Alexander Antonov University of Southern Denmark, Odense Delivery day: 10th July 2018 Faculty of Business and Social Sciences Number of keystrokes: 191747 Russia’s Aggression Against Ukraine: State Responsibility, Individual Responsibility and Accountability Scrutinizing Ukraine’s Application at the ICJ, Ukraine’s Acceptance of the ICC’s Jurisdiction Pursuant to Art. 12(3) of the Rome Statute and the Role of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in the Context of the Ukraine Crisis Author of the Thesis: Alexander Antonov i Alexander Antonov Summary The majority of legal practitioners and liberal democratic states hold the same opinion: Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its support to the rebels in Eastern Ukraine constituted an act of aggression against the sovereign state of Ukraine. Four years have passed since fighting erupted in Ukrainian regions adjacent to Russia leaving thousands of innocent civilians dead, traumatised or homeless. Families have been torn apart. Despite a vast amount of evidence, Russia has continued to deny the facts that it breached international law by annexing a foreign territory and supporting the so---called Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic after the ousting of the former pro---Russian president Viktor Yanukovych at the end of the Maidan revolution in February 2014. Most researchers expounded on the international norms Russia has put at stake and pondered over Russia’s unreasonable legal justifications for its actions in Crimea. The Ukraine crisis has been dealt with extensively both from a political science and legal perspective but only a few scholars discussed the tools international law provide to establish Russia’s responsibility for its wrongful conduct and to hold individuals responsible, suspected of having committed crimes against humanity and war crimes on Ukrainian territory. Scrutinizing Ukraine’s recent application at the International Court of Justice on the basis of two treaties, the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and analysing Ukraine’s acceptance of the ICC jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 12(3) of the Rome Statute, this author aimed to identify the tools and barriers of international law in the context of establishing state and, respectively, individual responsibility. An analysis of the role of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine complemented the former two perspectives. Whereas the ICJ and the ICC can enforce international law and hold either states (ICJ) or individuals responsible (ICC), the HRMMU was examined for the purpose of creating accountability for grave violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. This research primarily found out that the tools of international law to hold Russia responsible for its illegal use of force are limited in the specific case of Ukraine at the ICJ. The vague plausibility test of the ICJ sets a high threshold for Ukraine at the preliminary stage of proceedings. Contrary to the rather grim outlook for Ukraine’s application at the ICJ, the results of the analysis of the second perspective allow for being more optimistic that serious crimes committed by individuals affiliated with the DPR/LPR or the Russian government will not go unpunished. An important question remains whether the OTP will conclude that Russia exercised overall control over the rebels. Even though there is reason to believe that the Prosecutor of the ICC will open an ii Alexander Antonov investigation into the situation in Ukraine, one might not expect this to happen any time soon given political and institutional barriers. The assessment of the third perspective showed that the HRMMU has helped to fill the legal void left by the actions of Russia in Crimea and the rebels in the Donbas. The HRMMU has given victims and their relatives a voice. Although the mission cannot enforce international law, it has proved helpful in gathering evidence and documenting violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in its reports, which had already been cited by the ICJ and the ICC. Keywords: International Court of Justice, State Responsibility, Plausibility Test, International Criminal Court, Individual Responsibility, Overall Control Test, UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Accountability iii Alexander Antonov List of Abbreviations CERD = International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination DPR = Donetsk People’s Republic ECHR = European Court of Human Rights HRC = Human Rights Council HRMMU = UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine IAC = International Armed Conflict ICC = International Criminal Court ICJ = International Court of Justice ICRC = International Committee of the Red Cross ICSFT = International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism ICTR = International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda ICTY = International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia IHL = International Humanitarian Law IHRL = International Human Rights Law IL = International Law ILC = International Law Commission LPR = Luhansk People’s Republic NIAC = Non---International Armed Conflict OHCHR = Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights OTP = Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court UDHR = Universal Declaration of Human Rights UNC = United Nations Charter UNGA = United Nations General Assembly UNGA Res. = United Nations General Assembly Resolution UNSC = United Nations Security Council UNSC Res. = United Nations Security Council Resolution VCLT = Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties iv Alexander Antonov Sworn Statement ‘’I hereby solemnly declare that I have personally and independently prepared this paper. All quotations in the text have been marked as such, and the paper or considerable parts of it have not previously been subject to any examination or assessment.” Date and Place: Signature: 10.07.2018, Heikendorf Alexander Antonov v Alexander Antonov Table of Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................... ii List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... iv Chapter I – The Background ............................................................................................... 1 1.1) Introduction to the Thesis .................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter II – Fundamental Norms at Stake .......................................................................... 7 2.1) Core Principles of IL ................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1.1) The Annexation of Crimea ......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2) The Conflict in the Donbas ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.2) Summary --- The Use of Force in Perspective ..................................................................................................... 17 Chapter III – Legal Framework and Methodology ............................................................. 19 3.1) The Three Different Perspectives ................................................................................................................... 19 3.2) Legal Personality and Responsibility in IL .................................................................................................. 20 3.3) The General Procedure ....................................................................................................................................... 23 3.4) Sources of IL and Treaty Interpretation....................................................................................................... 24 3.4.1) Treaty Interpretation and the ICSFT ..................................................................................................... 28 3.4.2) Treaty Interpretation and the CERD ..................................................................................................... 29 3.4.3) Treaty Interpretation and the Rome Statute ..................................................................................... 31 3.4.4) The Memorandum of Understanding Between the OHCHR and Ukraine .............................. 33 Chapter IV – Analysis – The Three Mechanisms and Their Tools ........................................ 34 4.1) The ICJ and the Statute of the Court ............................................................................................................... 34 4.1.1) The Principal Judicial Organ of the UN ................................................................................................. 34 4.1.2) Basis of the ICJ’s Jurisdiction --- Part 1 ......................................................................................................... 35 4.1.3) The Different Procedural Steps During Preliminary Examinations ......................................... 36 4.1.4) The Plausibility Test .................................................................................................................................... 39 4.1.5) The Requirement of Urgency