Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorØrebech, Peter Th
dc.date.accessioned2021-08-04T08:09:00Z
dc.date.available2021-08-04T08:09:00Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.description.abstract<p>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. <p>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”. <p>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. <p>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]. <p>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.en_US
dc.descriptionJournal home page at <a href=https://msupress.com/en/catalogue/magazines/politika-en/1444/>https://msupress.com/en/catalogue/magazines/politika-en/1444/</a>.en_US
dc.identifier.citationØrebech, P.T. (2021). International law and Crimean secession from Ukraine (part 2). <i>Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 27. Globalism and Geopolitics, 27</i>(1), 49-61.en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 1915421
dc.identifier.issn2414-4894
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/21919
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMoscow University Pressen_US
dc.relation.journalBulletin of the Moscow university. Series 27: Globalism and Geopolitics
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2001 Moscow University Pressen_US
dc.subjectVDP::Social science: 200::Law: 340en_US
dc.subjectVDP::Samfunnsvitenskap: 200::Rettsvitenskap: 340en_US
dc.titleInternational law and Crimean secession from Ukraine (part 2)en_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel