International Court of Justice Case Concerning
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASE CONCERNING 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 SUBMITTED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Volume I 12 SEPTEMBER 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 PART II ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION OF THE COURT UNDER THE ICSFT .................................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 7 CHAPTER II JURISDICTION RATIONE MATERIAE UNDER ARTICLE 24 OF THE ICSFT: THE TEST TO BE APPLIED .................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER III INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 2(1) OF THE ICSFT ........ 18 Section I The necessary mental elements with respect to terrorism financing .................................................................................... 18 A. “knowledge” ................................................................................... 20 B. “that they [the funds] are to be used” .............................................. 21 C. Ukraine’s interpretation of “knowledge” ........................................ 23 Section II The acts of terrorism within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the ICSFT .............................................................................. 27 A. Montreal Convention ...................................................................... 27 B. ICSTB ............................................................................................. 28 Section III The acts of terrorism within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of the ICSFT .................................................................................. 29 A. “intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian […]” ................................................................................................ 30 B. “the purpose of such act, by its nature and context is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government […]” ............. 36 iii CHAPTER IV NO PLAUSIBLE ALLEGATION OF TERRORISM WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 2(1) OF THE ICSFT ........................................................................................ 43 Section I Flight MH17 .............................................................................. 44 Section II Indiscriminate shelling by all parties to the armed conflict ....... 47 A. General observations ....................................................................... 47 B. Volnovakha ..................................................................................... 57 C. Mariupol .......................................................................................... 59 D. Kramatorsk ...................................................................................... 61 E. Avdeevka ......................................................................................... 62 Section III Bombings ................................................................................... 65 Section IV Killings and ill-treatment ........................................................... 67 CHAPTER V THE COURT’S JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 24 OF THE ICSFT DOES NOT ENCOMPASS STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALLEGED ACTS OF FINANCING TERRORISM, AND NOR ARE STATE OFFICIALS “PERSONS” WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 2 AND 18 OF THE ICSFT ........................................................................................ 71 Section I The text, title, structure and the drafting history of the ICSFT confirm that State responsibility for financing terrorism is excluded from its scope ............................................................. 72 Section II Specific provisions of the ICSFT and their respective drafting history further establish that the ICSFT does not regulate State terrorism financing .............................................. 77 A. Article 3 of the ICSFT .................................................................... 77 B. Article 4 of the ICSFT .................................................................... 78 C. Article 5 of the ICSFT .................................................................... 78 D. Article 6 of the ICSFT .................................................................... 82 E. Article 18 of the ICSFT .................................................................. 83 F. Article 20 of the ICSFT .................................................................. 85 iv Section III Explicit provisions in regional terrorism conventions, and in Security Council resolution 1373, on State financing for terrorism refute Ukraine’s argument that State responsibility for financing terrorism is implicit in the ICSFT ........................ 86 Section IV Subsequent State practice considers the ICSFT a standard criminal law convention that does not address State responsibility for financing terrorism ........................................ 91 Section V State responsibility for terrorism financing continues to be the most divisive issue in the ongoing negotiations on the draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, rendering an implied obligation not to finance terrorism under ICSFT implausible ........................................... 94 Section VI Ukraine’s reliance on this Court’s Bosnian Genocide Judgment is inapposite since the Genocide Convention and the ICSFT are materially different ........................................... 100 Section VII An implicit finding of State responsibility for terrorism financing is otherwise excluded since State officials are not “persons” within the meaning of Articles 2 and 18 of the ICSFT ...................................................................................... 104 CHAPTER VI UKRAINE HAS NOT FULFILLED THE PROCEDURAL PRECONDITIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 24(1) OF THE ICSFT ............................................................................. 111 Section I Ukraine did not genuinely attempt to engage in good faith negotiations .............................................................................. 111 A. The precondition of negotiation under Article 24 of the ICSFT ... 111 B. Ukraine did not attempt to negotiate in good faith ....................... 115 C. Ukraine’s diplomatic notes were constantly connected with allegations of aggression and exhibited mere protests and disputations ................................................................................... 116 D. Ukraine was dismissive of Russia’s legitimate interests ............... 120 E. Ukraine’s refusal to meet Russia’s reasonable requests ................ 122 Section II Ukraine did not attempt to settle this dispute through arbitration ................................................................................. 126 A. Ukraine did not negotiate with a view to organizing an arbitration since an ad hoc Chamber of this Court does not constitute an arbitration ................................................................. 126 v B. Ukraine’s other failures to make a genuine attempt to negotiate with regard to an arbitration .......................................................... 128 1. Ukraine’s interpretation that the parties must only be unable to organise an arbitration as a matter of fact contradicts this Court’s jurisprudence .................................................................. 128 2. Ukraine’s insisted on its “core principles” and did not submit a concrete text proposal .............................................................. 131 C. In any event, the Parties were not unable to agree on the organisation of the arbitration within the meaning of Article 24(1) of the ICSFT ............................................................ 134 PART III ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION AND INADMISSIBILITY OF THE CLAIMS UNDER CERD .................................................. 139 CHAPTER VII INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 139 CHAPTER VIII ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION RATIONE MATERIAE UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF CERD ........................................... 144 Section I The real issue in dispute is not racial discrimination, but the status of Crimea ....................................................................... 145 Section II Ukraine invokes rights or obligations that are not rights or obligations under CERD .......................................................... 154 Section III No plausible allegations of violations of protected rights under CERD ............................................................................ 161 A. The scope of CERD ...................................................................... 167 B. Ukraine’s claims do not plausibly fall within protected rights under CERD .................................................................................. 170 CHAPTER IX FAILURE TO SATISFY THE PRECONDITIONS FOR THE SEISIN OF THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF CERD ................................................................................ 183 Section I The preconditions for the seisin of the Court under Article 22 ................................................................................. 184 A. The conditions provided for in Article 22 of CERD are preconditions to the seisin of the Court .......................................