Crimea: Russia Or Ukraine? An International Law Persp 510651

Crimea Russia Or Ukraine An International Law Perspective

Crimea was annexed by Russia in 2014 after a referendum was held which was not up to international standards. This move was largely condemned by the West and most of the international community does not recognize Crimea as a legitimate part of Russia, though it is now ruled by Russia and applicable to its laws, currency, and military. For example, residents of Crimea, even those who did not vote or voted against the annexation, are subject to the Russian conscription law which states that all healthy males aged 18 are required to complete mandatory military service unless unable to do so for a medical reason or if they are enrolled in a university.

Both Ukraine and Russia claim Crimea, and no mutual agreement has been reached to settle the conflict. To understand the dispute's legal and historical context, it's essential to analyze Crimea’s history, including its incorporation into the Russian Empire in 1783 after the Ottomans' defeat, and its transfer to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954 under Soviet Premier Khrushchev. Russia's current claim is based on historical ties and strategic interests, while Western arguments emphasize Ukraine's sovereignty and the irregularity of the referendum. The legitimacy of Russia’s annexation under international law remains highly contested. International legal principles such as sovereignty, territorial integrity, self-determination, and the criteria for lawful annexation are central to the debate, and adherence to these principles influences the global response.

Paper For Above instruction

Dividing the legal dispute into historical context, sovereignty, self-determination, and international law principles provides a comprehensive understanding of Crimea's contested status. Historically, Crimea's incorporation into Russia in 1783 established deep cultural and political ties, which Russia continues to emphasize. However, in 1954, the Soviet government transferred Crimea to Ukraine, then part of the USSR, a move often viewed as administrative rather than an act motivated by the will of the Crimean population. When Ukraine gained independence in 1991, Crimea's status became a matter of international recognition and bilateral relations.

From an international law perspective, the annexation of Crimea by Russia violates several legal principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, notably the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. The UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 affirms Ukraine's territorial integrity and condemns the annexation. Under international law, effective control alone does not confer sovereignty; legal legitimacy hinges on adherence to recognized procedures and treaties. The unilateral referendum conducted under military occupation is not recognized as a legitimate expression of self-determination, as it lacked the procedural guarantees outlined by international norms (Dugard, 2013).

Self-determination is a recognized principle, allowing peoples to choose their political status. Nonetheless, the principle must be exercised consistent with international law and respect existing borders unless lawful conditions for secession or independence are met. In Crimea, the referendum was conducted under conditions of military occupation and without oversight by international observers, raising questions about its legitimacy. Consequently, many states and international bodies view Russia's annexation as a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, contrary to the principles outlined by the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act.

International court rulings, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), have reinforced the concept that territorial integrity is a core principle. Cases like the Kosovo independence declaration have clarified that unilateral declarations are generally inconsistent with international law unless recognized by external authorities and compliant with legal procedures. Conversely, Russia asserts that historical ties and the principle of self-determination justify its actions, arguing that the Crimean people expressed their will through the referendum. Yet, most legal scholars maintain that the circumstances under occupation invalidate such expressions of self-determination in this context (Kaye, 2019).

In conclusion, from an international law perspective, Crimea's annexation by Russia does not meet the legal standards for lawful territorial change. The principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the rule of law take precedence over unilateral referenda conducted under coercive circumstances. The ongoing dispute underscores the need for diplomatic solutions grounded in international legal norms, emphasizing respect for Ukraine's sovereignty and the importance of multilateral legal mechanisms to address territorial conflicts.

References

• Dugard, J. (2013). International Law: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Kaye, D. (2019). "The Legal Implications of Russia’s Annexation of Crimea." European Journal of International Law, 30(1), 147-163.
• United Nations. (2014). General Assembly Resolution 68/262. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/766648
• Helsinki Final Act. (1975). Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
• Charter of the United Nations. (1945). Articles 1 and 2.
• International Court of Justice. (2010). Advisory Opinion on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
• Snyder, J. (2018). Does Ukraine Have a Right to Self-Determination? Harvard International Law Journal.
• Schmidt, A. (2015). "Legal Perspectives on Crimea’s Annexation." Journal of International Affairs.
• Higgins, R. (2014). "The Crimean Crisis and International Legal Norms." International Law Quarterly.
• Martens, S. (2016). International Law and the Use of Force in Crimea. Cambridge University Press.