Widely publicised incidents of the Russian military forces randomly attacking civilians, civilian centres, and nuclear power plants, serious violations of the Geneva Conventions, and the use of weapons prohibited by international law are all part of the intense hostilities between Russia and Ukraine.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have died as a result of the bombardment of civilian areas in Ukraine, and millions more have been forced to abandon their homes.

In accordance with the UN Charter, political action inside the Security Council and General Assembly has been a fruitless and ineffectual attempt to put an end to hostilities and resolve the dispute peacefully. International legal organisations have seen a number of legal repercussions as a result of the alleged breaches of international law as well as claims of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Russia's Strategy Guide

Russia's activities in Crimea in 2014 seem to be a rerun of those actions, as the territory had declared its independence from Ukraine in a vote. The majority of European nations as well as the United States reject Russia's annexation of Crimea and believe that it is illegally occupying a portion of Ukraine. Donetsk and Luhansk are not yet part of Russia, but they might be in the future. Very few other UN members are likely to recognise the areas as autonomous entities, even if Russia decides not to acquire them. The majority of European nations and the United States will probably view Russia's annexation of those areas as illegal occupation.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two areas of Georgia that proclaimed their independence in 2008, were previously acknowledged as separate republics by Russia. The only other four UN members to acknowledge the areas' independence are Venezuela, Syria, Nicaragua, and Namibia. On the other hand, Russia denied Kosovo's 2008 proclamation of independence from Serbia, arguing that the Kosovars were not a separate ethnic group and were therefore ineligible for therapeutic secession. Since then, Kosovo has gained recognition as an independent state from ninety-seven UN members.Although they contend that Kosovo's situation is special and that it did not establish a precedent for any future territorial secessions, the United States and many European nations support Kosovo's independence.

International Organisations React to Russia's Measures

Apart from the financial penalties enforced on a bilateral basis by the United States and many other nations, Russia is expected to encounter broad censure and exclusion from international organisations. Very few legal scholars and nations will accept that Russia's activities are compliant with international law. Russia's membership in the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly and Committee of Ministers was suspended on Friday. In the meantime, a binding resolution denouncing the invasion and mandating that Russia stop its military activities and leave Ukraine was put to a vote by the UN Security Council. However, Russia vetoed the resolution because it is a permanent member of the Security Council.

The Security Council passed a nonbinding resolution requesting that the UN General Assembly convene an emergency special session to discuss Russia's actions, 11-1 (with Russia abstaining and three members voting against). The UN General Assembly resolved in 1950 to "consider the matter immediately with a view to making recommendations to members for collective measures" in the event of a deadlock in the Security Council. This resolution of the Security Council is in accordance with that resolution, known as the Uniting for Peace resolution, 377(V). As it did in 2014 following Russia's annexation of Crimea, the General Assembly is expected to overwhelmingly endorse a resolution denouncing Russia's actions as a danger to Ukraine's territorial integrity, sovereignty, and political independence.

The General Assembly may also propose that Russia be suspended or expelled from certain UN bodies, that the UN conduct an investigation into Russia's activities, or both.

Ukraine further filed a second lawsuit against Russia on Sunday with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), claiming that Russia interpreted the Genocide Convention incorrectly in order to support its invasion of Ukraine. Two claims that Ukraine submitted in 2017 over Russia's conduct in Crimea and eastern Ukraine are currently being heard by the ICJ.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) may look into allegations of war crimes made by Putin and other Russian authorities during the invasion. Ukraine has acknowledged the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes committed on its territory since 2013 (apart from the crime of aggression, for which the ICC does not have jurisdiction for nonparties), despite Russia's non-participation in the Rome Statute that established the ICC.

International Criminal Court (ICC)

The International Criminal Court's prosecutor, Karim Khan, confirmed that "there is a reasonable basis to proceed with opening an investigation by the Court" in a statement released on February 28, 2022.

The criteria for moving forward with an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine, both with regard to the 2014 Russian occupation of Crimea and the current ongoing hostilities, are within the jurisdiction of the Court, the subject-matter of the alleged crimes, their admissibility by the Court, and the interests of justice, he concluded, citing specific data from a 2020 ICC report on its annual activities.

Consequently, the Prosecutor notified the Court on March 1, 2022, that he intended to initiate an inquiry. He then declared on March 2, 2022, that the Court had been referred by no fewer than 39 states parties to the ICC Statute, including Germany, France, Spain, and Italy; among the non-EU states requesting that the Court initiate an investigation against the Russian military and political leadership are Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

International Court of Justice (ICJ)

In addition to the referrals to the ICC, Ukraine petitioned the International Court of Justice at The Hague (ICJ) on February 27, 2022, claiming that Russia had falsely accused Ukraine of genocide in order to legitimise its invasion against the country. Ukraine asserted that by doing this, Russia had violated the Genocide Convention of 1948, which aims to prevent and punish acts of genocide.

Following Ukraine's petition, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) convened its initial hearing in the Ukraine v. Russian Federation case on March 7, 2022. The Court requested that Russia provide the necessary time for the Court to consider interim remedies while the matter is ongoing, but Russia declined to appear.

The severity of the conflict, the numerous transgressions of international law taking place, the humanitarian and economic fallout, and the reaction of the international community all point to the conflict's unprecedented seriousness and the threat it poses to both global order and international peace and security.

Effects on Additional Local and Regional Conflicts

These elements inexorably lead to the requirement to fairly allocate the other, relatively small regional and local conflicts that have been and now involve the international community.

The above-mentioned serious, urgent, and drastic legal proceedings regarding the Russia-Ukraine crisis being brought before international judicial bodies necessitate a proper contextual perspective on the ongoing Palestinian manipulation and abuse of those same international judicial bodies as a primary weapon in their "lawfare" campaign against Israel.

In fact, at the beginning of March 2022, Palestinian officials were voicing a great deal of worry and outrage in a variety of media and radio interviews about the international community-including those very international judicial bodies-becoming enmeshed in the legal proceedings surrounding the Russia-Ukraine war instead of going after Israel."From the start of the Ukraine crisis there is international turmoil and governments are rising and shouting as the Palestinian people suffer the occupation for 70 years," noted Salah Rafat, a member of the PLO Executive Committee.

Omar Odallah, the spokesperson for the Palestinian Foreign Ministry, is cited in Palestinian media as criticising the existence of a "double standard" and asserting that "equal standards must be imposed on everyone, which is a test for the court in The Hague." We witness in Ukraine the dismantling of international law and order, as well as the application of one standard for Europe and another for other regions.

Ghassan al-Khatib, a politician, the head of the Palestinian Government Media Centre, a former Palestinian minister, and a member of the PLO delegation to Washington said on Palestinian radio that "it's now evident that there is a difference between us and Ukraine, which is an example of American double standards." Power and interest, not moral principles, are the foundation of your international dealings.

Shawan Jabarin, the director of the Palestinian human rights organisation Al Haq, noted that "the boycott issue has been raised by the Ukraine issue." Since Western nations are boycotting Russia, why not Israel? A white man and a black man are present.
Such laments from the Palestinians are misguided, deceptive, and manipulative.

The Palestinian attempt to compare or equate the Palestinian issue with the scope and deadly nature of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the way the international community has handled it is blatantly presumptuous in light of the open warfare, massive bombardment of civilian population centres, and waves of refugees.

There is no way to equate these atrocities with the legally dubious Palestinian complaints to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in a situation where no fewer than 39 state parties to the ICC Statute have formally referred the case to the Court, requesting the opening of an investigation, and where the Prosecutor has formally pointed to clear violations of international law, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Misleading Criteria regarding International Law Violations

Not any less presumptuous and dishonest are the attempts made by Palestinian spokespeople, NGO movements, and foreign media to compare Israel's conduct in the territories to the major breaches of international law, war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed during the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

In contrast to the circumstances in Ukraine, Israel does not wage an aggressive war, employ prohibited weapons such as cluster bombs, fire ballistic missiles, bombard civilian population centres indiscriminately and heavily, or force large numbers of refugees to flee their homes, towns, or villages.

Instead, Israel legitimately responds in self-defense to persistent terror and frequent massive rocket attacks against its civilian population by hitting particular military targets, tactical terror headquarters and facilities, rocket emplacements, and ammunition storage facilities in a targeted and proportionate manner.

Israel makes great efforts to prevent civilian casualties, in contrast to the Palestinian terror groups that hide inside, next to, and beneath homes, hospitals, schools, commercial buildings, office blocks, and mosques, using the civilian populace as human shields. Israel gives civilians advance notice before taking military action on terrorist targets so they can get away.

Israel complies with all applicable international norms and principles in response to Palestinian violations of environmental and agricultural terror, despite the fact that Palestinian terror groups frequently violate recognised humanitarian norms by using illegal weapons, exploding kites and incendiary balloons, and releasing toxic smoke and fumes towards Israel's civilian population and agricultural areas. [Originally provided by UNRWA donors for the entertainment of Gaza's youth, those destructive balloons]

Israel does not target power plants, public utility facilities, or sites and monuments with religious, cultural, or historical value, in contrast to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Instead, through the several border crossing sites, Israel permits a steady stream of thousands of trucks filled with construction materials, food, supplies, and medications into Palestinian regions.

Commanders at the General Staff, Regional Command, and Divisional levels receive legal counsel on the Law of Armed Conflict from the IDF Military Advocate General's Corps during any conflict. For example, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs reports that IDF military lawyers advised commanders on the legal implications of operations in Gaza for international law.

Conclusion
It is blatantly incorrect, malevolent, and manipulative to consider attempts to make parallels between the situation in Russia and Ukraine and the Palestinian dilemma.

Israel goes to great lengths to make sure that its self-defense against terror acts by the Palestinians complies with all applicable international treaties and standards. It refrains from using unlawful weapons, starving civilians, or bombarding residential areas in large numbers.

The ICC and other international bodies are being used in a malicious and false attempt to equate and compare the crucial international judicial activity in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict with the politically driven delegitimization campaign against Israel by the Palestinians.

They ought to be dismissed out of hand. There is absolutely no logical or realistic basis for such comparison.

References:

1. https://www.cfr.org/article/how-russias-invasion-ukraine-violates-international-law
2. https://jcpa.org/article/the-russia-ukraine-war-and-its-legal-and-political-implications/

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Jasleen Kaur Sabherwal

Authentication No: AP411351371622-22-0424