The jurisdiction of the ICJ on indication of Provisional Measures: an emphasis on Ukraine v. Russian Federation 2017

lengthening the period between bringing a claim before the ICJ and making the final decision by this entity might cause prejudice to the rights and interests of the claimant. Therefore, pursuant to Article 41 of the ICJ statute, this entity is allowed to indicate, whenever necessary, provisional measures. Considering provisional measures is often being requested by either party at the early stages of proceedings, and based on the fact that the international courts only have jurisdiction on the basis of consent, the issue of indicating provisional measures when the jurisdiction has not yet been established is open to controversy. The circumstances under which the Court decides to indicate provisional measures are also important. In this regard, it is useful to examine the Court’s approach indicating of provisional measures in relation to the application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in Ukraine v. Russian Federation. The investigation of the law and practice of the Court implies that merely prima facie jurisdiction suffices for the indication of provisional measures, but concerning the conditions required, the Court would apply its own criteria and strictness.