?

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

The Forcible Transfer of Children from Ukraine as Genocide

The Forcible Transfer of Children from Ukraine as Genocide

Self-Defence As Remedial Self-Determination: Continuity in Russian Narratives to Justify Imperialism and the Use of Force

The moral and strategic clarity of supporting Ukraine’s self-defense: Why accepting Russian colonialism should remain a taboo

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About