The annexation of Crimea is valid under international law. Argument 1: Russia’s annexation of Crimea did di d not violate Ukraine’s Ukraine’s territorial integrity because the military intervention was requested by President Y. 1. The annexation of Crimea was not forced upon Ukraine because it was President Y who requested Russia’s military assistance to establish order. This is the legitimate government that governs Ukraine. a. UN Security Council Meeting: Russian Federation i. “On the night of 1 March, unknown armed people sent from Kiev attempted to storm the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.” ii. “In those conditions, Mr. Aksyonov, Prime Minister of Crimea, went to the President of Russia with a request for assistance to restore peace in Crimea. According to available information, the appeal was also supported by Mr. Yanukovych, whose removal from office, we believe, was illegal.” iii. President Y was elected president on Feb 2010 and the elections were judged as free and fair. He remains as the legitimate president of Ukraine from 2010-2015 unless he resigns, impeached by the parliament, unable to exercise his function and powers due to health, or death. The ousting of the president has no constitutional basis and President Y has insisted that he remains the legitimate president. 1. Art. 105: “The title of President of Ukraine is protected by law and is reserved for the President for life, unless the President of Ukraine has been removed from office by the procedure of impeachment.” 2. Art. 108: “The President of Ukraine exercises his or her powers until the assumption of office by the newly-elected President of Ukraine. The President’s powers shall be terminated pre-term in case of: 1. resignation; 2. inability to exercise his or her powers for reasons of health; 3. removal from office by the procedure of impeachment; 4. death.” 3. The Feb 22 snap elections did not obtain the ¾ vote required to impeach President Y. Only 328 of the 450 members voted to remove him. 337 votes were needed. 2. The international community does not have a consistent policy in condemning annexation. Condemning annexation is based on violations of territorial integrity but in the case of Crimea, there was no forcible intervention by Russia. Thus, the move of the parliament of Crimea to declare independence and reunification with Russia has no basis in the same sense as the condemnation of Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait.
i. Tibet was annexed by China and has not pursued an inquiry on the status of Tibet since its declaration of independence in 1913. There was a GA resolution passed in 1961 calling for the cessation of violence but the UN has not recognized Tibet’s declaration of independence. ii. The UN gave international recognition to pursuits for independence by states like Kosovo and Timor-Leste after the issuance of declaration of independence which were both opposed by the States which annexed them.
Argument 2: Russia’s annexation of Crimea was in response to the right to self determination of Crimea. The subsequent vote to declare independence and accede with Russia was a voluntary act, not by force. 1. UN Charter Art. 1 “ To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measure s to strengthen universal peace” 2. The structure for the right to self-determination was in place for Crimea but this has been threatened by opposition violence who are pro European vis-à-vis President Y’s intention to forge stronger ties with Russia. This violates the right to self-determination of Russians in Crimea. a. Rejected a European deal to build stronger ties with Russia b. Russia waived 1/3 of Ukraine’s debt and discounted gas. c. Opposition violence and domination of opposition leaders after President Y in Kiev threatens safety of ethnic Russians in Crimea. i. Anulled a law which declared Russian as the official language in Eastern Ukraine ii. Violation of Russia-Ukraine Friendly Relations: “Russia and Ukraine have a Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership, dating from 31 May 1997. In Article 12, “The High Contracting Parties guarantee the ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious identity of national minorities on their territories and shall create the conditions for the encouragement of this identity.” 3. There are no rules on the declaration of independence. “In no case, however, does the practice of States as a whole suggest that the act of promulgating the declaration was regarded as contrary to international law. On the contrary, State practice during this period points clearly to the conclusion that international law con- tained no prohibition of declarations of independence. During the second half of the twentieth century, the international law of self -determination developed in such a way as to create a right to independence for the peoples of non-self-governing territories and peoples subject to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation ”
