Already a subscriber? Make sure to log into your account before viewing this content. You can access your account by hitting the “login” button on the top right corner. Still unable to see the content after signing in? Make sure your card on file is up-to-date.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has largely dismissed a case brought by Ukraine against Russia, which accused Moscow of financing separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine.

The court found that Russia had not adequately investigated alleged breaches but stopped short of ruling on Russia’s alleged direct responsibility for the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in 2014. Ukraine had labeled Russia a “terrorist state” and sought compensation for civilians affected by the conflict and the MH17 incident.

The ICJ ruled that Russia’s obligations under the international convention on terrorism financing were limited to investigating financial transactions, excluding the provision of weapons or training to “terrorist” groups. “The alleged supply of weapons to various armed groups operating in Ukraine … fall outside the material scope of the ICSFT” convention, the ICJ stated. Despite dismissing most of Ukraine’s claims, the court reiterated its order for Russia to probe any credible allegations of financing “terrorism.”

The court also addressed Russia’s alleged discrimination against the Tatar minority and Ukrainian speakers in Crimea, finding Russia had not done enough to facilitate education in Ukrainian. During the hearings, Russia’s ambassador to the Netherlands, Alexander Shulgin, accused Ukraine of presenting “blatant lies and false accusations … even to this court.” In response, Ukraine’s top diplomat, Anton Korynevych, argued that Russia aimed to “wipe us off the map,” citing the illegal occupation of Crimea and efforts at “cultural erasure” targeting ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars.

This ruling precedes another anticipated ICJ decision regarding Ukraine’s accusation of Russia misusing the UN’s 1948 Genocide Convention to justify its 2022 invasion. While ICJ’s judgments are final and beyond appeal, the court lacks enforcement mechanisms.