Keeping score: an empirical analysis of the interventions in Ukraine v Russia

Abstract

Abstract The Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russia) case involves an unprecedented number of Article 63 declarations of intervention. We consider the specific arguments made in individual declarations, but also the mass nature of the declarations. In order to do this in a systematic manner, we employ empirical methods to identify those declarations and arguments that are more central and those that are more unique. Using citation network analysis, we identify the main and central arguments presented by states in their declarations. Moreover, we find evidence that states have co-operated in the preparation of their intervention declarations, using Article 63 as an opportunity to collectively condemn Russia as well as offer their joint interpretation of the Genocide Convention. But while all states come to support Ukraine, the interventions are not necessarily helpful to Ukraine’s case.