Over one single day of November 15th, the two outstanding events occurred that every member of the international community knows about.
The first one is the adoption by the UNGA Third Committee a Ukrainian draft resolution on the "Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine).
From the very beginning, Ukraine pushed for the strongest possible language to make a clear signal to Russia: it's time to change the situation in Crimea. The Resolution explicitly condemns the occupation and doesn't recognize the annexation of the peninsula. It labels Russia an occupying power and demands that it ends human rights abuses and grants the international human rights monitoring mechanisms with the proper and unimpeded access to the peninsula.
The resolution also sets before the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights and UN Mission a special task in monitoring the human rights situation in Ukraine: to prepare a dedicated thematic report on the situation in Crimea.
Therefore, the "Crimean question" does and will remain in the focus of the UN agenda.
Russia needs to understand that the world is concerned about its wrongdoings in the occupied Crimea. It must understand that as an occupying power, it violates rights, security, and basic needs of the citizens of the peninsula. The world demands from Russia not to pretend that the Crimea issue is not on the international agenda. The world expects from Moscow a serious conversation about Crimea. A conversation with us, the United Nations, and other international organizations and partners.
The second important event was the publication of the annual report of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. The report acknowledged the existence of an international armed conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine in connection with the occupation of Crimea in late February 2014.
Additionally, according to the Prosecutor, an armed conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Ukrainian territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions began no later than 14 July 2014.
The Hague sent Moscow an important signal: all Russia's unlawful international activities as a state-aggressor are taken into account and monitored by the ICC Prosecutor.
The importance of these events is absolutely clear. No one, however, has contextualized them together.
While the "Crimea resolution" sets a new political framework with a precise definition of Russia's actions as an occupying power and acknowledges the illegal seizure of the Ukrainian territory, the ICC report provides a similar legal background.
Both political and juridical dimensions speak with one voice, saying that we now have an international acknowledgment of the crimes Russia has committed and continues to commit in the occupied #Crimea and #Donbas.
Moscow's reaction to the ICC report was immediate: the Russian President signed a decree on Russia's intention not to join the Rome Statute of the ICC (Russia signed the document in 2000).
This action is worth applauding: the Russia's executive and judicial authorities practically overnight agreed on and legally finalized the decision. This is a real victory of the Russian bureaucracy over itself.
Many wonder what would be Russia's further steps. Perhaps, no sense to count on its withdrawal from the UN. However, I worry about the possibility for Russia to find a loophole to withdraw from an integral United Nations body– the ICJ.
By the way, this year Russia was not elected to the UN Human Rights Council. The very fact is of particular importance.
First of all, this means many believe that Russia and the human rights are two different galaxies.
Secondly, Russia's non-election has happened for the first time in more than 170 elections to the #UN bodies.
And finally, it is telling that a permanent member of the UN Security Council, who in theory can do anything in the UN, has realized the limit of its powers. All other members did too.
Russia undermines the very foundations of the modern world order not for the first time. In December last year, Moscow decided to ignore the rulings of the international courts, first and foremost of the European Court of Human Rights, if those rulings contradict with the Russian constitution.
Apparently both recent the political and the legal verdicts set the right tone, or the "red flags" if you wish, on any Russia's attempts to plot the second Yalta behind the scenes.
In fact, the situation with both international courts shows that Russia is aiming to create an environment where the legal framework, on which the entire world rests, would look like a mosaic. Russia itself would not be accountable to any legal standards. It would make rules for itself, or perhaps not even bother to play by the rules.
Though this tactic (impossible to call it a "strategy") undermines Russia's own plan to establish a multipolar order.
In case the fundamental norms that provide the foundation for international cooperation are not employed and preserved, the world would operate only on the arrangements among the major players. This could lead into uncharted waters. We must resort to the existing rules, first and foremost – to the legal norms. If the rules disappear – we are nowhere.
The primary underpinning of today's world order is the international law. Non-compliance with the rules must lead to a clear, impartial and unambiguous system of sanctions. That is the only way.
The jurisdiction of the ICJ and the ICC must be so comprehensive that anyone who decides to breach the law will face the legal consequences.
Just like we are trying to bring to justice all who are responsible for the #MH17 tragedy.