- 21 28. As the Court has observed, applications that are submitted to it often present a particular dispute that arises in the context of a broader disagreement between the parties (Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 13 February 2019, para. 36; Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile), Preliminary Objection, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2015 (II), p. 604, para. 32). The fact that a dispute before the Court forms part of a complex situation that includes various matters, however important, over which the States concerned hold opposite views, cannot lead the Court to decline to resolve that dispute, provided that the parties have recognized its jurisdiction to do so and the conditions for the exercise of its jurisdiction are otherwise met. 29. In the present case, the Court notes that Ukraine is not requesting that it rule on issues concerning the Russian Federation’s purported “aggression” or its alleged “unlawful occupation” of Ukrainian territory. Nor is the Applicant seeking a pronouncement from the Court on the status of Crimea or on any violations of rules of international law other than those contained in the ICSFT and CERD. These matters therefore do not constitute the subject-matter of the dispute before the Court. 30. The Court observes that Ukraine requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the Russian Federation has violated a number of provisions of the ICSFT and CERD, that it bears international responsibility for those violations, and that it is required to cease such violations and make reparation for the consequences thereof. 31. The Court considers that it follows from the opposing views expressed by the Parties in the present case that the dispute consists of two aspects. First, the Parties differ as to whether any rights and obligations of the Parties under the ICSFT with regard to the prevention and suppression of the financing of terrorism were engaged in the context of events which occurred in eastern Ukraine starting in the spring of 2014, and whether terrorism financing offences, within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT, were committed. As a result of these differences of views, the Parties draw opposite conclusions as to the alleged breaches by the Russian Federation of its obligations under Articles 8, 9, 10, 12 and 18 of the ICSFT and as to its ensuing international responsibility. Secondly, the Parties disagree as to whether the decisions or measures allegedly taken by the Russian Federation against the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian communities in Crimea constitute acts of racial discrimination and whether the Russian Federation bears responsibility in that regard for the violation of its obligations under Articles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of CERD. 32. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the subject-matter of the dispute, in so far as its first aspect is concerned, is whether the Russian Federation had the obligation, under the ICSFT, to take measures and to co-operate in the prevention and suppression of the alleged financing of terrorism in the context of events in eastern Ukraine and, if so, whether the Russian Federation breached such an obligation. The subject-matter of the dispute, in so far as its second aspect is concerned, is whether the Russian Federation breached its obligations under CERD through discriminatory measures allegedly taken against the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian communities in Crimea.