- 30 67. The Russian Federation is of the view that it is not sufficient for the Parties simply to enter into negotiations; these must be meaningful and pursued “as far as possible”. The Respondent argues that “mere protests and disputations” are not sufficient to fulfil the precondition relating to negotiation. It maintains that Ukraine did not attempt to negotiate in good faith. The Russian Federation considers that Ukraine only engaged in negotiations “with a view to bring this dispute before this Court” and not with the objective of settling the matters in contention between the Parties. It states that during the negotiations Ukraine did not take into account the Russian Federation’s interests. According to the Respondent, Ukraine also did not contemplate any modification to its position and refused to substantiate some of its allegations, notwithstanding requests to do so made by the Russian Federation. The Respondent points out that negotiations took place in Minsk at its suggestion and that it showed its willingness “to contemplate modifications of its own position”. Furthermore, the Russian Federation contends that, in its Notes Verbales, the Applicant mainly did not address the ICSFT, but rather raised allegations of acts of aggression and of intervention in the internal affairs of Ukraine. * 68. Ukraine points out that the Parties negotiated extensively for two years, even though the dispute ultimately could not be resolved by negotiations. It mentions that it sent more than twenty Notes Verbales to the Russian Federation and that the Parties met in four rounds of in-person negotiations. Ukraine maintains that it has genuinely attempted to negotiate with the Russian Federation and to discuss in good faith all the issues separating them under the ICSFT. Ukraine specifies that the negotiations did not concern acts of aggression and intervention. In the Applicant’s opinion, there was no genuine attempt by the Russian Federation to settle the dispute as it did not meaningfully engage with the claims raised by Ukraine and refused to take account of the latter’s positions. The Applicant is of the view that, when negotiations have been conducted “as far as possible with a view to settling the dispute” but have failed, become futile or reached a deadlock, the precondition of holding negotiations is fulfilled. Ukraine submits that Article 24, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT only requires negotiations to be conducted for a “reasonable time” and not to the point of futility. Ukraine contends that it would not have been reasonable to require further negotiations between the Parties for an extended period of time. * * 69. The Court considers that Article 24, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT requires, as a first procedural precondition to the Court’s jurisdiction, that a State makes a genuine attempt to settle through negotiation the dispute in question with the other State concerned. According to the same provision, the precondition of negotiation is met when the dispute “cannot be settled through negotiation within a reasonable time”. As was observed in the case concerning the Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), “the subject-matter of the negotiations must relate to the subject-matter of the dispute which, in turn, must concern the substantive obligations contained in the treaty in question” (Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 133, para. 161).