How Does the International Community Reconcile the Principles of Territorial Integrity and Self-Determination? The Case of Crimea
Abstract
This paper explores the ambiguous nature of two principles of international law – self-determination and territorial integrity – illustrating the controversial nuances of international law on a political level, nuances with which the Crimean crisis has been described. Multiple paradigms will be applied to interpret the juristic status of the quoted principles. The foundation of this research is the collision between Russia and the West over the legal interpretation of these two principles throughout history and particularly in the case of Crimea. From the very beginning, the legal interpretation of the situation in Crimea was that Russia’s legal rhetoric was groundless and that her legal justification for the secession of Crimea was simply not plausible, and therefore could not be linked to either legal or moral theories. After exposing the fragility of these principles in international law, the paper then concludes by proposing an alternative approach that utilizes a different philosophical logic, thus further illustrating the hidden nature of such contradictions in politics.
About the Author
Khazar Shirmammadov
University of Birmingham
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
M.A. in International Relations (Diplomacy),
453 Watford Way, London, NW4 4TR
References
1. Allison, Roy. Russian ‘Deniable’ Intervention in Ukraine: How and Why Russia Broke the Rules, 90(6) International Affairs 1259, 1266, 1297 (2014), available at <http://commonweb.unifr.ch/artsdean/pub/gestens/f/as/files/4760/39349_202339.pdf> (accessed Mar. 11, 2016). doi:10.1111/1468-2346.12170
2. Antonov, Mikhail. Theoretical Issues of Sovereignty in Russia and Russian Law, 37(1) Review of Central and East European Law 97 (2012). doi:10.1163/092598812X13274154886548
3. Bebler, Anton. Crimea and the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict, 15 Romanian J. Eur. Aff. 35, 38–39, 42 (2015), available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=2576142> (accessed Mar. 11, 2016).
4. Borgen, Christopher J. Law, Rhetoric, Strategy: Russia and Self-Determination before and after Crimea, 91 Int’l L. Stud. 216, 228, 237–38, 256 (2015), available at <http://stockton.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1262&context=ils> (accessed Mar. 10, 2016).
5. Borgen, Christopher J. The Language of Law and the Practice of Politics: Great Powers and the Rhetoric of Self-Determination in the Cases of Kosovo and South Ossetia, 10 Chi. J. Int’l L. 1, 30–31 (2009), available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=1472068> (accessed Mar. 11, 2016).
6. Buchanan, Allen. Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law 223, 333 (Oxford University Press 2004). doi:10.1093/0198295359.001.0001
7. Buchanan, Allen. Self-Determination and the Right to Secede, 45 J. Int’l Aff. 347, 354, 357 (1992).
8. Burke-White, William W. Crimea and the International Legal Order, 56(4) Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 66–67, 70, 73 (2014). doi:10.1080/00396338.2014.941548
9. Cassese, Antonio. Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal 15, 19, 47, 101 (Cambridge University Press 1995).
10. Catala, Amandine. Secession and Annexation: The Case of Crimea, 16 German L.J. 581, 585, 601–02 (2015), available at <https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56330ad3e4b0733dcc0c8495/t/56c8cef8b654f92cd6e49bd9/1456000762433/GLJ_Vol_16_No_03_Catala.pdf> (accessed Mar. 11, 2016).
11. Evison, Justin A., Major. MiGs and Monks in Crimea: Russia Flexes Cultural and Military Muscles, Revealing Dire Need for Balance of Uti Possidetis and Internationally Recognized Self-Determination, 220 Mil. L. Rev. 90, 105–06 (2014), available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=2475549> (accessed Mar. 11, 2016).
12. Fisher, Alan W. The Russian Annexation of the Crimea 1772–83 at 148 (Cambridge University Press 1970).
13. Fisher, Alan. Between Russians, Ottoman and Turks: Crimea and Crimean Tatars (= 33 Analecta Isisiana) 188 (Isis Press 1998).
14. Freeman, Michael. National Self-Determination, Peace and Human Rights, 10(2) Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice 158, 161 (2007). doi:10.1080/10402659808426138
15. Griffiths, Ryan. The Future of Self-Determination and Territorial Integrity in the Asian Century, 27(3) The Pacific Review 458 (2014). doi:10.1080/09512748.2014.909525
16. Kawahara, Setsuko. Self-determination: People’s Will or Strategic Interest, 43 Hitotsubashi J.L. & Pol. 1, 14 (2015), available at <https://hermes-ir.lib.hit-u.ac.jp/rs/bitstream/10086/27102/1/HJlaw0430000010.pdf> (accessed Mar. 11, 2016).
17. Kumbaro, Dajena. The Kosovo Crisis in an International Law Perspective: SelfDetermination, Territorial Integrity and the NATO Intervention 33 (NATO Office of Information and Press 2001), available at <http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/99-01/kumbaro.pdf> (accessed Mar. 10, 2016).
18. Långström, Tarja. Transformation in Russia and International Law 169 (Martinus Nijhoff 2003).
19. Lynch, Allen. Woodrow Wilson and the Principle of ‘National Self-Determination:’ A Reconsideration, 28 Rev. Int’l Stud. 419, 434 (2002). doi:10.1017/S0260210502004199
20. MacFarlane, Neil. Sovereignty and Self-Determination: Where are We?, 68 International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis 609, 614 (2013). doi:10.1177/0020702013511184
21. MacLaren, Malcolm. ‘Trust the People?’ Democratic Secessionism and Contemporary Practice, 16 German L.J. 631, 635 (2015), available at <https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56330ad3e4b0733dcc0c8495/t/56c8cf24b654f92cd6e49ce0/1456000806545/GLJ_Vol_16_No_03_MacLaren.pdf> (accessed Mar. 11, 2016).
22. Mahalingam, Ravi. Self-Determination in the UN Era: AResponse to Peter Sproat, 9(1) Terrorism and Political Violence 113, 126 (2007). doi:10.1080/09546559708427391
23. Malyarenko, Tatyana, & Galbreath, David J. Crimea: Competing Self-Determination Movements and the Politics at the Centre, 65(5) Europe-Asia Studies 917 (2013). doi: 10.1080/09668136.2013.805964
24. Mamlyuk, Boris N. The Ukraine Crisis, Cold War II, and International Law, 16 German L.J. 479, 479 (2015), available at <https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56330ad3e4b0733dcc0c8495/t/56c8ceb1b654f92cd6e49a8d/1456000693603/GLJ_Vol_16_No_03_Mamlyuk.pdf> (accessed Mar. 11, 2016).
25. Marxsen, Christian. The Crimea Crisis – An International Law Perspective, 74 Heidelberg J. Int’l L. 367, 370–71, 380, 382, 385 (2014), available at <http://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Marxsen_2014_-_The_crimea_crisis_-_an_international_law_perspective.pdf> (accessed Mar. 10, 2016).
26. Moore, Margaret. 1. Introduction: The Self-Determination Principle and the Ethics of Secession, in National Self-Determination and Secession 1, 6–7 (Margaret Moore, ed.) (Oxford University Press 2003).
27. Neuberger, Benyamin. National Self-Determination: A Theoretical Discussion, 29(3) Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity 405 (2010). doi:10.1080/00905990120073672
28. Oklopcic, Zoran. Introduction: The Crisis in Ukraine between the Law, Power, and Principle, 16 German L.J. 350, 359 (2015), available at <https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56330ad3e4b0733dcc0c8495/t/56c8cde9b654f92cd6e49639/1456000490822/GLJ_Vol_16_No_03_Oklopcic+Intro.pdf> (accessed Mar. 11, 2016).
29. Olson, Peter M. Is International Law Effective? The Case of Russia and Ukraine, 108 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 39, 40–42 (2014). doi:10.5305/procannmeetasil.108.0037
30. Pavković, Aleksandar, & Radan, Peter. In Pursuit of Sovereignty and SelfDetermination: Peoples, States and Secession in the International Order, 3 Macquarie L.J. 1, 11 (2003), available at <http://www.mq.edu.au/public/download/?id=16205> (accessed Mar. 11, 2016).
31. Philpott, Daniel. Should Self-Determination be Legalized?, 12(3-4) Terrorism and Political Violence 114, 120, 123–24 (2000). doi:10.1080/09546550008427572
32. Seymour, Michel. Secession as a Remedial Right, 50(4) Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy (2007). doi:10.1080/00201740701491191
33. Shany, Yuval. Does International Law Grant the People of Crimea and Donetsk a Right to Secede? Revisiting Self-Determination in Light of the 2014 Events in Ukraine, 21(1) The Brown Journal of World Affairs 234 (2014).
34. Shuster, Simon. Morning After in Crimea, 183(12) Time International 12 (2014).
35. Toft, Monica D. Self-Determination, Secession, and Civil War, 24(4) Terrorism and Political Violence 582 (2012). doi:10.1080/09546553.2012.700617
36. Vidmar, Jure. The Annexation of Crimea and the Boundaries of the Will of the People, 16 German L.J. 365–66, 381 (2015), available at <https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56330ad3e4b0733dcc0c8495/t/56c8ce24b654f92cd6e49795/1456000550253/GLJ_Vol_16_No_03_Vidmar.pdf> (accessed Mar. 11, 2016).
For citation:
Shirmammadov K. How Does the International Community Reconcile the Principles of Territorial Integrity and Self-Determination? The Case of Crimea. Russian Law Journal. 2016;4(1):61-97. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2016-4-1-61-97
Views: 2216
Email this article 