What international law says about the annexation of Crimea

What is it about?

In 2014, Russia gained military control in the region of Crimea in Ukraine. A referendum was held, and Crimea was annexed by Russia. In this essay, the authors discuss the annexation from the point of view of international law. In particular, they focus on the law of self determination. The concept of self determination is not well understood. In simple terms, it states that the people living in a certain region have the right to decide how they are governed. Before 2014, the people of Crimea had their own territory and government. This means that they had the right of internal self determination. In such a case, their independence and merger with Russia is legal only in the case of human rights violations. But, in reality, this was not the case in Crimea. As an independent state, Ukraine had the right to maintain the integrity of its territory. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine recognized the citizens’ right to participate in a referendum. But, it also considered the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional. In this light, the annexation of Crimea by Russia violated both international and Ukrainian laws.

Featured Image

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Why is it important?

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is a major international conflict. To some, it seems like a new, separate event. But, in reality, it is an extension of the conflict from 2014. Russia has made several claims to justify its actions. But, these justifications do not have a sound basis in international law, and this essay explains why. It is an important sociopolitical lesson, both for governments and the people. KEY TAKEAWAY: The annexation of Crimea by Russia is an illegal act. It is not justified by the right to self determination. It sets a dangerous example of powerful countries doing what they wish to without seeing serious outcomes. Urgent action is, therefore needed, so that there is a clearer international understanding and clarification around the boundaries of the concept of self-determination, which is often misinterpreted or misused for political ends. This could prevent unlawful attacks against other states in the future.