Ukraine lawyers insist that UN's top court has jurisdiction to hear Kyiv's case against Russia

Sep 19, 2023

Ukraine is insisting that the United Nations’ highest court has jurisdiction to hear a case alleging that Moscow abused the genocide convention to justify launching its devastating invasion last year

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — Ukraine insisted Tuesday that the United Nations' highest court has jurisdiction to hear a case alleging that Moscow abused the genocide convention to justify launching its devastating invasion last year.

Kyiv wants judges at the International Court of Justice to order Russia to halt its attacks and pay reparations. But it appears unlikely Moscow would comply. Russia has flouted a binding interim order issued by the court in March last year to end its invasion.

“Russia’s defiance is also an attack on this court’s authority. Every missile that Russia fires at our cities, it fires in defiance of this court,” the leader of Ukraine’s legal team, Anton Korynevych, told the 16-judge panel.

Kyiv filed the

case

shortly after

Russia invaded Ukraine.

It argues that the attack was based on false claims of acts of genocide in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions of eastern Ukraine.

“Russia is waging war against my country in the name of this terrible lie that Ukraine is committing genocide against its own people," Korynevych said.

"This lie is Russia’s pretext for aggression and conquest. Russia has presented no credible evidence. It cannot. In reality, Russia has turned the Genocide Convention on its head.”

Russia outlined its

objections

to the case on Monday, with the leader of Moscow's legal team, Gennady Kuzmin, calling it "hopelessly flawed and at odds with the longstanding jurisprudence of this court.”

Ukraine's case is based on the 1948 Genocide Convention, which both Kyiv and Moscow have ratified. The convention includes a provision that nations which have a dispute based on its provisions can take that dispute to the World Court. Russia denies that there is a dispute, a position Ukraine rejects.

Another lawyer for Ukraine, Marney Cheek, told judges that Russia's preparations for its invasion last year did not only include its massive troop buildup along Ukraine's borders. "It also included eight years of building a sham justification for Putin’s so-called special military operation,” she said.

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

In March, the ICC issued a war crimes

arrest warrant

for Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing him of responsibility for the abduction of Ukrainian children.

In an unprecedented show of international solidarity,

32 of Ukraine’s allies

will make statements Wednesday in support of Kyiv’s legal arguments.

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.

After Ukraine wrapped up its arguments, Korynevych told reporters that “all the preliminary objections filed by the Russian Federation must be dismissed and ... the court shall proceed to listening to this case on the merits.”

In his opening statement, Korynevych outlined what is at stake for his country, telling judges that "573 days ago, Russia launched a brutal, full scale military assault on Ukraine. This is a war of annihilation. Russia denies the very existence of the Ukrainian people. And wants to wipe us off the map.”

___

Find AP’s stories about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine at

https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine

More News

The far-right just lost. Twice.
Oct 26, 2026
The far-right just lost. Twice.

Supporters of Serbia’s Students’ List movement celebrate in Belgrade on October 26, 2026. | Milos Milanovic/AFP via Getty Images This story appeared in Today, Explained, a daily newsletter that helps you understand the most compelling news and stories of the day. Subscribe here. Vox isn’t typically in the business of covering elections in far-flung locales like the central Balkans. (No offense whatsoever to anyone from the central Balkans!) But on Sunday, an insurgent student-backed movement in Serbia successfully toppled the country’s ruling right-wing political machine, creating an unexpected opening for democratic reform.  Then, in another upset halfway around the globe, Brazilian voters reelected incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva over his far-right challenger, Flávio Bolsonaro. “Democracy always, dictatorship never again,” Lula said in his victory speech. That’s two big repudiations of the nationalist right in 24 hours. Not quite enough to declare a trend, maybe, but sufficient to remind us that there’s still hope for the world’s embattled democratic institutions.  More than that, these results offer evidence of something that sounds naive and Pollyannish in our current moment, but can (apparently!) still prove true: Organizing can be a powerful force for electoral change — both abroad and maybe here at home. Go a little deeper View Link To be fair, the two elections differed considerably, and I don’t want to suggest it’s all sunshine and democratic renewal ahead for Brazil and Serbia. Bolsonaro is refusing to concede, for instance. And in Serbia, the victorious Student List still has to stand up a government, a prime minister, and a full policy platform — something the nascent movement has never done before.  But academics and elections-watchers in both countries have credited the results in large part to mass protests and grassroots organizing that helped mobilize unexpected numbers of voters. Serbian students began their movement in 2024, following the partial collapse of a railway station that killed 16 people. The government’s failure to fully explain the cause of the collapse — or hold anyone responsible — fueled months of marches, protest bike rides, and other demonstrations. That movement eventually grew into the Student List: an opposition electoral slate that fielded 250 candidates in Sunday’s parliamentary elections.  The story in Brazil is quite different. Lula, the country’s leftist president, was actually poised to lose. Brazil uses a two-round popular vote to elect its president, and if no candidate secures more than half the vote in the first round, then the top two candidates proceed to a runoff election. Lula placed second in that first vote, after Flávio Bolsonaro, the son of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and the heir to his father’s far-right political movement.  To many Brazilians, that second-place finish served as a kind of wake-up call. “No runoff campaign in Brazil has ever brought so many people to the streets and onto social media,” Guilherme Casarões, an associate professor of Brazilian studies at Florida International University, wrote in an analysis of the surprise results. One WhatsApp channel dedicated to turning voters out for Lula grew to nearly 11 million followers, up from just 50,000 after his first-round loss.  Looking at these projects abroad, I’m struck that American pro-democracy movements like No Kings haven’t achieved that kind of influence. Arguably, that’s in part a consequence of their failure to turn protest energy into actual political organizing — things like registering voters, knocking on doors, and fielding candidates.  But there are some signs that may be shifting. No Kings has lately pivoted its focus, for instance, from mostly organizing protests to urging Americans — of both parties — to vote in the midterms. And Indivisible, one of the groups behind the movement, claims that early voting surged during the latest protests in the zip codes where they occurred. It’s not exactly a central Balkan moment, but maybe it’s a hint of things to come. Elections can surprise you, after all. Just ask a Serb or a Brazilian.  One link for later ➨ Leave your big life decisions to chance. (Sort of.) A team of researchers invited people to make a big life decision by flipping a coin and then tracked their happiness with the outcome. They found that, of the people who obeyed the results of the toss, the ones who changed something big were overwhelmingly happier. That doesn’t literally mean we should all resort to coin tosses, but it should tell us something important: We often tend to be too cautious about making major changes.  Before you go… Did you know…that in the 1870s and ’80s, spectators flocked to Madison Square Garden for long-distance walking competitions? Athletes walked up to 600 miles in six days, just going round and round the stadium.  Today’s trivia: Which New Jersey city was the first predominantly white community in the US to vote in favor of school integration? (You can find this and other brain puzzles in Vox’s daily crossword. Look for the answer in tomorrow’s edition.) Yesterday’s trivia: Last week we asked you for the radioactive noble gas with the chemical symbol Rn. That would be radon, once a trendy (deadly) ingredient in quack medicines.

Expert Features

The Expert Features reports on the issues and the world’s everyday news. Handled by experts in different niches, you will find different subjects and perspectives.