Ulewing Kakhovskaya Hydroe Dams: How Russia accused Ukraine of Hague and what will come out of this

The official Moscow in its report to the UN International Court of Justice states that Ukraine is guilty of destruction of an important infrastructure object through "massive artillery shelling". "The Kiev regime not only struck massive artillery blows on the dam on the night of June 6, but also intentionally raised the water level in the Kakhovka reservoir to a critical mark," - said the Russian diplomat Alexander Shulgin the day before.

Probably, the statement was made during the consideration of the case "Ukraine against Russia" on Donbass and Crimea, which was launched in Hague on June 6, 2023. Now Russia has started its first round of oral speeches in this case. Earlier, Ukraine has filed a lawsuit with the UN International Court of Justice to violate the two UN Conventions - on the fight against terrorism and national discrimination.

In it, Ukraine notes that since 2014, Russia, in violation of its obligations on the Convention on the Financing of Terrorism (ICSFT), provoked and supported an armed uprising against the Ukrainian authorities in the east of the country, and created an "atmosphere of violence and intimidation of non -Russian ethnic groups" Crimea, having violated its obligations to the Convention to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination (CERD).

As for the situation with the blasting of the Kakhovsky Dam, Ukraine has prepared a message to an appeal to the International Criminal Court. Prosecutor General Andriy Kostin said this. He assured that Ukraine sent all available information about the course of events. The International Court of Justice is one of the six chief bodies of the United Nations approved by the UN Charter. He considers exclusively interstate claims, and does not resort to specific episodes.

"It is very difficult to evaluate how Russia has submitted information about the Kakhovskaya Hydroelectric Power Plant in the UN International Court of Justice," says the lawyer Andriy Yakovlev. to consider the case. And with this problem. Because jurisdiction is provided with the consent of the parties. And it is either contractual or ad hoc (aimed at a particular case, solving a particular problem-focus). In any case, the parties have to agree that transmit a dispute to a court decision.

That is, this court cannot take any case. " And the jurisdiction for consideration by this court in the case of Ukraine and Russia is sufficiently limited. For example, Ukraine could not declare the UN International Court of Occupation or Aggression before, and had to seek other opportunities - ratified by the two states. Therefore, it is now about the Convention on the fight against terrorism and national discrimination.

"After all, both Russia and Ukraine have recognized the jurisdiction of this court," he adds. "Although in my opinion the first is doubtful, since Russia is not so much supported by third parties' terrorism, which is said in the relevant concept, which may occur under which may occur under The time of the war, as much as a participant in the international armed conflict, carrying out aggression against Ukraine.

" That is, in view of such explanations, Russia should also look for narrow opportunities for the statement of a claim against Ukraine. For example, arguing that shelling of the dam that led to its destruction is the deliberate destruction of people who support Russia. Like, Ukraine knew that the left bank of the Dnieper would be flooded mainly, and there, they say, only those who, under the Russian Federation, "Ukrainians want to destroy everyone who supports the occupation".

Which is an indisputable manipulation and from a legal point of view unjustified assumption. Who has the competence to investigate this crime is the International Criminal Court (ICS), which is also located in the Hague. Lawyers say that Ukraine could notify this court about the crime, but Russia is unlikely, because it has previously publicly stated that it did not recognize the jurisdiction of the ISS.

After the suspicion was announced, the Investigative Committee of Russia was wanted by the judges of the International Criminal Court, who issued a warrant. Russia's statement to the ISS would be the actual recognition that the arrest of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and the children's Ombudsman Maria Lviv-Belova, who are considered involved in the deportation of Ukrainian children-not doubtful as they said earlier.

The ISS considers specific criminal offenses - war crimes, humanity crimes, aggression and genocide. Lawyers emphasize that the proceedings can begin not only after reporting on one party or the other, but also after the analysis of public applications and self -collecting by the ISS investigators of the EDC. And if the involvement is established, then the ISS does not matter to which the country they have.

"If it is found that the dam was blown up by the Russians, the court will not stop the fact that Russia did not ratify the Roman statute and even revoked its signature under it," explains the lawyer. - The ISS is issued a warrant for the arrest of suspects, they should be arrested in 123 countries the world that recognize the Jurisdiction of the Hague. " Potentially, the ISS can investigate the blasting of Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power plants, and subsequently granted him a qualification.

"In the future, when the water goes down, it will be possible to determine whether it was an explosion or not. If not on the ground, then according to satellite images," says Andrei Yakovlev. - To my knowledge, President Vladimir Zelensky made statements about what to hold An independent inspection of the condition of the dam and we see that the world community, for various reasons, has not reacted.

This is a separate problem of the need to take measures to prevent man -made and other dangerous disasters in the area of ​​fighting. Even if it is found that the dam was not destroyed An explosion, Russia can still be found guilty of a disaster, because it was controlled by the dam, without complying with the rules of its service. The Russians did not declare irresistible obstacles to the service of hydroelectric power plants.