Crimea’s Separation from Ukraine: An Analysis of the Right to Self-Determination and (Remedial) Secession in International Law

Abstract

This article considers the (il)legality of Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine from the perspective of public international law. It examines whether the right to self-determination or an alleged right to (remedial) secession could serve as a legal basis for the separation of the Crimean Peninsula, as the Crimean authorities and the Russian Federation seem to have argued. The article explains that beyond the context of decolonization, the right to self-determination does not encompass a general right to unilateral secession and demonstrates that contemporary international law does not acknowledge a right to remedial secession. With respect to the case of Crimea, it argues that even when assuming that such a right does exist, the threshold in this regard is not met. In the absence of a legal entitlement, the article subsequently turns to the question whether Crimea's unilateral secession was prohibited under international law. It contends that while the principle of territorial integrity discourages unilateral secession, it does not actually prohibit it. Nonetheless, there are situations in which an attempt at unilateral secession is considered to be illegal in view of the circumstances. It is argued that it is precisely this exception that is relevant in the case of Crimea.

Pravo Na Samoopredjeljenje U Međunarodnom Pravu

“…Na osnovu ovog prava oni slobodno određuju svoj politički status i slobodno postižu svoj ekonomski, socijalni i kulturni razvoj". 10 Deklaracijom je podvrgavanje naroda stranoj dominaciji i eksploataciji određeno kao negacija osnovnih ljudskih prava. Međutim, u samom članu 6.…”

Secession and Referendum

“…By contrast, there was no genuine attempt by the government of Crimea to settle the dispute internally, albeit the Ukrainian government had manifested its willingness to negotiate a new form of extended autonomy. 796 As regards the right to self-determination, the people of Crimea were not explicit in claiming they had a right to self-determination. It was rather the Russian Federation that labelled the referendum and declaration of independence inter alia, as an expression of the right to self-determination.…”

“…Moreover, it remains highly questionable whether the people of Crimea actually qualify as a people in its international legal connotation. 800 As it was explained in Chapter 1, the group shares some identifiable objective features, but within Crimea there are also some other groups such as Crimean Tatars which could qualify as a minority group, thus entitled to exercise the right to self-determination in its internal dimension only. 801 More correctly, it could be claimed that Crimea typically qualifies as an unprivileged unit, 802 that is to say that it is not entitled to self-determination.…”

“…800 As it was explained in Chapter 1, the group shares some identifiable objective features, but within Crimea there are also some other groups such as Crimean Tatars which could qualify as a minority group, thus entitled to exercise the right to self-determination in its internal dimension only. 801 More correctly, it could be claimed that Crimea typically qualifies as an unprivileged unit, 802 that is to say that it is not entitled to self-determination. Thus, it tries to increase its legitimacy through democratic means, in order to gather international support.…”