are sanctions effective?
WHat about self-determination have a role to play in Crimea?
Does the invitation from Yanukovich validate Russia’s actions?
How about the Libyan precedent work?
normative universe of intl law
crimean time has been changed to Moscow time.
people discussed reversing annexation of Crimea.
Is the UN charter’s collective security system powerless when a permanent member of the UNSC commits aggression? Yes.
Are sanctions effective against Russia? No.
What about precedent of Libya, Iraq and Kosovo? West should be contrite. We should be sceptical about Putin’s comparisons
The USA likes the way the UN Security Council can do nothing against its actions.
Russia invitation from Yanukovich. He regrets inviting them and withdraws it.
No word about self-determination for Tatars.
Threat to Russian citizens in the Ukraine. No real threat.
vote in Crimea is that it was an illegal vote.
declarations of independence do not always violate intl law. See Kosovo
article 2.4 of Charter of UN – Russia has broken this.
Russia ignores UN General Assembly resolution against it.
NATO states in Baltic will be protected.
to hurt Russia cut off energy imports. but that would hurt Germany and Italy.
travel bans on officials.
one opinion poll gave Putin 82% support . 2014.
Russia expelled from G 8
Russia has lost face. 51 Bn dollars on Sochi. More than all the money spent all previous winter olympics
Putin cited Iraq and Kosovo.
Kerry said Russia is behaving in a 19th century by invading on a trumped up pretext. Kerry voted for liberation of Iraq
liberation of Kosovo – 1999. No UN resolution. it was sui generis
Putin quoted UN arguments on Kosovo.
Kiev’s rule was nothing like as bad as Belgrade. the US was not trying to annex Kosovo. Kosovo became independent after 10 years of UN rule
Russia attacked Georgia – Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Kiev was heart of Russia in 13th century
Solzhenitsyn said that USSR should be broken up but Ukraine, Crimea and Belarus should remain with Russia.
75% of all Russians identify all of the Ukraine with Russia
Russia is articulating a spheres of influences of influence global order. left tens of millions of co citizens out of Russia
China makes similar maritime claims in South China Sea
in USA should be clear that meretricious legal arguments that are politically expedient can be used by another side.
RUSSIAN LAW PROFESSOR Anatoly Kapustin
2014 revolution in Ukraine is not good for intl law
legality of new Ukrainian Govt is zero
intl law requires other states to refrain from interference in internal affairs of a revolutionary state
if a govt is anti constitutional or cannot secure human rights then another situation arises
then neighbouring states can monitor the situation and take appropriate action
internal situation in the Ukraine. There are characteristics which are total absence of rule of law
power of the govt is not based on law.
there is political instability . chaos and violence effects other countries
unfair distribution of resources. corruption – that is Ukraine, [sounds like Russia]
armed groups marauding.
Ukraine is a concern of the intl community
circumstances gives rise to an appropriate reaction by its neighbours due to extraordinary conditions
self determination. secession of Crimea. Russia has not annexed it. it has been reintegrated
self determination. people’s will has been shown.
self determination is in UN Charter. it is a human right
principle has been revealed in other intl law instruments
each people has the right to self determination
recognised by the UN’
it is to be realised free choice without interference
it presumes there is a possibility between internal self determination (autonomy_) or secession .
It is admitted on conditions to join another state
a choice of political status.
there is no intl law to regulate this process
recognise this . declaration of 1970. Vienna Declaration
secession may be legitimate in some cases.
if people live in a state that does not respect human rights or their right to self determination then people can exercise self determination and choose the form.
NINA KHRUSCHEVA at NY school of law
Russia govt’s language is Orwellian
it is not an annexation of crimea but reintegration.
Putin’s annexation speech about crimea – claimed Bolshevik who gave some land to Ukraine did so illegally.
If we deconstruct history then we can see Donetsk was called Yuzovka because John Hughes founded it – British guy.
Kharkiv was Ukrainian originally. it was russified.
Bolsheviks were illegal said Putin and so it current Ukrainian govt
post Bolshevik USSR – was it always illegal. everything done was illegal?
in eastern Ukraine define themselves as Soviets.
1954 – apologised for her family.
decision was made with inconsistencies – Stalin’s constitution of 1936 was still used
that 1936 constitution adopted before great purges.
all laws were arbitrary. what are these inconsistencies in Putin;s view
citing legal matters in USSR time is v risky. borders were changed all the time.
Transcacausia was made then broken up
1956 Karelo-Finnish republic was dissolved.
Law was used as politics.
transfer was legal according to soviet constitution
territory could be transferred as both parties agreed. no referendum. kremlin told them to
1991 yeltsin allowed self determintion
1992 crimea adopted a constitution to be independent. trilingual. 1995 ukrainian parliament annulled that and made crimea autonomous
if kiev government is a result of a coup then crimea returns to 1992 constitution
Putin’s justification was bogus since it is political not legal
he favours law a la carte
chechnya. fought for independence. Russian territorial integrity trumped self determination but in crimea self determination counts
Kosovo – this is a false comparison.
Tatars in Crimea should get independence since they are original people there
Kharkiv was Ukrainian in 1600s.
Russia claims its rights are abused. this is bogus. it is Ukrainians who ARE BEing abused and killed
law misused as politics ceases to be law internationally or domestically
PETER OLSON. former NATO legal adviser
worked for NATO
this is not just part of NATO Russia rivalry
different views on NATO actions since 1991. it is clear why former soviet states wanted to join NATO\\
no NATO act can justify Russia’s violation of the Ukraine.
how are we to evaluate Putin’s references to Iraq, Kosovo or Libya.
Russian case is based on self determination.
No UN resolution in relation to Crimea but there was in Libya and Iraq
Russia claimed it had no troops in Crimea
Russia tries to change the subject by citing Iraq etc… and create moral ambiguity
to convey unpleasant messages that this is the way of the world
self determination is not pertinent to Iraq and Libya.
intervention in Iraq was legally problematic
legal case there was built on shared and real concerns about WMD against UN security council resolutions. there was no annexation. Libya no annexation. Iraq is sovereign
Crimea is not sovereign
no fly zone in Libya – mandate to take all necessary measures to protect by Libyan civilians against attack.
Kosovo is pertinent. case of self determination. Putin discusses this. key difference in Crimea occurred in context of intimidation by Russian Army’
differences – oppression of atrocitiies of Tatars
1244 resolution – preamble to that in Kosovo
1244 – resolution removed Yugoslavia from sovereignty. there was status process
declaration of independence was after a free election
supposed western unilateralism – these were all UN processes.
Iraq followed UN resolutions.
nothing of this happened with respect to Crimea. It has not been raised in the UN security council
IS UN collective security council powerless against a permanent security council member?
enforcement is feeble. permanent member veto.
charter envisages roles for regional organisations. countries can organise for self defence like NATO. NATO is defensive and prudent
sanctions . some bite. should be intensified.
UN General Assembly called on intl organisations not to recognise annexation of crimea.
Crimea example is attack on territorial integrity and political independence.
– make a mockery of human rights and self determination
– attacks procedural norms. such issues to be debated in UN. Other states have done the same. It may be the first to treat the UN as irrelevant’
striking in euro context
territoral integrity and HR have been accepted as normative in europe more so than anywhere else in the world
unease in europe
other states have also done wrong.
question on self determination. how large must the community be. Washington DC independence?
Can any community anywhere declare independence?
Ukrainian constitution allows for territorial revision if the whole country agrees
in Crimean referendum there was no option to maintain status quo.
self determination is for a people not a community.
he says a community can self determine in another way – as an autonomous region or federal state not necessarily as a sovereign state
In Crimea cannot be simplified. The Ukrainian constitution is invalid. the legal situation is unclear.
there were a few editions of the Ukrainian constitution but they all had a provision that the Ukraine was a unitary state with Crimea as an autonomous republic.
crimea voted in a few referenda for independence in the 90s.
Russia treats the UN as irrelevant
from Russian viewpoint – there was a belief that ambassador Bolton treated UN with contempt
this created a precedent. that is 90% of Putin’s attitude.
one ambassdor in one administration was rude to the UN. That does not mean the US should never have a view on UN matters.
He disliked Bolton
US record there has been much respect for UN.
the US took the UN seriously even under Bolton
this issue which is one which led Russia to feel that it was necessary to use force against the norms of territorial integrity.
he thought it was not right to raise in the UN.
said Russian troops did not cross the Ukrainian border
some troops took part in Crimea securing operation
Russia helped local self defence forces from armed people from Kiev from defending the land.
No one was killed
Poroshenko ordered his men to use force against Ukrainian people – this has been published. it was a criminal order. his soldiers refused to obey.
cf – Libya where Russia supported Gaddaffi when he proposed to kill his own civilians.
responsibility to protect. But that was not the reason why Russia went in even if true. Only discovered later/
there is an attempt at a solution in Cyprus. Only land that recognise North Cyprus
not making a value judgment on Crimea – there is not appetite for standing up to this
Putin would not take Crimea to UN because he does not see it as an intl issue
no personal basis for knowing what USA has promised Russia to induce Russia to agree to UN Security council resolutions on Libya..
Gaddaffi’s departure from his hideout was not necessarily to leave the country. he made threats against the population
he used regime forces to attack Libyan civilians months. was not bright
there were attacks on Misrata which were indiscriminate
legalistic arguments are apt in intl law
there is a clear violation of article 2.4 – Russia has used arguments like this before in Abkhazia and S Ossetia and gotten away with it. Moral authority of USA undermined by Iraq
precedents cited by Putin – there is no direct parallel between these examples and Crimea. He expressed that we live in a turbulent world. Other states do not obey intl law. Breaking intl law can be neutral
Crimea is an intl issue despite Putin not treating it that way.
his motivation is reconquering USSR
he is a rival of the USA. he is aggrieved by US hubris
what the lion can do the dog cannot.
this is not about US moral authority though that is impaired.
intl community’s respponse to violations of fundamental norms of post war intl law
it is bad to get caught up in tu quoque arguments rather than looking at what is happening here
it is dangerous