Introduction
An important place in the complex of measures aimed at counteracting aggression is the ability to bring the aggressor to legal liability. Legal measures to counteract aggression are as important as measures of a military, economic, diplomatic nature both at the national legislative level and internationally.
Ukraine remains the object of military aggression on the part of the Russian Federation, which engages in aggression through large-scale terrorist attacks. Under concerted diplomatic efforts in Geneva, Normandy and other formats, Russia does not fulfill its obligations to respect universally accepted norms of international law.
Crimea remains occupied, and the demands of the democratic community to stop the aggression of the Russian Federation, supply of arms, equipment and live power to terrorists in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine are ignored by the Kremlin. Good intentions to leave the door to dialogue with the leadership of the Russian Federation are only provoking new bloody terrorist acts in Eastern Ukraine [1].
In order to exercise its right to defend against aggression and to bring the Russian Federation to legal liability, Ukraine appealed to the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. However, the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine has demonstrated a number of legal problems that are significant in the interstate dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
That is why this research will analyze the evidences on which the claims of Ukraine to the Russian Federation are based, legal problems with the use of evidence, analysis of issues of jurisdiction of international courts. In addition, the research will characterize the trials of Ukraine in each international jurisdictional body.
Assessment of actual and law evidence of the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine
The US and the European Union have repeatedly stated that they are convinced in the presence of the Russian army and armaments in the East of Ukraine and provided evidence – satellite imagery. And last time – a photo of the transfer of military equipment, which the correspondent of the mass media photographed in Russia near the Ukrainian border.
On August 28, 2014, NATO unveiled photos confirming the intervention of Russian troops in Ukraine. On the official site of this organization there were satellite images of Russian military equipment that crossed the Ukrainian border. As Oana Lungescu commented, «new satellite images show that Russian troops are involved in military operations inside Ukraine».
In addition, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe in Europe, Philip Breedlove, describes the presence of up to 300 Russian soldiers in Eastern Ukraine who trained militants. On November 12, 2014, Philip said that NATO is monitoring the supply of Russian military equipment to Ukraine. According to him, Russian tanks, artillery and infantry fighting forces enter Ukraine [2].
On May 11, 2014, «Reuters» published a journalistic investigation entitled «Russian Soldiers Released Through Ukraine». Journalists were able to interview military personnel who participated in hostilities in the East of Ukraine. According to the poll, some of them resigned after a trip to Ukraine.
Given anonymity, the Russian military serviceman said that last year he was sent to study in Rostov-on-Don, and subsequently he was sent to Ukraine. Such cases were frequent. The servicemen of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation were in fact forced to take part in hostilities in the territory of Ukraine.
On May 28, «Reuters» published photos proving that the Russian army is collecting troops and hundreds of weapons, including mobile missiles, military installations, tanks and artillery on a temporary basis near the borders with Ukraine. The agency notes that there are no recognizable numbers on military vehicles. Russian identification marks for military uniforms have also been removed [2].
In turn, the Atlantic Council Washington Analytical Center issued a report in which evidence is provided of the participation of the Russian Army in an armed conflict on the Donbass. The report of the Atlantic Council is based on cartographic images of the Google search engine [3].
Since mid – April 2014, more than 9 300 people have been killed, more than 21 500 people have been injured and almost one-and-a-half million people have left their homes as a result of the conflict. Hundreds are being held captive or are reported missing [4].
Victims of armed aggression from the Russian Federation became a civilian population – women and children. According to the UN, as a result of armed aggression from Russia in Ukraine, 65 children were killed and 159 were injured [5].
All of the above facts are indisputable evidence of aggression. But will the evidence be sufficient to bring the Russian Federation as a state to international legal responsibility for committing aggression against Ukraine?
The legal responsibility of the aggressor will be fragmented. The Ukrainian side will be able to raise the issue of international legal responsibility for the commission of international wrongful acts that are related to aggression or caused by it.
However, in any case, the Ukrainian side against the Russian Federation will not be able to directly file a lawsuit on the aggression applied by Russia.
That is, the institutional mechanisms of contractual relations between the two states or multilateral treaties involving two states should be the bases of Ukraine's claims to the Russian Federation.
From the comments of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, it follows that at this stage Ukraine in the litigation has a preference for a fragmentary approach to the implementation of international legal responsibility [6].
In a fragmentary approach, there is a risk of Ukraine losing evidence that will not be considered legitimate as adequate evidence for judiciary.
Of course, the essence of litigation in disputes between Ukraine and Russia is different. However, the actual base, which is the same for the confirmation of Russia's aggression against Ukraine, is already weakening.
It is a pity that in Ukraine, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not have legal planning strategies to prove Russia's aggression against Ukraine. I characterize this statement in accordance with the lawsuits of Ukraine, which are considered by international judicial bodies.
International Court of Justice
On January 17, 2017, the International Court of Justice presented a communiqué that Ukraine had sued Russia. The claim of Ukraine amounts to 800 documents, 300 of which are classified as «secret» and «completely secret» [7].
Ukraine instituted proceedings against the Russian Federation with regard to alleged violations of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICSFT) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). On the same day, Ukraine submitted a request for the indication of provisional measures, aimed at safeguarding the rights it claims under those two conventions pending the Court’s decision on the merits.
The basis of the claims Ukraine pointed to the presence of hostilities in the East of Ukraine and the assassination of the aircraft Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 while it was flying over the Ukrainian territory along the route between Amsterdam and Kuala Lumpur [8].
As to the violation of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICSF) by Russia, the court responded: «The Court is of the view that, at this stage of the proceedings, Ukraine has not put before it evidence which affords a sufficient basis to find it possible that these elements are present. Nevertheless, the case before the Court is limited in scope. In respect of the events in the Eastern part of its territory, Ukraine has brought proceedings only under the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism».
Unfortunately, Ukraine in this process does not prove or confirm the evidence of the causal link between the financing of political parties of the Russian Federation and the activities of armed groups of mercenaries from Russia that carry out terrorist acts in the East of Ukraine.
The mass media repeatedly showed evidence of the participation of the Communist Party of Ukraine in appeals for the federalization and autonomy of Ukraine, the transfer of funds from the Russian Communist Party to Ukraine in support of ideological movements.
The second lawsuit of Ukraine to Russia in this trial was the question of protecting the Crimean Tatar people from discrimination, restoration of the Mejlis and teaching of the Ukrainian language on the Crimean peninsula.
Ukraine respectfully requests the Court to declare that the Russian Federation, through its State organs, State agents, and other persons and entities exercising governmental authority, including the de facto authorities administering the illegal Russian occupation of Crimea, and through other agents acting on its instructions or under its direction and control, has violated its obligations under the CERD by:
(a) Systematically discriminating against and mistreating the Crimean Tatar and ethnic Ukrainian communities in Crimea, in furtherance of a state policy of cultural erasure of disfavored groups perceived to be opponents of the occupation regime;
(b) Holding an illegal referendum in an atmosphere of violence and intimidation against non-Russian ethnic groups, without any effort to seek a consensual and inclusive solution protecting those groups, and as an initial step toward depriving these communities of the protection of Ukrainian law and subjecting them to a regime of Russian dominance;
(c) Suppressing the political and cultural expression of Crimean Tatar identity, including through the persecution of Crimean Tatar leaders and the ban on the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People;
(d) Preventing Crimean Tatars from gathering to celebrate and commemorate important cultural events;
(e) Perpetrating and tolerating a campaign of disappearances and murders of Crimean Tatars;
(f) Harassing the Crimean Tatar community with an arbitrary regime of searches and detention;
(g) Silencing Crimean Tatar media;
(h) Suppressing Crimean Tatar language education and the community’s educational institutions;
(i) Suppressing Ukrainian language education relied on by ethnic Ukrainians;
(j) Preventing ethnic Ukrainians from gathering to celebrate and commemorate important cultural events; and
(k) Silencing ethnic Ukrainian media» [9].
The hearing of the case «Ukraine v. Russia» began on March 6 and lasted for several days. At the end of the hearing, the court reviewed the arguments of the parties within one month. At this stage, he decided on his competence (Prima facie).
The court has established: «With regard to the situation in Crimea, the Russian Federation must, in accordance with its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
1) refrain from maintaining or imposing limitations on the ability of the Crimean Tatar community to conserve its representative institutions, including the Mejlis;
2) ensure the availability of education in the Ukrainian language;
3) both Parties shall refrain from any action which may aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve» [8].
As we see from the 11 requirements of Ukraine, the Court adheres only two requirements. The court did not pay attention to the prohibition on ethnic Ukrainians to carry out cultural activities in the Crimea. Also, the court did not consider the issue of suppressing Ukrainian mass media by the Crimean authorities.
All this testified that Ukraine makes general conclusions in litigation, limited to individual extracts from documentary evidence. This affects the clarity of the violation of the norms of the declared Convention.
The International Court of Justice has defined the timetable for Ukraine's lawsuits against Russia and has provided each side with time to present evidence to the Court. On the eve of the meeting in The Hague, a meeting between representatives of Ukraine, Russia and the head of the International Court of Justice, Ronnie Abraham, during which the parties agreed on a timetable for further consideration of allegations concerning the violation of the two conventions of the United Nations and the responses to them.
According to Deputy Minister of Justice of Ukraine, Mrs. Zerkul, Ukraine has a year and a month to submit documents confirming the illegal actions of the Russian side. This term ends June 12, 2018. After that, the Russian also has a year to submit so-called counter measures to objections to data provided by the Ukrainian side. Thus, the position of both parties in the Court will not be earlier than July 12, 2019 [10].
Prospects of Ukraine's trial against Russia are practically unrealistic, since Russia will not agree to the case before the International Court of Justice. In accordance with the Statute of the International Court of Justice, its competence may be exercised only on the basis of the consent of States.
The complexity of the dispute lies in the fact that the relevant scope of the Convention should not only include the subject of the dispute – the aggressive actions of Russia, but also violation of the Ukrainian border, the interference of Russia in the internal affairs of Ukraine. The dispute should also contain articles on dispute settlement, which are referred to the International Court of Justice [11].
Even the decision of the Court, which is positive for Ukraine, should not be overestimated with regard to it execution. Decisions under these two conventions can only record certain facts and provide for a number of compensations for the victims. Decisions of the International Court of Justice do not solve the question of Russia's responsibility for armed aggression against Ukraine [12].
With regard to the small prospects for satisfying Ukraine's claims against Russia to the International Court, the scientist Dovbenko emphasizes that Article 24 of the UN Charter defines the Security Council as a body that establishes any threat to peace, its violation and the commission of an act of aggression. The Security Council has never qualified the state as an aggressor, but qualified violating peace and exercising armed pressure [11].
As of today, the Russian Federation is blocking the Security Council, which makes the process of qualification impossible.
A striking example of the blockage is the Resolutions of the Security Council of the UN No 2166 and Security Council Resolution No 2202. Thus, in the first case, the Security Council called on armed groups controlling the territory of the MH17 aircraft to refrain from any action that could jeopardize the integrity of the aircraft, including the destruction, displacement and damage of large and small fragments of the aircraft [13].
There was no mention of the presence of both Russian servicemen and technics in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine. There was also no mention of the facts of Russian aggression against Ukraine in this Resolution.
Another Resolution of the Security Council No 2202 again does not mention Russia's aggression. This Resolution approves the presentation by the President of Russia of a set of measures for the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. «Leaders will contribute to this process and use their influence on the relevant parties to facilitate the implementation of the Minsk Agreements» [14].
In the context of blocking the UN Security Council, the only option for confirming Russia's aggression with regard to Ukraine could be the qualification of an act of aggression by the UN General Assembly.
UN Resolution No 1775 «Unity in Favor of Peace» states that in the event of a contradiction between the permanent members of the Security Council and the inability of this body to fulfill its functions of maintaining peace and security, the General Assembly is considering this issue in order to pass recommendations for members of the Organization in a question of security and peaces. The extraordinary session is convened within 24 hours at the request of the Security Council, supported by 7 members of the Council or by a majority of the members of the UN. If the Security Council is unable to carry out its functions, the General Assembly shall form a commission [15].
However, such a qualification was not provided by the General Assembly of the United Nations. UN Resolution 68/262 on the territorial integrity of Ukraine also does not call Russia an aggressor state [16].
The issue of recognition by the United Nations of the Russian Federation as an aggressor State remains open.
In addition, in the case law of the International Court of Justice has no similar decision that can be applied to this solution to this dispute.
M. Dovbenko argues that the basis for an international legal assessment of Russia's actions in the East of Ukraine may be Nicaragua's case against the United States of America [11].
In this case, Nicaragua complained about the actions of the United States Government. Nicaragua believed that the USА Government was engaged in indirect economic interference in the internal affairs of Nicaragua. Nicaragua's Government appealed to the International Court of Justice about claim that United States to trained, financially supported paramilitary armed groups, attacked Nicaragua's boats and naval bases, illegally crossed the airspace, and were hiding bombes into the internal territorial waters of Nicaragua. UN International Court reviewed USA military and contractual law. According to Nicaragua's complaint, the Сourt found that the dispute was being considered on the basis of military law.
The Court concluded that the USA was responsible for acts committed in Nicaragua, including violations of humanitarian law. The United States exercised effective control over paramilitary groups in Nicaragua. The Court also found United States guilty of imposing an embargo on Nicaragua from May 1, 1985 that did not meet the purpose of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of 1956 [17].
This court case does not apply properly to the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. As You know from the facts of the case, Nicaragua intervened in Salvador, providing military and financial support to the rebels for changing of the government authority of El Salvador. The United States saw interference with Salvador as a need for collective self-defense with El Salvador to end the intervention of Nicaragua. In the facts of Ukraine's case against Russia, Ukraine does not carry out military intervention in any country of the world, so the right of collective self-defense in Russia does not arise.
Even if, in theory, there was a right in Russia for «collective self-defense», it would not be realized from the standpoint of the states involved in the conflict, and subject to the agreement only with the UN and provided only the removal of the threat to peace. Even if theoretically Russia had the right to «collective self-defense», it would not have been realized from the standpoint of the states involved in the conflict. Under the condition of an agreement with the United Nations and securing the elimination of the threat, peaceful collective self-defense could be realized.
European Court of Human Rights
Ukraine has filed 5 lawsuits in the European Court of Human Rights with an interstate nature against the Russian Federation. The first lawsuit of March 13, 2014, «Ukraine v. Russia» concerned the annexation of the Crimea and its control by the Russian Federation. The second lawsuit was brought by Ukraine against the military operations of the Russian Federation in the East of Ukraine and its military provocations.
The third lawsuit was filed by Ukraine to the European Court of Human Rights on June 13, 2014. The claim concerned the theft of three groups of Ukrainian children – orphans. In Ukraine's statement, it is indicated that all groups of orphan children were formed on the territory of Ukraine and subsequently illegally were taken to the territory of Russia.
Subsequently, through the diplomatic efforts, orphans they returned to Ukraine. On the same day, on June 13, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on the return of orphans and their teachers detained in the city of Snizhne Donetsk region and illegally transported to the Russian Federation [18].
Case «Ukraine v. Russia» was opened by the European Court of Human Rights on the basis of complaints concerning the violation of the rights of the leader of the Crimean Tatar people Mustafa Dzhemilev and his son, Khaiser. In addition, the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union filed a lawsuit in the European Court of Human Rights in the interests of the son of Dzhemilev. The European Court of Human Rights, on the basis of the results of the consideration of the application, commenced proceedings in the case of Ukraine v. Russia and instructed the governments of the Russian Federation and Ukraine to ensure respect for the rights and freedoms of Khaizer Dzhemilev [18].
In general, Ukraine's appeal to the European Court of Human Rights is considered one of the most trusted way of bringing the Russian Federation to international legal responsibility. Among successful examples of interstate disputes for the practice of Ukraine, one can cite examples of judicial cases «Georgia v. the Russian Federation» or «Cyprus v. Turkey».
But, it should be borne in mind that the European Convention on Human Rights does not contain provisions on aggression and the responsibility of the state for such an aggression. The European Court of Human Rights may qualify a violation of the right to life, liberty or security, the presence of slavery or forced labor and etc. rights only if the violation is properly proved by the state-victim.
The disadvantages of applying to the European Court of Human Rights are an excessive length of proceedings in the case. For example, the case «Cyprus v. Turkey» was considered by the European Court of Human Rights after 40 years. In the case «Georgia v. Russia», the trial lasted 7 years.
The European Court of Human Rights has divided Ukraine's claim against Russia regarding the armed conflict in the East of Ukraine and the occupation of Crimea into two separate proceedings in order to accelerate the trial [18].
In my opinion, Ukraine has prematurely sued statements against Russia to European Court of Human Rights. In order to facilitate the consideration of interstate cases, it is sufficient, that the Court would assert that in private applications of citizens there is a violation of their rights.
The European Court of Human Rights actively applies in its practice references to decisions already dealt сases. Ukrainians have filed over 2 thousand individual complaints against Russia to the European Court of Human Rights [19].
That is, after the successful consideration by the European Court of Human Rights of at least 10 individual claims of Ukrainian citizens to Russia, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine could prepare intergovernmental demands in line with successful private decisions.
International Criminal Court
The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has filed two applications to the International Criminal Court. The first of these concerns the establishment of crimes against humanity provided for in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the criminal prosecution of Viktor Yanukovych - former President of Ukraine, former Prosecutor General of Ukraine Viktor Pshonka, former Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Zakharchenko Vitaliy Yuriyovych and other officials who issued and imposed criminal orders that could be set by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. The circumstances of the first statement relate to the events of the Revolution of Dignity from November 30, 2013 to February 22, 2014.
Within three months in Ukraine, law enforcement agencies, on the orders of senior government officials, illegally used measures of physical influence, special means and weapons against participants in peaceful actions in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities [20].
The second statement of Ukraine regarding the International Criminal Court relates to the jurisdiction of this Court to prosecution crimes against humans and war crimes committed by senior officials of the Russian Federation and the leaders of the terrorist organizations «Donetsk People's Republic» and «Lugansk People's Republic», which led to particularly grave consequences and the massacres of Ukrainian citizens».
The act of violence from the military units of the Russian Federation and the Russian-supported terrorist fighters was a shelling of the salvage fire «Grad» of the civilian population in residential neighborhoods in the city of Mariupol in the southeast of Ukraine on January 24, 2015, which killed more than 30 civilians, among them 2 children, and more than 100 people were injured.
The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine declares this statement in accordance with article 11, paragraph 2, and article 12, paragraphs 2, 3, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, concerning crimes committed against humanity and war crimes by senior officials of the Russian Federation and concerning crimes committed by leaders of terrorist organizations of «people's republics» that led to particularly serious consequences and massacres of Ukrainian citizens from February 20, 2014 to the present [21].
Accordingly, the Prosecutor of the ICC, Fatou Bensouda, has decided to open a preliminary examination into the situation in Ukraine in order to establish whether the Rome Statute criteria for opening an investigation are met. Specifically, under Article 53(1) of the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor shall consider issues of jurisdiction, admissibility and the interests of justice [22].
This preliminary examination of the International Criminal Court is carried out in accordance with the Verkhovna Rada's statement on the persecution of the former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and his circle who issued and imposed criminal orders carring peace protest citizents of Ukraine.
Following the second declaration lodged by the Government of Ukraine the inter-connected nature of the events in Ukraine, the Prosecutor has determined to extend the temporal scope of the existing preliminary examination to include any alleged crimes committed on the territory of Ukraine from 20 February 2014 onwards [23].
The legal grounds for the two applications of Ukraine to the International Criminal Court were Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The above articles relate to crimes against humanity and war crimes [24].
It is interesting to note that under (d) article 5 of the Rome Statute of the Criminal Court crimes of aggression fall within the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court. The introduction of crimes of aggression into the list of jurisdiction covered by the International Criminal Court was the result of a change in the provisions of Article 5 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
In June 2010, 2 amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court were adopted by the Review Conference in Kampala, Uganda. The second amendment defines the crime of aggression. Per the language of that amendment, the Court will only have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression after two additional conditions are met: (1) the amendment has entered into force for 30 states parties and (2) on a date after 1 January 2017, the Assembly of States Parties has voted in favour of allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction [25].
The amendments were proposed by Liechtenstein, which chaired the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, the committee directed by the Assembly of States Parties to form a definition for the crime of aggression, which was originally absent from the Statute. The amendments define the crime of aggression in accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution No 3314. Acts of aggression are: invading another state; bombing another state; blockading the ports or coastlines of another state; attacking the land, sea, or air forces, or marine or sea fleets of another state; violating a status of forces agreement; using armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries against another state; allowing territory to be used by another state to perpetrate an act of aggression against a third state [25].
Amendments on the crime of aggression which been adopted 11 June 2010 ratified by 34 members state of Statute. The changes came into effect on May 8, 2013. The amendment has been part of the Statute and any state that becomes a party to the Statute can choose to also be a party to the amendment.
While the amendments will come into force one year after being ratified, the amended text says that only crimes of aggression committed one year or more after the thirtieth ratification are within the jurisdiction of the Court. Furthermore, a decision is to be taken by the Assembly of States Parties with a two-thirds majority vote after 1 January 2017 to actually exercise jurisdiction [25].
On September 13, 2002, the Russian Federation signed the Rome Statute of the Criminal Court, but did not ratify it [24]. On November 16, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin passed the Order «On the Intentions of the Russian Federation Not to Be a Party to the Rome International Criminal Court» [26].
Taking into account the described, the Russian Federation can not only be held accountable for aggression against Ukraine, but also for other crimes of the Criminal Court Statute in general. However, the mechanism available to Ukraine to appeal to the International Criminal Court, which Ukraine has taken advantage of, has had positive results.
Thus, in the Report of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court «On Preliminary Investigations» of November 14, 2016, it was noted that, according to the situation in the Crimea and Sevastopol, there is an international armed conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
This international conflict began no later than February 26, 2014, when the Russian Federation engaged the personnel of the armed forces to gain control over parts of the territory of Ukraine without the consent of the Government of Ukraine. Law an international armed conflict will be applied after March 18, 2014, if the extent that the situation on the territory of the Crimea and Sevastopol will be equivalent to continuing occupation.
For the purposes of the Rome Statute, an armed conflict may also be international in nature if one or more States, by number, partially or completely occupy the territory of another state. Additional data, such as reports on artillery shelling by the two states of the enemy's military bases, as well as the arrest of Russian servicemen by Ukraine, indicate a direct military conflict between the Russian Armed Forces and the Government of Ukraine [27].
Decisions of leading international organizations (such as the Resolutions of the Council of Europe, Resolutions of the European Parliament) regarding Russia as an aggressor against Ukraine are important steps aimed at restoring the world order violated by Russia's actions. However, these decisions are made by political, and not by the jurisdictional bodies, represent a political definition of aggression against Ukraine [6].
The Prosecution Report of the International Criminal Court at this stage is considered to be the legal proof of Ukraine on the issue of Russian aggression against her and will become an additional factual document for providing additional evidence for proceedings before the International Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights.
Conclusions
The existence of the law in general is impossible without liability for the wrongful act, since any law – is not only a set of established norms of conduct, but also coercion in case of violation. On the example of the three trials, I tried to show the complexity of the mechanism of attracting to international legal responsibility to the state of the aggressor. I am sure that Ukraine will still find effective ways to bring the Russian Federation to justice for the aggression committed against Ukraine.
_________
*Information about the author:
Vyacheslav Konoval, member of the Ukrainian branch of International Law Association
Endnotes: