Editorji is a popular short video news and information platform based in India. It was founded in 2018 by Vikram Chandra, one of India’s leading journalists, and has risen to prominence in the digital news space in a relatively short span of time. The platform is primarily designed for mobile devices, with applications available for Android and iOS.

ABOUT US:

about us editorji

Latest Video News: Editorji provides the latest news video headlines, latest videos clip from India and the World. Get all breaking news videos on Entertainment, Business, Coronavirus, Elections, Politics and more.

Latest Video News, Breaking News, Bollywood, Political, Sports, Business News | Editorji

+91 11 4035 6666 / info@editorji.com
3rd floor, Plot B, Khasara no 360, Sultanpur, New Delhi, Delhi 110030
<a title="mail to us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Send Feedback</a>
<a title="Contact Us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Contact Us</a>

REACH US

Contact for any questions, suggestions, comments, feedback or advertisement on Editorji.com, we are always looking forward to hearing from you.

Contact Us for Feedback, Suggestions and Advertising 

Editorji content is better experienced in our app.

The ICJ acknowledges climate change as an existential threat, urging nations to cut emissions and compensate affected countries.

In landmark opinion, UN court says climate change an ‘existential threat’

ICJ declares climate change as a global threat, obligating countries to reduce emissions and offer reparations, shaping future climate litigation.

ICJ recognizes climate change as a global threat, urging nations to act decisively. The ruling clarifies legal duties for climate action, prompting global litigation.

New Delhi, Jul 24 (PTI) - In a momentous ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has recognized climate change as an "urgent, existential threat" and affirmed that it imposes binding legal duties on nations to combat it. This is the ICJ&rsquo;s inaugural advisory opinion on climate change, unanimously approved by all 15 judges, offering newfound clarity regarding countries' responsibilities under international law, likely to trigger a wave of climate litigation globally. The ICJ declared on Wednesday that countries are required to take comprehensive steps to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, cease fossil fuel expansion, and provide reparations to vulnerable nations experiencing climate-related damages. The court emphasized that inaction on emissions, such as fossil fuel production, subsidies, and licensing, might constitute an "internationally wrongful act" attributable to the state. Judge Iwasawa Yuji, in delivering the opinion, described climate change as a "concern of planetary proportions imperiling all forms of life," expressing hope that the court's conclusions will guide social and political actions to resolve the ongoing climate crisis. The court clarified that while nations have discretion in setting climate targets, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), this discretion is not limitless. Rather, states are obligated to apply a "stringent" standard of due diligence, ensuring that their targets represent the "highest possible ambition" and align with the Paris Agreement's objectives. Significantly, the ruling specifies that if restitution is materially impossible, culpable states must compensate for the climate damage caused, thus setting a firm legal precedent for reparations. Although the advisory opinion isn't legally binding, it is derived from existing international treaties and norms, projected to have a significant impact on global climate litigation. Legal analysts predict that courts worldwide will likely reference the opinion in ongoing and future cases, especially those directed at governments and fossil fuel firms for negligence or damage. The court&rsquo;s decision was initiated by a prolonged campaign executed by students from the University of the South Pacific, in collaboration with the Government of Vanuatu and youth-led groups like Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change and World's Youth for Climate Justice. Their campaign culminated in a unanimous UN General Assembly resolution requesting the ICJ's opinion. Legal experts opine that the opinion will enhance the capability to hold polluters accountable and fortify human rights principles, such as the right to a healthy environment, which the court reiterated as a binding norm and a prerequisite for other rights. Responding to the verdict, Sarah Mead, Co-Director of the Climate Litigation Network, stated that the ruling validates the global public's demand for meaningful climate action from their governments. She pointed out that the ICJ&rsquo;s conclusion builds upon rulings from multiple jurisdictions that have similarly held states accountable for inadequate climate action. Lorenzo Cotula, a principal researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), highlighted the tension between the ICJ ruling and existing international investment laws, noting that treaties protecting foreign investments, including in fossil fuel infrastructure, complicate governments' duty to honor the ruling and calling for urgent reform of the investor-state dispute resolution system. Vishal Prasad, Director of Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, celebrated the opinion as a historic achievement by the world's smallest countries. He characterized the opinion as a "lifeline" for frontline communities, who contribute least to climate change yet bear its most severe consequences. Tasneem Essop, Executive Director of Climate Action Network International, remarked that the decision signals the end of the "era of impunity" for polluters and complicit states. She pointed out that with clear legal obligations established, governments and corporations now face both scientific evidence and international law as they approach the UN climate conference COP30 in Brazil. Harjeet Singh, founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, lauded the opinion as a declaration ending impunity for polluters. The opinion suggests that polluters must provide reparations for their actions. The ruling's implications extend to climate negotiations, raising the stakes for future summits, including COP30 in Brazil, where advocates are expected to push for climate justice, accountability, and reparations as the bedrock of future climate governance. Countries including India, during the ICJ hearings, contended that developed nations should bear primary responsibility for climate change, given their historical emissions. India's representative, Luther M Rangreji, joint secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, emphasized that if the contribution to environmental damage is unequal, so should be the responsibility. India urged the court to avoid crafting new obligations beyond the existing international climate framework, which already addresses historical emissions, climate justice, and the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC). India argued that expecting countries with negligible historical emissions to bear an equal strain is inequitable and unfair and called for developed nations to fulfill their financial and technological commitments and lead by example by achieving net-zero well before 2050. Amid this, India critiqued the unkept USD 100 billion pledge by developed countries at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, asserting that the COP29 climate finance package remains insufficient to tackle urgent needs. To highlight its efforts, India underlined that although it houses nearly one-sixth of humanity, it has contributed less than 4% to historical emissions, with its per capita greenhouse gas emissions at less than half the global average. Rangreji insisted that India has been acting in "good faith" as a "solutions provider" while balancing the mandates of poverty eradication and sustainable development. He advised against an overreliance on evolving climate science for obligation-setting, acknowledging that interpreting scientific evidence may entail biases and must not solely guide decisions. Over 90 countries, including both significant emitters and susceptible island states, submitted their stances to the court. While countries like India and the US advocated retaining the primacy of the current UN framework, others lobbied for strong legal guidance concerning climate commitments.
(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
&nbsp;

Gaza: ICJ orders Israel to take all measures to prevent genocide, but stops short of calling ceasefire 

Gaza: ICJordersIsrael to takeallmeasures to preventgenocide

South Africa, which brought the case, had asked for the court to order Israel to halt its operation.

As a part of a preliminary decision, the United Nations&rsquo; top court has decided stopped short of ordering a cease-fire in Gaza.
But the court said that Israel must take steps to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza. The 17-judge bench has not ruled on the merits of the genocide allegations, which may take years to decide.
South Africa, which brought the case, had asked for the court to order Israel to halt its operation.
&nbsp;

South Africa's own identity is key to it bringing the case. Its governing party, the African National Congress, has long compared Israel's policies in Gaza and the West Bank to its own history under the apartheid regime

Gaza: ICJ says it has jurisdiction to rule on case against Israel

South Africa's own identity is key to it bringing the case. Its governing party, the African National Congress, has long compared Israel's policies in Gaza and the West Bank to its own history under the apartheid regime

The United Nations' top court is set to rule on Friday on a call for Israel to halt its military offensive in Gaza, when it issues a preliminary decision in a case accusing Israel of committing genocide in the tiny coastal enclave.
Joan E. Donoghue, president of the International Court of Justice, opened the session to read out the highly anticipated decision made by a panel of 17 judges in a case that goes to the core of one of the world's most intractable conflicts.
In the ruling, which is expected to take about an hour to read out, Donoghue said the court would not throw out the case.
"The court is acutely aware of the extent of the human tragedy that is unfolding in the region and is deeply concerned about the continuing loss of life and human suffering,&rdquo; she said.
Friday's decision, however, is only an interim one; it could take years for the full case brought by South Africa to be considered. Israel rejects the genocide accusation and had asked the court to throw the charges out.
While the case winds its way through the court, South Africa has asked the judges &ldquo;as a matter of extreme urgency&rdquo; to impose so-called provisional measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza.
Top of the South African list is a request for the court to order Israel to &ldquo;immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza.&rdquo; It is also asking for Israel to take &ldquo;reasonable measures&rdquo; to prevent genocide and allow access for desperately needed aid.
In a statement Thursday, Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh said he hoped the decision would &ldquo;include immediate action to stop the aggression and genocide against our people in the Gaza Strip ... and a rapid flow of relief aid to save the hungry, wounded and sick from the threat of slow death that threatens them." Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy said Thursday that Israel expects the court to toss out the &ldquo;spurious and specious charges.&rdquo; Israel often boycotts international tribunals and U.N. investigations, saying they are unfair and biased. But this time, it took the rare step of sending a high-level legal team &mdash; a sign of how seriously it regards the case and likely the fear that any court order to halt operations would be a major blow to the country's international standing.
An Israeli official said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu huddled with top legal, diplomatic and security officials on Thursday in anticipation of the ruling. He said Israel is confident in its case but discussed &ldquo;all scenarios.&rdquo; The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing confidential meetings.
Israel launched its massive air and ground assault on Gaza after Hamas militants stormed through Israeli communities on Oct. 7 killing some 1,200 people, mainly civilians, and abducting another 250.
The offensive has decimated vast swaths of the territory and driven nearly 85% of its 2.3 million people from their homes.
More than 26,000 Palestinians have been killed, the Health Ministry in the Hamas-run enclave said on Friday. The ministry does not differentiate between combatants and civilians in its death toll, but has said about two-thirds of those killed were women and children.
The Israeli military claims at least 9,000 of those killed in the nearly four-month conflict are Hamas militants.
U.N. officials have expressed fears that even more people could die from disease, with at least one-quarter of the population facing starvation.
Marieke de Hoon, an associate professor of international law at the University of Amsterdam, said she thinks the court is unlikely to throw the case out Friday since the legal bar South Africa has to clear at this early stage is lower than the one that would be applied for ruling on the merits of the accusation.
&ldquo;The standard ... is not, has there been genocide? But a lower standard," she said. &ldquo;Is it plausible that there could have been a risk of genocide that would invoke Israel's responsibility to prevent genocide?&rdquo; But De Hoon also does not expect the world court to order an end to Israel's military operation.
&ldquo;I think that they will shy away from actually calling for a full cease-fire, because I think they will find that beyond their abilities right now,&rdquo; she said in a telephone interview.
Provisional measures by the world court are legally binding, but it is not clear if Israel would comply with any order.
Top Hamas official Osama Hamdan, meanwhile, said his group would abide by a cease-fire if ordered and would be ready to release the hostages it is holding if Israel releases Palestinian prisoners.
How the US, Israel's top ally, responds to any order will be key, since it wields veto power at the U.N. Security Council and thus could block measures there aimed at forcing Israel's compliance.
The US has said Israel has the right to defend itself, but also spoken about the need for the country to protect civilians in Gaza and allow more aid in.
The genocide case strikes at the national identity of Israel, which was founded as a Jewish state after the Nazi slaughter of 6 million Jews during World War II.
South Africa's own identity is key to it bringing the case. Its governing party, the African National Congress, has long compared Israel's policies in Gaza and the West Bank to its own history under the apartheid regime of white minority rule, which restricted most Black people to &ldquo;homelands&rdquo; before ending in 1994.&nbsp;

Adila Hassim, one of the lawyers representing South Africa's Gaza genocide case at the International Court of Justice, on January 10 provided one of the damming indictments of Israel's action in the besieged city.

Who is Adila Hassim, the lawyer fighting 'genocide' case against Israel at ICJ?

South African lawyer at ICJ says Israel's actions in Gaza fit for genocide  

Adila Hassim, one of the lawyers representing South Africa's Gaza genocide case at the International Court of Justice, on January 10 provided one of the damming indictments of Israel's action in the besieged city.

Adila Hassim, one of the lawyers representing South Africa's Gaza genocide case at the International Court of Justice, on January 10 provided one of the damming indictments of Israel's action in the besieged city.
The South African lawyer's fiery speech in front of the 15-judge panel in a full courtroom drew immense applause online.
Here's what we know about the ace lawyer picked by the government:
Hassim has been involved in socio-economic rights matters for decades. Her preferred areas of practice include constitutional, administrative, health, and competition law.
Hassim has been an acting judge and has published various legal and health journals. She is also the co-founder of the anti-corruption organisation Corruption Watch.
South Africa vs Israel at ICJ
A continent away from the war in Gaza, South Africa accused Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinians and pleaded with the United Nations&rsquo; top court on Thursday to urgently order a halt the country&rsquo;s military operation. Israel has vehemently denied the allegations.
South African lawyers said during the opening arguments that the latest Gaza war is part of a decadeslong oppression of the Palestinians by Israel.
They asked judges to impose binding preliminary orders on Israel, including an immediate halt to Israel&rsquo;s military campaign in Gaza.
And South Africa insisted Israel committed genocide by design.
"For the past 96 days, Israel has subjected Gaza to what has been described as one of the heaviest conventional bombing campaigns in the history of modern warfare," South African lawyer Adila Hassim told the judges and audience in the packed, ornate room of the Peace Palace in The Hague.
Hassim said that the destruction of Palestinian towns and insufficient aid reaching the Palestinian people "renders essentials to life unobtainable.&rdquo;
South African lawyer Tembeka Ngcukaitobi added that Israel had "genocidal intent" against Palestinians in Gaza, with a "clear pattern of conduct" that targeted civilian infrastructure.
Israel&rsquo;s offensive has killed more than 23,200 Palestinians in Gaza, according to the Health Ministry in the Hamas-run enclave.
The dispute strikes at the heart of Israel&rsquo;s national identity as a Jewish state created in the aftermath of the Nazi genocide in the Holocaust, during which 6 million Jews were murdered.
It also evokes issues central to South Africa&rsquo;s own identity: Its governing party, the African National Congress, has long compared Israel&rsquo;s policies in Gaza and the West Bank to its own history under the apartheid regime of white minority rule, which restricted most Blacks to &ldquo;homelands&rdquo; before ending in 1994.
(With AP inputs)
Also watch: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/international-court-of-justice-opens-hearings-into-genocide-allegations-against-israel-1704977206548#google_vignette">International Court of Justice opens hearings into genocide allegations against Israel</a>

The family of slain Pulitzer-winning photojournalist Danish Siddiqui has lodged a complaint with the International Criminal Court to probe his killing and to bring to book those responsible, including high-level commanders and leaders of the Taliban, their lawyer Avi Singh said on Tuesday.
Siddiqui, 38, was on assignment in Afghanistan when he was killed on July 16 last year. The journalist was covering clashes between Afghan troops and the Taliban in Spin Boldak district of Kandahar city.
Addressing a press conference, Singh said the formal complaint has been filed against Taliban commanders, including Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada, Supreme Commander of the Taliban; Mullah Hassan Akhund, Head of the Taliban Leadership Council; Mawlawi Muhammad Yaqoob Mujahid, Minister of Defence, Taliban; Gul Agha Sherzai, Governor of the Kandahar Province; Zabbihullah Mujahid, Taliban spokesperson; and Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, Head of Taliban's Political Office in Qatar.
The complaint has also been filed against local commanders as well as perpetrators.
Singh said they will also be seeking help from the Indian government in the matter.
"We have just filed before the International Criminal Court (ICC) a complaint with regard to the condition of war crimes and crimes against humanity on and about July 16 in the context of Pulitzer prize winning photojournalist Danish Siddiqui's murder," he said.
The lawyer said the complaint has been filed on behalf of Siddiqui's parents -- Akhtar Siddiqui and Shahida Akhtar.
Singh said the journalist was attacked by the Red Unit of the Taliban. He said the body was mutilated, including being run over by a heavy vehicle in public. The body revealed marks of brutal torture and 12 bullets' entry and exit points, the lawyer said.
"The Taliban targeted and killed Siddiqui because he was a journalist and an Indian. That is an international crime. In the absence of rule of law in Afghanistan, the ICC has jurisdiction to investigate and try the perpetrators of Siddiqui's murder. As the Taliban strives for international legitimacy, it must face accountability for its past actions," he said.
Singh further said there are sufficient independent sources on what happened on July 16 after the journalist was injured in the attack where he was on an assignment by Reuters.
"He was taken to a mosque for medical treatment and despite the mosque being historically an international customary place of refuge, it was attacked by the Taliban. Siddiqui had very clear identification that he was press. He had his passport on him and he was not a combatant.
"He was then illegally detained, by all independent accounts, he was tortured thereafter. In fact, his bullet-proof jacket was intact when his body was received by the family," Singh added.
Siddiqui's brother Omar Siddiqui said the perpetrators must be brought to justice.
"It has been quite painful with what happened with Danish and we have not totally come out of this. I know it is a very long journey which we are taking, but it is a moral obligation and our responsibility to pursue what happened with him, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice," he said.
Siddiqui's mother, Shahida Akhtar said, "Danish, our loving son was murdered by the Taliban for simply carrying out his journalistic duties.
"He was subjected to barbaric levels of torture and mutilation while in their custody. Danish always stood for honesty and integrity in his work. He always showcased the pain and suffering of the people. He was brave and courageous all along," she said.
Singh said the torture and murder of Siddiqui is not an isolated case. The Taliban's military code of conduct, published as the Layha, has a policy of attacking civilians, including journalists. It has claimed responsibility, with impunity, for the targeted abductions and killings of journalists and other members of the civil society.
The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan documents over 70,000 civilian casualties attributed to the Taliban.
The International Criminal Court has been engaged in an ongoing investigation on international crimes, including crimes against humanity and war crimes, in Afghanistan, over which it has jurisdiction after Afghanistan's government acceded to the Rome Statute.

Explained: why have slain photojournalist Danish Siddiqui's kin moved ICJ against Taliban

The family of slain Pulitzer-winning photojournalist Danish Siddiqui has lodged a complaint with the International Criminal Court to probe his killing.
Siddiqui, was on assignment in Afghanistan when he was killed on July 16 last year. The journalist was covering clashes between Afghan troops and the Taliban in Spin Boldak district of Kandahar city.
The formal complaint has been filed against Taliban commanders, including Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada, Supreme Commander of the Taliban. SOT
The complaint has been filed on behalf of Siddiqui's parents -- Akhtar Siddiqui and Shahida Akhtar.
The family's lawyer said&nbsp;the journalist was attacked by the Red Unit of the Taliban. Siddiqui's was mutilated, including being run over by a heavy vehicle in public. The body revealed marks of brutal torture and 12 bullets' entry and exit points.
The family said there are sufficient independent sources on what happened on July 16 after the journalist was injured in the attack where he was on an assignment by Reuters.
SOT- "He was taken to a mosque for medical treatment and despite the mosque being historically an international customary place of refuge, it was attacked by the Taliban. Siddiqui had very clear identification that he was press. He had his passport on him and he was not a combatant.
Siddiqui's&nbsp;family said the perpetrators must be brought to justice. MOTHER SOT
The International Criminal Court has been engaged in an ongoing investigation on international crimes, including crimes against humanity and war crimes, in Afghanistan, over which it has jurisdiction after Afghanistan's government acceded to the Rome Statute.

The formal complaint has been filed against Taliban commanders, including Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada, Supreme Commander of the Taliban.

The family of slain Pulitzer-winning photojournalist Danish Siddiqui has lodged a complaint with the International Criminal Court to probe his killing and to bring to book those responsible, including high-level commanders and leaders of the Taliban, their lawyer Avi Singh said on Tuesday.
Siddiqui, 38, was on assignment in Afghanistan when he was killed on July 16 last year. The journalist was covering clashes between Afghan troops and the Taliban in Spin Boldak district of Kandahar city.
Addressing a press conference, Singh said the formal complaint has been filed against Taliban commanders, including Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada, Supreme Commander of the Taliban; Mullah Hassan Akhund, Head of the Taliban Leadership Council; Mawlawi Muhammad Yaqoob Mujahid, Minister of Defence, Taliban; Gul Agha Sherzai, Governor of the Kandahar Province; Zabbihullah Mujahid, Taliban spokesperson; and Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, Head of Taliban's Political Office in Qatar.
The complaint has also been filed against local commanders as well as perpetrators.
Singh said they will also be seeking help from the Indian government in the matter.
"We have just filed before the International Criminal Court (ICC) a complaint with regard to the condition of war crimes and crimes against humanity on and about July 16 in the context of Pulitzer prize winning photojournalist Danish Siddiqui's murder," he said.
The lawyer said the complaint has been filed on behalf of Siddiqui's parents -- Akhtar Siddiqui and Shahida Akhtar.
Singh said the journalist was attacked by the Red Unit of the Taliban. He said the body was mutilated, including being run over by a heavy vehicle in public. The body revealed marks of brutal torture and 12 bullets' entry and exit points, the lawyer said.
"The Taliban targeted and killed Siddiqui because he was a journalist and an Indian. That is an international crime. In the absence of rule of law in Afghanistan, the ICC has jurisdiction to investigate and try the perpetrators of Siddiqui's murder. As the Taliban strives for international legitimacy, it must face accountability for its past actions," he said.
Singh further said there are sufficient independent sources on what happened on July 16 after the journalist was injured in the attack where he was on an assignment by Reuters.
"He was taken to a mosque for medical treatment and despite the mosque being historically an international customary place of refuge, it was attacked by the Taliban. Siddiqui had very clear identification that he was press. He had his passport on him and he was not a combatant.
"He was then illegally detained, by all independent accounts, he was tortured thereafter.&nbsp;In fact, his bullet-proof jacket was intact when his body was received by the family," Singh added.
Siddiqui's brother Omar Siddiqui said the perpetrators must be brought to justice.
"It has been quite painful with what happened with Danish and we have not totally come out of this. I know it is a very long journey which we are taking, but it is a moral obligation and our responsibility to pursue what happened with him, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice," he said.
Siddiqui's mother, Shahida Akhtar said, "Danish, our loving son was murdered by the Taliban for simply carrying out his journalistic duties.
"He was subjected to barbaric levels of torture and mutilation while in their custody. Danish always stood for honesty and integrity in his work. He always showcased the pain and suffering of the people. He was brave and courageous all along," she said.
Singh said the torture and murder of Siddiqui is not an isolated case. The Taliban's military code of conduct, published as the Layha, has a policy of attacking civilians, including journalists. It has claimed responsibility, with impunity, for the targeted abductions and killings of journalists and other members of the civil society.
The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan documents over 70,000 civilian casualties attributed to the Taliban.
The International Criminal Court has been engaged in an ongoing investigation on international crimes, including crimes against humanity and war crimes, in Afghanistan, over which it has jurisdiction after Afghanistan's government acceded to the Rome Statute.

While Indian government has abstained from anti-Russia votes at the UN in the wake of Ukraine invasion, an Indian judge at the International Court of Justice has taken an independent line.
Justice Dalveer Bhandari voted against Russia.on Wednesday as the UN top court ordered Russia to suspend its invasion of Ukraine, saying it was "profoundly concerned" by Moscow's use of force.
Kyiv dragged Moscow to the UN's top court days after Russia's attack on February 24.
Justice Bhandari was nominated to the ICJ entirely on the support of the government and various missions over a period of time.
Justice Bhandari voting against Russia, though an independent move based on his interpretation of the Russia-Ukraine issue, is different from what India's official position has been in different international fora.
India has abstained from voting on the Ukraine-Russia issue in the UN and instead called on both sides to focus on negotiations and end hostilities.

Ukraine War: At International Court, Indian judge differs from govt line, votes against Russia

ICJ&nbsp;orders&nbsp;Russia to suspend its invasion of Ukraine
Indian judge at UN top court&nbsp;votes against Russia
Kyiv&nbsp;dragged Moscow to ICJ&nbsp;days after invasion
Justice Bhandari was nominated to ICJ&nbsp;with govt help
India has abstained from votes against Russia at UN
&nbsp;

Ukraine Invasion:&nbsp;Kyiv dragged Moscow to the UN's top court days after Russia's attack on February 24.

While Indian government has abstained from anti-Russia votes at the UN in the wake of <a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/ukraine-war-russia-bombed-theatre-in-mariupol-where-hundreds-took-shelter-1647501100787">Ukraine invasion</a>, an Indian judge at the International Court of Justice has taken an independent line.
Justice Dalveer Bhandari voted against Russia.on Wednesday as the UN top court ordered Russia to suspend its invasion of Ukraine, saying it was "profoundly concerned" by Moscow's use of force.
Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/watch-inside-ukraine-tank-video-when-it-fires-at-russian-armoured-car-moscow-s-drone-attack-footage-1647355208528">Watch: Inside Ukraine tank video when it fires at Russian armoured car; Moscow's drone attack footage</a>
Kyiv dragged Moscow to the UN's top court days after Russia's attack on February 24.
Justice Bhandari was nominated to the ICJ entirely on the support of the government and various missions over a period of time.
Justice Bhandari voting against Russia, though an independent move based on his interpretation of the Russia-Ukraine issue, is different from what India's official position has been in different international fora.
India has abstained from voting on the Ukraine-Russia issue in the UN and instead called on both sides to focus on negotiations and end hostilities.
Also Watch|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/ukraine-russia-close-to-finalising-15-point-plan-to-end-war-1647443831790" target="_blank">Russia - Ukraine peace plan: Watch details of pact under discussion; NATO, seized territories main topics</a>

With the Russia-Ukraine war continuing for the 12th day on March 7, the International Court of Justice convened to hear Ukraine's appeal for an emergency ruling ordering Russia to stop its military invasion.In a sign of growing belligerence, Russia did not send a delegation to attend the oral proceedings at The Hague.Ukraine's representative accused Russia of violating the genocide convention to create a pretext to invade its neighbour.Kyiv has sought ordering of "provisional measures", or interim orders, by the ICJ to halt Russia's military advance.ICJ's rulings are binding on countries, but there is no framework to directly enforce them.

Russia skips hearing at International Court of Justice; Ukraine seeks provisional measures to stop war

((SHORT OPENING BYTES))
 ANTON KORYNEVYCH, UKRAINIAN REPRESENTATIVE https://bit.ly/3IRr5Q2 (0:56 - 1:00, 1:05 - 1:09) The fact that Russian seats are empty speaks loudly. They are on a battlefield waging aggressive war against my country.
 JUDGE JOAN E. DONOGHUE, ICJ PRESIDENT https://bit.ly/34jov6s (1:43 - 1:43) The court regrets the non-appearance of the Russian Federation in these oral proceedings.
 ((ICJ + WAR VISUALS))
 With the Russia-Ukraine war continuing for the 12th day, the International Court of Justice convened on March 7 to hear Ukraine's appeal for an emergency ruling ordering Russia to stop its military invasion. In a sign of growing belligerence, Russia did not send a delegation to attend the oral proceedings at The Hague. Ukraine's representative accused Russia of violating the genocide convention to create a pretext to invade its neighbour. Kyiv has sought ordering of "provisional measures", or interim orders, by the ICJ to halt Russia's military advance. ICJ's rulings are binding on countries, but there is no framework to directly enforce them.
&nbsp;
 BYTE ANTON KORYNEVYCH, UKRAINIAN REPRESENTATIVE https://bit.ly/3IRr5Q2 (0:56 - 1:09,&nbsp;1:57 - 2:01,&nbsp;2:27 - 2:45,&nbsp;2:49 - 3:22)
THE HAGUE MARCH 7, 2022
&nbsp;
BYTE JUDGE JOAN E. DONOGHUE, ICJ PRESIDENT https://bit.ly/34jov6s (1:26 - 1:48) THE HAGUE MARCH 7, 2022
 ============================================
CAPTIONS Ukraine war: Hearing at International Court of Justice Kyiv accused Russia of misusing genocide convention Ukraine seeking provisional measures order by ICJ Russia skipped ICJ hearing; did not send delegation
&nbsp;

<div>Ukraine's representative accused Russia of violating the genocide convention to create a pretext to invade its neighbour.</div>

With the Russia-Ukraine war continuing for the 12th day on March 7, the International Court of Justice convened to hear Ukraine's appeal for an emergency ruling ordering Russia to stop its military invasion.
In a sign of growing belligerence, Russia did not send a delegation to attend the oral proceedings at The Hague.
 Ukraine's representative accused Russia of violating the genocide convention to create a pretext to invade its neighbour. Anton Korynevych said, "The world said never again to the twin evils of Nazism, aggression and genocide. Unfortunately, today, Russia has perverted those words. It does not treat the duty to prevent and punish genocide as a sacred obligation. It treats it as a weapon. With its false claim of genocide, Russia uses one pillar of modern international legal order to destroy the other. By falsely claiming genocide to justify its crime of aggression and acts of aggression, Russia has defiled the Genocide Convention."
ALSO WATCH |<a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/ukraine-invasion-pm-modi-speaks-to-president-zelenskyy-amid-russia-war-thanks-him-for-evacuations-1646636104636" target="_blank">&nbsp;PM Modi speaks to President Zelenskyy amid Russia war, thanks him for evacuations</a>
 The Ukrainian representative added, "Russia consented to your jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention. Now it is abusing and violating that convention in order to kill Ukrainians and destroy Ukraine. Russia must be stopped and the court has a role to play in stopping it. That is why the people of Ukraine, the government of Ukraine, the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, ask you respectfully but urgently to grant our request for provisional measures."
 Kyiv has sought ordering of "provisional measures", or interim orders, by the ICJ to halt Russia's military advance.
 Meanwhile, the court regretted Russia's absence at the hearing. Judge Joan E. Donoghue, President of the ICJ said that&nbsp;Russia&rsquo;s ambassador to the Netherlands had informed judges that "his government did not intend to participate in the oral proceedings."
 ICJ's rulings are binding on countries, but there is no framework to directly enforce them.

icj

Categories