Burden of Proof at the ICJ Case Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation): Finding “the Way Home”

Mikhail Galperin

doi:10.17323/jil.2024.24746

Mikhail Galperin HSE University; Saint-Petersburg State University; International Commercial Arbitration Court in the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3626-4548

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/jil.2024.24746

Keywords: international justice, evidence, burden of proof, legal remedy, due process

Abstract

The commentary points out the fundamental evidentiary issues, which the International Court of Justice would face soon deciding the case Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) at the merits stage. The author believes that the burden of proof considerations are at the heart of the whole procedural picture of this unique inter-state dispute. The analysis shows that in this case, pursuant to the actori incumbit onus probandi principle (it is for the claimant to prove his claim), the burden of proof remains — as it should — with the Applicant (Ukraine) and should not be arbitrarily shifted to the Respondent (the Russian Federation). Ukraine’s primary access to direct evidence regarding the legal nature of its acts should also be taken into account when establishing the appropriate burden of proof.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Mikhail Galperin, HSE University; Saint-Petersburg State University; International Commercial Arbitration Court in the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation

Doctor of Science in Law, Head of the Chair of International Justice at the School of International Law of the HSE University, Professor of the Chair of Civil Procedure of the Saint-Petersburg State University, Vice-President and Arbitrator at the International Commercial Arbitration Court in the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia

References

Brown C. (2007) A Common Law of International Adjudication, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206506.001.0001

Evans K. (2020) Advocacy, 15th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Foster С. (2010) Burden of Proof in International Courts and Tribunals. Australian Year Book of International Law, vol. 29, pp. 27–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/26660229-029-01-900000004

Grebelsky A. (2013) Raspredelenie bremeni dokazyvaniya v mezhdunarodnom arbitrazhe [Distribution of the Burden of Proof in International Arbitration]. In: Lebedev S., Kabatova E., Muranov A., Vershinina E. (eds.) Voprosy mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo, sravnitel’nogo i grazhdanskogo prava, mezdunarodnogo kommercheskogo arbitrazha: LIBER AMICORUM v chest’ A.A. Kostina, O.N. Zimenkovoi, N.G. Eliseeva [Issues of International Private, Comparative and Civil Law, International Commercial Arbitration: LIBER AMICORUM in honour of A. A. Kostin, O. N. Zimenkova, N. G. Eliseev], Moscow: Statut. (In Russian).

Ishizuka C. (2023) Impact of the Ukraine Conflict on Inter-State Dispute Settlement Procedures: The Allegations of Genocide Case (Ukraine v. Russia). In: Furuya S., Takemura H., Ozaki K. (eds.) Global Impact of the Ukraine Conflict, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore: Imprint: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4374-6_6

Lisova A. (2022) Raspredelenie bremeni dokazyvaniya v praktike mezhdunarodnykh sudov [Distribution of the Burden of Proof in the Practice of International Courts]. Mezhdunarodnoe ugolonoe pravo i mezhdunarodnaya yustitsiya, vol. 3, pp. 23–25. (In Russian).

Nalgiev A. (2024) Bremya dokazyvaniya otritsatel’nykh faktov v praktike mezhdunarodnykh sudov i arbitrazhei: chto sulit rassmotrenie iska Ukrainy po delu o zayavleniyakh o genotside? [Burden of Proof of Negative Facts in the Practice of International Courts and Tribunals: What Does the Consideration of Ukraine’s Claim in the Allegation of Genocide Case Has in Store for Us?]. Zakon, no. 10, pp. 140–153. (In Russian).