- 42 the positions and allegations of both Parties. The Russian Federation also submits that face-to-face negotiations were carried out within an unduly short time frame owing to choices made by Ukraine, which resulted in little progress being made. * 115. Ukraine states that it engaged in good-faith negotiations by sending multiple Notes Verbales to the Russian Federation, making concrete proposals for the organization of the negotiations and detailing the acts of racial discrimination allegedly being committed against the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian communities of Crimea. Ukraine maintains that its attempts to negotiate directly with the Russian Federation were not met with substantive responses, since there was no reply to any of the Notes Verbales concerning the Russian Federation’s alleged conduct in violation of CERD sent by Ukraine before the filing of the Application. Nonetheless, Ukraine contends that it persisted in its efforts to engage with the Russian Federation, which included three face-to-face meetings in Minsk. The Applicant maintains that it has meticulously put the Russian Federation on notice with respect to the facts which allegedly constitute breaches of CERD and has given the Russian Federation ample opportunity to respond over a two-year period. Ukraine submits that it only filed its Application with the Court when it had become clear that further negotiations would have been fruitless, considering that no progress had been made and that there had been no change in the Parties’ respective positions. The Applicant also rejects the Respondent’s attempts to show that it acted in bad faith while conducting negotiations with respect to CERD. * * 116. The Court has already had the opportunity to examine the notion of “negotiation” under Article 22 of CERD. In the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), the Court stated that “negotiations are distinct from mere protests or disputations. Negotiations entail more than the plain opposition of legal views or interests between two parties, or the existence of a series of accusations and rebuttals, or even the exchange of claims and directly opposed counter-claims. As such, the concept of ‘negotiations’ differs from the concept of ‘dispute’, and requires — at the very least — a genuine attempt by one of the disputing parties to engage in discussions with the other disputing party, with a view to resolving the dispute.” (Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 132, para. 157; see also Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010 (I), p. 68, para. 150; North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969, pp. 47–48, para. 87; Railway Traffic between Lithuania and Poland, Advisory Opinion, 1931, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 42, p. 116.)