In a significant legal move, Russia has launched an appeal at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), contesting the May 2025 ruling by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) which held Russia accountable for violating international aviation law during the MH17 incident. The flight was tragically shot down, resulting in the loss of all passengers and crew aboard.

The appeal filed by Russia disputes findings from Australia and the Netherlands, which attribute the downing of MH17 to Russia under Article 3bis of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, commonly known as the Chicago Convention. According to this article, the use of weapons against civilian aircraft in flight is strictly prohibited, and the safety of passengers should not be compromised, even in the event of an interception.

Russia's application raises several points of contention. It argues that the ICAO Council's decision was flawed both factually and legally, questioning the council's jurisdiction by citing the ongoing armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine at the time of the downing. Russia invokes Article 89 of the Chicago Convention, which grants states involved in war a "freedom of action," to argue that the convention’s rules, including Article 3bis, do not apply in times of armed conflict.

Furthermore, Russia criticized the Joint Investigative Team's (JIT) investigation into the incident, which was a collaborative effort among the Netherlands, Australia, Malaysia, Belgium, and Ukraine. Moscow contends that the investigation lacked neutrality and was prejudiced. It also suggests that the Buk missile system used in the incident was captured by separatist forces from the Ukrainian military, not supplied by Russia as the JIT concluded. The JIT had reported that the missile system came from the 53rd Anti Aircraft Missile brigade of the Russian Ground Forces and was operational within separatist-controlled areas.

This appeal marks a new chapter in the long, complex judicial and diplomatic aftermath of the MH17 tragedy, highlighting ongoing disputes over accountability and the interpretation of international law amidst armed conflicts. As the case progresses, it will undoubtedly attract global attention, impacting international relations and the broader discourse on aerial warfare and civilian safety.