Legal Sidebari
The Role of International Tribunals in the
Response to the Invasion of Ukraine
Updated April 13, 2022
The Ukrainian government and much of the international community contend that actions taken by
Russian forces following its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine violate international law. A number of
officials have also expressed concern that actions during the invasion may amount to war crimes and
crimes against humanity; others, including the Secretary General of the United Nations (U.N.) and the
U.S. Secretary of State have claimed that the situation in Ukraine is leading to increased human rights
violations. This Sidebar addresses the role of international tribunals in addressing issues involving
international humanitarian and human rights law.
Individual and Russian Accountability for Actions in
Ukraine
Several international tribunals may play a role in addressing Russia’s actions in Ukraine, chiefly the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Court (ICC), and European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR). This section provides an overview of current and prior disputes involving Ukrainian
allegations against Russia or individuals connected to Russian actions in Ukraine.
International Court of Justice
On February 27, 2022, Ukraine filed an application with the ICJ to initiate proceedings against Russia
under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“Genocide
Convention”). Article II of that Convention defines genocide as certain wrongful acts—such as killing,
causing serious bodily harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about physical
destruction—when committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. In its
ICJ filing, Ukraine contends that Russia premised its invasion on fabricated claims of Ukrainian genocide
against Russians or Russian-speakers in Ukraine, which Ukraine “emphatically denies.” Ukraine argues
“Russia has turned the Genocide Convention on its head—making a false claim of genocide as a basis” to
justify its own “grave and widespread” human rights violations.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10704
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service
2
Discussed in this Legal Sidebar, the ICJ is the U.N.’s principal judicial organ, but it does not have
jurisdiction over all disputes between U.N. members. Unless a country submits to the ICJ’s compulsory
jurisdiction, which Ukraine and Russia have not, the Court has jurisdiction only on a treaty-by-treaty
basis. Ukraine and Russia have submitted to the ICJ’s jurisdiction for disputes under the Genocide
Convention. ICJ cases ordinarily take years to resolve; however, Ukraine also seeks provisional measures,
which can be granted swiftly because they have priority on the ICJ’s docket. Provisional measures are
temporary but binding measures designed to preserve the parties’ rights while a case is pending. Among
other provisional requests, Ukraine asks the ICJ to direct Russia to suspend its military operations
immediately. Oral argument on the request for provisional measures was held on March 7, 2022. Russia
did not appear for that argument, although it submitted a filing contending the ICJ lacks jurisdiction over
the matter. On March 16, 2022, the ICJ granted provisional measures while reserving final judgment on
jurisdiction and the merits. The Court ordered Russia to (1) suspend its military operations and (2) ensure
military and irregular armed units cease actions to further the military operations. The Court also directed
both states to “refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute.” On March 23, 2022,
the ICJ established deadlines for the parties to file written statements: Ukraine must file its memorial by
September 23, 2022, and Russia its counter-memorial by March 23, 2023.
Although the U.N. Charter provides that each member state “undertakes to comply” with ICJ decisions,
the Court may lack the independent ability to enforce its rulings. Member states can request the Security
Council to take enforcement action, but Russia and any other permanent member of the Security Council
can veto those proposals.
This case is not the first against Russia arising out of its military actions in the region. In 2017, Ukraine
filed an ICJ application asserting that Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and subsequent acts of “cultural
erasure” of ethnic Ukrainians and the Tatar community, violated the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Ukraine also alleges in its 2017 case that
Russia violated the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism by
supporting violent separatist groups in eastern Ukraine. The ICJ granted (or “indicated” in the language of
the ICJ statute) a portion of Ukraine’s request for provisional measures in 2017. The Court held in 2019
that it had jurisdiction to hear the claims under both treaties, and the merits case is ongoing.
International Criminal Court
On February 28, 2022, the Prosecutor of the ICC announced that his office “decided to proceed with
opening an investigation into the Situation in Ukraine.” Specifically, the Prosecutor indicated that the
evidence collected with regard to the 2014 conflict between Russia and Ukraine showed there was a
“reasonable basis” to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity had been committed in
Ukraine and, given the escalation of the conflict in February 2022, the “investigation will also encompass
any new alleged crimes.”
The ICC has jurisdiction to investigate four categories of crimes that fall within the ambit of international
humanitarian law: (1) genocide; (2) crimes against humanity; (3) war crimes; and (4) the crime of
aggression. Unlike many other tribunals, the ICC focuses on holding individuals accountable for these
crimes, as opposed to a nation-state. Individuals found guilty of any of these crimes face penalties
including imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture.
The ICC’s jurisdiction generally extends only to those countries that have become parties to the Rome
Statute establishing the ICC. Neither Ukraine nor Russia are parties, and thus, in general, the ICC lacks
jurisdiction over actions within the territories of either country. (Contrast this to cases involving parties to
the Rome Statute, such as the investigation into alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes
committed in Georgia, which became a party in 2003, during the 2008 conflict with Russia.) However, the
ICC may exercise jurisdiction over non-parties, except with regard to the crime of aggression, if the
Congressional Research Service
3
specific requirements of Article 12(3) are met. First, a country must submit a declaration with the
Registrar of the ICC accepting the exercise of the ICC’s jurisdiction “with respect to the crime in
question.” Second, the case must be one that the Prosecutor self-initiated or initiated at the request of a
party to the Rome Statute.
In this case, Ukraine filed a declaration in 2014 accepting the ICC’s jurisdiction for the period of
November 21, 2013, to February 22, 2014, and also requested that the ICC investigate alleged crimes
against humanity committed in its territory during this time period. Based on this declaration and referral,
the Prosecutor opened a preliminary investigation. Ukraine filed a second declaration in 2015, extending
its acceptance of the ICC’s jurisdiction from February 25, 2014, to an undetermined date.
In 2020, the ICC Prosecutor concluded her preliminary examination of the evidence, stating there is a
“reasonable basis at this time to believe that a broad range of conduct constituting war crimes and crimes
against humanity within the jurisdiction of the Court have been committed in the context of the situation
in Ukraine.” As indicated by the ICC Prosecutor’s February 28, 2022, statement, given Ukraine’s open-
ended acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction, and the 2022 escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, the
Prosecutor intends to expand the ongoing preliminary investigation to include alleged new crimes that
may occur during this time. Subsequently, more than forty parties to the Rome Statute requested that the
Prosecutor open an investigation. Based on these referrals, the Prosecutor immediately did so and no
longer needs to seek authorization from the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber to open an investigation into
potential crimes committed following Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
European Court of Human Rights
On February 28, 2022, Ukraine applied to the ECHR for interim measures in response to “massive human
rights violations being committed by the Russian troops in the course of the military aggression against
the sovereign territory of Ukraine.” The Court granted these measures, directing Russia to “refrain from
military attacks against civilians and civilian objects, including residential premises, emergency vehicles
and other specially protected civilian objects.”
The ECHR adjudicates claims involving alleged violations of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, known as the European Convention on Human Rights
(“Convention”). Currently, 47 countries are parties to the Convention, including Russia and Ukraine,
although Russia is withdrawing from the Convention, as discussed below. Two types of claims may be
lodged with the ECHR: inter-state disputes and disputes brought by individuals against a state.
Human rights protected by the Convention include, among others, the right to life and a prohibition on
torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Although human rights violations are distinct from
international humanitarian law violations, actions that violate Convention-protected rights may occur
during the same events that also give rise to alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity charges. In
cases alleging an imminent risk of irreparable harm, the ECHR may issue interim measures directed to the
state allegedly committing human rights violations. Ukraine has requested and been granted interim
measures in light of the February 2022 invasion. In the public notice on the interim measures, the Court
indicated that it considers Russia’s actions to present “a real and continuing risk of serious violations of
the Convention rights of the civilian population, in particular under Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition
of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), and 8 (right to respect for private and
family life).” The interim measures directing Russia to refrain from actions that may violate human rights
are legally binding, although enforcement may be difficult, especially in inter-State disputes. If the Court
finds a violation of the ECHR, it is to declare a violation; award compensation where appropriate; and
potentially indicate other remedial actions that the respondent State must take.
In addition to its February 28 application for interim measures, Ukraine has taken other legal actions
against Russia. Currently, Ukraine has four inter-state claims against Russia before the ECHR (and over
Congressional Research Service
4
7,000 individuals have filed claims against Russia). Of particular relevance is Ukraine’s March 2014
complaint involving Russia’s invasion of Crimea. In that dispute, Ukraine alleged Russia’s conduct
amounted to “administrative practices” (i.e., a pattern of acts that are officially tolerated) that violated
numerous Convention provisions, including the right to life; prohibition on torture, inhuman or degrading
treatment; prohibition on unlawful detention; freedom of religion; and prohibition of discrimination. The
Court granted Ukraine’s request for interim measures, directing Russia to “refrain from measures which
might threaten the life and health of the civilian population on the territory of Ukraine.” In January 2021,
the Court found the complaint partially admissible (i.e., the complaint met the requirements for the Court
to consider the merits of almost all of Ukraine’s allegations). No decision on the merits has been issued.
On March 15, 2022, Russia communicated its withdrawal from the Council of Europe and intent to
denounce the Convention. The Council of Europe passed a resolution stating that Russia “ceases to be a
member” as of March 16, 2022. Any state may denounce the Convention and thereby cease to be bound
by it. States who cease to be part of the Council of Europe also cease to be bound by the Convention.
However, the Convention continues to apply to the withdrawing state for all acts that occur before the
denunciation becomes legally effective. Russia’s withdrawal and denunciation take effect on September
16, 2022. Even after that time, however, the Court may consider cases filed against Russia that involve
allegations of ECHR violations if the alleged violations occur before September 16, 2022.
Other International Tribunals
Other international tribunals may also play a role in disputes addressing alleged violations of human
rights occurring during Russia’s military action, particularly the right to property. For example, after the
2014 annexation of Ukraine, several Ukrainian investors brought claims against Russia under a 1998
bilateral investment treaty between Ukraine and Russia, seeking compensation for expropriated property
at the Permanent Court of Arbitration and in other arbitration fora. Investors have been awarded
significant amounts of compensation in some cases (e.g., Everest Estate LLC et al. v. Russia; PJSC
Ukrnafta v. Russia; Stabil LLC v. Russia). Other disputes remain ongoing.
Author Information
Nina M. Hart
Stephen P. Mulligan
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service
5
LSB10704 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED