A Critical Approach to Crimea’s Secession from Ukraine in the Light of International Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D student in International Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

This paper examines the legitimacy of the unilateral separation of the Crimea from Ukraine in accordance with public international law, with respect to the right to self-determination and the right to remadial secession. It is examined in detail that, beyond decolonization, the right to self-determination does not include a general right to external self-determination. In non-colonial situations, there are two theories of unilateral secession and remedial secession. By examining the Crimea case in the light of each the cases, we conclude that unilateral secession is generally permitted under international law, but the unilateral secession of Crimea from Ukraine is an exception and prohibited under international law. Because it is the result os Russian military intervention in the peninsula and a sort of widespread violation of international law. On the other hand, by examining the practices of gevernments and judicial and semi-judicial bodies, we find that remedial secession is not yet a part of customary international law and the doctrine is also cntroversial. Assuming Crimea cannot be cinsidered a viable secession due to the diversity of the peninsula population and lack of “people” and lack of evidence of human rights violations or organized discriminatory behavior by Ukrainian authorities.

Keywords

References

1. فارسی
ابراهیم گل، علیرضا و کریمی، سیامک (1394)، «تقابل تمامیت سرزمینی و حقوق بشر، ارزیابی حقوقی نظریۀ جدایی چاره‌ساز»، تهران: پژوهشنامۀ ایرانی سیاست بین‌الملل، ش 2.
رنجبریان، امیرحسین و کمالی‌نژاد، حسن (1392)، «آموزه‌های حقوقدانان بین‌المللی برجسته»، تهران: مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی. ش 2.
عزیزی، ستار (1387)، «استقلال کوزوو: بررسی مشروعیت جدایی یک‌جانبه در حقوق بین‌الملل»، تهران: مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، ش 45-11.
نواری، علی و حبیبی، همایون (1393)، «ارزیابی وجود حق بر جدایی چاره‌ساز یا جبرانی به‌عنوان حقوق بین‌الملل عرفی»، تهران: مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، ش 124-97.
نیاکوئی، امیر و عبدالی، زانیار (1398)، «تناقض بین دو اصل حق تعیین سرنوشت و حق حاکمیت ملی در حقوق بین‌الملل مطالعۀ موردی: بحران اوکراین و جدایی کریمه از آن کشور»، تهران: فصلنامۀ سیاست. ش 3.
ویسی چمه، محمد و عزیزی، ستار (1398)، «مشروعیت و آستانۀ جدایی چاره‌ساز در حقوق بین‌الملل». تهران: مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، ش 61.
 
2. خارجی
Buchheit, LC. (1978), Secession: the legitimacy of self-determination, Yale University Press, Yale.
Cassese, A. (1995), Self-determination of peoples, A legal reappraisal, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Christakis, T. (2015), "Self-determination, territorial integrity and fait accompli in the case of Crimea". Leiden J Int Law 24, p. 75-100.
10. Crawford, JR. (2000), Report by James Crawford: response to experts reports of the amicus curiae, Kluwer  Law International Law, The Hague.
11. Crawford, JR. (2006), The creation of states in international law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
12. Oeter, S. (2015), "The Kosovo case—an unfortunate precedent", Zeitschrift fu¨r ausla ¨ndisches o¨ffentliches Recht und Vo¨lkerrecht 75, p. 51-72.
13. Quane, H. (2011), Self-determination and minority protection after Kosovo, In: Summers J (ed) Kosovo: a precedent? The declaration of independence, the Advisory Opinion and implications for statehood, self-determination and minority rights. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.
14. Van den Driest, SF. (2013), "From Kosovo to Crimea and beyond: on territorial integrity, unilateral secession and legal neutrality in international law", Int J Minor Group Rights 22, pp. 467-485.
15. Vidmar, J. (2012), "Territorial integrity and the law of statehood", George Wash Int Law Rev 44, p. 101-149.
16. Vidmar, J. (2015), "The annexation of Crimea and the boundaries of the will of the people", German Law J 16, pp. 365-383.
17. Xanthaki, A. (2007), Indigenous rights and United Nations standards, Self-determination, culture and land. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Comparative Law Review
Volume 11, Issue 2
Summer and Autumn 2020
Pages 571-590

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics