DOCSLIB.ORG

Grand Chamber Decision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grand Chamber Decision GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF UKRAINE v. RUSSIA (RE CRIMEA) (Applications nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18) DECISION STRASBOURG 14 January 2021 UKRAINE v. RUSSIA (RE CRIMEA) DECISION TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................8 PROCEDURE................................................................................................9 THE FACTS ................................................................................................12 I. THE APPLICANT GOVERNMENT...............................................12 A. Evidentiary material submitted by the applicant Government..............12 1. Witness statements .........................................................................13 2. Official documents emanating from the Ukrainian national authorities .......................................................................................15 3. Various other documents................................................................17 4. CCTV footage and other visual materials ......................................19 B. The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant Government .........20 1. The evidence of effective control ...................................................20 (a) Background..............................................................................20 (b) Seizure of control over Crimea (26 and 27 February 2014)....22 (c) The immediate aftermath of the “invasion”.............................24 (d) Consolidation of control over Crimea (1 to 16 March 2014) ..26 (e) “The annexation of Crimea and the referendum”....................27 (f) Chronological list of troop movements and deployment of military equipment in Crimea..................................................28 2. Alleged violations of the Convention.............................................34 (a) The first phase (17 February to 21 March 2014).....................34 (b) The second phase (after 21 March 2014) ................................39 II. THE RESPONDENT GOVERNMENT...........................................45 A. Evidentiary material submitted by the respondent Government...........45 1. Official documents emanating from the Russian national authorities.46 2. Official documents emanating from the Ukrainian national authorities .......................................................................................46 3. International materials ....................................................................47 4. Crimean documents ........................................................................47 5. Various media articles and videos..................................................48 B. The facts of the case as submitted by the respondent Government.......49 1. Background.....................................................................................49 2. Developments leading up to the “referendum”, the “referendum” and its aftermath ....................................................................................52 3. Incidents alleged by the Ukrainian Government ............................56 1 UKRAINE v. RUSSIA (RE CRIMEA) DECISION RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK .....................................................59 I. DOMESTIC LAW ............................................................................59 A. Constitution of Ukraine.........................................................................59 B. Resolution on the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine, adopted on 1 March 2014 by the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, No. 48-SF.62 C. Federal Law of the Russian Federation terminating the Agreements on the presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine (No. 38-FZ) ...........................................................62 II. RELEVANT BILATERAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN UKRAINE AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.............................................62 A. Treaty on friendship, cooperation and partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation of 31 May 1997................................................62 B. Bilateral agreements concluded between Ukraine and the Russian Federation in 1997 and 2010 regarding the presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine..................64 1. Agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Status and Conditions of the Presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine ..............................64 2. Agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Parameters of the Division of the Black Sea Fleet .........................66 3. Agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation on the Territory of Ukraine .......................................................................66 III. “TREATY BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA ON THE ACCESSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND THE FORMATION OF NEW CONSTITUENT ENTITIES OF THE FEDERATION, SIGNED ON 18 MARCH 2014 AND RATIFIED BY THE RUSSIAN STATE DUMA ON 21 MARCH 2014” (“THE ACCESSION TREATY”) ................................................................67 IV. MULTILATERAL TEXTS AND RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL CASE-LAW AND PRACTICE........................................................67 A. Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Budapest, 5 December 1994..................................................................67 B. UN General Assembly Resolutions.......................................................68 1. Resolution no. 68/262 of 27 March 2014 on the territorial integrity of Ukraine (A/RES/68/262)............................................................68 2. Resolution no. 71/205 on the situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine), adopted on 19 December 2016 (A/RES/71/205) ..........68 C. Instruments of the Council of Europe ...................................................69 1. Resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.............................................................................................69 2 UKRAINE v. RUSSIA (RE CRIMEA) DECISION (a) Resolution 1988(2014) on recent developments in Ukraine: threats to the functioning of democratic institutions, adopted on 9 April 2014.............................................................................69 (b) Resolution 2133 (2016) on legal remedies for human rights violations on the Ukrainian territories outside the control of the Ukrainian authorities, adopted on 12 October 2016................70 2. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe .........................70 Decision regarding the situation in Ukraine (CM/Del/Dec(2014)1196/1.8) of 2 April 2014 .......................70 D. Council of the European Union.............................................................70 Decision concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, 17 March 2014 (2014/145/CFSP) ........70 E. Case-law of the International Court of Justice ......................................71 1. Political implications/motivation....................................................71 (a) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility (Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 392) ..............71 (b) Advisory Opinion in Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 234 ........................................72 2. Probative value of certain types of evidence..................................72 3. Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ, 8 November 2019, at pp .21 and 46................................................73 F. Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2019, 5 December 2019...............73 V. OTHER MATERIALS .....................................................................75 A. Relevant reports of intergovernmental organisations............................75 1. Reports of UN (treaty) bodies ........................................................75 (a) UN Human Rights Committee (HRC).....................................75 UN HRC, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of the Russian Federation, CCPR/C/RUS/CO/07, 28 April 2015 .........................................................................75 (b) UN Committee against Torture ...............................................76 Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of the Russian Federation, CAT/C/RUS/CO/6, 28 August 2018 ................................76 2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights..............................................................................................77 Report on the situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine), dated 25 September 2017, covering the period from 22 February 2014 to 12 September
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Academia Militar
    ACADEMIA MILITAR Análise da Intervenção Russa na Crimeia Autor: Aspirante de Cavalaria Tiago Filipe Simões Ramos Orientador: Professor Catedrático António José Telo Mestrado Integrado em Ciências Militares, na especialidade de Cavalaria Relatório Científico Final do Trabalho de Investigação Aplicada Lisboa, setembro de 2019 ACADEMIA MILITAR Análise da Intervenção Russa na Crimeia Autor: Aspirante de Cavalaria Tiago Filipe Simões Ramos Orientador: Professor Catedrático António José Telo Mestrado Integrado em Ciências Militares, na especialidade de Cavalaria Relatório Científico Final do Trabalho de Investigação Aplicada Lisboa, setembro de 2019 EPÍGRAFE “Submeter o inimigo sem combater é a excelência suprema.” Sun Tzu i DEDICATÓRIA À minha família. ii AGRADECIMENTOS Esta dissertação representa o culminar dos anos de trabalho, cujo produto não vem só do esforço individual, mas também do apoio de muitos outros, cuja menção é necessária para lhes dar o merecido mérito. Quero começar por agradecer à Academia Militar, instituição que me acolheu, sem a qual não estaria onde estou. Ao Curso Tenente General Bernardim Freire de Andrade, o meu curso de entrada, por todos os momentos partilhados, no “conhaque” e no “trabalho”, desde o início até ao fim da viagem. Ao curso Tenente General de Artilharia e Engenheiro Mor Luís Serrão Pimentel, por me ter acolhido a meio caminho e nunca me ter desenquadrado. Em ambos tenho amigos, sem os quais os longos anos tinham sido ainda mais longos. Ao meu diretor de curso, o Tenente-Coronel de Cavalaria Baltazar, pela dedicação, empenho e paciência na transmissão dos ensinamentos e pela integração no espírito da arma. Ao meu orientador, Professor Catedrático António Telo, cujos conhecimentos e orientação permitiram o desenvolvimento deste trabalho.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Hybrid Warfare
    Research Paper Research Division – NATO Defense College, Rome – No. 105 – November 2014 Russia’s Hybrid Warfare Waging War below the Radar of Traditional Collective Defence by H. Reisinger and A. Golts1 “You can’t modernize a large country with a small war” Karl Schlögel The Research Division (RD) of the NATO De- fense College provides NATO’s senior leaders with “Ukraine is not even a state!” Putin reportedly advised former US President sound and timely analyses and recommendations on current issues of particular concern for the Al- George W. Bush during the 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest. In 2014 this liance. Papers produced by the Research Division perception became reality. Russian behaviour during the current Ukraine convey NATO’s positions to the wider audience of the international strategic community and con- crisis was based on the traditional Russian idea of a “sphere of influence” and tribute to strengthening the Transatlantic Link. a special responsibility or, stated more bluntly, the “right to interfere” with The RD’s civil and military researchers come from countries in its “near abroad”. This perspective is also implied by the equally a variety of disciplines and interests covering a 2 broad spectrum of security-related issues. They misleading term “post-Soviet space.” The successor states of the Soviet conduct research on topics which are of interest to Union are sovereign countries that have developed differently and therefore the political and military decision-making bodies of the Alliance and its member states. no longer have much in common. Some of them are members of the European Union and NATO, while others are desperately trying to achieve The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the this goal.
    [Show full text]
  • The Availability Digest
    the Availability Digest www.availabilitydigest.com @availabilitydig Crimea Loses Power for Two Weeks December 2015 Most of the citizens of Crimea were without power from November 21 through December 8, 2015. No, it wasn’t a cyberattack. It was sabotage in response to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, which had been part of Ukraine. Ukrainian activists blew up the four Ukrainian power feeds that provide most of the electrical energy for Crimea, and the saboteurs then continued to prevent repair teams from restoring power. Crimea Isthmus of Perekop Strait of Kerch Crimea is a major land mass on the northern coast of the Black Sea. It lies south of Ukraine and west of Russia and is very close to both countries. Crimea is connected on its north side to Ukraine by the Isthmus of Perekop, a narrow strip of land. Crimea is only thirteen kilometers from its east side to Russia across the Strait of Kerch. Russian Annexation of Crimea After World War II, Ukraine became part of the Soviet Union. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine became an independent nation in 1991. Crimea, which is barely connected to Ukraine by land, became part of Ukraine following a public referendum. The Ukrainian Peninsula In March 2014, Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, reclaimed Crimea as part of Russia. He described the annexation as the correction of a historic injustice and brushed aside international condemnation. In a show of democracy, Russia allowed Crimea to vote in a referendum on whether they wanted to be part of Russia or remain with the Ukraine.
    [Show full text]
  • Aleutian World War II National Historic Area 2012 Calendar
    AleutiAnAleutiAn World World WAr WAr ii ii nAtionAlnAtionAl Historic Historic AreA AreA 2012 calendar uring World War II the remote Aleutian Islands, home to the Unanga^x Alaska Affiliated Areas � (Aleut people) for over 8,000 years, became one of the fiercely contested 240 West 5th Ave � battlegrounds of the Pacific. This thousand- mile- long archipelago saw the first Anchorage, Alaska 99501 � invasion of American soil since the War of 1812, a mass internment of American (907) 644-3503 civilians, a 15- month air war, and one of the deadliest battles in the Pacific Theatre. Ounalashka Corporation This Page: “High above, over a true D P.O. Box 149 � ‘home of the brave,’ the floating folds of In 1996 Congress designated the Aleutian World War II National Historic Unalaska, Alaska 99685 � the Star Spangled Banner symbolize the American way of life to soldiers in training Area to interpret, educate, and inspire present and future generations about for the battles that will bring freedom to the history of the Unangan and the Aleutian Islands in the defense of the Visitor Information (907) 581-1276 an unhappy, wartorn world, Fort Knox, United States in World War II. In a unique arrangement, the Aleutian World Visitor Center (907) 581-9944 Kentucky.” June 1942. Library of Congress, War II National Historic Area and visitor center are owned and managed by LC-USW36-4. the Ounalashka Corporation (the village corporation for Unalaska) and the National Park Service provides them with technical assistance. Through this Front Cover: “Crash Landing” (P-38, Adak Below: Commander Innis entering Aerology cooperative partnership, the Unangax are the keepers of their history and Island) by Ogden Pleissner.
    [Show full text]
  • [email protected] Website: Crimeahrg.Org
    e-mail: [email protected] website: crimeahrg.org CRIMEA: UKRAINIAN IDENTITY BANNED Analytical report on politically motivated persecution and discrimination on the ground of pro-Ukrainian opinion Kyiv February 2016 e-mail: [email protected] website: crimeahrg.org CRIMEA: UKRAINIAN IDENTITY BANNED Analytical report on politically motivated persecution and discrimination on the ground of pro-Ukrainian opinion Kyiv February 2016 Crimea: Ukrainian identity banned. Analytical report on politically motivated persecution and discrimination on the ground of pro-Ukrainian opinion. Editor: Olga Skrypnyk — Kyiv, 2016. — 40 pages. The Crimea Human Rights Group (CHRG) is the initiative of the Crimean human rights defenders and journalists, aimed at promoting the observance and protection of human rights in Crimea by attracting wide attention to problems of human rights and international human- itarian law in the territory of the Crimean peninsula, and the search for and development of mechanisms for the protection of human rights in Crimea. The activity of the CHRG is guided, first and foremost, by the rules of basic documents on human rights, namely the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Helsinki Final Act, the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and others. The CHRG is guided by principles of objectivity, reliability and timeliness while preparing and spreading information. The CHRG’s team consists of experts, human rights activists and journalists from different countries who are involved in monitoring and documenting human rights violations in Crimea, since February, 2014. CHRG focuses on human rights violations in connection with the illegal actions of the Russian Federation in Crimea.
    [Show full text]
  • Crimea One Year After Russian Annexation
    POLICY BRIEF 24 March 2015 Crimea one year after Russian annexation Amanda Paul On 18 March 2014, the Lower House of the Russian Parliament approved a Treaty to annex the Ukrainian Black Sea Peninsula of Crimea by 443 to 1 votes. This act violated Ukraine's sovereignty, representing a fundamental breach of international law; the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and the terms of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, whereby the nuclear arsenal stationed on Ukraine's territory after the collapse of the Soviet Union was relinquished in exchange for security assurances of its sovereign territorial integrity. Russia, the US, France and the UK all signed. The annexation also violated a number of bilateral agreements between Ukraine and Russia. Russia's actions were immediately condemned by the international community. A 13 March European Parliament Resolution "firmly condemns Russia's act of aggression in invading Crimea, which is an inseparable part of Ukraine and recognised as such by the Russian Federation". One year later the situation in Crimea is bleak. The massive disruption of economic relations between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine, the nationalisation and confiscation of companies and a decrease in the agricultural and tourism sectors, along with international sanctions and isolation have brought about an increasingly difficult economic situation. Furthermore, there has been a worrying rise in extremism, xenophobia, and violations against human rights and fundamental freedoms. One of the most disturbing outcomes has been the persecution of persons belonging to minorities, in particular the Crimean ethnic Tatar community. While war in Eastern Ukraine has drawn the world's attention away from Crimea, the plight of the people in an increasingly lawless Crimea should not be forgotten.
    [Show full text]
  • International Crimes in Crimea
    International Crimes in Crimea: An Assessment of Two and a Half Years of Russian Occupation SEPTEMBER 2016 Contents I. Introduction 6 A. Executive summary 6 B. The authors 7 C. Sources of information and methodology of documentation 7 II. Factual Background 8 A. A brief history of the Crimean Peninsula 8 B. Euromaidan 12 C. The invasion of Crimea 15 D. Two and a half years of occupation and the war in Donbas 23 III. Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court 27 IV. Contextual elements of international crimes 28 A. War crimes 28 B. Crimes against humanity 34 V. Willful killing, murder and enforced disappearances 38 A. Overview 38 B. The law 38 C. Summary of the evidence 39 D. Documented cases 41 E. Analysis 45 F. Conclusion 45 VI. Torture and other forms of inhuman treatment 46 A. Overview 46 B. The law 46 C. Summary of the evidence 47 D. Documented cases of torture and other forms of inhuman treatment 50 E. Analysis 59 F. Conclusion 59 VII. Illegal detention 60 A. Overview 60 B. The law 60 C. Summary of the evidence 62 D. Documented cases of illegal detention 66 E. Analysis 87 F. Conclusion 87 VIII. Forced displacement 88 A. Overview 88 B. The law 88 C. Summary of evidence 90 D. Analysis 93 E. Conclusion 93 IX. Crimes against public, private and cultural property 94 A. Overview 94 B. The law 94 C. Summary of evidence 96 D. Documented cases 99 E. Analysis 110 F. Conclusion 110 X. Persecution and collective punishment 111 A. Overview 111 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizens and the State in the Government-Controlled Territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions Problems, Challenges and Visions of the Future
    Citizens and the state in the government-controlled territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions Problems, challenges and visions of the future Funded by: This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union through International Alert. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of International Alert and UCIPR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. Layout: Nick Wilmot Creative Front cover image: A mother and daughter living in temporary accommodation for those displaced by the violence in Donetsk, 2014. © Andrew McConnell/Panos © International Alert/Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research 2017 Citizens and the state in the government-controlled territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions Problems, challenges and visions of the future October 2017 2 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 3 2. Methodology 6 3. Findings 7 4. Statements from interviewees 22 5. Conclusions and recommendations 30 Citizens and the state in the government-controlled territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions 3 1. INTRODUCTION The demarcation line (the line of contact)1 and the ‘grey zone’ between the government-controlled2 and uncontrolled territories3 of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions separates the parties to the conflict in the east of Ukraine. The areas controlled by the Ukrainian authorities and bordering the ‘grey zone’ are very politically sensitive, highly militarised, and fall under a special governance regime that is different from the rest of the country. In the absence of a comprehensive political settlement and amid uncertain prospects, it is unclear how long this situation will remain. It is highly likely that over the next few years, Ukrainians in areas adjacent to the contact line will live under very particular and unusual governance structures, and in varying degrees of danger.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Pro 2 Annual Progress Report 2011 Report
    ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 2011 MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME www.undp.org.ua http://msdp.undp.org.ua UNDP Municipal Governance and Sustainable Development Programme Annual Progress Report 2011 Acknowledgement to Our Partners National Partners Municipality Municipality Municipality Municipality of of Ivano- of Zhytomyr of Rivne Kalynivka Frankivsk Municipality Municipality Municipality Municipality of Novograd- of Galych of Mykolayiv of Saky Volynskiy Municipality Municipality Municipality of Municipality of of Hola of Dzhankoy Kirovske Kagarlyk Prystan’ Municipality of Municipality Municipality of Municipality Voznesensk of Ukrayinka Novovolynsk of Shchelkino Municipality of Municipality Municipality of Municipality Mogyliv- of Lviv Dolyna of Rubizhne Podilskiy Academy of Municipality Municipality of Municipality Municipal of Tulchyn Yevpatoria of Bakhchysaray Management Committee of Settlement Vekhovna Rada on Settlement Settlement of Pervomayske State Construction of Nyzhnegorskiy of Zuya Local Self- Government Ministry of Regional Settlement Development, Settlement Construction, Municipality of of Krasno- of Novoozerne Housing and Vinnytsya gvardiyske Municipal Economy of Ukraine International Partners Acknowledgement to Our Partners The achievements of the project would not have been possible without the assistance and cooperation of the partner municipalities of our Programme, in particular Ivano-Frankivsk, Rivne, Zhytomyr, Galych, Novograd-Volynskiy, Mykolayiv, Kirovske, Hola Prystan’, Kagarlyk, Voznesensk,
    [Show full text]
  • Testimonies and Transcripts of World War II Jewish Veterans
    http://collections.ushmm.org Contact [email protected] for further information about this collection Testimonies and Transcripts of World War II Jewish Veterans RG-31.061 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Archives 100 Raoul Wallenberg Place, SW Washington, DC 20024-2126 Tel. (202) 479-9717 Email: [email protected] Descriptive Summary Title: Testimonies and transcripts of World War II Jewish veterans RG Number: RG-31.061 Accession Number: 2007.277 Creator: Instytut ︠iu︡ daı̈ky Extent: 1000 pages of photocopies Repository: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Archives, 100 Raoul Wallenberg Place, SW, Washington, DC 20024-2126 Languages: Russian Administrative Information Access: No restriction on access. Reproduction and Use: Publication by a third party requires a formal approval of the Judaica Institute in Kiev, Ukraine. Publication requires a mandatory citation of the original source. Preferred Citation: [file name/number], [reel number], RG-31.061, Testimonies and transcripts of World War II Jewish veterans, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Archives, Washington, DC. Acquisition Information: Purchased from the Instytut ︠iu︡ daı̈ky (Judaica Institute), Kiev, Ukraine. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Archives received the photocopied collection via the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum International Archives Program beginning in Sep. 2007. 1 https://collections.ushmm.org http://collections.ushmm.org Contact [email protected] for further information about this collection Custodial History Existence and location of originals: The original records are held by the Instytut ︠iu︡ daı̈ky, Belorusskaya 34-21, Kyiv, Ukraine 04119. Tel. 011 380 44 248 8917. More information about this repository can be found at www.judaica.kiev.ua. Processing History: Aleksandra B.
    [Show full text]
  • Situation of Human Rights in the Temporarily Occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol (Ukraine) in Engl
    A/HRC/36/CRP.3 Distr.: Restricted 25 September 2017 English only Human Rights Council Thirty-sixth session 11-29 September 2017 Agenda item 10 Technical assistance and capacity-building Situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine)* * Reproduced as received. GE.17-16782(E) A/HRC/36/CRP.3 Contents Page I. Executive summary ....................................................................................................................... 4 II. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 6 III. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 8 IV. Application of international law .................................................................................................... 9 1. International human rights law ............................................................................................. 9 2. International humanitarian law ............................................................................................. 9 V. Population data and movements .................................................................................................... 10 VI. Civil and Political Rights .............................................................................................................. 11 A. Right to nationality ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Annexation of Crimea and Attempts to Justify It in the Context of International Law
    LITHUANIAN ANNUAL STRATEGIC REVIEW 2015-2016 Volume 14 11 Erika Leonaitė * Institute of International Relations and Political Science, Vilnius University Dainius Žalimas** Faculty of Law, Vilnius University The Annexation of Crimea and Attempts to Justify It in the Context of International Law The article carries out an assessment of the “reunification of Crimea with Russia” from the point of view of contemporary international law and examines the arguments of Russian legal scholars who try to deny the annexation, i.e. the acquisition of territory by force. The assessment reveals recent changes in the interpretation of the principle of the self-determination of peoples in the Russian official position and legal doctrine, compared to the interpretation of this principle prevalent before the International Court of Justice adopted the Advisory Opinion on Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo. The analysis carried out in the article identifies the arguments and strategies that are employed in seeking to offer an -in terpretation of international legal norms that corresponds to the political interests of the Russian Federation. The examination reveals how new content is attached to international legal concepts in the works of Russian legal scholars who construct a position favourable to the Russian Federation, and in what way legal arguments are combined with statements and theoretical constructs that are irrelevant from the point of view of contemporary international law, thus deleting the boundaries between legal and non-legal reasoning and producing a pseudo-legal narrative that serves the po- litical interests of Russia. Introduction The annexation of part of the territory of Ukraine – namely, the Crime- an peninsula – was unexpected by both the international and academic com- munity.
    [Show full text]