iscover
The Australian government has hit back against Russia’s move to appeal its guilty verdict in the downing of flight MH17.
The Russian government has this month gone to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to try and have the ruling overturned after the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Council in May concluded it had violated international law on the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight.
This content is available exclusively to Australian Aviation members.
A monthly membership is only $5.99 or save with our annual plans.
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Unlimited access to all Australian Aviation digital content
- Access to the Australian Aviation app
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Access to our Behind the Lens photo galleries and other exclusive content
- Daily news updates via our email bulletin
- Unlimited access to all Australian Aviation digital content
- Access to the Australian Aviation app
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Access to our Behind the Lens photo galleries and other exclusive content
- Daily news updates via our email bulletin
The Malaysia Airlines flight was shot down over Ukraine in 2014, killing 298 people on board, including 38 Australians.
Post-crash investigations laid blame on personnel supplied with Russian anti-air weaponry in the area, with Australia in July this year demanding reparations following ICAO’s finding.
In a statement on social media, Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong labelled Russia’s appeal a “deplorable” attempt to dodge responsibility for the attack.
“Australia will strongly resist any attempts to impugn the decision of the ICAO Council,” Minister Wong said.
“We continue to stand with the 298 victims, including 38 Australians, and their families in the pursuit of truth, justice, and accountability. We again call on Russia to face up to its responsibility and make reparations, as required under international law.”
In a press release last week, the Russian government called the verdict a “pre-arranged decision” and said the ICAO Council had “distorted or disregarded” Russia’s arguments and “violated its own procedure … for time-serving political reasons”.
“Contrary to the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2166, the ICAO Council did not consider it necessary to carry out a comprehensive, thorough and independent international investigation of the crash, instead taking at faith value the highly questionable conclusions of the technical and criminal investigation carried out under the auspices of an interested party, the Netherlands, and on the basis of adulterated facts that were mostly provided by another interested party, Ukraine.
“Therefore, Russia is appealing the ICAO Council’s decision on all grounds, including on grounds of jurisdiction, applicable law, factual findings, and fatal procedural violations. The fact of the appeal in no way amounts to Russia’s legitimisation or recognition of the ICAO Council’s actions in this case, which Russia previously declared to be void.
“We hope that the International Court of Justice will take an entirely impartial stance on this high-profile case.”
According to Russia, the ICAO Council’s decision “has been appealed and consequently has not come into effect”.
“This will be a huge disappointment for The Hague and Canberra, which have already demanded compensation from Russia based on the result of the ICAO Council’s pseudo-legal actions, and have likely prepared to slander Russia at the 42nd Session of the ICAO Assembly, which will begin in Montreal on September 23,” it said.
“Russia will continue to pursue the truth in accordance with its obligations under the UN Charter and applicable norms of international law.”
The then-Morrison government had launched legal proceedings against Russia in 2022 alongside the Netherlands, with ICAO last year ruling that it did have jurisdiction to hear the case.
