Indian Judge Votes Against Russia In World Court

Table of Contents

What has happened?

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague, Netherlands, has directed that Russia must immediately suspend its military operations in Ukraine.
Former Supreme Court Justice Dalveer Bhandari, one of the 15 sitting judges of the UN court who participated through a video link due to Covid-19, voted against the Russian operation in Ukraine.
The direction further cornered Russia amid growing sanctions from the West against Russian businesses and oligarchs.

The court said that it is “acutely aware of the extent of human tragedy taking place in Ukraine and is profoundly concerned about the use of Russian force against Ukraine”.
It also emphasised the “obligation of all states to act under their obligations under international law”.

The order was passed in the top international court by a 13 against two majorities. Judges from the US, Slovakia, France, Morocco, Somalia, Uganda, Jamaica, Lebanon, Japan, Germany, Australia and India, Voted in favour of Russia suspending military operations in Ukraine, while those from Russia and China voted against.
India’s judge at the ICJ, Justice Dalveer Bhandari, also votedagainst Russia.
Justice Bhandari was nominated to the ICJ entirely on the support of the government and various missions over a period of time.
Justice Bhandari voting against Russia, though an independent move based on his interpretation of the Russia-Ukraine issue,
Is different from what India’s official position has been in different international fora.

The order was in response to a Ukrainian appeal to the court on 26 February, asking for an urgent ruling on Russia’s unsupported claims that,
Ukrainian forces were committing genocide in Russian-backed enclaves in Luhansk and Donetsk, regions in eastern Ukraine, as a justification for the attack.
Ukraine said there was no threat of genocide in eastern Ukraine, and that the U.N.’s 1948 Genocide Convention, which both countries have signed, does not allow an invasion to prevent one.

Russia did not attend an initial hearing of the case on 4 March, nor did its lawyers turn up to hear the ruling on Wednesday.
Instead they sent a letter to the court claiming the ICJ did not have jurisdiction over the case,
Because Russia had formally justified the attack in a letter to the UN secretary general on grounds of self-defence, not on genocide.
Russia claimed, Kyiv’s request fell outside of the scope of the 1948 Genocide Convention on which it based its case.

“Non participation of a party cannot impact the validity of our decision,” it ruled.
“The court concludes that prima facia it has jurisdiction pursuant to article nine of the Genocide Convention to entertain the case.”
“The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on Feb 24, 2022 on the territory of Ukraine,“ the ICJ judges said.

Although the rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are binding, it has no direct means of enforcing them, and inrare cases in the past countries have ignored them.
“The (ICJ) order is binding under international law. Russia must comply immediately. Ignoring the order will isolate Russia even further,” Zelenskiy said.

The ICJ has passed many landmark judgements, but the execution of its verdicts have often been hindered by the skewed balance of power in the United Nations.
The UN Security Council is authorised by Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter to enforce Court rulings, but enforcement is subject to veto by permanent members of the Security Council.
Despite inadequacies in overturning the hurdles erected by members with veto power, the ICJ remains the apex court in settling disputes between nations.

Q) Which among the following was the precursor to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)?