International Court of Justice – Russia files an application regarding a decision by the ICAO Council.

Sept 2025 : On 18 September 2025, Russia instituted proceedings against Australia and the Netherlands before the International Court of Justice. According to Russia, its Application constitutes an appeal against a decision rendered by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (the “ICAO Council”) on 30^th. June 2025, in proceedings initiated jointly by the above-mentioned States against Russia on 14 March 2022, pursuant to Article 84 of the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (the “Chicago Convention”) concerning the settlement of disputes.

In its Application, Russia states that the proceedings before the ICAO Council “concerned a disagreement relating to the interpretation and application of the Chicago Convention regarding the

aerial incident of the Boeing 777 Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 (‘Flight MH17’) that occurred on 17^th. July 2014”, and that Australia and the Netherlands “claimed before the ICAO Council that the Russian Federation was internationally responsible under the Chicago Convention for the shooting down of Flight MH17 with a ‘Buk’ surface-to-air missile system”. Russia opposed this claim.

In its decision of 30^th. June 2025, the ICAO Council found the claim to be founded and considered that “the shooting down of Flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 constitute[d] a non-conformity by the [Russian Federation] with its obligations under Article 3 bis of the Chicago Convention”.

Russia requests the Court to adjudge and declare that, “in adopting [its decision of 30 June 2025], the ICAO Council erred in fact and in law, [and] breached fundamental principles of proper administration of justice”, and, in particular, that:

“(a) By virtue of Article 89 of the Chicago Convention, the Convention does not apply to situations of armed conflict and, consequently, the ICAO Council does not have competence under Article 84 of the Chicago Convention to settle differences arising in such contexts;

(b) Alternatively, and subsidiarily, Article 3 bis of the Chicago Convention is limited in scope such that it: (i) does not per se apply to situations of armed conflict; (ii) is limited to cases of interception of an aircraft that violates the sovereignty of a State over its airspace; and/or (iii) only applies where an aircraft has been provisionally identified as civilian;

(c) Alternatively, and subsidiarily, the downing of Flight MH17 did not constitute a breach of IHL and, consequently, Article 3 bis of the Chicago Convention was not violated;

(d) Alternatively, and subsidiarily, the ICAO Council caused prejudice in a fundamental way to the requirements of a just procedure;

(e) Alternatively, and subsidiarily, the ICAO Council failed to apply a proper standard of proof, which in light of the gravity of the allegations against the Russian Federation is that of certainty beyond reasonable doubt, and requires evidence that is fully conclusive;

(f) Alternatively, and subsidiarily, the downing of Flight MH17 is not attributable to the Russian Federation under the law of State responsibility;

(g) Alternatively, and subsidiarily, the ICAO Council failed to consider the implications of Ukraine’s involvement in the incident when deciding on the Russian Federation’s responsibility for the downing of Flight MH17;

(h) Alternatively, and subsidiarily, the remedies ordered by the ICAO Council are inconsistent with the Council’s powers under Article 84 of the Chicago Convention;

(i) Alternatively, and subsidiarily, the Respondents’ claim was not well-founded in facts because it relies on evidence that is biased, unreliable, marred with significant technical deficiencies and clear falsifications, disregards the evidence supplied by the Russian Federation, and, by the ICAO Council’s admission, is in many respects circumstantial; and, therefore,

(j) The Final Decision is null and void and without legal effect”.

The Applicant seeks to found the Court’s jurisdiction on Article 84 of the Chicago Convention, in conjunction with Article 36, paragraph 1, and Article 37 of the Statute of the Court. 

Team Maverick