• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE APPLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION GEORGIA v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION WRITTEN STATEMENT OF GEORGIA ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS VOLUME I 1 APRIL 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1 Section I. Summary of Argument .............................................................4 Section II. Observations on Russia’s Approach .........................................9 Section III. Structure of the Written Statement ..........................................16 CHAPTER II. RUSSIA’S FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: WHETHER THERE IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES UNDER THE 1965 CONVENTION .......................17 Section I. Introduction ...........................................................................19 Section II. The Parameters for Determining the Existence of a Legal Dispute ........................................................................29 Section III. Ethnic Discrimination Is Fundamental to Georgia’s Dispute with Russia ..............................................................36 Section IV. Georgia’s Claims Regarding Ethnic Cleansing and Other Violent Acts of Discrimination by Russia’s Armed Forces ........................................................................50 A. The Evidence Pertaining to 8-12 August 2008 .............................51 B. The Evidence Pertaining to the Period Before August 2008 ........58 Section V. Georgia’s Claims Regarding Russia’s Forcible Prevention of the Exercise of the Right of Return by Georgian IDPs .......................................................................71 Section VI. Georgia’s Claims of Russian Support, Sponsorship and Defence of Ethnic Discrimination by Third-Parties .............76 Section VII. Georgia’s Claims Regarding Russia’s Deliberate Failure To Prevent Ethnic Discrimination ............................85 Section VIII. Conclusion ............................................................................92 CHAPTER III. RUSSIA’S SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: THE CONDITIONS FOR JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 22 ...................................................................93 Section I. Article 22 of CERD ................................................................97 Section II. Article 22 in Context ..............................................................99 Section III. The Modes of Dispute Settlement Identified in Article 22 are not Cumulative ................................................................106 Section IV. Article 22 Does Not Impose the Preconditions Claimed by Russia ...............................................................................110 Section V. To the Extent that Article 22 Imposes any Prior Obligation to Negotiate, Georgia has Met that Condition ....123 A. The Meaning of “Negotiations” ..................................................124 B. There is No Specific Procedure or Format for Negotiations ......126 C. The Negotiations Need Not Expressly Refer to the Convention ..................................................................................128 D. A Party Need Not Proceed with Negotiations that are Unsuccessful ...............................................................................131 E. Conclusion ..................................................................................132 Section VI. Georgia Attempted to Negotiate with Russia on Matters Falling Under the 1965 Convention: The Evidence .............133 A. Russia’s Direct Participation in Ethnic Cleansing and Other Forms of Ethnic Discrimination .................................................134 B. Russia’s Prevention of Ethnic Georgian IDPs from Exercising Their Right of Return ...............................................139 C. Russia’s Support, Sponsorship and Defence of Discrimination Against Ethnic Georgians by Other Parties .......149 D. Russia’s Failure To Prevent Discrimination against Ethnic Georgians in Areas It Controlled ................................................158 Section VII. Conclusions .........................................................................162 CHAPTER IV. RUSSIA’S THIRD PRELIMINARY OBJECION: LACK OF JURISDICION RATIONE LOCI ...................................................................................165 Section I. Introduction ...........................................................................167 ii Section II. Russia’s First Argument: “The Principle of Territorial Application” ..........................................................................170 Section III. Russia’s Second Argument: “An Exceptional Basis for Extraterritorial Application Does Not Apply to the Present Case” ........................................................................183 A. The Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties is Not “Exceptional” or Confined to the Two Grounds Cited by Russia ...........................................................................183 B. In the Alternative: Russia Exercised “Effective Control” Over South Ossetia and Abkhazia at All Material Times ...........189 Section IV. Russia’s Analysis of Its Obligations Under the 1965 Convention ............................................................................198 A. Article 2(1)(a) of the 1965 Convention ......................................199 B. Article 2(1)(b) of the 1965 Convention ......................................200 C. Article 5 of the 1965 Convention ...............................................202 Section V. Conclusion ............................................................................203 CHAPTER V. RUSSIA’S FOURTH PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: LACK OF JURISDICTION RATIONE TEMPORIS .........................................................................205 Section I. Introduction ...........................................................................207 Section II. Failure to Implement the Right of Return and Otherwise to Comply with the 1965 Convention ...................................211 Section III. The Remedies Sought by Georgia ........................................213 Section IV. Facts or Events Subsequent to the Application .....................214 Section V. Conclusion ............................................................................219 CHAPTER VI. RUSSIA’S ONGOING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ETHNIC GEORGIANS NOTWITHSTANDING THE COURT’S ORDER ON PROVISIONAL MEASURES .............................................................................................................221 Section I. Introduction ...........................................................................223 iii Section II. Russia’s Use of Its Military Forces to Deny Ethnic Georgian IDPs from Exercising Their Right of Return to South Ossetia and Abkhazia ..................................................226 Section III. Russia’s Use of Its Military Forces to Deny Ethnic Georgians Living in South Ossetia and Abkhazia the Right to Freely Cross the Administrative Boundaries ..........234 Section IV. Russia’s Ongoing Support, Sponsorship and Defence of Discrimination against Ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia and Abkhazia ...........................................................240 Section V. Russia’s Failure to Protect the Property of Displaced Persons and Refugees ...........................................................245 Section VI. Russia’s Obstruction of Access to Humanitarian Assistance and International Monitoring ..............................246 Section VII. Conclusion ...........................................................................249 SUBMISSIONS ...................................................................................................251 APPENDIX ON THE TRAVAUX PRÉPARATOIRES .........................................253 Section I. There Are No Preconditions to the Jurisdiction of the Court ......................................................................................253 Section II. The Drafting History .............................................................254 A. The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities ..............................................................255 B. The Commission on Human Rights ............................................259 C. The Third Committee of the General Assembly .........................260 D. Cumulative Conditions? .............................................................264 CERTIFICATION ...............................................................................................269 LIST OF ANNEXES ............................................................................................271 iv CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 In accordance with the Court’s Order of 11 December 2009, Georgia submits this Written Statement of Observations and Submissions on Preliminary Objections, in response to Russia’s Preliminary Objections of 1 December 2009. This Written Statement supplements the submissions on law and evidence put forward in Georgia’s Memorial of 2 September 2009, which are maintained in full. 1.2 In its Preliminary Objections Russia has asked the Court to “adjudge and declare that it lacks jurisdiction over the claims brought against the Russian Federation by Georgia, referred to it by the Application of Georgia of 12 August 2008”1. Russia’s arguments generally mirror those it made at the provisional measures phase in September 2009, which did not find favour with the

Load more

  306

Copy Link