THE CASE OF THE CITY OF SEVAS TOPOL: DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
This article deals with an issue which went largely unremarked at the time – the role of the city of Sevastopol in Crimea’s declaration of independence. The Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Crimea was a joint resolution adopted by the Supreme Council of Crimea and the City Council of Sevastopol. One may state that the city of Sevastopol declared its independence as an entity possessing an international identity. Initially, only States were treated as recognized subjects of international law. But now other kinds of actors also share this recognition. However, from the point of view of classical international law, cities have no legal identity in international law and they are not granted the status of subjects of international law. The legal activities of cities on the international stage results in the need for a new approach to the treatment of cities under international law. The author has examined the legality of Sevastopol’s action in the light of both domestic and international laws. An analysis of the status of Sevastopol in Ukrainian law, as well in Soviet law is also included in this article. The author presents examples of actions of cities on the international scene which might prove that cities could be treated as non-state actors. However, the conclusion states that it remains questionable whether the city has truly acquired the status of being a subject of public international law. It is doubtful that the case of Sevastopol will contribute to the development of doctrine of non-state actors.
About the AuthorNATALIA CWICINSKAJA
Assistant Professor, Chair of International Law and International Organizations, Faculty of Law and Administration, Adam Mickiewicz University
90 ul. Swiety Marcin, room 206, Poznan, 61-809, Poland
1. Aust H.P. Shining Cities on the Hill? The Global City, Climate Change and International Law, 26(1) European Journal of International Law 255 (2015).
2. Belitser N. The Constitutional Process in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in the Context of Interethnic Relations and Conflict Settlement, International Committee for Crimea, International Committee for Crimea (ICC), 20 February 2000 (Jun. 20, 2017), available at http://www.iccrimea.org/scholarly/nbelitser.html.
3. Blank Y. The City and the World, 44(3) Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 875 (2006).
4. Cantu F. de J. World Association of Cities and Local Authorities Coordination (WACLAC), International Conference on Financing for Development, 18–22 March 2002 (Jun. 20, 2017), available at http://www.un.org/ffd/statements/waclacE.htm.
5. Cwicinskaja N. Krym w świetle prawa międzynarodowego in Rewolucja w imię godności. Ukraiński Euromajdan 2013–2014 179 (G. Skrukwa & M. Studenna-Skrukwa (eds.), Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek, 2015).
6. Cwicinskaja N. The Legality and Certain Legal Consequences of the “Accession” of Crimea to the Russian Federation, 34 Polish Yearbook of International Law 61 (2014).
7. Drohobycky M. Crimea: Dynamics, Challenges and Prospects (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995).
8. Frug G. & Barron D. International Local Government Law, 38(1) Urban Lawyer 1 (2006).
9. Geiss R. Russia’s Annexation of Crimea: The Mills of International Law Grind Slowly but They Do Grind, 91(1) International Law Studies 425 (2015).
10. Kaczorowska-Ireland A. Public International Law (4th ed., London: Routledge, 2010).
11. Klabbers J. Law-Making and Constitutionalization in Klabbers J. et al. The Constitutionalization of International Law 81 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
12. Marxsen C. The Crimea Crisis – An International Law Perspective, 74(2) Heidelberg Journal of International Law 367 (2014).
13. Nijman J.E. Renaissance of the City as Global Actor. The Role of Foreign Policy and International Law Practices in the Construction of Cities as Global Actors, T.M.C. Asser Institute for International & European Law 2016-02 (Jun. 20, 2017), available at www.asser.nl.
14. Nijman J.E. The Concept of International Legal Personality: An Inquiry into the History and Theory of International Law (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2004).
15. Porras I.M. The City and International Law: In Pursuit of Sustainable Development, 36(3) Fordham Urban Law Journal 537 (2008).
16. Shaw M.N. International Law (5th ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
17. Shaw M.N. The Heritage of States: The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris Today, 67 British Yearbook of International Law 75 (1996).
18. Slomanson W.R. Legitimacy of the Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia Secessions: Violations in Search of a Rule, 6(2) Miskolc Journal of International Law 1 (2009).
19. Tkachuk A. et al. Reforms in the Administrative and Territorial Structure of Ukraine: Lessons of History 1907–2009 (Kyiv: Legal Status, 2012).
For citation: CWICINSKAJA N. THE CASE OF THE CITY OF SEVAS TOPOL: DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW. Russian Law Journal. 2017;5(3):69-85. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2017-5-3-69-85
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0.