Statement by Chargé d’Affaires a.i. Anna Evstigneeva at a UNSC Briefing on Strengthening the Mechanisms for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes
Mr. President,
We welcome the personal participation of Terese Wagner, Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation, and Francophonie, in this open debate on one of the key items on the UN agenda – that is, the peaceful settlement of international disputes.
In the complex and rapidly evolving system of international relations, where the interests of many States are intertwined, disagreements are inevitable. That is precisely why the instruments for the peaceful settlement of disputes, enshrined in the UN Charter, must remain the only foundation for maintaining international peace and security.
We welcome the UN Secretary-General’s statement today expressing the readiness of the UN to assist Security Council members in resolving differences arising when they attempt to interpret events in an impartial manner. We stress the importance of further strengthening this impartiality.
A year ago, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2788, drafted by our Pakistani colleagues, which reaffirmed the commitment to the mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes set forth in Article 33 of the UN Charter. Today, as part of the follow-up envisaged in that document, we are once again turning to the issue of the peaceful settlement of disputes in order to assess how this principle is being implemented. In this regard, we would like to share the following observations.
Russia has traditionally attached great importance to the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes. When the UN was established, this principle was placed at the very heart of the Organization; it was enshrined in Chapter VI of the UN Charter, and further reaffirmed in a number of fundamental consensus documents of the General Assembly, including the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law and the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. The successful implementation of this principle hinges on the strict and good-faith observance of all norms of international law as a whole and in relation to each other, as well as on the rejection of politicization and double standards and reliance on verifiable facts.
States are obligated to settle their disputes using the means and mechanisms agreed upon among them. The range of such means, listed in Article 33 of the UN Charter, is quite broad and includes negotiations, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, recourse to regional agencies or arrangements, as well as other peaceful means of the parties’ own choice. Sovereign States are free to choose these means, and any settlement must be carried out in good faith and on the basis of the consent of the parties.
A special role in this system is played by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is the principal judicial body of the United Nations. Despite the unprecedented pressure and attempts to use the Court for geopolitical purposes, including through massive interventions by third parties to support one of the parties to the dispute, the ICJ has managed to preserve its independence. Ukraine’s repeated attempts to abuse judicial procedures have failed time and again. As a result, Ukraine is now the defendant in a case concerning genocide against the Russian and Russian-speaking populations.
Today, international law is being put to a strength test, with certain States attempting to replace it with a so-called “rules-based international order” and politicize judicial proceedings. Therefore, protecting the Court from abuse and manipulation must be a priority for the whole international community.
Mr. President,
The past year has confirmed the continued relevance of arbitration as one of the means of the peaceful settlement of disputes provided for in Article 33 of the UN Charter. A clear example is the recently concluded arbitration proceedings between the Russian Federation and Ukraine concerning maritime law, whereby a panel of five independent arbitrators unanimously rejected Kiev’s numerous claims.
Let me highlight the key elements of this ruling.
Kiev’s efforts to challenge the Russian Federation’s sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and the adjacent maritime areas have failed. The tribunal dismissed Ukraine’s claims for the return of control over hydrocarbon, fishery, and other resources in the waters of Crimea and the Azov region, as well as any “compensation.” Ukraine’s attempt, supported by Western countries, to designate the Kerch Strait as “international” with the right of passage for vessels of all countries, including warships, has failed as well. The arbitration formally recognized the status of the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov as internal waters forming part of sovereign State territory. The tribunal found that the temporary restrictions introduced by the Russian Federation on the passage of foreign State vessels and warships in certain areas of the Black Sea were fully justified. The construction of the Crimean Bridge, the transfer of floating drilling platforms under Russian jurisdiction, and inspections of vessels by Russian border guards in the Kerch Strait were all found to be in compliance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The tribunal made only one observation vis-à-vis Russia, which concerned procedural aspects having to do with environmental impact assessment (EIA) during the construction of infrastructure facilities. At the same time, the tribunal explicitly stated that these procedural observations entail no obligation to cease the activities in question, nor to provide reparations or compensation. Furthermore, it confirmed that the construction had caused no harm to the environment.
This decision serves as yet another confirmation of the groundlessness of the accusations levelled against our country, while clearly demonstrating the futility of attempts to exploit international judicial and arbitration mechanisms for geopolitical purposes. It also shows that, with a good-faith approach and a reliance on international law rather than on political expediency, international justice is capable of delivering objective and fair decisions.
Mr. President,
The various means for the peaceful settlement of disputes provide States with broad opportunities and enormous potential for resolving differences that may arise between them. However, lasting results can only be achieved if the parties to the dispute apply these means in good faith and in a coordinated manner, without externally imposed solutions. The Russian Federation has consistently adhered to this approach. We stand ready to continue sharing our experience in the peaceful settlement of disputes with all interested partners.
Thank you.
