Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of the Ukraine Conflict on Inter-State Dispute Settlement Procedures: The Allegations of Genocide Case (Ukraine v. Russia)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Impact of the Ukraine Conflict

  • 270 Accesses

Abstract

On 26 February 2022, Ukraine submitted an application against Russia to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (Allegations of Genocide). Since Ukraine is invoking the compromissory clause of the Genocide Convention as the legal basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, the ICJ can only adjudicate issues related to genocide and not the Russian invasion in general. This makes for an unprecedented case in which the applicant, Ukraine, denies the allegation of genocide made by the respondent, Russia. On 16 March 2022, the ICJ indicated provisional measures including an order for Russia to immediately suspend its military operations in Ukraine, with which Russia refused to comply. Additionally, the Allegations of Genocide case provides interesting implications for the ICJ’s jurisprudence, particularly the multilateralization of the judicial settlement of disputes since many States have filed declarations of intervention under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute. This trend can be also found in other cases but is accelerated by this particular case. Moreover, the ICJ’s legitimizing function cannot be ignored, especially given the paralysis of the UN Security Council. Although long litigation is expected until a final decision is delivered, simply obtaining provisional measures from the ICJ would be worthwhile for the applicants.

This study was written based on information available as of 31 March 2023.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    UNTS, Vol. 78, p. 277.

  2. 2.

    Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March 2022 (hereinafter ‘Allegations of Genocide (Provisional Measures)’), para 86.

  3. 3.

    See Gapsa (2022).

  4. 4.

    Raju (2022).

  5. 5.

    Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43.

  6. 6.

    Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2015 (hereinafter ‘Croatia v. Serbia (Merits)’), p. 3.

  7. 7.

    Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Belgium), Provisional Measures, Order of 2 June 1999, I.C.J. Reports 1999, p. 124; (Yugoslavia v. Canada), p. 259; (Yugoslavia v. France), p. 363; (Yugoslavia v. Germany), p. 422; (Yugoslavia v. Italy), p. 481; (Yugoslavia v. Netherlands), p. 542; (Yugoslavia v. Portugal), p. 656; (Yugoslavia v. Spain), p. 761; (Yugoslavia v. United Kingdom), p. 826; (Yugoslavia v. United States of America), p. 916. In the Yugoslavia v. Spain and the Yugoslavia v. United States of America cases, the Court concluded that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction and ordered that the cases be discontinued. In the other eight cases, in its 2004 judgments on preliminary objections, the Court lacked jurisdiction based on the fact that the applicant was not a party to the ICJ Statute at the time it filed its applications. Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 279; (Serbia and Montenegro v. Canada), p. 429; (Serbia and Montenegro v. France), p. 575; (Serbia and Montenegro v. Germany), p. 720; (Serbia and Montenegro v. Italy), p. 865; (Serbia and Montenegro v. Netherlands), p. 1011; (Serbia and Montenegro v. Portugal), p. 1160; (Serbia and Montenegro v. United Kingdom), p. 1307.

  8. 8.

    Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 22 July 2022 (hereinafter ‘The Gambia v. Myanmar (Preliminary Objections)’).

  9. 9.

    Article IX of the Genocide Convention was invoked in two other cases. In the case concerning Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War, where only the public hearings on provisional measures were held and which was discontinued by Pakistan’s request in 1973, Pakistan seemed to invoke the article as the legal basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. See Application Instituting Proceedings, I.C.J. Pleadings, Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (Pakistan v. India), p. 3, para 2. In the case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, the Court denied its jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention based on Rwanda’s reservation to Article IX. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2006, pp. 20–33, paras 28–70. See also Tams (2014), pp. 295–296.

  10. 10.

    It should be noted that, in these two cases, the respondent filed its counter-claims to allege that the applicants were also responsible for acts of genocide. In the former case, however, the respondent withdrew its counter-claims in 2001. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Order of 10 September 2001, Withdrawal of Counter-claims, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 572. In the latter case, the Court rejected its claims because neither genocide nor other violations of the Convention had been proven in its 2015 judgment. Croatia v. Serbia (Merits), supra note 6, pp. 129–153, paras 443–522.

  11. 11.

    Allegations of Genocide, Application instituting proceedings filed in the Registry of the Court on 26 February 2022, p. 16, para 29.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., p. 14, para 24.

  13. 13.

    Allegations of Genocide, Document (with annexes) from Russia setting out its position regarding the alleged ‘lack of jurisdiction’ of the Court in the case, 7 March 2022, paras 2–3.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., para 4.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., paras 10–12.

  16. 16.

    Ibid., paras 15–19.

  17. 17.

    Ibid., para 23.

  18. 18.

    Allegations of Genocide (Provisional Measures), supra note 2, para 22. See also Shaw (2016), Vol. III, pp. 1410–1414.

  19. 19.

    Allegations of Genocide (Provisional Measures), supra note 2, para 29.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., para 45.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., para 43.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., para 51.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., para 60.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., para 64.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., para 77.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., para 86.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., Declaration of Vice-President Gevorgian, paras 5–6; Declaration of Judge Xue, para 4.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., Declaration of Judge Bennouna, paras 2–4.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., Declaration of Judge Bennouna, para 1.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., Declaration of Vice-President Gevorgian, paras 5–6; Declaration of Judge Xue, para 5.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., Declaration of Judge Nolte, paras 2–4. See also, Separate Opinion of Judge Robinson, paras 24–25.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., Declaration of Vice-President Gevorgian, para 8. See also Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of Latvia, pp. 12–13, paras 40–44. Raju (2022) refers to it as ‘reverse compliance proceedings’.

  33. 33.

    Allegations of Genocide (Provisional Measures), supra note 2, Declaration of Vice-President Gevorgian, para. 8.

  34. 34.

    See, for example, Schweisfurth (1990), pp. 110–117.

  35. 35.

    UNTS, Vol. 660, p. 195.

  36. 36.

    UNTS, Vol. 2178, p. 197.

  37. 37.

    The International Court of Justice. Declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory. https://www.icj-cij.org/declarations. Accessed 31 March 2023.

  38. 38.

    UNTS, Vol. 30, p. 55.

  39. 39.

    UNTS, Vol. 320, p. 243.

  40. 40.

    On the universal level, there is the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (1928, revised in 1949), UNTS, Vol. 71, p. 101. However, there are not so many States parties and the Court has never recognized explicitly the jurisdiction under this Act. See Tomuschat (2002), pp. 977–994; Shaw (2016), Vol. II, pp. 673–674.

  41. 41.

    Other examples include the following: the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (UNTS, Vol. 974, p. 177), Article 14(1); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (UNTS, Vol. 1249, p. 13), Article 29(1); the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, Article 24(1); the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (UNTS, Vol. 2716, p. 3), Article 42(1).

  42. 42.

    The compromissory clause (Article 22) of ICERD is useful for the applicants. However, in the Georgia v. Russia case, the Court denied its jurisdiction because the precondition of negotiations in Article 22 of ICERD had not been fulfilled in the judgment on preliminary objections in 2011, although the Court found that it had prima facie jurisdiction under Article 22 and indicated provisional measures in 2008. Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 15 October 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 353; Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p. 70.

  43. 43.

    Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 July 2018, I.C.J. Reports 2018, p. 406.

  44. 44.

    Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2021, p. 71.

  45. 45.

    For the practices regarding the withdrawal of the declaration of acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute and the modification of reservations, please refer to the following website. The International Court of Justice. Declarations recognizing as compulsory the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under Article 36, para 2, of the Statute of the Court. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=I-4&chapter=1&clang=_en. Accessed 31 March 2023.

  46. 46.

    UNTS, Vol. 284, p. 93.

  47. 47.

    Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment of 23 March 2023, para 32.

  48. 48.

    UNTS, Vol. 161, p. 71.

  49. 49.

    Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Japan and the Management of Whales. https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fishery/whales/japan.html. Accessed 31 March 2023.

  50. 50.

    UN Doc. S/2014/189 and S/PV.7138 (15 March 2014).

  51. 51.

    UN Doc. S/2022/155 and S/PV.8979 (25 February 2022); UN Doc. S/2022/720 and S/PV.9143 (30 September 2022).

  52. 52.

    For example, UN. Doc. S/RES/660 (2 August 1990); S/RES/678 (29 November 1990).

  53. 53.

    For example, UN. Doc. S/RES/713 (25 September 1991).

  54. 54.

    For example, UN. Doc. S/RES/1970 (26 February 2011); S/RES/1973 (17 March 2011).

  55. 55.

    UN Doc. A/RES/ES-11/1 (2 March 2022).

  56. 56.

    UN Doc. A/RES/ES-11/L.1 (1 March 2022).

  57. 57.

    UN Doc. S/18428 and S/PV. 2718 (28 October 1986). See Schulte (2004), pp. 198–205.

  58. 58.

    Oellers-Frahm (2012), p. 1967; Shaw (2016), p. 209.

  59. 59.

    Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p. 31, para 86.

  60. 60.

    Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2019, p. 566, para 11.

  61. 61.

    Idem; The Gambia v. Myanmar (Preliminary Objections), supra note 8, para 11.

  62. 62.

    The ICJ Press Release No. 2020/38 (21 December 2020).

  63. 63.

    Allegations of Genocide, Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures submitted by Ukraine, 26 February 2022, p. 7.

  64. 64.

    Allegations of Genocide (Provisional Measures), supra note 2, para 83.

  65. 65.

    Judge Robinson notes that this decision is regrettable and that the Court should have granted this request. Ibid., Separate Opinion of Judge Robinson, para 33.

  66. 66.

    This statement can be found on the websites of the foreign ministries of many countries, although the Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not made an official comment on its website. See, for example, the Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. https://www.norway.no/en/missions/UN/news/ukraine-and-the-international-court-of-justice/. Accessed 31 March 2023.

  67. 67.

    The European Union External Action. Joint statement on supporting Ukraine in its proceeding at the International Court of Justice. 13 July 2022. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/joint-statement-supporting-ukraine-its-proceeding-international-court-justice_en. Accessed 31 March 2023.

  68. 68.

    Lichtenstein did not participate in the joint statements, but it has filed a declaration of intervention with the ICJ. The ICJ Press Release 2022/75 (16 December 2022).

  69. 69.

    The ICJ Press Release 2022/29 (18 August 2022). See also Melzer (2022).

  70. 70.

    McGarry (2022). In the Request for an Examination case, five States sought to intervene under Article 62 or/and Article 63. However, these requests were dismissed because the Court rejected New Zealand’s primary request. Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Courts Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case (New Zealand v. France), I. C. J. Reports 1995, p. 288, pp. 306–307, para 41.

  71. 71.

    Allegations of Genocide, Letter of 31 October 2022 from the Registrar of the Court to the Contracting Parties of the Genocide Convention. In: Joint Declaration of Intervention Pursuant to Article 63 of the Statute of the Court by the Government of Canada and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, para 8.

  72. 72.

    The Gambia v. Myanmar (Preliminary Objections), supra note 8, para 107.

  73. 73.

    See McGarry (2022).

  74. 74.

    See also Kolb (2013), p. 709.

  75. 75.

    Kolb (2013), pp. 732–734; Miron and Chinkin (2019), p. 1752.

  76. 76.

    Miron and Chinkin (2019), p. 1751.

  77. 77.

    The United States makes the following reservation: ‘That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case’. United Nations Treaty Collection. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&clang=_en. Accessed 31 Mar 2023.

  78. 78.

    Tamada (2016), pp. 163–184.

  79. 79.

    Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Written Observation of Japan on the Declaration of Intervention by New Zealand (18 December 2012), paras 5–7.

  80. 80.

    Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6 February 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013 (hereinafter ‘Whaling in the Antarctic (Intervention)’), Separate Opinion of Judge Owada, pp.11–12, paras 1–6.

  81. 81.

    Ibid., p. 9, para 18.

  82. 82.

    However, the judge ad hoc chosen by Ukraine is a French national (Y. Daudet). Allegations of Genocide (Provisional Measures), supra note 2, para 9.

  83. 83.

    Whaling in the Antarctic (Intervention), supra note 80, p. 9, para 21.

  84. 84.

    Ibid., Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, pp. 11–12, paras 1–6. This phrase is cited by some States seeking to intervene in the Allegations of Genocide case. Allegations of Genocide, Declaration of Intervention of Estonia, p. 5, para 14; Declaration of Intervention of Spain (p. 2, para 10).

  85. 85.

    See, for example, Allegations of Genocide, Declaration of Intervention of Slovakia, p. 6, para 19; Declaration of Intervention of Croatia, pp. 4–5, para 15.

  86. 86.

    See each State’s declarations of intervention. Allegations of Genocide, Latvia (p. 8, para 20); Lithuania (p. 6, para 18), Sweden (pp. 8–9, paras 22–23); Denmark (p. 3, para 13); Estonia (p. 5, para 15); Greece (p. 7, para 25); The Czech Republic (para 22); Malta (pp. 3–4, para 13); Norway (p. 8, para 24); Slovenia (para 12). Some States who submit the declaration of intervention after Russia’s submission of preliminary objections have limited their argument only with respect to Article IX, reserving their right to submit their argument with respect to the interpretation of the provisions on the merits.

  87. 87.

    Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Declaration of Intervention, Order of 4 October 1984, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 2, para 15.

  88. 88.

    Idem.

  89. 89.

    Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, p. 223.

  90. 90.

    Thirlway (2013), p. 1031; Shaw (2016), Vol. III, p. 1533; Miron and Chinkin (2019), pp. 1762–1764. Some difficulties are pointed out by Kolb. See Kolb (2013), pp. 736–737.

  91. 91.

    See Thirlway (2013), p. 1031; Tamada (2016), p. 168; Allegations of Genocide, Declaration of Latvia, pp. 12–13, paras 40–44.

  92. 92.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Maldives. Maldives welcomes the joint statement by Canada and the Kingdom of the Netherlands announcing their intention to intervene in The Gambia v. Myanmar case at the International Court of Justice. 4 September 2020. https://www.gov.mv/en/news-and-communications/maldives-welcomes-the-joint-statement-by-canada-and-the-kingdom-of-the-netherlands-announcing-their-intention-to-intervene-in-the-gambia-v-myanmar-case-at-the-international-court-of-justice. Accessed 31 March 2023.

  93. 93.

    The Government of the Netherlands. Joint statement of Canada and the Kingdom of the Netherlands regarding intention to intervene in The Gambia v. Myanmar case at the International Court of Justice. 2 September 2020. https://www.government.nl/documents/diplomatic-statements/2020/09/02/joint-statement-of-canada-and-the-kingdom-of-the-netherlands-regarding-intention-to-intervene-in-the-gambia-v.-myanmar-case-at-the-international-court-of-justice. Accessed 31 March 2023.

  94. 94.

    Foreign, Commonwealth and Development and The RT Hon Amanda Milling MP. Fifth anniversary of the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar: UK statement. 25 August 2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-statement-on-the-5th-anniversary-of-the-rohingya-crisis. Accessed 31 March 2023.

  95. 95.

    US Department of State. Secretary Antony J. Blinken on the Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity in Burma. 21 March 2022. https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-the-united-states-holocaust-memorial-museum/. Accessed 31 March 2023.

  96. 96.

    The Government of the Netherlands. Joint statement of Canada and the Kingdom of the Netherlands regarding their cooperation in holding Syria to account. 12 March 2021. https://www.government.nl/documents/diplomatic-statements/2021/03/12/joint-statement-of-canada-and-the-kingdom-of-the-netherlands-regarding-their-cooperation-in-holding-syria-to-account. Accessed 31 March 2023.

  97. 97.

    The Gambia v. Myanmar (Preliminary Objections), supra note 8, para 107.

  98. 98.

    Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, pp. 448–450, paras 64–70.

  99. 99.

    Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (nos. 8019/16, 43,800/14, 28,525/20 and 11,055/22), ECHR.

  100. 100.

    UNTS, Vol. 213, p. 221.

  101. 101.

    The ECHR Press Release 082 (2023) (17 March 2023).

  102. 102.

    For the facts at the ICC, refer to the following website: ICC. Situation in Ukraine, ICC-01/22. https://www.icc-cpi.int/situations/ukraine. Accessed 31 March 2023.

  103. 103.

    The International Court of Justice. Pending cases. https://www.icj-cij.org/pending-cases. Accessed 31 March 2023.

References

  • Gapsa, M. 2022. On Russian explanations for non-compliance with provisional measures in Allegations of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). International Law Blog. https://internationallaw.blog/2022/11/07/on-russian-explanations-for-non-compliance-with-provisional-measures-in-allegations-of-genocide-ukraine-v-russian-federation/. Accessed 31 March 2023.

  • Kolb, R. 2013. The International Court of Justice. Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarry, B. 2022. Mass Intervention? The Joint Statement of 41 States on Ukraine v. Russia, EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/mass-intervention-the-joint-statement-of-41-states-on-ukraine-v-russia/. Accessed 31 March 2023.

  • Melzer, A. 2022. The ICJ’s only friend in Ukraine v. Russia: On the EU’s memorial in the case of Ukraine v. Russia before the ICJ. Völkerrechtsblog. https://doi.org/10.17176/20221007-110301-0.

  • Miron, A., and C. Chinkin. 2019. Article 63. In The Statute of the International Court of Justice; A Commentary, 3rd ed., ed. A. Zimmermann, et al., 1741–1774. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oellers-Frahm, K. 2012. Article 94. In The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 3rd ed., ed. B. Simma, et al., 1957–1971. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raju, D. 2022. Ukraine v Russia: A “Reverse Compliance” Case on Genocide, EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/ukraine-v-russia-a-reverse-compliance-case-on-genocide/. Accessed 31 March 2023.

  • Schulte, C. 2004. Compliance with Decisions of the International Court of Justice. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweisfurth, T. 1990. The acceptance by the soviet union of the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ for six human rights conventions. European Journal of International Law 2: 110–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M.N. 2016. Rosenne’s Law and Practice of the International Court 1920–2015, 5th ed. Brill/Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamada, D. 2016. Unfavourable but unavoidable procedures: Procedural aspects of the whaling case. In Whaling in the Antarctic: Significance and Implications of the ICJ Judgment, ed. M. Fitzmaurice, and D. Tamada, 163–192. Brill/Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tams, C.J. 2014. Article XI. In Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, a Commentary, ed. C.J. Tams, et al., 293–318. C.H.Beck/Hart/Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway, H. 2013. The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, Fifty Years of the Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat, C. 2002. The 1928 general act for the pacific settlement of international disputes revisited. In Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, ed. N. Ando, et al., 977–994. Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Toyo University, Tokyo, Japan

    Chisa Ishizuka

Authors
  1. Chisa Ishizuka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Waseda Law School, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

    Shuichi Furuya

  2. Graduate School of Law, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan

    Hitomi Takemura

  3. Faculty of Law, Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan

    Kuniko Ozaki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ishizuka, C. (2023). Impact of the Ukraine Conflict on Inter-State Dispute Settlement Procedures: The Allegations of Genocide Case (Ukraine v. Russia). In: Furuya, S., Takemura, H., Ozaki, K. (eds) Global Impact of the Ukraine Conflict. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4374-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4374-6_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-99-4373-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-99-4374-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation