scholarly journals Crimean conflict – from the perspectives of Russia, Ukraine, and public international law

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-45
Author(s):  
Milena Ingelevič-Citak
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Russian Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Crimean Crisis ◽  
Secessionist Movement

Abstract The article presents the Crimean conflict from Russian and Ukrainian standpoints, confronting them with international law analysis. It is worth to mention, that Crimean crisis is still extremely controversial, since both parties are justifying their actions with norms of international law. This article starts with brief introduction of historical background of the Crimean crisis. Second chapter assesses the Crimean secessionist movement claiming the right of self-determination, and its compliance with Ukrainian law. Third chapter examines Russia’s position and its actions on the basis of Russian law. Fourth chapter presents the international law analysis of events in Crimea and its current legal status. Results of the analysis are presented in a conclusion.

scholarly journals The Right to Self-Determination of Modern Secessionist Movements under International Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 285-302
Author(s):  
Ja’far Mohammad Khair Al Sabbagh
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Parent State ◽  
The World ◽  
New States ◽  
The Stability ◽  
The Right ◽  
Universal Order

States’ boundaries have changed to a large extent over the course of time, in fact, the world has not always been the same as nowadays. In place of archaic forms of social organisation, the universal order has appeared where determinate and inviolable borders play a crucial role in ensuring the stability of states and resisting separatist movements. At the same time, secessionist movements throughout the world continually aim to gain independence from the ‘parent’ state invoking the right to self-determination. In this paper, the researcher will examine whether a part of the population of a state or a sub-unit of that state has a right to secede and create a new state and/or integrate into another. The article consists of a strong theoretical part dealing with statehood, self-determination and secession with a view of the dynamic development of these notions since the rapid birth of many new states as a result of decolonization. Thereafter, the validity of the gathered results will be verified by a comparative analysis of the cases of Kosovo, Crimea and Catalonia with regard to the historical background of these secessionist entities.

The Annexation of Crimea and the Boundaries of the Will of the People

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jure Vidmar
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
International Borders ◽  
The People ◽  
The Will ◽  
Territorial Status ◽  
The Stability ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe secession of Crimea and—more broadly—the conflict in Ukraine reopened questions concerning the limits of a democratic expression of the will of the people and the use of force in order to procure annexation of a territory belonging to another State. This article seeks to clarify the law governing the change of the legal status of a territory through secession and merger with another state. It argues not only that the right of self-determination does not grant an entitlement to alter the legal status of a territory, but also that general international law does not prohibit such an alteration. The rules of international law favor the stability of theexistinginternational borders and thus the territorial status quo, but this does not mean that a unilateral attempt at altering an existing territorial arrangement automatically constitutes an internationally wrongful act. Any change of the legal status of a territory becomes illegal, however, upon anoutsideuse of force. Such an illegality cannot be “cured” by a democratically expressed will of the people.

International law and indigenous peoples

1995 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Marquardt
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous People ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Positive Answer ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Right

AbstractIndigenous people- international law - self-determination. In recent years, indigenous people have become increasingly active at the international level. Recent developments, in particular the drafting of a UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, indicate that new rules of international law may be emerging from this process. The new developments raise the question of the legal status of indigenous peoples. This question has essentially two elements: whether indigenous peoples may claim sovereign rights and whether the right to self-determination of peoples is applicable to them. A number of arguments suggest that a positive answer may be given to these two questions. An important aspect in this context is that indigenous peoples should be distinguished from minorities.

scholarly journals The Issues of Secession in the Process of the Rise and Fall of States in the Light of International Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boubacar Sidi Diallo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International System ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Global Perspective ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Simple Fact ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right ◽  
Constituent Elements ◽  
Secessionist Movement

The aims of this contribution is to check the validity of the old theory, which goes back to Jellinek but is still dominant, which states that secession as well as the process of forming a new state, fall under the scope of a “simple fact” and thereby escape through definition to any law of way. According to this theory, secession is not a question of “Law” but a question of pure fact, failure or success: if a secessionist movement succeeds in establishing a new effectiveness, that is to say, puts in place the “Constituent elements” of a state, a new state is born. It is interesting to observe that with the phenomenon of the rise or the collapse of States, from the global perspective of international order and especially from the point of view of international law, the States concerned are, in practice, not simply left to their fate. On the contrary, the rise or the collapse of a State anywhere in the world is seen as a matter of concern for the international community, since the international system as a whole is felt to be affected. In such cases, international reactions have not been manifested primarily through the States as such, either indi-vidually or together. Basically, these reactions had to cope with the dilemma of choos-ing between two fundamental principles of legitimacy in international law: on the one hand, the sovereignty and equality of States and, on the other, the right of peoples to self-determination.

The Right of Secession in Public International Law

1983 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 24-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Turp
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Community ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
Right Of Self Determination

SummaryIn light of the numerous secessionist claims witnessed by the international community, it is of great interest to ascertain if international law provides for a right of secessionist self-determination. An analysis of treaty provisions encompassing the right of self-determination of peoples, namely the United Nations Charter and the Human Rights Covenants, suggests that the latter treaties consecrate an authentic right to secede. Such a right appears to be unhindered by any customary norm which would prohibit secession as a means of implementation of the right of self-determination of peoples, seeing that the practice of States is clearly divided on the issue of secession. It is submitted, however, that there is a need for more detached criteria with respect to the right of secession, its beneficiaries and its conditions of exercise and, consequently, for an acknowledgement, to the benefit of the international community as a whole, of the legitimacy of national affirmations and secessionist claims.

Sovereignty, Self-Determination, and Natural Resources

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérémie Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resources ◽  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Food Sovereignty ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Ambivalent Relationship ◽  
The Right

The issue of sovereignty over natural resources has been a key element in the development of international law, notably leading to the emergence of the principle of States’ permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. However, concomitant to this focus on States’ sovereignty, international human rights law proclaims the right of peoples to self-determination over their natural resources. This has led to a complex and ambivalent relationship between the principle of States’ sovereignty over natural resources and peoples’ rights to natural resources. This chapter analyses this conflicting relationship and examines the emergence of the right of peoples to freely dispose of their natural resources and evaluates its potential role in contemporary advocacy. It notably explores how indigenous peoples have called for the revival of their right to sovereignty over natural resources, and how the global peasants’ movement has pushed for the recognition of the concept of food sovereignty.

Russland und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker im postsowjetischen Raum

2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-26
Author(s):  
Johannes Socher
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Legal Rhetoric ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
Regional Comparison ◽  
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 unclarity. 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, i.e. to colonialism in the sense of ‘alien subjugation, domination and exploitation’. Essentially, this distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ situations has since 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 study 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 study analyses Russia’s relevant state practice in the post-Soviet space through the prisms of sovereignty, secession, and annexation. Complemented by a review of the Russian scholarship on the topic, it is suggested that Russia’s approach to the right to self-determination 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.

Constitutional Protection of the Right to Self-Determination

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Marishet Mohammed Hamza
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Constitutional Protection ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Right

Abstract The right to self-determination is an essential international law principle that holds an erga omnes character. Also, the right is often enshrined under domestic legislation, including constitutions. The 1995 Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Constitution (fdre Constitution) is one such constitution and, uniquely, it explicitly recognizes the right to self-determination including the right of secession as an unconditional right of the nations, nationalities, and peoples in Ethiopia. This paper selects the fdre Constitution and analyses whether such constitutional law frameworks better address some of the contentious matters concerning the right to self-determination under international law. In a comparative perspective (with international law), the article analyses, inter alia, how the fdre Constitution approach the questions of who the subjects of the right to self-determination are, and the substantive guarantees for exercising internal and external aspects of the right to self-determination with particular emphasis on secession as a legal right.

Political Participation of Aboriginal People (Orang Asli) in Peninsular Malaysia: Examining the Compatibility of the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 with Undrip Standards

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Muhamad Sayuti Hassan ◽  
Rohaida Nordin
Keyword(s):  
Political Participation ◽  
International Law ◽  
Aboriginal People ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Peninsular Malaysia ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Aboriginal Peoples ◽  
Orang Asli ◽  
The Right

The main objective of this article is to critically evaluate the compatibility of the ‘right to political participation’ of the Orang Asli by looking at international law standards. The present study utilises a qualitative socio-legal approach, which analyses the political participation of the Orang Asli under Malaysian law and determines whether the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 (apa) can provide for the protection, well-being, and the advancement of the Orang Asli. Arguably, the existing provisions of the apa are not in conformity with the recognition in undrip and in no way guarantee the Orang Asli’s right to self-determination as recognised by international law. Thus, the current study recommends an amendment to the apa and introduces guidelines to empower political participation of the Orang Asli by incorporating the principles of undrip. The amendment is necessary to ensure that the protection of the right to self-determination of the Orang Asli is compatible with international law standards.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document