Kyiv called Russia a “terrorist state,” on Tuesday (June 6), at the top United Nations court at the hearing of Moscow’s alleged backing of pro-Russian separatists accused of shooting down an aircraft in 2014 over Ukraine which killed nearly 300 people.&nbsp;

The hearing about the 2014 case also came amid the ongoing conflict between the two countries and hours after the attack on the Soviet-era Nova Kakhovka dam on the Dnipro River in the Russia-occupied part of southern Ukraine with both Moscow and Kyiv blaming&nbsp;each other.&nbsp;

<h2>What was the hearing about?</h2>

Notably, the hearing at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was the first time where Russian and Ukrainian lawyers faced each other since the beginning of what Moscow has called its “special military operation” in Ukraine. The case was filed by Kyiv in 2017 at the World Court against the&nbsp;Moscow-backed rebels and accused Russia of violating the UN anti-terrorism treaty. &nbsp;

The legal teams from both countries comprised&nbsp;dozens of representatives but on Tuesday only Ukraine presented arguments before a panel of 16 judges at the ICJ.&nbsp;Russia will get the opportunity to respond on Thursday. Ukraine will then respond on June 12 and Russia will present again two days later.&nbsp;

According to Kyiv, Moscow violated the UN conventions for financing terrorism and racial discrimination as it allegedly equipped and funded pro-Russian forces who shot down the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukraine killing all 298 passengers and crew on board.

The&nbsp;Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 plane&nbsp;was reportedly shot down by a Russian-made missile in July. Moscow&nbsp;has since denied these allegations. There was also violence that&nbsp;took place in 2014 in Ukraine when at least 13,000 people were killed when pro-European Union protesters overthrew Kyiv’s Moscow-allied government. It was not soon after that Russia had forcibly annexed Crimea.&nbsp;

<h2>Ukrainian representatives call Russia ‘terrorist state’</h2>

In his opening remarks, Ukrainian Ambassador-at-Large Anton Korynevych spoke about the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam which Kyiv has blamed Moscow for. “Russia cannot defeat us on the battlefield, so it targets civilian infrastructure to try to freeze us into submission,” said the Ukrainian diplomat.&nbsp;

“Russia’s actions are the actions of a terrorist state, an aggressor. But such actions did not appear out of the blue. They are the tragic but logical outcome of the situation we brought to this court’s attention back in 2017,”&nbsp;he added.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Ukrainian diplomat reiterating statements from officials in Kyiv, said, “Just today, Russia blew up a major dam…causing significant civilian evacuations, ecological damage and threatening the safety of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.”

Ukraine has also called on the Hague-based court to order Russia to stop discrimination against the Tatar ethnic group in Crimea. Korynevych also said that Russia’s “contempt for international law didn't start in 2022” but when it annexed Crimea in 2014, adding that Moscow then “engaged in a campaign of cultural erasure, taking aim at ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars.”&nbsp;

However, Russia is now “trying to wipe us from the map” with the ongoing invasion, said the Ukrainian lawyer. Moscow&nbsp;has denied the claims of systematic human rights abuses in the Ukrainian territory that it controls.&nbsp;

The Ukrainian lawyers also spoke about the Dutch court verdict in November that convicted two Russians and a Ukrainian separatist to life in absentia over the shooting of MH17 and their role. The court also found Russia had “overall control” over the separatist forces.&nbsp;

Ukrainian lawyers said that the Russian officials were “guilty of terrorism financing” as they supplied the missile knowing it would be used to shoot down an aircraft. Ukrainian lawyer Marney Cheek also said how Moscow also supplied rebels with rocket systems that were used in a “reign of terror” on civilians in 2015.&nbsp;

“What did Russia do to prevent and suppress this financing of terrorism? Nothing,” the lawyer added. 
 
Notably, Russia has previously tried to get the case filed by Ukraine&nbsp;thrown out saying that the International Criminal Court (ICC) does not have jurisdiction.&nbsp;

In 2022, after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine, Kyiv filed a separate case which accused Moscow of planning genocide. This led the ICJ to order a suspension of the invasion. The ICC also issued a warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in March, on war crimes over forced deportations of Ukrainian children.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp; 
 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Kyiv called Russia a “terrorist state,” on Tuesday (June 6), at the top United Nations court at the hearing of Moscow’s alleged backing of pro-Russian separatists accused of shooting down an aircraft in 2014 over Ukraine which killed nearly 300 people.

Kyiv called Russia a “terrorist state,” on Tuesday (June 6), at the top United Nations court at the hearing of Moscow’s alleged backing of pro-Russian separatists accused of shooting down an aircraft in 2014 over Ukraine which killed nearly 300 people. The hearing about the 2014 case also came amid the ongoing conflict between the two countries and hours after the attack on the Soviet-era Nova Kakhovka dam on the Dnipro River in the Russia-occupied part of southern Ukraine with both Moscow and Kyiv blaming each other. What was the hearing about? Notably, the hearing at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was the first time where Russian and Ukrainian lawyers faced each other since the beginning of what Moscow has called its “special military operation” in Ukraine. The case was filed by Kyiv in 2017 at the World Court against the Moscow-backed rebels and accused Russia of violating the UN anti-terrorism treaty. The legal teams from both countries comprised dozens of representatives but on Tuesday only Ukraine presented arguments before a panel of 16 judges at the ICJ. Russia will get the opportunity to respond on Thursday. Ukraine will then respond on June 12 and Russia will present again two days later. According to Kyiv, Moscow violated the UN conventions for financing terrorism and racial discrimination as it allegedly equipped and funded pro-Russian forces who shot down the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukraine killing all 298 passengers and crew on board. The Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 plane was reportedly shot down by a Russian-made missile in July. Moscow has since denied these allegations. There was also violence that took place in 2014 in Ukraine when at least 13,000 people were killed when pro-European Union protesters overthrew Kyiv’s Moscow-allied government. It was not soon after that Russia had forcibly annexed Crimea. Ukrainian representatives call Russia ‘terrorist state’ In his opening remarks, Ukrainian Ambassador-at-Large Anton Korynevych spoke about the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam which Kyiv has blamed Moscow for. “Russia cannot defeat us on the battlefield, so it targets civilian infrastructure to try to freeze us into submission,” said the Ukrainian diplomat. “Russia’s actions are the actions of a terrorist state, an aggressor. But such actions did not appear out of the blue. They are the tragic but logical outcome of the situation we brought to this court’s attention back in 2017,” he added. The Ukrainian diplomat reiterating statements from officials in Kyiv, said, “Just today, Russia blew up a major dam…causing significant civilian evacuations, ecological damage and threatening the safety of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.” Ukraine has also called on the Hague-based court to order Russia to stop discrimination against the Tatar ethnic group in Crimea. Korynevych also said that Russia’s “contempt for international law didn't start in 2022” but when it annexed Crimea in 2014, adding that Moscow then “engaged in a campaign of cultural erasure, taking aim at ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars.” However, Russia is now “trying to wipe us from the map” with the ongoing invasion, said the Ukrainian lawyer. Moscow has denied the claims of systematic human rights abuses in the Ukrainian territory that it controls. The Ukrainian lawyers also spoke about the Dutch court verdict in November that convicted two Russians and a Ukrainian separatist to life in absentia over the shooting of MH17 and their role. The court also found Russia had “overall control” over the separatist forces. Ukrainian lawyers said that the Russian officials were “guilty of terrorism financing” as they supplied the missile knowing it would be used to shoot down an aircraft. Ukrainian lawyer Marney Cheek also said how Moscow also supplied rebels with rocket systems that were used in a “reign of terror” on civilians in 2015. “What did Russia do to prevent and suppress this financing of terrorism? Nothing,” the lawyer added. Notably, Russia has previously tried to get the case filed by Ukraine thrown out saying that the International Criminal Court (ICC) does not have jurisdiction. In 2022, after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine, Kyiv filed a separate case which accused Moscow of planning genocide. This led the ICJ to order a suspension of the invasion. The ICC also issued a warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in March, on war crimes over forced deportations of Ukrainian children. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

‘Terrorist state’: Ukraine slams Russia at International Court of Justice hearing

In reaction to the Palestinian Authority's attempts to have the UN's top court issue an advisory opinion on the Israeli occupation, some 40 nations on Monday urged Israel to restore the sanctions it had placed on the Palestinian Authority earlier in the month.

The International Court of Justice was engaged on the subject of Israel's occupation of Palestinian areas in a resolution that the UN General Assembly adopted on December 30.

On January 6, Israel retaliated by announcing a number of measures, including financial sanctions, against the Palestinian Authority in order to make it "pay the price" for pushing the resolution.

In a statement to journalists on Monday, about 40 members of the UN expressed "deep concern" over the Israeli government's decision to impose punitive measures on the Palestinian people, leadership, and civil society in response to the General Assembly's request to the court. They reaffirmed their "unwavering support" for the ICJ and international law.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/two-palestinians-killed-in-israeli-army-raid-in-west-bank-claims-health-ministry-552642">Two Palestinians killed in West Bank raid by Israeli army, Islamic Jihad group condemns action</a>

"Regardless of each country's position on the resolution, we reject punitive measures in response to a request for an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, and more broadly in response to a General Assembly resolution, and call for their immediate reversal," the members said.

The statement is supported by nations that voted in favour of the resolution, including Algeria, Argentina, Belgium, Ireland, Pakistan, and South Africa, as well as nations that abstained from voting, including Japan, France, and South Korea, and nations that voted against it, including Germany and Estonia.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe>

In reaction to the Palestinian Authority's attempts to have the UN's top court issue an advisory opinion on the Israeli occupation, some 40 nations on Monday urged Israel to restore the sanctions it had placed on the Palestinian Authority earlier in the month.

In reaction to the Palestinian Authority's attempts to have the UN's top court issue an advisory opinion on the Israeli occupation, some 40 nations on Monday urged Israel to restore the sanctions it had placed on the Palestinian Authority earlier in the month. The International Court of Justice was engaged on the subject of Israel's occupation of Palestinian areas in a resolution that the UN General Assembly adopted on December 30. On January 6, Israel retaliated by announcing a number of measures, including financial sanctions, against the Palestinian Authority in order to make it "pay the price" for pushing the resolution. In a statement to journalists on Monday, about 40 members of the UN expressed "deep concern" over the Israeli government's decision to impose punitive measures on the Palestinian people, leadership, and civil society in response to the General Assembly's request to the court. They reaffirmed their "unwavering support" for the ICJ and international law. Also read | Two Palestinians killed in West Bank raid by Israeli army, Islamic Jihad group condemns action "Regardless of each country's position on the resolution, we reject punitive measures in response to a request for an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, and more broadly in response to a General Assembly resolution, and call for their immediate reversal," the members said. The statement is supported by nations that voted in favour of the resolution, including Algeria, Argentina, Belgium, Ireland, Pakistan, and South Africa, as well as nations that abstained from voting, including Japan, France, and South Korea, and nations that voted against it, including Germany and Estonia. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Israel urged by around 40 nations to lift 'punitive' sanctions against Palestinians

In the present times, there are numerous&nbsp;issues that lead to tensions between various states leading to the disruption of&nbsp;world peace. Whether it is the issue of wars, migration, or climate change, nations keep on challenging themselves to protect their interest. To seek a solution to inter-state disputes they often submit to various international dispute settlement mechanism&nbsp;and one of them is the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

It has been seen that over time the ICJ has played an important role in the protection of human rights at the international level. Various international human rights treaties and agreements usually have their own procedure of dispute settlement. The ICJ basically deals with those human rights issues which are related to nonspecific human rights agreements or traditional international law. Few treaties that are related to human rights contain various provisions for approaching the ICJ for a dispute settlement, therefore the ICJ in the past has&nbsp;exercised its jurisdiction and power and has made significant contributions to the laws related to the protection of human rights at the international level. It has come up with various new jurisprudence in the fields of genocide, migration, discrimination on the basis of race, etc.

It is to be noted that the ICJ is not a specialized human rights body in terms of its jurisdiction, procedures, and also professionals which sometimes shortens the ambit of the court’s role in the human rights field.&nbsp;&nbsp;The ICJ can only hear cases involving states that have accepted the ICJ's jurisdiction, either by agreeing to submit the specific dispute to the ICJ or by ratifying a treaty that specifies that disputes under the treaty will be submitted to the ICJ&nbsp;&nbsp;which is the main and significant difference between the other human rights institutions and the ICJ, as the human rights bodies provide access to individuals seeking justice. The ICJ has unlimited jurisdiction on Inter-states disputes but has limited jurisdiction in terms of human rights. There are few decisions made by ICJ which significantly contribute to the protection of human rights but they can be termed as small contributions while seeing the large picture of human rights.

The ICJ started recognizing human rights in the 1950s and early 1960s which is related to the fact that international human rights law came into existence in 1945 when the UN Charter included human rights promotion among its main purposes in Article 1(3), and in Articles 55 and 56. In the 2000s, ICJ’s decisions were seen as its approach toward the inclusion and recognition of international human rights and humanitarian aspects in disputes presented before it. The ICJ is one of the main organs of the UN and also the main judicial organ which provides the ICJ various special powers, the limitations of ICJ in the&nbsp;fields of international human rights are the result of its statute which also depends majorly on&nbsp;the willingness of states to participate in the proceedings and to ultimately comply with its&nbsp;decisions. The jurisdiction of the ICJ is spread to both contentious and advisory which&nbsp;means that apart from the inter-state disputes, the ICJ can upon&nbsp;request provide&nbsp;advice to UN organs and its agencies on issues like human rights.

As part of its important&nbsp;role in the framework of international dispute settlement, the&nbsp;ICJ has provided significant contributions to preventing conflict situations through its peaceful&nbsp;dispute settlement system. ICJ’s involvement with human rights has increased over the&nbsp;times with the adoption of various human rights treaties within the UN which has ultimately&nbsp;provided a chance for ICJ’s involvement to interpret the treaties as a specialized legal organ of the&nbsp;UN, these international treaties provide general protection or protection for some&nbsp;specific human rights.&nbsp; A large number of treaties provide opportunities for individuals to file individual communications or individual complaints about the infringement of human rights. This exemplary change in the stand of an individual before a judicial body is because of the realization of human rights in the international legal system. Article 34 of the ICJ’s statute says that “only states may be parties in cases before the Court” should only be seen as a provision defining the competence of the Court but not limited to exercise or contributing to the issues related to human rights.

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

In the present times, there are numerous issues that lead to tensions between various states leading to the disruption of world peace. Whether it is the issue of wars, migration, or climate change, nations keep on challenging themselves to protect their interest.

In the present times, there are numerous issues that lead to tensions between various states leading to the disruption of world peace. Whether it is the issue of wars, migration, or climate change, nations keep on challenging themselves to protect their interest. To seek a solution to inter-state disputes they often submit to various international dispute settlement mechanism and one of them is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It has been seen that over time the ICJ has played an important role in the protection of human rights at the international level. Various international human rights treaties and agreements usually have their own procedure of dispute settlement. The ICJ basically deals with those human rights issues which are related to nonspecific human rights agreements or traditional international law. Few treaties that are related to human rights contain various provisions for approaching the ICJ for a dispute settlement, therefore the ICJ in the past has exercised its jurisdiction and power and has made significant contributions to the laws related to the protection of human rights at the international level. It has come up with various new jurisprudence in the fields of genocide, migration, discrimination on the basis of race, etc. It is to be noted that the ICJ is not a specialized human rights body in terms of its jurisdiction, procedures, and also professionals which sometimes shortens the ambit of the court’s role in the human rights field. The ICJ can only hear cases involving states that have accepted the ICJ's jurisdiction, either by agreeing to submit the specific dispute to the ICJ or by ratifying a treaty that specifies that disputes under the treaty will be submitted to the ICJ which is the main and significant difference between the other human rights institutions and the ICJ, as the human rights bodies provide access to individuals seeking justice. The ICJ has unlimited jurisdiction on Inter-states disputes but has limited jurisdiction in terms of human rights. There are few decisions made by ICJ which significantly contribute to the protection of human rights but they can be termed as small contributions while seeing the large picture of human rights. The ICJ started recognizing human rights in the 1950s and early 1960s which is related to the fact that international human rights law came into existence in 1945 when the UN Charter included human rights promotion among its main purposes in Article 1(3), and in Articles 55 and 56. In the 2000s, ICJ’s decisions were seen as its approach toward the inclusion and recognition of international human rights and humanitarian aspects in disputes presented before it. The ICJ is one of the main organs of the UN and also the main judicial organ which provides the ICJ various special powers, the limitations of ICJ in the fields of international human rights are the result of its statute which also depends majorly on the willingness of states to participate in the proceedings and to ultimately comply with its decisions. The jurisdiction of the ICJ is spread to both contentious and advisory which means that apart from the inter-state disputes, the ICJ can upon request provide advice to UN organs and its agencies on issues like human rights. As part of its important role in the framework of international dispute settlement, the ICJ has provided significant contributions to preventing conflict situations through its peaceful dispute settlement system. ICJ’s involvement with human rights has increased over the times with the adoption of various human rights treaties within the UN which has ultimately provided a chance for ICJ’s involvement to interpret the treaties as a specialized legal organ of the UN, these international treaties provide general protection or protection for some specific human rights. A large number of treaties provide opportunities for individuals to file individual communications or individual complaints about the infringement of human rights. This exemplary change in the stand of an individual before a judicial body is because of the realization of human rights in the international legal system. Article 34 of the ICJ’s statute says that “only states may be parties in cases before the Court” should only be seen as a provision defining the competence of the Court but not limited to exercise or contributing to the issues related to human rights. You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Role of the International Court of Justice in protecting human rights

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is probing into Rohingya persecutions in Myanmar. However, Myanmar said the Gambia has no standing in the case.

ICJ to probe into Rohingya persecutions: Myanmar objected to suit filed by the Gambia

Italians are still demanding compensation for Hitler's crimes. Germany has now dragged Italy to the ICJ. Berlin claims Rome may start selling German property to pay war reparation. Palki Sharma Upadhyay brings you a report.

Gravitas: Germany files a case against Italy at ICJ

The parents of Reuters photographer Danish Siddiqui, who was killed in a Taliban attack in Afghanistan last year, have begun legal action at the International Criminal Court (ICC) against the Islamist group, a lawyer for the family said on Tuesday.

Siddiqui, a Pulitzer Prize winner, was embedded with Afghan special forces when killed on July 16 during a failed attempt by government troops to retake Spin Boldak, a town near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, from the Taliban.

New Delhi-based lawyer Avi Singh told an online news conference that Siddiqui's parents were seeking legal action against six leaders and other unidentified commanders of the Taliban at the Hague-based ICC on the grounds that the group targeted and killed their son because he was a photojournalist and an Indian national.

Two Taliban spokesmen did not respond to calls and messages from Reuters seeking comment.

Siddiqui was based in New Delhi and had travelled to Afghanistan to cover the Taliban campaign to retake the country as the United States and its allies were withdrawing forces to end their 20-year-long war there.

Siddiqui, 38, was "illegally detained, tortured and killed by the Taliban, and his body was mutilated," Singh and his family said in a statement issued before the news conference.

"These acts and this killing constitutes not only a murder, but a crime against humanity and a war crime."

A commander of Afghanistan's erstwhile Special Operations Corps that had hosted Siddiqui said the photojournalist was mistakenly left behind with two commandos when soldiers withdrew from Spin Boldak amid fierce fighting with the Taliban.

The Taliban denied that they captured and executed Siddiqui. Afghan security officials and Indian government officials had told Reuters that, based on photos, intelligence and an examination of Siddiqui's body, his body was mutilated while in Taliban custody after his death.

In August, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid denied reports that Siddiqui was captured and executed, rejecting the assertions of the Afghan security forces and Indian government officials as "completely wrong."

Reuters has previously reported it "was unable to independently determine if the Taliban deliberately killed Siddiqui or desecrated his body."

The parents of Reuters photographer Danish Siddiqui, who was killed in a Taliban attack in Afghanistan last year, have begun legal action at the International Criminal Court (ICC) against the Islamist group, a lawyer for the family said on Tuesday.

The parents of Reuters photographer Danish Siddiqui, who was killed in a Taliban attack in Afghanistan last year, have begun legal action at the International Criminal Court (ICC) against the Islamist group, a lawyer for the family said on Tuesday. Siddiqui, a Pulitzer Prize winner, was embedded with Afghan special forces when killed on July 16 during a failed attempt by government troops to retake Spin Boldak, a town near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, from the Taliban. New Delhi-based lawyer Avi Singh told an online news conference that Siddiqui's parents were seeking legal action against six leaders and other unidentified commanders of the Taliban at the Hague-based ICC on the grounds that the group targeted and killed their son because he was a photojournalist and an Indian national. Two Taliban spokesmen did not respond to calls and messages from Reuters seeking comment. Siddiqui was based in New Delhi and had travelled to Afghanistan to cover the Taliban campaign to retake the country as the United States and its allies were withdrawing forces to end their 20-year-long war there. Siddiqui, 38, was "illegally detained, tortured and killed by the Taliban, and his body was mutilated," Singh and his family said in a statement issued before the news conference. "These acts and this killing constitutes not only a murder, but a crime against humanity and a war crime." A commander of Afghanistan's erstwhile Special Operations Corps that had hosted Siddiqui said the photojournalist was mistakenly left behind with two commandos when soldiers withdrew from Spin Boldak amid fierce fighting with the Taliban. The Taliban denied that they captured and executed Siddiqui. Afghan security officials and Indian government officials had told Reuters that, based on photos, intelligence and an examination of Siddiqui's body, his body was mutilated while in Taliban custody after his death. In August, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid denied reports that Siddiqui was captured and executed, rejecting the assertions of the Afghan security forces and Indian government officials as "completely wrong." Reuters has previously reported it "was unable to independently determine if the Taliban deliberately killed Siddiqui or desecrated his body."

Parents of Indian photographer killed in Afghanistan start legal action against Taliban

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Russia to immediately suspend its military action in Ukraine, saying it is profoundly concerned by Moscow’s use of force.

World court orders Russia to immediately halt invasion of Ukraine

As the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to escalate, the United Nations' top court ordered Moscow on Wednesday (March 16) to immediately halt its "military operations" in Ukraine.&nbsp;

The decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) comes as Russia has intensified shelling and airstrikes on Ukrainian cities with its forces in place around major cities including the Ukrainian capital Kyiv.&nbsp;&nbsp;

"The court is profoundly concerned about the use of force by the Russian Federation which raises very serious issues in international law," pending the final decision in the case, presiding judge Joan Donoghue said at the hearing held at the court's headquarters at the Peace Palace building.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/zelensky-compares-russian-invasion-to-911-and-pearl-harbor-attack-putin-says-invasion-on-course-463021">Zelensky compares Russian invasion to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor attack; Putin says invasion on course</a>

The top UN court for disputes between states said that it was "profoundly concerned" by Russia's use of force. "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 in a 13-2 decision.&nbsp;

Among other judges who voted against Russia, India's judge at the ICJ, Justice Dalveer Bhandari, also voted. The nomination of Justice Bhandari to the ICJ was done on the support of the government and various missions over a period of time.&nbsp;

Justice Bhandari's vote against Russia does not represent India's stance on the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. It is an independent move.&nbsp;

At every stage, India vouched for diplomatic dialogues to resolve the issue and abstained from voting on the Ukraine-Russia issue in the UN.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ukraine-under-attack-russia-attacks-mariupol-theatre-sheltering-hundreds-of-civilians-see-satellite-image-463012">Russia attacks Mariupol theatre sheltering 'hundreds' of civilians - see satellite image</a>

On the other hand, Kyiv hailed the verdict as a "complete victory" saying it will continue to pursue the case "until Ukrainian people can go back to normal life".&nbsp;

Although it is important to note that the rulings of the ICJ are binding, it has no direct means of enforcing them. There have been cases in the past, that countries have ignored them.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday welcomed the ruling by the ICJ on emergency measures as "a complete victory" in its case against Russia.&nbsp;

"The (ICJ) order is binding under international law. Russia must comply immediately. Ignoring the order will isolate Russia even further," Zelensky said on Twitter.

WATCH |&nbsp;World court orders Russia to immediately halt invasion of Ukraine

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/world-court-orders-russia-to-immediately-halt-invasion-of-ukraine-463020/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

As the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to escalate, the United Nations' top court ordered Moscow on Wednesday (March 16) to immediately halt its "military operations" in Ukraine.

As the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to escalate, the United Nations' top court ordered Moscow on Wednesday (March 16) to immediately halt its "military operations" in Ukraine. The decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) comes as Russia has intensified shelling and airstrikes on Ukrainian cities with its forces in place around major cities including the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. "The court is profoundly concerned about the use of force by the Russian Federation which raises very serious issues in international law," pending the final decision in the case, presiding judge Joan Donoghue said at the hearing held at the court's headquarters at the Peace Palace building. ALSO READ | Zelensky compares Russian invasion to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor attack; Putin says invasion on course The top UN court for disputes between states said that it was "profoundly concerned" by Russia's use of force. "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 in a 13-2 decision. Among other judges who voted against Russia, India's judge at the ICJ, Justice Dalveer Bhandari, also voted. The nomination of Justice Bhandari to the ICJ was done on the support of the government and various missions over a period of time. Justice Bhandari's vote against Russia does not represent India's stance on the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. It is an independent move. At every stage, India vouched for diplomatic dialogues to resolve the issue and abstained from voting on the Ukraine-Russia issue in the UN. ALSO READ | Russia attacks Mariupol theatre sheltering 'hundreds' of civilians - see satellite image On the other hand, Kyiv hailed the verdict as a "complete victory" saying it will continue to pursue the case "until Ukrainian people can go back to normal life". Although it is important to note that the rulings of the ICJ are binding, it has no direct means of enforcing them. There have been cases in the past, that countries have ignored them. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday welcomed the ruling by the ICJ on emergency measures as "a complete victory" in its case against Russia. "The (ICJ) order is binding under international law. Russia must comply immediately. Ignoring the order will isolate Russia even further," Zelensky said on Twitter. WATCH | World court orders Russia to immediately halt invasion of Ukraine ×

Dalveer Bhandari, Indian judge at ICJ, voted against Russia in Ukraine invasion case

Russia boycotted hearings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Monday during which Ukraine is seeking an emergency order to halt hostilities, arguing that Moscow has falsely applied genocide law in justifying its invasion.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Ukraine slams Russia for no-show at ICJ hearing

At the United Nations' top court on Monday, Ukraine is looking for an emergency ruling asking Russia to stop invasion. &nbsp;

Kyiv has said that Moscow's justification for the attack is based on a faulty interpretation of genocide law. &nbsp;

Although this court's rulings are binding and countries follow them generally, it has no direct means of enforcing them actually. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/to-allow-safe-passage-to-civilians-un-chief-asks-to-halt-fighting-in-ukraine-459700">To allow safe passage to civilians, UN chief asks to halt fighting in Ukraine</a>

Russia's "special military action" is needed "to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide", meaning those whose first or only language is Russian, in eastern Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin has said. &nbsp;

The claim of genocide is untrue, and also does not provide legal justification for invasion, Ukraine has argued. &nbsp;

The case lodged at the World Court, which is officially known as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), focusses on the interpretation of a 1948 treaty on the prevention of genocide, which was signed by both countries. The treaty has named the ICJ as the forum for resolving disputes between the signatories. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/amid-russian-invasion-over-61000-airbnb-bookings-made-in-ukraine-in-48-hours-not-for-staying-459576" hreflang="en">Amid Russian invasion, over 61,000 Airbnb bookings made in Ukraine in 48 hours. Not for staying</a>

The hearings will start at 10 am (0900 GMT) with Ukraine presenting its case on Monday. It's Russia turn to respond on Tuesday. &nbsp;

Before it looks at the merits of the case, the ICJ can order fast-track "provisional measures" in a matter of days to prevent the situation from worsening. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

At the United Nations' top court on Monday, Ukraine is looking for an emergency ruling asking Russia to stop invasion. Kyiv has said that Moscow's justification for the attack is based on a faulty interpretation of genocide law.

At the United Nations' top court on Monday, Ukraine is looking for an emergency ruling asking Russia to stop invasion. Kyiv has said that Moscow's justification for the attack is based on a faulty interpretation of genocide law. Although this court's rulings are binding and countries follow them generally, it has no direct means of enforcing them actually. Also Read: To allow safe passage to civilians, UN chief asks to halt fighting in Ukraine Russia's "special military action" is needed "to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide", meaning those whose first or only language is Russian, in eastern Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin has said. The claim of genocide is untrue, and also does not provide legal justification for invasion, Ukraine has argued. The case lodged at the World Court, which is officially known as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), focusses on the interpretation of a 1948 treaty on the prevention of genocide, which was signed by both countries. The treaty has named the ICJ as the forum for resolving disputes between the signatories. Also Read: Amid Russian invasion, over 61,000 Airbnb bookings made in Ukraine in 48 hours. Not for staying The hearings will start at 10 am (0900 GMT) with Ukraine presenting its case on Monday. It's Russia turn to respond on Tuesday. Before it looks at the merits of the case, the ICJ can order fast-track "provisional measures" in a matter of days to prevent the situation from worsening. (With inputs from agencies)

At ICJ, Ukraine and Russia to fight again but over ‘genocide claim’  

Myanmar's junta is set to replace&nbsp;Aung San Suu Kyi&nbsp;at the UN's top court Monday as it seeks to dismiss a&nbsp;case&nbsp;over the alleged genocide of&nbsp;Rohingya&nbsp;Muslims.

Suu&nbsp;Kyi&nbsp;personally presented&nbsp;Myanmar's arguments at the&nbsp;International Court of Justice&nbsp;(ICJ) when the&nbsp;case&nbsp;was first heard in December 2019, but was ousted as civilian leader in a military coup last year.

The Nobel peace laureate, who faced criticism from rights groups for her involvement in the&nbsp;case, is now under house arrest and trial by the same generals she defended in The Hague.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/arson-attacks-and-raids-myanmar-military-has-destroyed-over-4500-homes-since-coup-454365">Arson attacks and raids: Myanmar military has destroyed over 4,500 homes since coup</a>

In its "preliminary objections" on Monday,&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;will argue that the court has no jurisdiction over the&nbsp;case, and must throw it out before it moves on to substantive hearings.

Local&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;media said the junta has a new delegation led by Ko Ko Hlaing, international cooperation minister, and Thida Oo, attorney general, who will attend virtually.&nbsp;

Both have been hit with US sanctions over the coup.

The&nbsp;case&nbsp;brought by the mainly Muslim African nation of The Gambia accuses predominantly Buddhist&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;of genocide against the&nbsp;Rohingya&nbsp;minority over a bloody 2017 military crackdown.

The&nbsp;ICJ&nbsp;made a provisional order in January 2020 that&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;must take "all measures" to prevent the alleged genocide of the&nbsp;Rohingya&nbsp;while the years-long proceedings are underway.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/new-asean-myanmar-envoy-says-wants-to-meet-junta-opponents-454056">New ASEAN Myanmar envoy says wants to meet junta opponents</a>

Bloody crackdown

Gambia will make its counter-arguments on Wednesday.

Around 850,000&nbsp;Rohingya&nbsp;are languishing in camps in neighbouring Bangladesh while another 600,000&nbsp;Rohingya&nbsp;remain in&nbsp;Myanmar's southwestern Rakhine state.&nbsp;

The&nbsp;ICJ&nbsp;was set up after World War II to rule on disputes between UN member states. Its judgments are binding but it has no real means to enforce them.

The&nbsp;Rohingya&nbsp;case&nbsp;at the&nbsp;ICJ&nbsp;has been complicated by the coup that ousted&nbsp;Suu&nbsp;Kyi&nbsp;and her civilian government, and triggered mass protests and a bloody military crackdown. More than 1,500 civilians have been killed, according to a local monitoring group.

Suu&nbsp;Kyi&nbsp;now faces trial herself in&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;on a raft of charges that could see her jailed for more than 150 years.

Ahead of the hearing, the shadow "National Unity Government" dominated by lawmakers from&nbsp;Suu&nbsp;Kyi’s ousted party said it, not the junta, "is the proper representative of&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;at the&nbsp;ICJ&nbsp;in the&nbsp;case".

It also rejects&nbsp;Myanmar’s preliminary objections, saying the hearings for these should be cancelled and the court should quickly get down to the hearing of the substantive&nbsp;case.

Watch |&nbsp;Myanmar's military to challenge the jurisdiction of the ICJ on Rohingya genocide

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/myanmars-military-to-challenge-the-jurisdiction-of-the-icj-on-rohingya-genocide-444930/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The NUG holds no territory and has not been recognised by any foreign government, and has been declared a "terrorist" organisation by the junta.

The Gambia accuses&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;of breaching the 1948 UN genocide convention.

Its&nbsp;case&nbsp;is backed by the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Canada and the Netherlands.

Myanmar's junta is set to replace Aung San Suu Kyi at the UN's top court Monday as it seeks to dismiss a case over the alleged genocide of Rohingya Muslims. Suu Kyi personally presented Myanmar's arguments at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) when the case was first heard in December 2019, but was ousted as civilian leader in a military coup last year.

Myanmar's junta is set to replace Aung San Suu Kyi at the UN's top court Monday as it seeks to dismiss a case over the alleged genocide of Rohingya Muslims. Suu Kyi personally presented Myanmar's arguments at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) when the case was first heard in December 2019, but was ousted as civilian leader in a military coup last year. The Nobel peace laureate, who faced criticism from rights groups for her involvement in the case, is now under house arrest and trial by the same generals she defended in The Hague. Also read | Arson attacks and raids: Myanmar military has destroyed over 4,500 homes since coup In its "preliminary objections" on Monday, Myanmar will argue that the court has no jurisdiction over the case, and must throw it out before it moves on to substantive hearings. Local Myanmar media said the junta has a new delegation led by Ko Ko Hlaing, international cooperation minister, and Thida Oo, attorney general, who will attend virtually. Both have been hit with US sanctions over the coup. The case brought by the mainly Muslim African nation of The Gambia accuses predominantly Buddhist Myanmar of genocide against the Rohingya minority over a bloody 2017 military crackdown. The ICJ made a provisional order in January 2020 that Myanmar must take "all measures" to prevent the alleged genocide of the Rohingya while the years-long proceedings are underway. Also read | New ASEAN Myanmar envoy says wants to meet junta opponents Bloody crackdown Gambia will make its counter-arguments on Wednesday. Around 850,000 Rohingya are languishing in camps in neighbouring Bangladesh while another 600,000 Rohingya remain in Myanmar's southwestern Rakhine state. The ICJ was set up after World War II to rule on disputes between UN member states. Its judgments are binding but it has no real means to enforce them. The Rohingya case at the ICJ has been complicated by the coup that ousted Suu Kyi and her civilian government, and triggered mass protests and a bloody military crackdown. More than 1,500 civilians have been killed, according to a local monitoring group. Suu Kyi now faces trial herself in Myanmar on a raft of charges that could see her jailed for more than 150 years. Ahead of the hearing, the shadow "National Unity Government" dominated by lawmakers from Suu Kyi’s ousted party said it, not the junta, "is the proper representative of Myanmar at the ICJ in the case". It also rejects Myanmar’s preliminary objections, saying the hearings for these should be cancelled and the court should quickly get down to the hearing of the substantive case. Watch | Myanmar's military to challenge the jurisdiction of the ICJ on Rohingya genocide The NUG holds no territory and has not been recognised by any foreign government, and has been declared a "terrorist" organisation by the junta. The Gambia accuses Myanmar of breaching the 1948 UN genocide convention. Its case is backed by the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Canada and the Netherlands.

Myanmar to contest ICJ Rohingya case, without Aung San Suu Kyi

The International Court of Justice on Wednesday ordered Uganda to pay $325 million in reparations to the Democratic Republic of Congo for its role in conflicts that took place in Congo's Ituri province. The judges said Uganda was responsible for the deaths of around 15,000 people and ordered to pay five annual instalments of $65m between 2022 and 2026.

UN's top court orders Uganda to pay reparations of $325 mn to DR Congo

Kulbhushan Jadhav, the Indian national on death row in Pakistan, got the right to appeal the sentence as Pakistani parliament passed a bill enabling him to do so as ordered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).&nbsp;

Pakistan claims that Kulbhushan Jadhav is a spy, while India maintains that he was abducted from Iran while conducting his own business.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-big-win-for-india-kulbhushan-jadhav-granted-right-to-appeal-430103/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Jadhav was sentenced to death by a military court in Pakistan 2017. India had then approached the ICJ and was able to obtain a stay on the Pakistani court order.

In 2020, Imran Khan government had presented an ordinance in Pakistan's National Assembly in accordance with the International Court of Justice verdict. Pakistan's Opposition parties had opposed this move.

ICJ, based at The Hague, had asked Pakistan in 2019 to ensure "effective review and reconsideration" of the death sentence handed to Jadhav and also given instruction to provide him consular access.

"Pakistan was under an obligation to provide, by means of its own choosing, effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav, so as to ensure that full weight was given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention," ICJ had observed.

Kulbhushan Jadhav, the Indian national on death row in Pakistan, got the right to appeal the sentence as Pakistani parliament passed a bill enabling him to do so as ordered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Kulbhushan Jadhav, the Indian national on death row in Pakistan, got the right to appeal the sentence as Pakistani parliament passed a bill enabling him to do so as ordered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Pakistan claims that Kulbhushan Jadhav is a spy, while India maintains that he was abducted from Iran while conducting his own business. × Jadhav was sentenced to death by a military court in Pakistan 2017. India had then approached the ICJ and was able to obtain a stay on the Pakistani court order. In 2020, Imran Khan government had presented an ordinance in Pakistan's National Assembly in accordance with the International Court of Justice verdict. Pakistan's Opposition parties had opposed this move. ICJ, based at The Hague, had asked Pakistan in 2019 to ensure "effective review and reconsideration" of the death sentence handed to Jadhav and also given instruction to provide him consular access. "Pakistan was under an obligation to provide, by means of its own choosing, effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav, so as to ensure that full weight was given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention," ICJ had observed.

Pak parliament passes bill enabling Kulbhushan Jadhav's right to appeal as ordered by ICJ

US State Department spokesperson Ned Price says the United States is "disappointed" by the UN's top court ruling that it can take up Iran's bid to overturn US nuclear sanctions reimposed by Donald Trump.

US 'disappointed' by UN court's decision to take up Iran-US sanctions case

India's Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla speaking at the 3rd Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) -India Conference said that upholding international law was central to Indian diplomacy.

"As a strong proponent of a peaceful and rules-based international legal order, it is no surprise that India supports the PCA and its mandate to resolve international disputes. The upholding of international law is central to our diplomacy and in fact our world view," He said.

The comments come even as India's neighbor China has stood out in disregarding international law, including rejecting, PCA's own verdict. China had rejected verdict of a tribunal set up under the PCA in the Philippines vs China case of 2016.&nbsp;

The tribunal rejected China's claim to the South China Sea based on the so-called "nine-dash line". The arbitral tribunal has been constituted under Annex. VII to the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 at PCA.

India on the other hand has availed the services of the Hague-based court and resolved international disputes with other countries. Well known examples include, Kishenganga Arbitration with Pakistan under the Indus Water Treaty, the Maritime Boundary delimitation with Bangladesh, and the Italian Marines Case.

"Institutions such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration have assisted us....and have played a pivotal role in ensuring that peace among nations is maintained, through a civilized and principled settlement of disputes," said the Foreign Secretary.

"Since its establishment, the PCA has handled many politically significant and interesting cases. It has become a premier institution and first choice for the resolution of international disputes involving States, State entities, Inter-Governmental Organizations as well as private entities," he added.

Permanent Court of Arbitration was established in 1899, and India became its member in 1950. In 1998, India and PCA entered into Host Country Agreement, under which PCA-administered proceedings could be conducted in India. New Delhi under its new Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) has the Secretary-General of the PCA as the appointing authority, for arbitrations under the treaty.

Present during the meet which Foreign Secretary addressed were Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, Justice Indu Malhotra, Secretary-General of Permanent Court of Arbitration Hugo Siblesz, Chairperson of the PCA-India Conference Committee Fali Nariman, India's envoy to Netherlands Venu Rajamony, and Justice Dalveer Bhandari of International Court of Justice. Justice Bhandari is the only Indian member of the International Court of Justice.

India's Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla speaking at the 3rd Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) -India Conference said that upholding international law was central to Indian diplomacy.

India's Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla speaking at the 3rd Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) -India Conference said that upholding international law was central to Indian diplomacy. "As a strong proponent of a peaceful and rules-based international legal order, it is no surprise that India supports the PCA and its mandate to resolve international disputes. The upholding of international law is central to our diplomacy and in fact our world view," He said. The comments come even as India's neighbor China has stood out in disregarding international law, including rejecting, PCA's own verdict. China had rejected verdict of a tribunal set up under the PCA in the Philippines vs China case of 2016. The tribunal rejected China's claim to the South China Sea based on the so-called "nine-dash line". The arbitral tribunal has been constituted under Annex. VII to the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 at PCA. India on the other hand has availed the services of the Hague-based court and resolved international disputes with other countries. Well known examples include, Kishenganga Arbitration with Pakistan under the Indus Water Treaty, the Maritime Boundary delimitation with Bangladesh, and the Italian Marines Case. "Institutions such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration have assisted us....and have played a pivotal role in ensuring that peace among nations is maintained, through a civilized and principled settlement of disputes," said the Foreign Secretary. "Since its establishment, the PCA has handled many politically significant and interesting cases. It has become a premier institution and first choice for the resolution of international disputes involving States, State entities, Inter-Governmental Organizations as well as private entities," he added. Permanent Court of Arbitration was established in 1899, and India became its member in 1950. In 1998, India and PCA entered into Host Country Agreement, under which PCA-administered proceedings could be conducted in India. New Delhi under its new Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) has the Secretary-General of the PCA as the appointing authority, for arbitrations under the treaty. Present during the meet which Foreign Secretary addressed were Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, Justice Indu Malhotra, Secretary-General of Permanent Court of Arbitration Hugo Siblesz, Chairperson of the PCA-India Conference Committee Fali Nariman, India's envoy to Netherlands Venu Rajamony, and Justice Dalveer Bhandari of International Court of Justice. Justice Bhandari is the only Indian member of the International Court of Justice.

Upholding international law central to Indian diplomacy: Foreign Secretary Harsh Shringla

A global watchdogs comprising of eminent jurists from across the world has pulled up Pakistan in the issue of enforced disappearances. Over the year hundreds of activists & dissidents have gone missing in Pakistan.

International commission of jurists pulls up Pak govt over enforced disappearances

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has hit out at Pakistan's Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances (COIED), saying it has failed to hold perpetrators responsible for the crime in the last several years.

In 2011, the COIED was formed to trace the whereabouts of missing persons and fix the responsibility on individuals or organisations responsible for the enforced disappearances. The probe body is headed by Justice Javed Iqbal, Dawn reported.

According to a briefing paper titled 'Entrenching Impunity, Denying Redress: The Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances in Pakistan', the ICJ noted that although the COIED had traced the whereabouts of the missing persons in a number of cases, there was no effort to fix the responsibility for the crime.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakhttps://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakisan-at-least-441-new-coronavirus-cases-reported-326535isan-at-least-441-new-coronavirus-cases-reported-326535">Also read|&nbsp;Pakistan: At least 441 new coronavirus cases reported</a>

The paper evaluated the performance of COIED since its constitution and assessed the legal framework, under which the body operates as per international law and standards.

"This commission has failed in holding even a single perpetrator of enforced disappearance responsible in its nine years. A commission that does not address impunity, nor facilitate justice for victims and their families, can certainly not be considered effective," Ian Seiderman, the ICJ legal and policy director, was quoted as saying.

The ICJ was established in 1952 and is active in five continents. It comprises 60 eminent judges and lawyers from all regions of the world and protects human rights through rule of law by using its unique legal expertise to develop and strengthen national and international justice systems, Dawn reported.

Slamming the COIED, the ICJ regretted that hundreds of people continued to remain missing in Pakistan following their apparent arrest or abduction by security forces and military establishment. The UN Working Group on enforced disappearances has described a "culture of entrenched impunity" pertaining to the crime.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/i-am-back-and-safe-secps-joint-director-sajid-gondal-resurfaces-326100">Also read|&nbsp;'I am back and safe': SECP's Joint Director Sajid Gondal resurfaces</a>

Despite the failure of the COIED to meet the objectives, its mandate was extended many times without consultation with the victims' groups. The present mandate is set to expire on September 14.

"The failure of COIED also demonstrates a larger problem," the ICJ said, adding that though ostensibly formed to provide a measure of public accountability, more often than not, the COIED had allegedly promoted impunity by diverting investigation of human rights violations and crimes through the criminal justice process into a parallel ad hoc mechanism vulnerable to political interference and manipulation, according to the Dawn.

"Recent experiences in Pakistan, the South Asia region and around the world suggested that without substantial reform to the existing law and practice, continued use of the COIED would not succeed in providing effective remedies to the victims of human rights violations," the ICJ noted.

The ICJ suggested that the mandate of the COIED should not be extended beyond September 14 and should make public the commission's final report.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has hit out at Pakistan's Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances (COIED), saying it has failed to hold perpetrators responsible for the crime in the last several years.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has hit out at Pakistan's Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances (COIED), saying it has failed to hold perpetrators responsible for the crime in the last several years. In 2011, the COIED was formed to trace the whereabouts of missing persons and fix the responsibility on individuals or organisations responsible for the enforced disappearances. The probe body is headed by Justice Javed Iqbal, Dawn reported. According to a briefing paper titled 'Entrenching Impunity, Denying Redress: The Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances in Pakistan', the ICJ noted that although the COIED had traced the whereabouts of the missing persons in a number of cases, there was no effort to fix the responsibility for the crime. Also read| Pakistan: At least 441 new coronavirus cases reported The paper evaluated the performance of COIED since its constitution and assessed the legal framework, under which the body operates as per international law and standards. "This commission has failed in holding even a single perpetrator of enforced disappearance responsible in its nine years. A commission that does not address impunity, nor facilitate justice for victims and their families, can certainly not be considered effective," Ian Seiderman, the ICJ legal and policy director, was quoted as saying. The ICJ was established in 1952 and is active in five continents. It comprises 60 eminent judges and lawyers from all regions of the world and protects human rights through rule of law by using its unique legal expertise to develop and strengthen national and international justice systems, Dawn reported. Slamming the COIED, the ICJ regretted that hundreds of people continued to remain missing in Pakistan following their apparent arrest or abduction by security forces and military establishment. The UN Working Group on enforced disappearances has described a "culture of entrenched impunity" pertaining to the crime. Also read| 'I am back and safe': SECP's Joint Director Sajid Gondal resurfaces Despite the failure of the COIED to meet the objectives, its mandate was extended many times without consultation with the victims' groups. The present mandate is set to expire on September 14. "The failure of COIED also demonstrates a larger problem," the ICJ said, adding that though ostensibly formed to provide a measure of public accountability, more often than not, the COIED had allegedly promoted impunity by diverting investigation of human rights violations and crimes through the criminal justice process into a parallel ad hoc mechanism vulnerable to political interference and manipulation, according to the Dawn. "Recent experiences in Pakistan, the South Asia region and around the world suggested that without substantial reform to the existing law and practice, continued use of the COIED would not succeed in providing effective remedies to the victims of human rights violations," the ICJ noted. The ICJ suggested that the mandate of the COIED should not be extended beyond September 14 and should make public the commission's final report.

ICJ chides Pakistan probe body on enforced disappearances

August 25, 2017 - the date Myanmar's army unleashed a wave of violence on Rohingya refugees in Rakhine state, forcing nearly a million people to flee and seek shelter in neighbouring Bangladesh

Three years since Rohingya exodus: From fleeing Myanmar to ICJ trial

Former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri was travelling in a motorcade on February 14, 2005 when a bomb concealed in a van near Beirut’s St George Hotel exploded. It&nbsp;killed Hariri and 21 others.

Fifteen years later, a special United Nations court has delivered the verdict. No evidence has been found against the militant group, Hezbollah.

“The trial chamber is of the view that Syria and Hezbollah may have had motives to eliminate Mr Hariri and some of his political allies, however, there is no evidence that the Hezbollah leadership had any involvement in Mr Hariri's murder and there is no direct evidence of Syrian involvement”, the verdict read.

Prominent voice in politics

Hariri was one of Lebanon's prominent Sunni politicians.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-the-hariri-case-verdict-321561/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Following his killing, thousands of people protested, claiming that Shia militant group Hezbollah and its backer Syria were the culprits.&nbsp;Syria had occupied parts of Lebanon since 1976, after civil war broke out in the country.

Hariri, at the time of his death had been urging Syria to withdraw its troops.&nbsp;The tribunal verdict has overturned long-standing suspicions on Hezbollah, but it still remains unclear who committed the crime.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/assassination-of-lebanons-rafik-hariri-a-political-act-syria-hezbollah-not-involved-icj-321459" hreflang="en">Assassination of Hariri a political act, Syria &amp; Hezbollah not involved: ICJ</a>

Hariri's assassination led to the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon but Hezbollah’s presence has since increased.

Hariri's son, Saad Hariri served two terms as the prime minister with Hezbollah's support.&nbsp;The verdict holds less importance today than it did at the time of Hariri's assassination.&nbsp;The pandemic, economic collapse and unemployment are bigger concerns for the country.&nbsp;In recent days, the blast in Beirut has become the focal point of politics.

The massive explosion on August 4 killed more than 150 people, with many rendered homeless in the aftermath.

The court said that the assassination was a political act. But it was a personal war for many, between the Sunnis and Shias.

Former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri was travelling in a motorcade on February 14, 2005 when a bomb concealed in a van near Beirut’s St George Hotel exploded.

Former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri was travelling in a motorcade on February 14, 2005 when a bomb concealed in a van near Beirut’s St George Hotel exploded. It killed Hariri and 21 others. Fifteen years later, a special United Nations court has delivered the verdict. No evidence has been found against the militant group, Hezbollah. “The trial chamber is of the view that Syria and Hezbollah may have had motives to eliminate Mr Hariri and some of his political allies, however, there is no evidence that the Hezbollah leadership had any involvement in Mr Hariri's murder and there is no direct evidence of Syrian involvement”, the verdict read. Prominent voice in politics Hariri was one of Lebanon's prominent Sunni politicians. Following his killing, thousands of people protested, claiming that Shia militant group Hezbollah and its backer Syria were the culprits. Syria had occupied parts of Lebanon since 1976, after civil war broke out in the country. Hariri, at the time of his death had been urging Syria to withdraw its troops. The tribunal verdict has overturned long-standing suspicions on Hezbollah, but it still remains unclear who committed the crime. Also read: Assassination of Hariri a political act, Syria & Hezbollah not involved: ICJ Hariri's assassination led to the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon but Hezbollah’s presence has since increased. Hariri's son, Saad Hariri served two terms as the prime minister with Hezbollah's support. The verdict holds less importance today than it did at the time of Hariri's assassination. The pandemic, economic collapse and unemployment are bigger concerns for the country. In recent days, the blast in Beirut has become the focal point of politics. The massive explosion on August 4 killed more than 150 people, with many rendered homeless in the aftermath. The court said that the assassination was a political act. But it was a personal war for many, between the Sunnis and Shias.

UN court finds no evidence against Hezbollah, Syria in Hariri's assassination

Pakistan government have brought in an ordinance in view of the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) ruling in the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav. Watch this video to know more.

Pakistan brings an ordinance in view of ICJ ruling on Kulbhushan Jadhav

Pakistan has blocked all legal remedies to Indian death row convict Kulbhushan Jadhav. India said that it has requested Pakistan 12 times for consular access to Jadhav and so far Islamabad Islamabad has not once provided the access. Watch report.

Kulbhushan Jadhav's case: India requested Pakistan 12 times for consular access

In an exclusive reply to WION on the Kulbhushan Jadhav case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has said that the decision taken by the court is binding and final. Watch report.

WION ExclusiveL: 'ICJ judgement is binding and final' on Kulbhushan Jadhav case

The Pakistani Foreign Ministry has offered a second round of consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav

Pakistan offers 2nd consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav

4 months after Aung San Suu Kyi defended Myanmar's Army Generals at the ICJ, a video of Army troops assaulting detainees is going viral. WION's Executive Editor Palki Sharma Upadhyay gets you a report.

Gravitas: Myanmar Army's abuse caught on tape

India's lead counsel on the Kulbhushan Jadhav case Harish Salve has said New Delhi might have to go back to International Court of Justice (ICJ) to get directions for Pakistan to implement the judgement of the case. "We have reached the point that we may have to go to ICJ for consequential direction. Because Pakistan has not moved", Salve said.

Harish Salve: Might have to go back to ICJ over Kulbhushan Jadhav case

4 March in history: Charlie Chaplin knighted, rebellion at Castle Hill and more

The International Court Of Justice has ordered Myanmar to protect the Rohingyas from genocide. What does this judgment mean for Aung San Suu Kyi? Watch this report from Gravitas.

Gravitas: ICJ tells Myanmar to end Rohingya Genocide

International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on the Rohingya Genocide case in Myanmar. ICJ refused Myanmar's request to dismiss the case. ICJ read the verdict in Hague, Netherlands.

WION Dispatch: ICJ orders steps to protect Rohingya Muslims

ICJ rules on Myanmar Rohingya Genocide case

The International Court of Justice(ICJ) today pronounced its&nbsp;verdict in the Rohingya genocide case at The Hague on Thursday.

Gambia had filed a lawsuit last November requesting emegency measures to tackle the alleged atrocities against Rohingyas in Myanmar.

The court said Myanmar should take "all measures within its powers" to prevent alleged genocide against Rohingyas.&nbsp;

The top UN court said it has jurisdiction in Myanmar genocide case. Gambia's claim is plausible, the court observed.

"The court concludes that it has prima facie jurisdiction to rule in the case," presiding judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf said.

Rohingyas remain extremely vulnerable, the world court said while adding that Myanmar failed to present concrete evidence&nbsp;to the international court.

The court said that irreparable harm will be committed if Rohingyas are not protected.

Gambia had accused Myanmar of violating the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.

The world court's ruling comes just days after the Myanmar commission in a report said some soldiers had committed war crimes against the Rohingyas but the military wasn't guilty of genocide.

At least 730,000 Rohingyas have fled Myanmar's Rakhine state since 2017 ever since the country's military allegedly carried out a crackdown against the minority Rohingya Muslims. The crackdown led to a huge exodus of Rohingyas to neigbouring Bangladesh leading to a refugee crisis.

The International Court of Justice(ICJ) today pronounced its verdict in the Rohingya genocide case at The Hague on Thursday. Gambia had filed a lawsuit last November requesting emegency measures to tackle the alleged atrocities against Rohingyas in Myanmar.

The International Court of Justice(ICJ) today pronounced its verdict in the Rohingya genocide case at The Hague on Thursday. Gambia had filed a lawsuit last November requesting emegency measures to tackle the alleged atrocities against Rohingyas in Myanmar. The court said Myanmar should take "all measures within its powers" to prevent alleged genocide against Rohingyas. The top UN court said it has jurisdiction in Myanmar genocide case. Gambia's claim is plausible, the court observed. "The court concludes that it has prima facie jurisdiction to rule in the case," presiding judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf said. Rohingyas remain extremely vulnerable, the world court said while adding that Myanmar failed to present concrete evidence to the international court. The court said that irreparable harm will be committed if Rohingyas are not protected. Gambia had accused Myanmar of violating the 1948 UN Genocide Convention. The world court's ruling comes just days after the Myanmar commission in a report said some soldiers had committed war crimes against the Rohingyas but the military wasn't guilty of genocide. At least 730,000 Rohingyas have fled Myanmar's Rakhine state since 2017 ever since the country's military allegedly carried out a crackdown against the minority Rohingya Muslims. The crackdown led to a huge exodus of Rohingyas to neigbouring Bangladesh leading to a refugee crisis.

International Court of Justice raps Myanmar in Rohingya genocide case

Icj, News on Icj, stories on Icj, articles on Icj, Icj stories at Wion, Icj news, Icj latest news