Bookmark and share the address of UKRAINE ENGLISH NEWS on your social bookmarking website
Most users ever online was 229 on Sat Aug 08, 2015 11:03 pm
"There is no doubt that Ukraine has the right to defend its territorial integrity and Russia's policy in March 2014 with a serious violation of the integrity of the on this," - said the professor.
He noted that international law has no general jurisdiction of the settlement of territorial disputes.
"International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations Organization. States from time to time apply to the International Court of Justice that it considered the disputes concerning borders: on land and at sea. The Russian Federation does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as compulsory. However, the Russian Federation is a party to several conventions in the field of human rights, which contain provisions establishing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as compulsory in relation to disputes which arise according to the specific provisions of these conventions, "- said Grant.
He said that Georgia is trying to sue Russia in the International Court of Justice in 2008, basing it on that basis. "The difficulty, however, was the fact that Georgia did not hold talks with Russia on a controversial issue, and relevant conventions require the parties that disputes, try to resolve the dispute by negotiation before going to court," - the professor said.
"International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is another international court, which is the state used in conjunction with other instruments of arbitration to resolve disputes relating to marine areas, including their boundaries. Russia is a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) - a treaty that establishes the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Russia accepts the jurisdiction under the relevant arbitration mechanism of the Convention (Annex 7). However, there are difficulties faced by States that are trying to apply this mechanism against Russia. First, the Russian Federation accepts the jurisdiction of the significant limitations. Secondly, Russia simply refuses to attend the meetings to hear cases against it, "- said Grant.
According to him, the main problem in both cases is that the court or tribunal may determine that the case is not subject to its jurisdiction. "However, even if the result will be, still it is important for the case. Doing business keeps this issue in the focus of international attention. International Court of Justice and the United Nations International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea are not political bodies. By this I do not mean that judges and arbitrators are not affected by the policy. Each some extent depends on the policy. I mean, that instead they are guided by formal political procedures, they are judicial / arbitration bodies and, as such, governed by judicial / arbitration procedures, "- said the expert.
He believes that if Ukraine properly present case, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea will treat it at least within their own jurisdiction. "This gives Ukraine the opportunity to present arguments in accordance with the law, and not the political process", - said Grant.
He declined to estimate the probability of success. "It is difficult to assess. There are many opportunities to play in the case of appeal or arbitration. But, in my opinion, if Ukraine will prepare the basis for negotiations is better than Georgia did in 2008, is likely to win will be supported by a large part of the UN International Court of Justice ", - the professor said.
In addition, he recalled, there are already things that are working against Russia in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), actions have both on individuals and on Ukraine. "It may be that the ECHR also simultaneously solve territorial issues. The jurisprudence of the ECtHR relative of northern Cyprus, the Transdniestrian part of Moldova, Nagorno-Karabakh is instructive in this regard. The court was quite clear that the illegal military occupation does not deprive the state ownership of their territory ", - said Grant.
glavcom.ua In Russian/русский