Dismantling the Chaos Exception: Ukraine v. Russia and Human Rights Accountability – Jurist.org

Report on the ECHR Grand Chamber Judgment in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia and its Implications for the Sustainable Development Goals

A landmark judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Grand Chamber on July 9, 2025, in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, represents a significant advancement in international law, with profound implications for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Upholding SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The ruling fundamentally strengthens the international legal framework for accountability in armed conflict, directly contributing to the targets of SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Strengthening Access to Justice and Accountability (Target 16.3)

The judgment advances SDG Target 16.3 by dismantling doctrinal barriers that previously limited access to justice for victims of battlefield violence.

• Jurisdictional Innovation: The Court moved beyond its 2021 ruling in Georgia v. Russia II, which had created a “context of chaos” doctrine that limited jurisdiction during active hostilities. The Grand Chamber established that Russia’s extensive and strategically planned military attacks created a degree of responsibility over affected individuals, thereby establishing jurisdiction under the European Convention on Human Rights. This ensures that victims of organized military operations can seek justice, reinforcing the rule of law.
• Attribution for Proxy Forces: By classifying the Donetsk and Luhansk separatist entities as de facto organs of the Russian state, the Court closed a significant accountability gap. This finding ensures that states cannot evade responsibility by operating through proxy forces, a critical step in promoting justice for all.

Promoting the Rule of Law at International Levels (Target 16.3)

The Court’s sophisticated integration of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and human rights law reinforces the international rule of law.

1. The judgment rejects a lex specialis approach, insisting that IHL does not displace the European Convention’s guarantees. Instead, it adopts a harmonious co-application, using IHL standards to interpret Convention rights during armed conflict.
2. This methodology was applied to assess violations of the right to life (Article 2), where the Court evaluated whether Russia took all feasible precautions before attacks, directly invoking IHL principles of distinction and proportionality.

Addressing Gender-Based Violence and Promoting Gender Equality (SDG 5)

The ruling makes a historic contribution to SDG 5 (Gender Equality) by formally addressing conflict-related sexual violence as a systematic military strategy.

Combating Violence Against Women and Girls (Target 5.2)

The Grand Chamber explicitly recognized that sexual violence and rape were deployed as part of a military strategy to dehumanize and break the morale of the Ukrainian population. By classifying this systematic rape as torture under Article 3 of the Convention, the judgment strengthens legal protections against gender-based violence in conflict and sets a powerful precedent for holding perpetrators accountable, directly supporting the goal of eliminating all forms of violence against women.

Documenting Impacts on Human Well-being and Communities (SDG 3 & SDG 11)

The judgment provides an authoritative record of systematic atrocities, highlighting the devastating impact of the conflict on human well-being (SDG 3) and the sustainability of communities (SDG 11).

The Human Cost of Conflict

The Court documented a widespread administrative practice of violations that directly undermine human health, safety, and community stability, including:

• Extrajudicial killings
• Torture and arbitrary detention
• Widespread destruction of property and infrastructure

These findings underscore the severe consequences of armed conflict on public health and the safety of human settlements, reinforcing the urgency of SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Challenges and the Role of Global Partnerships (SDG 17)

While the judgment is a landmark achievement, its enforcement and the provision of remedies highlight challenges that require robust international cooperation, as envisioned in SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Enforcement and Compensation Mechanisms

Russia’s expulsion from the Council of Europe complicates direct enforcement. Furthermore, the deferral of compensation awards pending the finalization of a broader international compensation mechanism creates a temporary remedy vacuum for victims. The effective implementation of justice will depend on the successful collaboration between the Council of Europe, the Register of Damage for Ukraine, and other international partners.

Strengthening International Cooperation (Target 17.16)

The ECHR’s findings provide an authoritative factual and legal basis that can inform and support the work of other international bodies, including the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. This synergy between institutions exemplifies the global partnership required to enhance policy coherence for sustainable development and ensure that international law effectively repudiates impunity and upholds the rule of law, even in times of war.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article is fundamentally about upholding justice and accountability during armed conflict, which is the core of SDG 16. It details the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) ruling against Russia for systematic human rights violations in Ukraine. This directly relates to promoting the rule of law and strengthening institutions to combat violence and ensure justice. The text highlights the court’s role in dismantling “doctrinal barriers that previously shielded battlefield conduct from scrutiny,” thereby strengthening the international justice system. The discussion of “extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary detention,” and the rejection of impunity for such acts are central to this goal.

SDG 5: Gender Equality

• The article specifically addresses SDG 5 by focusing on the court’s findings on conflict-related sexual violence. It explicitly states that the Grand Chamber recognized that “sexual violence and rape were deployed in Ukraine… as part of a military strategy to dehumanise, humiliate and break the morale of the Ukrainian population.” This detailed analysis of gender-based violence as a weapon of war and its legal classification as torture directly connects to the goal of eliminating all forms of violence against women.

Identified SDG Targets

Targets under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article addresses this target by documenting the consequences of violence, including “extrajudicial killings,” “widespread destruction,” and “battlefield violence.” The court’s ruling is a mechanism aimed at holding a state accountable for perpetrating such violence, contributing to its future reduction.
• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. This target is central to the article. The ECHR’s judgment is a prime example of promoting the rule of law at the international level. The ruling ensures that victims of violations during armed conflict have access to a justice mechanism, confronting the “context of chaos doctrine” that previously “risked immunising battlefield violence from human rights oversight.”
• Target 16.A: Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels… to prevent violence and combat… crime. The article highlights the role of international judicial institutions like the ECHR, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in addressing state-sponsored violence and war crimes. The ECHR’s “doctrinal innovation” and “institutional courage” serve to strengthen the international legal framework for preventing and punishing such crimes.

Targets under SDG 5: Gender Equality

• Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres. The article directly relates to this target through its detailed discussion of the court’s findings on “conflict-related sexual violence.” The judgment’s conclusion that “systematic rape constituted torture within Article 3’s meaning” is a significant legal step toward eliminating and punishing this form of violence against women, especially in conflict zones.

Implied Indicators for Measuring Progress

Indicators for SDG 16 Targets

• Indicator for Target 16.1: The article implies the use of documented evidence of atrocities as an indicator. It refers to the court’s process of documenting an “administrative practice of extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary detention, and widespread destruction spanning eight years.” The number and nature of these documented violations serve as a measure of the scale of violence.
• Indicator for Target 16.3: The existence of legal rulings and precedents that hold states accountable for violations is a key implied indicator. The article describes the judgment as a “transformative moment” and a “definitive repudiation of impunity,” which serves as a qualitative indicator of progress in strengthening the rule of law. Furthermore, the mention of the “Register of Damage mechanism” and a “future compensation mechanism” points to indicators related to the provision of remedies for victims.

Indicators for SDG 5 Targets

• Indicator for Target 5.2: The article implies indicators related to the legal recognition and prosecution of sexual violence. The court’s explicit finding that “sexual violence and rape were deployed… as part of a military strategy” and its classification as torture is a critical indicator. The article also notes the court drew on “extensive documentation from UN investigative bodies,” suggesting that the number of officially documented cases of conflict-related sexual violence is a relevant measure.

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: jurist.org