Articles for category: Ukraine

Who Let the Bots Out

As artificial intelligence revolutionizes modern warfare, systems like Israel’s Lavender and Ukraine’s Clearview AI are transforming combat with precision and efficiency. This advancement has sparked an urgent debate on the responsible use and governance of AI in military, with 57 countries signing the Political Declaration on AI’s military applications, urging adherence to international law. Central to this is the accountability – who is responsible when AI systems violate laws? This blog post argues that state responsibility for AI violations remains viable within existing legal frameworks.

27. November 2024

, , , ,

When Words Really Matter

It has been over 900 days since Russia launched its so-called ‘three-day crusade’ to capture Kyiv. The way we talk about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has far-reaching implications, not only for public perception but also for international policy and accountability. How we label this conflict—whether we call it the ‘war in Ukraine’ or ‘Russia’s war against Ukraine’—influences how we understand responsibility, justice, and the path to peace.

3. September 2024

Wartime Constitutionalism and the Politics of Constitutional Review in Ukraine

On 18 July 2024, Ukraine’s Constitutional Court issued a decision concerning the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings under martial law. The extension of detention, the Court ruled, can only be issued based on a reasoned court decision—this applies even in times of war. In this blogpost, we examine how the war has influenced the ways in which various actors engage with constitutional complaints, before discussing the Constitutional Court's recent decision on Article 615.6 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We argue that this ruling exemplifies how the Constitutional Court can maintain the relevance and practical significance of its decision-making in wartime.

9. August 2024

, , ,

Ukraine, the Netherlands and 26 Third States Without Russia Before the ECtHR

The hearing in the case of Ukraine, the Netherlands v Russia lasted four hours and twenty-five minutes. more than double than an “ordinary” Grand Chamber hearing. These four hours and twenty-five minutes are an important milestone in what is undoubtedly one of the most important set of cases in the history of European Convention on Human Rights. They cover more than ten years of Russian activities in Eastern Ukraine, including the open war of aggression since February 2022. The number of third parties involved in the proceedings likewise renders the case extraordinary.

1. Juli 2024

, ,

The EU’s Eastern Border and Inconvenient Truths

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, alongside with the EU’s confrontation with Russia’s ally Belarus, however, has deeply impacted the securitisation of migration within the EU. Highly politicised conflict-related securitisation narratives have rarely found their way so swiftly into Member States’ domestic migration and asylum laws, leading to open and far-reaching violations of EU and international human rights law. Hardly ever before have ill-defined concepts and indiscriminate assumptions been so broadly accepted and used to shift from an individual-focused approach to blanket measures stigmatising, dehumanising and excluding entire groups. And rarely before have radical changes of this kind received so little criticism - a deeply unsettling and dangerous trend.

27. Februar 2024

, , , ,

The Curious Fate of the False Claim of Genocide

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered another blow to Ukraine’s litigation strategy. The ICJ only confirmed its jurisdiction for considering Ukraine’s narrow claim that it had not committed genocide in Donbas. As we have previously argued, given the expected modest outcome of the case for Ukraine, it would make sense for Ukraine to expand its litigation strategy beyond the false claim of genocide. Ukraine may consider lodging a new lawsuit before the ICJ under the Genocide Convention, alleging that Russia breached the Convention by committing genocide against Ukrainians as a protected national group.

24. Februar 2024

Accountability for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine

Two years have passed since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine – an act of aggression which 141 states of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) condemned as such shortly after. This crime of aggression has brought unimaginable suffering to the people of Ukraine. As this blog will highlight in the following, a reform of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) concerning the crime of aggression is necessary and long overdue. The current jurisdictional regime leaves accountability gaps, which have become painfully visible in the past two years. Plausible suggestions for the reform are already out there – it ultimately “all depends on the political will” of the 124 ICC state parties.

24. Februar 2024

, , , , , , ,

A Shortcut at the Expense of Justice

On 31 January 2024, the International Court of Justice rendered its judgment on the merits of a case initiated by Ukraine against the Russian Federation in 2017. Ukraine alleged numerous violations by Russia of two treaties: the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This blog post provides a brief overview of the decision and argues that the Court sidestepped the task of reconstructing what has happened in reality via judicial fact-finding. This approach comes at the expense of several legal errors. The harsh realities of the conflict and, most importantly, the human suffering on the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia seem far removed from the grandeur of the Peace Palace.

15. Februar 2024

,

The EU’s Faustian Bargain

Twelve years into the EU’s rule of law crisis, this week has demonstrated that EU leaders are still unwilling to confront their own complicity in Orbán’s rise and to do something about it. Is this sad spectacle a price worth paying in exchange for a symbolic gesture of goodwill to Ukraine? That is the wrong question to ask. The right question to ask is this: if the EU continues to treat the rule of law as a bargaining chip and to make promises it won’t keep, for how much longer will our Union remain a club worth joining?

17. Dezember 2023

, ,

Fighting Impunity Through Intermediaries

The 24th of February 2022 lastingly altered Europe’s security architecture. The European Union and its member states have continued to support Ukraine in a multitude of ways, including direct financial assistance, political support in relevant international fora, far-reaching sanctions against Russian citizens and businesses, and massive arms supplies. What has, however, remained ambiguous is within which (legal) framework the EU has provided different means of support towards Ukraine. In other words: what legal principle – that may also be derived from its treaty framework – determined and guided EU support towards Ukraine? This contribution argues that at least certain streams of EU assistance for Ukraine in countering the Russian Federation’s aggression – namely those aimed at ending impunity for international crimes – have been organized within a distinct rule of law context.

3. November 2023

, , ,