Russia, the Right to Self-Determination and Secession

2021 ◽  
pp. 95-145
Author(s):  
Johannes Socher
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
South Ossetia ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Independent States ◽  
The Right

Chapter 3 is the second of three chapters analysing Russia’s post-Soviet state practice with regard to the right to self-determination. It argues that prior to Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008, Russia’s state practice in the four major secessionist conflicts outside the Russian Federation’s territory (Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, and Transnistria in Moldova) was relatively consistent, notwithstanding valid critique of hypocrisy. With the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states shortly after Kosovo’s declaration of independence, Russia’s approach arguably changed, although the underlying legal view was consistent with its position in the Kosovo case in front of the International Court of Justice, where Russia did not deny Kosovo recognition because of a different view on self-determination and secession but because it refused to accept the logic of some states which viewed Kosovo as a ‘special’ or ‘unique’ case that cannot be compared with other secessionist conflicts. The case studies furthermore show that Russia started to construct its own legal framework to justify its actions.

scholarly journals The Use of Force, Wars of National Liberation and the Right to Self-Determination in the South Ossetian Conflict

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 567-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kieran O'Reilly ◽  
Noelle Higgins
Keyword(s):  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
National Liberation ◽  
The South ◽  
South Ossetia ◽  
International Attention ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe 2008 conflict in South Ossetia, involving both Georgian and Russian armed forces, attracted much international attention and debate. This article seeks to analyse the international legal framework regarding the use of force which should have applied to this conflict. It will first look at the history of, and circumstances surrounding, the South Ossetian conflict, and then examine the jus ad bellum regarding wars of national liberation and aggression. The concept of intervention to protect nationals abroad will also be discussed. These legal paradigms will then be applied to the events of August 2008 in the region of South Ossetia to analyse the legality of the use of force in this conflict.

Russia and the Right to Self-Determination in the Post-Soviet Space

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Socher
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Legal Rhetoric ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
South Ossetia ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Soviet Space ◽  
The Right ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law ◽  
Post Soviet Space

As a concept of international law, the right to self-determination is widely renowned for its lack of clarity. Broadly speaking, one can differentiate between a liberal and a nationalist tradition. In modern international law, the balance between these two opposing traditions is sought in an attempt to contain or ‘domesticate’ the nationalist conception by limiting it to ‘abnormal’ situations, that is to colonialism in the sense of ‘alien subjugation, domination and exploitation’. Essentially, this distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ situations has since, the distinction was made, been the heart of the matter in the legal discourse on the right to self-determination, with the important qualification regarding the need to preserve existing borders. This book situates Russia’s approach to the right to self-determination in that discourse by way of a regional comparison vis-à-vis a ‘Western’ or European perspective, and a temporal comparison with the former Soviet doctrine of international law. Against the background of the Soviet Union’s role in the evolution of the right to self-determination, the bulk of the book analyses Russia’s relevant state practice in the post-Soviet space through the prisms of sovereignty, secession, and annexation, illustrated by a total of seven case studies on the conflicts over Abkhazia, Chechnya, Crimea, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Tatarstan, and Transnistria. Complemented by a review of the Russian scholarship on the right to self-determination, it is suggested that Russia’s approach may be best understood not only in terms of power politics disguised as legal rhetoric, but can be seen as evidence of traits of a regional (re-)fragmentation of international law.

The International Court of Justice and Peoples

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-180
Author(s):  
Timo Koivurova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe article examines how the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has dealt with the concept of peoples and peoples' rights in its jurisprudence. Most prominent has been the Court's role with respect to the right of self-determination and it is this issue that forms the core of the article. A second important question dealt with is the role of indigenous peoples in ICJ case practice, as the struggle by those peoples to gain collective rights is a recent development in international law. Drawing on this analysis, the discussion proceeds to consider the role that the ICJ has played in the development of the rights of peoples in general and what its future role might be in this sphere of international law. The article also examines the way in which the Court has allowed peoples to participate in its proceedings and whether and how its treatment of peoples' rights has strengthened the general foundations of international law.

The Unique Character of the Mandate for Palestine

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-389
Author(s):  
Matthijs de Blois
Keyword(s):  
Jewish People ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Equal Weight ◽  
Jewish State ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Unique Character ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
State Of Israel

The Mandate for Palestine has a unique character regarding both its beneficiaries, the Jewish people, wherever they live, and the obligations of the Mandatory power. At the same time it has been a burdensome stone right from the beginning. Representatives of Palestinian Arabs have rejected it as being incompatible with their right to self-determination. The policies of Great Britain, the Mandatory power, show a gradual departure from its obligations. The establishment of the Jewish national home became, instead of the primary obligation, just one of the duties of equal weight and content as others under the Mandate. Following the establishment of the State of Israel, the relevance of the mandatory system in the light of Article 80 of the UN Charter has been recognised, inter alia, by the International Court of Justice. The unique character of the Palestine Mandate, however, has been kept under wraps. Some academic writings and legal actions by the Palestinians now offer a radical revisionism, which uses the Mandate as the legal basis for a Palestinian state. This trend is not without consequences for the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and for the right of the Palestinians to self-determination.

‘Armed Attack’ after the Oil Platforms Case

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 719-735 ◽  
Author(s):  
DOMINIC RAAB
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Oil Platforms ◽  
International Court ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
The Right ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
The Impact

The International Court of Justice rendered its judgement on the merits in the case concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) on 6 November 2003. This article reviews the judgement, focusing on the Court's substantive legal determinations on the scope of ‘armed attack’ under the right of self-defence. The review further considers the implications of the judgement as regards the role of the Court in the judicial settlement of disputes. It concludes by considering the impact of the judgement on the legal framework for international peace and security as applied in the maritime context.

The Kosovo Advisory Opinion Scrutinized

2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
JURE VIDMAR
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
The Right

AbstractIn the Kosovo Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice took the position that Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence did not violate any applicable rules of international law. This article does not dispute the final finding, but rather critically examines the Court's somewhat controversial reasoning and considers the added value of the opinion for the clarification of legal doctrine in relation to unilateral declarations of independence. An argument is made that the Court's interpretation of the question and the identification of the authors of the declaration had significant implications for the Court's final finding. Yet, the Court cannot be criticized for not answering the question of whether or not Kosovo is a state, whether Kosovo Albanians are beneficiaries of the right of self-determination, or even whether the ‘right to remedial secession’ is applicable. However, the Court may well have implicitly answered that recognition of Kosovo is not illegal.

Russia, the Right to Self-Determination and Annexation

2021 ◽  
pp. 146-176
Author(s):  
Johannes Socher
Keyword(s):  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Legal Argumentation ◽  
Legal Argument ◽  
South Ossetia ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Soviet Space ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
The Right

Chapter 4 is the last of three chapters analysing Russia’s post-Soviet state practice with regard to the right to self-determination. It shows how Russia (ab)used the right of peoples to self-determination as a pretext to justify territorial acquisitions by the threat and use of force, in particular in the context of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, but also in its retrospect evaluation of the Soviet Union’s annexation of the Baltic states in 1940. Apart from a ‘referendum’, Russia’s main legal argument for the legality of Crimea’s incorporation into the Russian Federation was based on the reading that the Ukrainian Revolution had created an ‘extreme situation’ in which Crimea’s right to self-determination could not be exercised any longer in the constitutional framework of Ukraine. As in the cases of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the claim of a right of secession had however no sufficient factual basis, although the underlying legal view—that the right of peoples to self-determination may confer a right of secession in ‘extreme situations’—was consistent with earlier state practice. ‘Crimea’ arguably marked a shift away from legal argumentation towards recourse to eclectic historical claims and restoration of hegemonic power, in which the right of peoples to self-determination continues to function as a central legal argument, but legal reasoning more generally loses its dominant position in the official justification of Russia’s state practice in the post-Soviet space.

scholarly journals SELF-DETERMINATION, THE CHAGOS ADVISORY OPINION AND THE CHAGOSSIANS

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 203-220
Author(s):  
Stephen Allen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
Chagos Archipelago

AbstractIn its Chagos Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the UK's detachment of the Chagos Archipelago from the colony of Mauritius on the eve of independence constituted a violation of customary international law (CIL). This article analyses the Court's approach to establishing the emergence and content of the right to self-determination in this frustrated case of decolonisation. It goes on to examine the argument that self-determination's peremptory character has decisive consequences in this specific context—a contention which found favour with several judges in their Separate Opinions. The article explores the extent to which the claims and counterclaims, made during the advisory proceedings, turned on countervailing readings of not only the key sources of custom but also of the principle of inter-temporal law. The final sections consider the significance of the Chagos Opinion for the Chagossians, both in relation to the Archipelago's resettlement and for their outstanding appeal in the UK courts (where the European Convention on Human Rights performs a pivotal role).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document