- 31 70. The Court recalls that, on 28 July 2014, Ukraine wrote a Note Verbale to the
Russian Federation, stating that
“under the provisions of the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the
Financing of Terrorism, the Russian Party is under an obligation to take such
measures, which may be necessary under its domestic law to investigate the facts
contained in the information submitted by the Ukrainian Party, as well as to prosecute
persons involved in financing of terrorism”,
and proposing “to conduct negotiations on the issue of interpretation and application of the
[ICSFT]”. On 15 August 2014, the Russian Federation informed Ukraine of its “readiness to
conduct negotiations on the issue of interpretation and application of the [ICSFT]”. While
exchanges of Notes and meetings between the Parties did not always focus on the interpretation or
application of the ICSFT, negotiations over Ukraine’s claims relating to this Convention were a
substantial part. In particular, in a Note Verbale of 24 September 2014 Ukraine contended that
“the Russian Side illegally, directly and indirectly, intentionally transfers military
equipment, provides the funds for terrorists training on its territory, gives them
material support and send[s] them to the territory of Ukraine for participation in the
terrorist activities of the DPR and the LPR etc.”.
On 24 November 2014, the Russian Federation contested that the acts alleged by Ukraine could
constitute violations of the ICSFT, but accepted that the agenda for bilateral consultations include
the “international legal basis for suppression of financing of terrorism as applicable to the
Russian-Ukrainian relations”. After that Note, several others followed; moreover, four meetings
were held in Minsk, the last one on 17 March 2016. Little progress was made by the Parties during
their negotiations. The Court therefore concludes that the dispute could not be settled through
negotiation in what has to be regarded as a reasonable time and that the first precondition is
accordingly met.
2. Whether the Parties were unable to agree on the organization of an arbitration
71. The Russian Federation contends that Ukraine has also not satisfied the precondition to
submit the Parties’ dispute to arbitration. It argues that Ukraine did not properly engage in
negotiations with a view to organize an arbitration. It points out that Ukraine insisted that an
ad hoc chamber of the Court should be constituted as the forum for arbitration, and in the
Russian Federation’s view, this suggestion was not apposite because referral of the dispute to a
chamber of the Court cannot be regarded as a form of submission to arbitration.
72. The Russian Federation also points out that, according to Article 24, paragraph 1, of the
ICSFT, a claim may be brought before the Court only if the Parties have been unable to agree on
the organization of an arbitration within six months from the date of the request by one of them for
arbitration. It considers that it is not sufficient “as a matter of fact” that the six-month period has
elapsed without reaching any agreement on the organization of the arbitration. What is required, the
Respondent maintains, is a “genuine attempt” to reach an agreement. In the Russian Federation’s