ub.xmlui.mirage2.page-structure.muninLogoub.xmlui.mirage2.page-structure.openResearchArchiveLogo
    • EnglishEnglish
    • norsknorsk
  • Velg spraakEnglish 
    • EnglishEnglish
    • norsknorsk
  • Administration/UB
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Fakultet for biovitenskap, fiskeri og økonomi
  • Norges fiskerihøgskole
  • Artikler, rapporter og annet (Norges fiskerihøgskole)
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Fakultet for biovitenskap, fiskeri og økonomi
  • Norges fiskerihøgskole
  • Artikler, rapporter og annet (Norges fiskerihøgskole)
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

International law and Crimean secession from Ukraine (part 2)

Permanent link
https://hdl.handle.net/10037/21919
Thumbnail
View/Open
article.pdf (132.6Kb)
Published version (PDF)
Date
2021
Type
Journal article
Tidsskriftartikkel
Peer reviewed

Author
Ørebech, Peter Th
Abstract

Introduction. This is an article on whether Crimea’s declaration of independence is illegal or not. Is it contradictory to international law? My working hypothesis is that “people’s” right to selfdetermination and selfgovernment are part of its “residual rights”. Referendum confirms the authenticity of the popular will; declaring independence. The main topic is whether remedial secession is contrary to international law.

Materials and methods. The legal basis are the Articles 1.2, 55, 73 and 76 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN) and the practice of the International Court of justice in the Hague confirming the since ancient times “general principles of law”.

Discussion. “Peoples” benefitting from principle of sovereignty and unilateral secession from other states do include diverse amalgamated groups, i.e. territory inhabited by different ethnic, linguistic and religious residents. A wide range of cases illustrates this, i.e. practice of Lithuania, Croatia, Kosovo etc. Thus, a mixed multicultural or ethnical group at a defined territory is a people.

Results of the study. Therefore, the question arises whether the Crimea elected representatives declared independence, confirmed by referendum, contradicts international law. This is made evident by the cases of Armenia, Bangladesh and Kosovo, while the former is acknowledged by the international societies of states, the latter is also confirmed by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. However, it does not require independence in international recognition de facto or de jure (“acting declaring political realities”). Another objection is that there is no provision for a declaration of independence. As stated by the ICJ, this cannot be justified: “Thus, the sphere of operation of the principle of territorial integrity is limited to the sphere of relations between states” [1, p. 437].

Conclusion. Thus, a geographically defined mixed multicultural or ethnic group declaring independence from its mother country, is a people that lawfully is practicing its residual rights. The Serbian constitutional rule of territorial integrity did not prevent the Kosovar Albanian population from seceding from Serbia.

Description
Journal home page at https://msupress.com/en/catalogue/magazines/politika-en/1444/.
Publisher
Moscow University Press
Citation
Ørebech, P.T. (2021). International law and Crimean secession from Ukraine (part 2). Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 27. Globalism and Geopolitics, 27(1), 49-61.
Metadata
Show full item record
Collections
  • Artikler, rapporter og annet (Norges fiskerihøgskole) [1053]
Copyright 2001 Moscow University Press

Browse

Browse all of MuninCommunities & CollectionsAuthor listTitlesBy Issue DateBrowse this CollectionAuthor listTitlesBy Issue Date
Login

Statistics

View Usage Statistics
UiT

Munin is powered by DSpace

UiT The Arctic University of Norway
The University Library
uit.no/ub - munin@ub.uit.no

Accessibility statement (Norwegian only)