Litigating war: Russia’s invasion and Ukraine’s escalating legal rhetoric at the International Court of Justice

Abstract

Does an escalation of political conflict between two states also play out in the courtroom? This paper addresses this question by analyzing Ukraine’s legal claims in its case against Russian discrimination and terrorism financing at the International Court of Justice. Drawing on international law and international relations scholarship, the paper argues that the start of Russia’s invasion represents a critical moment in Ukraine’s legal strategy and that escalating claims present both political and legal benefits for Ukraine. Content analysis of Ukraine’s written and oral arguments before and after the invasion shows that claims have escalated in quantity and quality. This provides evidence that politics outside of the courtroom intrude into the courtroom by escalating rhetoric, indicated by more extreme labels and adjacent grievances not covered under the two treaties. The paper provides a micro-account of how one state shifted its legal claims to address new violations and aggression, and thus contributes empirically to scholarship on strategic litigation, outcasting, and role of argumentation.