The International Court of Justice and the Georgia/Russia Dispute

Okowa, Phoebe N.

doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngr039

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It will be recalled that Article 22 CERD was invoked and dealt with in an earlier case of Georgia v Russia [Okowa 2011;Lucak 2012;Parlett 2012;Szewczyk 2011]. An empirical difference between Georgia v Russia and Ukraine v Russia is that in the latter case Ukraine genuinely undertook attempts to negotiate with Russia regarding CERD matters.…”

Section: Interpretation and Application Of Jurisdictional Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What the Court thus did in Georgia v Russia was to follow the requirement of judicial economy, as a purely procedural way of dealing with the point that the issue raised before the Court and disputed between the litigating parties as to the requirement to resort to the CERD Committee need not be dealt with or resolved in that particular case, because it would not affect the outcome of that case anyway. The Court merely decided that the parties' claims regarding the CERD Committee needed not be adjudicated then and there 7 .…”

Section: Interpretation and Application Of Jurisdictional Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…106. On negotiations in relation to ICJ adjudication see generally K. Wellens [Wellens 2019] 7. Otherwise, it would be unclear why the Court disagreed with the applicant's contention that 'all that is needed is that, as a matter of fact, the dispute had not been resolved (through negotiations or through the procedures established by CERD)' .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Рассмотрение Исков О Расовой Дискриминации: Вопросы Юрисдикции И Приемлемости В Деле «Украина Против России»

Orakhelashvili

2021

Mosc. j. int. law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION. Over the past decade, the International Court of Justice has been requested to adjudicate on claims under 1965 Convention against Racial Discrimination (CERD). While adjudication under treaty compromissory clauses is not uncommon, the Court’s jurisdiction under CERD is subject to conditions that are not replicated under other multilateral treaties. Therefore, the Court’s use of compromissory clause under CERD raises complex issues of treaty interpretation as well as of the Court’s compliance with consensually established limits of its own authority.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article proceeds to examine the Court’s application of jurisdictional clause under Article 22 CERD in the case of Ukraine v Russia from the positivist legal perspective. It assesses the Court’s use of treaty interpretation methods relating to the text and context of Article 22, as well as CERD’s object and purpose. After assessing the Court’s analysis of its jurisdiction, the article proceeds to examine the Court’s use of the rule on exhaustion of local remedies which is one the condition of the admissibility of claims in cases relating to treatment of individual and their groups.RESEARCH RESULTS. The article demonstrates that the Court’s interpretation of Article 22 CERD does not accurately identify the meaning of this provision, especially the meaning of the word “or” contained in it. As a consequence, the Court ends up asserting jurisdiction in the case before the Committee established under CERD has dealt with it. Moreover, the Court concludes that the victims of alleged racial discrimination do not have to exhaust local remedies. This conclusion places the Court at odds with previous jurisprudence of all major international tribunals.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. It becomes clear that the Court has asserted jurisdiction over the case even though CERD provisions did not confer that jurisdiction to it, and that local remedies were not exhausted anyway. As this face forms one rather small part of overall Russia-Ukraine relations, a temptation could obviously arise to justify the Court’s flawed legal reasoning by considerations of ethics, politics, ideology or justice. However, positivist legal reasoning requires maintaining that the Court operates on the basis of State consent, and any neglect for that fact risks negative consequences for the overall efficiency of international adjudication.

show abstract

Section: Interpretation and Application Of Jurisdictional Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Interpretation and Application Of Jurisdictional Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Рассмотрение Исков О Расовой Дискриминации: Вопросы Юрисдикции И Приемлемости В Деле «Украина Против России»

Orakhelashvili

2021

Mosc. j. int. law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The legal importance of the Georgia v. Russia case is that latter indicates the extent to which the parties will go to find a jurisdictional basis for bringing a claim even if prima facie the jurisdictional foundation seems rather far-fetched [12].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation Dispute)

Sabovchyk,

Popovych

2024

Науковий вісник УжНУ. Серія: Право

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four days later aftermath of the armed conflict that broke out between the Parties in the Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia (on August 8, 2008), on August 12, 2008 the Republic of Georgia instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice (hereinafter - the Court) against the Russian Federation relating to “its actions on and around the territory of Georgia in breach of CERD (the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination)” [1]. Georgia alleged that Russia “practised, sponsored and supported racial discrimination through attacks against, and mass-expulsion of, ethnic Georgians” in the two territories in violation of Russia’s obligations under the CERD. Georgia’s Application was accompanied by a Request for the indication of provisional measures in order “to preserve its rights under CERD to protect its citizens against violent discriminatory acts by Russian armed forces, acting in concert with separatist militia and foreign mercenaries”. On 15 August 2008, having considered the gravity of the situation, the President of the Court, acting under Article 74, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court, urgently called upon the Parties “to act in such a way as will enable any order the Court may take on the request for provisional measures to have its appropriate effects”. Following public hearings that were held from 8 to 10 October 2008, the Court issued an Order on the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Georgia. The Court also indicated that “each Party shall refrain from any action which might prejudice the rights of the other Party in respect of whatever judgment the Court may render in the case, or which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve”. Finally, the Court ordered each Party to “inform it as to its compliance with the ... provisional measures” [2]. Although the Court has concluded, by ten votes to six, that it has no jurisdiction under CERD to give a judgment on the merits, the dispute nevertheless retains historical significance as the first dispute involving Russian Federation that has come before the International Court of Justice. It was also the first time that the International Court of Justice was directly called upon to interpret the provisions of CERD. They were not prepared to address the key issue that the centrality of this dispute had very little to do with racial discrimination. It was an incidental question in the context of a dispute that was overwhelmingly about the use of force. The International Court does not have jurisdiction over the use of force questions, and that finding should have disposed of the dispute once and for all. It was clear in this case that the possibility of a judgment on the merits was unlikely and that the International Court was, at best, being used as a convenient platform for the public articulation of a political grievance, or to draw international attention to Georgia’s plight, without any intention of engaging the judicial function in the actual settlement of the dispute. The Georgia v Russian Federation case, as formulated before the Court, it is suggested, fell precisely in the category of disputes that the Court should have struck out summarily as an abuse of process. This argument is strengthened by the fact that Georgia had brought proceedings broadly on the same subject matter before the European Court of Human Rights, arguably a more suitable forum for the adjudication of human rights than the ICJ.

show abstract

The International Court of Justice in the Leiden Journal: A Retrospective

Morgan-Foster¹,

Pinzauti²,

Philippa³

2017

Leiden Journal of International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Last year the International Court of Justice (ICJ) marked its seventieth anniversary, and in the most recent issue of the Leiden Journal of International Law, Hugh Thirlway recognized this milestone with a look back through some key developments at the Court, focusing on the last few years. Here, we would like to undertake a retrospective of another sort, paying tribute to the ongoing connection between the Court and the Journal by taking a brief tour through the Journal's coverage of the Court over the years. It is hoped that this retrospective will not only bring back some fond memories but also – by viewing this material as a whole, and pointing out certain gaps in the Journal’s coverage of the Court's work – stimulate future analyses.

show abstract

The International Court of Justice and the Georgia/Russia Dispute

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

Рассмотрение Исков О Расовой Дискриминации: Вопросы Юрисдикции И Приемлемости В Деле «Украина Против России»

Рассмотрение Исков О Расовой Дискриминации: Вопросы Юрисдикции И Приемлемости В Деле «Украина Против России»

Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation Dispute)

The International Court of Justice in the Leiden Journal: A Retrospective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About