Read in Ukrainian
In this new briefing memorandum, International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR), the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School (IHRC), the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy (NLI), and Truth Hounds examine the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) admission of Russia’s counter-claims in the Ukraine v. Russia Genocide Proceedings, exposing how these claims have been weaponised by Russia.
Ukraine initiated proceedings at the ICJ seeking a declaration that Russia’s allegations—that Ukraine committed genocide in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions—were false, and that Russia’s use of force to prevent this alleged genocide was unlawful. In response, Russia filed counter-claims alleging that Ukraine had itself violated the 1948 Genocide Convention, invoking Ukraine’s international responsibility. On 5 December 2025, the ICJ admitted Russia’s counter-claims.
In this memorandum, legal experts provide a critical assessment of the Court’s Order, arguing that it reveals significant shortcomings in the interpretation of Article 80 of the Rules of Court, which governs the admissibility of counter-claims.
Authors expose how by declining to exercise its discretionary authority, the Court initiated a troubling procedural shift: admitting Russia’s claims handed the Respondent a substantial procedural advantage, undermining the very purpose of Ukraine’s application—to refute false genocide allegations, halt the aggression, and seek reparations.
Based on a thorough doctrinal international legal analysis of the case, its context, and implications the experts highlight several key concerns:
- The decision risks inverting the counter-claims mechanism
- This therefore erodes equality of arms
- In the broader context of Russia’s ongoing violations and disregard for provisional measures, the Order signals the potential for international law to be weaponised by aggressor states
- The decision undermines both the Genocide Convention’s protective purpose and the ICJ’s authority at a time of heightened global insecurity.
They encourage third-party States to
- Lend weight to arguments concerning the inadmissibility of Russia’s counter-claims,
- Help resist the normalization of abusive counter-litigation,
They urge the Court to take measures to remedy the wrongs caused by this Order at the merits stage and through a more context-sensitive application of Article 80.
Only by doing so can it reaffirm its role as a guardian of international law.
About the organisations
International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) is an independent, nongovernmental organisation founded in 2008. With a presence in Brussels, Kyiv, and Tbilisi, IPHR works closely with civil society groups in Eastern Europe, South Caucasus, and Central Asia to raise human rights concerns at the international level and promote respect for the rights of vulnerable communities. IPHR has been documenting atrocity crimes committed in the context of Russia’s war on Ukraine since 2014 and has been using collected evidence for accountability purposes.
The International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC) works at the cutting edge of education and advocacy to drive tangible change in human rights. IHRC engages in litigation, research, fact-finding, analysis, and advocacy in partnership with human rights organizations around the world, as well as communities and individuals directly affected by abuse. The IHRC’s expertise spans six broad practice areas: (1) accountability and remedies, (2) armed conflict and civilian protection, (3) climate justice and the environment, (4) gender, race, and non-discrimination, (5) protecting fundamental freedoms, and (6) social and economic justice.
New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy (NLI) is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and global geopolitics. NLI produces rigorous policy and legal analysis, cross-country comparative research, and analytical frameworks. Its work is reviewed by subject matter experts from around the world and adheres to a strictly non-partisan, evidence-based approach. Since 2020, NLI has published pioneering legal and policy analysis on incitement to genocide, including the first report concluding that there are reasonable grounds to believe Russia engaged in direct and public incitement to commit genocide in Ukraine.
Truth Hounds is a full-spectrum accountability organization founded in 2014 in Kyiv, specializing in documenting and investigating international crimes and serious human rights violations in Ukraine and other conflict-affected regions. The organization conducts field investigations, legal research, and analytical studies on international crimes and crimes against humanity.