Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, right, gestures as he speaks to Russian Chief of General Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov prior to a meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin with the top military brass in Moscow, Russia, on December 19, 2023.
| Photo Credit: AP

The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants on June 25 for Russia’s former Defence Minister and its military chief of staff for attacking civilian targets in Ukraine.

The court is accusing former Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and chief of staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov of war crimes and the crime against humanity of inhumane acts.

The court said in a statement that warrants were issued because judges considered there were reasonable grounds to believe that the men are responsible for “missile strikes carried out by the Russian armed forces against the Ukrainian electric infrastructure” from October 10, 2022 until at least March 9, 2023.

“During this time-frame, a large number of strikes against numerous electric power plants and sub-stations were carried out by the Russian armed forces in multiple locations in Ukraine,” the court added.

Click here for full coverage of Russia Ukraine war

There is no immediate likelihood of either suspect being detained. Russia isn’t a member of the global court, doesn’t recognize its jurisdiction and refuses to hand over suspects.

Last year, the court also issued a warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing him of personal responsibility for the abductions of children from Ukraine.

Mr. Putin replaced Mr. Shoigu as Defence minister in a Cabinet shakeup in May as he began his fifth term as President. He appointed Mr. Shoigu as secretary of Russia’s Security Council, the Kremlin said.

The story so far: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on May 24 ordered Israel to halt its military operations in the southern Gaza city of Rafah in a ruling that can further the country’s international isolation and escalate demands for a ceasefire more than seven months into the war triggered by Hamas’ October 7 attack. This is the third time that the United Nation’s top court has issued preliminary orders to alleviate humanitarian suffering in Gaza.

However, in the absence of direct enforcement mechanisms, the Court’s decisions are often defied despite being legally binding. A day after the ruling, Israeli air strikes ravaged Rafah — an indication that the country remains unwilling to change its course.

Friday’s ruling was delivered in a case instituted by South Africa accusing Israel of genocide and citing “immense risk” to the Palestinian population. Its latest request pointed out that the Hague-based Court’s January 26 provisional measures were not sufficient to address “a brutal military attack on the sole remaining refuge for the people of Gaza.” In another significant intervention in the conflict, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on May 20 announced his decision to apply for arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, the leader of the outfit, for the alleged commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

‘Change in the situation’

Similar to interim injunctions issued by national courts, provisional measures issued by the ICJ seek to freeze combat operations to preserve the integrity of a future final judgment. Before the passage of such an interim order, the Court must be satisfied that it has prima facie jurisdiction, that there is a “plausible” link between the rights asserted by South Africa and the measures it requests and a risk of irreparable harm and urgency.

As per Article 76 of the Rules of Court (1978), the Court has the power to “revoke or modify” any decision concerning provisional measures if it finds that “some change in the situation” has taken place. In a ruling supported by a majority of 13-2 judges, the ICJ said that the humanitarian situation in Rafah is now “disastrous” — meaning the Court’s previously issued provisional measures were insufficient.

It thus acknowledged that the “repeated large-scale displacement of the already extremely vulnerable Palestinian population” constitutes “a change in the situation” within the meaning of the Court’s rules.

The ICJ relied upon a host of UN reports to underscore the “immense risks” associated with Israel’s continuous military strikes in Rafah. For instance, it noted that on May 6, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) had indicated that half of the approximately 1.2 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah were children and that Israel’s hostilities could result in the destruction of “the few remaining basic services and infrastructure.” It was further pointed out that the al-Najjar Hospital, one of the last remaining medical facilities in the Rafah Governorate, was no longer functional, and that the World Food Programme (WFP) had been unable to access its warehouse in the region leading to a disastrous hunger crisis.

Concerns not ‘sufficiently dispelled’

Perusing the evidence on record, UN’s top court observed that Israel had failed to undertake sufficient measures to adequately evacuate and protect from violence thousands of civilians in the Gaza Strip, particularly in Rafah. It also highlighted the inability of Tel Aviv to provide “sufficient information” on the steps taken to supply humanitarian aid in the form of water, sanitation, food and medicine to the 800,000 evacuated Palestinians.

Crucially, the Court found Israel’s assurances unconvincing, writing that it has not “sufficiently addressed and dispelled the concerns raised by its military offensive in Rafah.”

Provisional measures

At the outset, the Court outlined that the prior provisional measures indicated in its orders of January 26, 2024, and March 28, 2024, “must be immediately and effectively implemented.”

It then proceeded to rule that Tel Aviv, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, must “immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

Israel was further asked to keep the Rafah crossing with Egypt open for the “unhindered” delivery of humanitarian assistance and allow UN investigators to access the Gaza Strip to collect evidence about the alleged war crimes.

Although no interim order was issued, the judges reiterated that they were deeply concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during Hamas’ attack on October 7, 2023, and accordingly called for their immediate and unconditional release.

In conclusion, the ICJ directed Israel to submit a report detailing its steps to ensure compliance with its directives within one month of the ruling. South Africa will consequently have a chance to respond to this report. However, despite South Africa’s fervent pleas, the Court has once again refused to issue any interim order calling for a ceasefire.

Implications

Since the ICJ lacks any direct enforcement mechanisms, the only way for the interim order to be implemented is if the UN Security Council shows willingness to act on it. But the United States, Israel’s strongest ally, has repeatedly used its veto powers to shield Tel Aviv from demands for a ceasefire. However, on March 25, it abstained from voting on a similar UN resolution, signalling a change in the Biden administration’s policy towards the war.

The U.S. has long maintained that Israel’s military operations in Rafah are “limited” and that it would not support any major ground offensive without a credible plan to protect civilians. However, given that both the top international courts have raised concerns about Israel’s operations, Washington’s stance on upholding international law appears inconsistent when it comes to defending its allies.

Israeli officials have interpreted Friday’s ruling as a “limited order” that instructs it to abide by the Genocide Convention during its activities in Rafah, but does not require a complete halt to military operations there. “The order in regard to the Rafah operation is not a general order,” an official told Reuters on condition of anonymity, highlighting that the phrasing of the ICJ ruling does not rule out all military action.

However, Tel Aviv’s continued defiance seems to be increasingly turning international public opinion against it. Last week, Norway, Ireland and Spain announced that they would unilaterally recognise a Palestine state.

Adil Ahmad Haque, law professor and Judge Jon O. Newman scholar at Rutgers Law School agreed that the Court’s order is “somewhat ambiguous”. He wrote that a plausible interpretation of the ruling could mean that Israel must immediately halt its military operations in Rafah to the extent that it may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza “conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. However, Mr. Haque maintained that the present offensive, as currently planned and executed, is prohibited under any reading of the order.

Principal Deputy Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel Tamar Kaplan Tourgman (left) and Legal Adviser at Israeli Embassy to the Netherlands Avgail Frisch Ben Avraham attend a court session in The Hague on May 17, 2024.
| Photo Credit: AFP

Israel strongly denied charges of genocide on May 17, telling the United Nations’ top court it was doing everything it could to protect the civilian population during its military operation in Gaza.

The International Court of Justice wrapped up a third round of hearings on emergency measures requested by South Africa, which says Israel’s military incursion in the southern city of Rafah threatens the “very survival of Palestinians in Gaza” and has asked the court to order a ceasefire.

Tamar Kaplan-Tourgeman, one of Israel’s legal team, defended the country’s conduct, saying it had allowed in fuel and medication to the beleaguered enclave.

“Israel takes extraordinary measures in order to minimise the harm to civilians in Gaza,” she told The Hague-based court.

A protester shouting “Liars” briefly interrupted Kaplan-Tourgeman’s final remarks. The hearing was paused for less than a minute while security guards escorted a woman from the public gallery.

South Africa told the court on Thursday that the situation in the beleaguered enclave has reached “a new and horrific stage” and urged judges to order a half to Israeli military operations.

The court was holding a third round of hearings on emergency measures requested by South Africa since it first filed its genocide case at the end of last year.

According to the latest request, South Africa says Israel’s military incursion in Rafah threatens the “very survival of Palestinians in Gaza”.

In January, judges ordered Israel to do all it can to prevent death, destruction and any acts of genocide in Gaza, but the panel stopped short of ordering an end to the military offensive. Judges will now deliberate on the request and are expected to issue a decision in the next weeks.

ICJ judges have broad powers to order a cease-fire and other measures, though the court doesn’t have its own enforcement apparatus. A 2022 order by the court demanding that Russia halt its full-scale invasion of Ukraine has so far gone unheeded.

Most of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million people have been displaced since fighting began.

The war began with a Hamas attack on southern Israel on October 7 in which Palestinian militants killed around 1,200 people and took about 250 hostages. More than 35,000 Palestinians have been killed in the war, Gaza’s Health Ministry says, without distinguishing between civilians and combatants in its count.

South Africa initiated proceedings in December 2023 and sees the legal campaign as rooted in issues central to its identity. Its governing party, the African National Congress, has long compared Israel’s policies in Gaza and the occupied West Bank to its own history under the apartheid regime of white minority rule, which restricted most Blacks to “homelands.” Apartheid ended in 1994.

Presiding judge Nawaf Salam, third from right, opens the hearings at the International Court of Justice, in The Hague, Netherlands, on May 16, 2024.
| Photo Credit: AP

The United Nations’ top court on May 16 opened two days of hearings into a request from South Africa to press Israel to halt its military operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, where more than half of Gaza’s population has sought shelter.

It is the fourth time South Africa has asked the International Court of Justice for emergency measures since the nation launched proceedings alleging that Israel’s military action in its war with Hamas in Gaza amounts to genocide.

“The sitting is open,” said ICJ President Nawaf Salam.

According to the latest request, the previous preliminary orders by The Hague-based court were not sufficient to address “a brutal military attack on the sole remaining refuge for the people of Gaza.”

Israel has portrayed Rafah as the last stronghold of the militant group, brushing off warnings from the United States and other allies that any major operation there would be catastrophic for civilians.

South Africa has asked the court to order Israel to withdraw from Rafah; to take measures to ensure unimpeded access for U.N. officials, humanitarian organizations and journalists to the Gaza Strip; and to report back within one week on how it is meeting these demands.

During hearings earlier this year, Israel strongly denied committing genocide in Gaza and said it does all it can to spare civilians and is only targeting Hamas militants. It says Hamas’ tactic of embedding in civilian areas makes it difficult to avoid civilian casualties.

In January, judges ordered Israel to do all it can to prevent death, destruction and any acts of genocide in Gaza, but the panel stopped short of ordering an end to the military offensive that has laid waste to the Palestinian enclave.

In a second order in March, the court said Israel must take measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza, including opening more land crossings to allow food, water, fuel and other supplies to enter.

Most of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million people have been displaced since fighting began.

The war began with a Hamas attack on southern Israel on Oct. 7 in which Palestinian militants killed around 1,200 people and took about 250 hostages. Gaza’s Health Ministry says over 35,000 Palestinians have been killed in the war, without distinguishing between civilians and combatants in its count.

South Africa initiated proceedings in December 2023 and sees the legal campaign as rooted in issues central to its identity. Its governing party, the African National Congress, has long compared Israel’s policies in Gaza and the occupied West Bank to its own history under the apartheid regime of white minority rule, which restricted most Blacks to “homelands.” Apartheid ended in 1994.

On Sunday, Egypt announced it plans to join the case. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Israeli military actions “constitute a flagrant violation of international law, humanitarian law, and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 regarding the protection of civilians during wartime.”

Several countries have also indicated they plan to intervene, but so far only Libya, Nicaragua and Colombia have filed formal requests to do so.

A U.N. resolution sponsored by Germany and Rwanda to establish an annual day to commemorate the 1995 genocide of more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims by Bosnian Serbs has sparked protests and a strong lobbying campaign against its adoption by Serbia’s President and the Bosnian Serb leadership.

The U.N. General Assembly has scheduled a debate on the resolution on the morning of May 23 to be followed by a vote in the 193-member world body.

The final draft of the resolution would designate July 11 as the “International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenca,” to be observed annually starting in two months. The massacres started on July 11, 1995.

Also Read:Srebrenica — difficult stories that must be told

The draft asks the United Nations to prepare an outreach programme and invites countries, organisations, civil society and others to observe the day with special observances and activities in memory and honour of the victims as well as “appropriate education and public awareness-raising activities”.

The Srebrenica killings were the bloody crescendo of Bosnia’s 1992-95 war, which came after the breakup of Yugoslavia unleashed nationalist passions and territorial ambitions that set Bosnian Serbs against the country’s two other main ethnic populations, Croats and Muslim Bosniaks.

On July 11, 1995, Bosnian Serbs overran a UN-protected safe area in Srebrenica. They separated at least 8,000 Muslim Bosniak men and boys from their wives, mothers and sisters and slaughtered them. Those who tried to escape were chased through the woods and over the mountains around the ill-fated town.

Also Read:Serb President apologises for Srebrenica massacre

The International Court of Justice, the UN’s highest tribunal, determined in 2007 that the acts committed in Srebrenica constituted genocide, and the court’s determination is included in the draft resolution. It was Europe’s first genocide since the Nazi Holocaust in World War II, which killed an estimated 6 million Jews and people from other minorities.

Serbia’s populist President Aleksandar Vucic as well as the Bosnian Serb leadership have vehemently opposed the adoption of the Srebrenica resolution, saying it brands all Serbs as a “genocidal nation” although the draft does not mention Serbs as culprits.

Mr. Vucic and his government have been campaigning both at the UN and among developing countries to win support for a “No” vote. They say they have already gained a majority against the resolution. Approval requires a majority of those voting.

Mr. Vucic as well as Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik have mentioned several times the possibility of having to pay war damages if the resolution is adopted. Local analysts say Serb leaders, including Mr. Vukic, also fear they could be put on trial for active participation in the bloodshed.

The draft resolution condemns “without reservation any denial of the Srebrenica genocide as a historical event”. It also “condemns without reservation actions that glorify those convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide by international courts, including those responsible for the Srebrenica genocide.” Bosnian Serb wartime political leader Radovan Karadzic and his military commander, Ratko Mladic, were both convicted of genocide in Srebrenica by a special UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands. In all, the tribunal and courts in the Balkans have sentenced close to 50 Bosnian Serb wartime officials to lengthy prison terms.

However, most Serbian and Bosnian Serb officials still celebrate Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Mladic as national heroes. They continue to downplay or even deny the Srebrenica killings, which has deeply offended relatives of the massacre victims and survivors.

At a meeting with Dodik in Budapest on May 15, Hungary Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said his country will vote against the resolution. He called the genocide the “Srebrenica tragedy” and said the resolution “intentionally or unintentionally would demonize the entire Serbian nation” and inflame tensions in the surrounding region.

The upcoming vote was also raised at a regular UN Security Council meeting on political and economic developments in Bosnia on May 15

U.S. Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood said, “Dodik’s dangerous actions and secessionist rhetoric threaten peace and stability in the region” and “genocide denial also prevents reconciliation”.

“Commemorating historical truths and accepting facts is important and moves the region forward on a path towards reconciliation,” Mr. Wood said. “And honouring the victims of genocide reinforces the values reflected in the UN Charter.” But Russian UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia, whose country has strong ties to Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs, said the introduction of the resolution without the consent of all Bosnian parties was a violation of the country’s constitution and the 1995 Dayton peace agreement which ended the war.

“We view this provocative text as a threat to peace and security in the country and in the region as a whole,” he said, accusing Germany and Rwanda of sparking protests instead of promoting reconciliation.

Chinese Deputy UN Ambassador Geng Shuang reiterated Beijing’s call for the sponsors to engage with key parties and member states to reach consensus on the draft resolution. He said there are still “major differences” and “forcing it through is inconsistent with the spirit of promoting reconciliation” within Bosnia and among countries in the region.

Germany and Rwanda have said they would seriously consider proposals by Serbia to change the text.

Displaced Palestinians arrive in central Gaza after fleeing from the southern Gaza city of Rafah in Deir al Balah, Gaza Strip, on May 09, 2024.
| Photo Credit: AP

The top U.N. court said it would hold hearings on May 16 and 17 over a request from South Africa to impose emergency orders on Israel to halt its Rafah offensive.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague will hear lawyers from South Africa on May 16, followed by Israel’s response the next day, it said in a statement.

Earlier this month, Pretoria petitioned the ICJ for so-called provisional measures over the incursion into Rafah, asking the court to order Israel to “immediately withdraw and cease its military offensive.”

It also requested the court to order Israel to take “all effective measures” to facilitate the “unimpeded” access of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Nearly 4,50,000 Palestinians have been newly displaced from Rafah in recent days, and around 1,00,000 from northern Gaza, said U.N. agencies which warn that “no place is safe” in the territory.

The bloodiest ever Gaza war broke out after Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, which resulted in the deaths of more than 1,170 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of Israeli official figures.

Militants also seized about 250 hostages, 128 of whom Israel estimates remain in Gaza, including 36 the military says are dead.

Israel’s retaliatory offensive against Hamas has killed at least 35,173 people, mostly civilians, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.

The ICJ was set up to rule on disputes between states and while its judgements are legally binding, it has little means to enforce them.

For example, the court has ordered Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine, to no avail.

Amsterdam:

South Africa has asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to order additional emergency measures against Israel, which it says is breaching the measures already in place, the U.N.’s top court said on Wednesday.

In its application South Africa warned that Palestinians in Gaza were facing starvation and asked to court to order that all parties cease hostilities and release all hostages and detainees.

South Africa also asked to court to order that Israel take “immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address famine and starvation” in Gaza.

It added that the ICJ, also known as the World Court, should take these measures without scheduling a new round of hearings because of the “extreme urgency of the situation”.

In January the World Court, as the ICJ is also known, ordered Israel to refrain from any acts that could fall under the Genocide Convention and to ensure its troops commit no genocidal acts against Palestinians, after South Africa accused Israel of state-led genocide in Gaza.

Israel and its Western allies described the allegation as baseless.

A final ruling in the case in The Hague could take years.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki and Palestinian U.N. envoy Riyad Mansour attend a public hearing held by The International Court of Justice to allow parties to give their views on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories before eventually issuing a non-binding legal opinion in The Hague, Netherlands on February 19, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The story so far: Israel’s war in Gaza in retaliation for the October 7 terror attacks by Hamas took centre-stage at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) this week again, as the UN General Assembly raised the question of illegal Israeli settlements in the court, with public hearings that will end on February 26. The hearings sparked a further divide between Western countries, many of whom sought to defend Israel’s bombardment of Gaza as the “right to self-defence”, and were ranged against Global South countries, most of whom had supported South Africa’s bid to have the ICJ try Israel for “war-crimes” for its actions. The latest hearings opened in the backdrop of a major rift between Brazil and Israel.

What are the ICJ hearings about?

The current hearings of the ICJ at the Peace Palace in The Hague (The Netherlands) are not a consequence of the Israel-Hamas conflict of the past few months, but pre-date them. In December 2022, the UN General Assembly had asked the court for an “advisory opinion” on two specific questions pertaining to Israeli actions in the past: first, what are the “legal consequences” for Israel over its policy of “occupations, settlement and annexation” of Palestinian territories since the 1967 war, and attempts to change the demographic status of Jerusalem, and second, what legal consequences arise for all other states and the United Nations over Israel’s “discriminatory” policies towards Palestinians. As many as 52 states and three international organisations gave written and oral comments during the hearings scheduled from February 19-26, led by Palestine, and followed by South Africa.

Editorial | Momentous ruling: On Israel and the International Court of Justice order

Who were the key speakers and what have they said so far?

While a majority of the speakers at the hearings are from the Global South led by Brazil and South Africa, all P-5 members of the UN Security council submitted comments, although Israel chose not to participate. India was not among the speakers, but its neighbours, Pakistan and Bangladesh were strongly critical of Israel’s actions. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki gave a three-hour high-powered submission in which he said Israeli governments had left only three choices for Palestinians: “displacement, subjugation or death”, calling their actions: “ethnic cleansing, apartheid or genocide.” The U.S., U.K. and allies began submissions with condemnations of the October 7 attack in which more than 1,100 were killed in Israel. Ireland, however, has diverged quite dramatically from the West and the European Union in its criticism of Israel’s actions, countering arguments on the “right to self-defence” by saying that international law “limits the use of force in self-defence to no more than what is necessary and proportionate”. More than 29,000 people have been killed in Gaza since Israel’s bombardment began. While the ICJ case pertains to events pre-2022, it was clear that the destruction of nearly half of all structures in Gaza in four months are precipitating concerns that Israel plans to occupy and resettle that territory as well. Brazil’s ambassador in particular called for the ICJ to pronounce Israel’s actions of confiscating land, demolishing Palestinian homes, establishing Israeli settlements, and constructing the West Bank barrier wall as illegal.

Why have Brazil and Israel drawn daggers?

While Brazil and Israel have had close relations in the past, Brazil’s President Lula da Silva has been openly critical of “Zionism” in the past. For instance, he refused to visit the grave of Theodor Herzl during a visit to Jerusalem in 2010. Last week, Israel declared Mr. Lula a “persona non grata” who won’t be allowed to enter the country after he compared Israel’s bombardment of Palestinians to the Holocaust in Nazi Germany in which six million Jewish people were killed. Brazil has since recalled its ambassador to Israel.

What is India’s stand?

Despite its abstention in one vote calling for a ceasefire in October 2023, India has consistently voted in favour of UN resolutions that are critical of Israel’s occupation and annexation of Palestinian territory. Unlike the rest of the Global South, however, the Modi government has chosen to keep public comments on the issue to a minimum, and the decision not to speak at the ICJ is in line with that. Several factors complicate clarity on the Indian position. On the one hand, there is an expectation from the Arab world, particularly from close partners such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, for India to stand with Palestine. Qatar, for instance, may have expectations after the Prime Minister’s visit this month to thank the Emir for releasing eight Indian naval officers. This may explain why New Delhi has spoken strongly about zero tolerance for the October 7 terror attacks, but has not designated Hamas as a terror group so far.

Also read | South Africa tells top U.N. court that it’s accusing Israel of apartheid against Palestinians

On the other hand, there is India’s close defence and surveillance equipment cooperation with Israel. While India has been buying defence equipment from Israel, recently, it shipped drones made by Adani-Elbit Advanced Systems in Hyderabad to help Israeli operations. In addition, the government has green-lighted the recruitment of tens of thousands of Indian workers by Israeli companies dealing with labour shortages due to the expulsion of Palestinians from jobs post October 7 attacks. However, the area of greatest concern for Indian diplomacy will come if it is seen as an outlier to the Global South that India seeks leadership of, which has been clearly critical of Israel’s actions, and is increasingly speaking in one voice for international judicial accountability for them.

View of the Peace Palace which houses World Court where Ukraine’s legal battle against Russia over allegations of genocide used by Moscow to justify its 2022 invasion, resumed in The Hague, Netherlands, on September 18, 2023.
| Photo Credit: AP

Ukraine’s legal battle against Russia over allegations of genocide used by Moscow to justify its 2022 invasion resumes on September 18 at the United Nations’ highest court, as Russia seeks to have the case tossed out.

Hearings at the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, will see Ukraine supported by a record 32 other nations in a major show of support.

Kyiv launched the case shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, arguing that the attack was based on false claims of acts of genocide in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions of eastern Ukraine and alleging that Moscow was planning genocidal acts in Ukraine. It wants the court to order Russia to halt its invasion and pay reparations.

Filing its case last year, Ukraine said that “Russia has turned the Genocide Convention on its head — making a false claim of genocide as a basis for actions on its part that constitute grave violations of the human rights of millions of people across Ukraine.”

Ukraine brought the case to the Hague-based court based on the 1948 Genocide Convention, which both Moscow and Kyiv have ratified. In an interim ruling in March 2022, the court ordered Russia to halt hostilities in Ukraine, a binding legal ruling that Moscow has flouted as it presses ahead with its devastating attacks on Ukrainian towns and cities.

Hearings this week are expected to see lawyers for Russia argue that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case, while Ukraine will call on judges to press ahead to hearings on the substance of its claims.

In an unprecedented show of international support for Kyiv, 32 of Ukraine’s allies including Canada, Australia and every European Union member nation except Hungary will also make statements in support of Kyiv’s legal arguments. The United States asked to participate on Ukraine’s side, but the U.N. court’s judges rejected the U.S. request on a technicality.

The court’s panel of international judges will likely take weeks or months to reach a decision on whether or not the case can proceed. If it does, a final ruling is likely years away.

The International Court of Justice hears disputes between nations over matters of law, unlike the International Criminal Court, also based in The Hague, that holds individuals criminally responsible for offenses including war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The ICC has issued a war crimes arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing him of responsibility for the abduction of Ukrainian children.