Russian doctrine of international law after the annexation of Crimea: monograph

Description

The monograph is a comprehensive study of approaches adopted by the Russian doctrine of international law regarding the 2013-2015 events which are directly or indirectly connected with international legal relations between Ukraine and the Russian Federation - the Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine, the use of force by Russia in Crimea, the annexation of the peninsula, and the armed conflict in parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The monograph offers an analysis of the key arguments produced to justify the “lawfulness” of Russia’s actions and expose “violations of international law by Ukraine” and evaluates the conclusions drawn by Russian researchers from the standpoint of international legal norms and principles, the practice of their application, and modern approaches in global international law. The author identifies the changes that took place in the Russian doctrine on the main issues in international legal regulation of relations between states under the influence of the 2013-2015 events and summarizes the special features of contemporary doctrinal approaches and the main tendencies of their transformation. The book is intended for everyone interested in contemporary issues in international law. Contents ...... 5 Introduction ...... 7 I. EVENTS OF THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY ...... 11 1.1. Ukrainians did not have the right to revolt against the regime of Viktor Yanukovych ...... 13 1.2. An armed coup d’état took place in Ukraine in February 2014. The deposition of Yanukovych took place with blatant violations of Ukraine’s Constitution; Ukraine’s new government is illegitimate and consists of fascists (nationalists, Banderites, and anti-Semites) ...... 17 1.3. Ukraine’s statehood was destroyed as a result of the coup and a new state emerged to which Russia has no obligations ...... 23 1.4. The West blatantly interfered with Ukraine’s internal affairs, thereby violating the international legal principle of non-intervention, ran the Euromaidan, and put pressure on Ukraine’s authorities ...... 27 II. RUSSIA’S USE OF FORCE IN CRIMEA AND THE “INTEGRATION” OF THE PENINSULA ...... 33 2.1. Russia’s use of force against Ukraine was necessary to protect Russian citizens and compatriots ...... 36 2.2. Russia’s use of force against Ukraine was lawful because the legitimate leaders of Ukraine (Yanukovych) and Crimea (Sergey Aksyonov) had requested it ...... 43 2.3. The events in Crimea are a case of secession and subsequent accession of the Republic of Crimea as an independent state to the Russian Federation ...... 48 2.4. Ukraine did not respect the principle of equality and the self-determination of peoples vis-à-vis the Crimean population, so the Crimeans had the right to secede ...... 63 2.5. The events in Crimea are similar to those in Kosovo, the Aland Islands, the island of Mayotte, the Falkland Islands, Puerto Rico, Gibraltar, Scotland, during the unification of Germany, in South Sudan, and other cases. Denying the legality of Crimea’s secession, the West demonstrates its policy of double standards ...... 69 2.6. Crimea is historically Russian. Ukraine has exercised peaceful annexation of the peninsula since 1991. Russia did recognize this under certain conditions which Ukraine violated in 2014. The transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 was contrary to the constitutional law of the USSR ...... 79 2.7. Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 5 December 1994 is a political document of declaratory nature; it contains no legal obligations, simply restating the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act; the only commitment contained therein is not to apply nuclear weapons against Ukraine; it only enshrined the prohibition to use force understood exclusively as direct hostilities; it only contains collective obligations of the assuring States and is not directly related to the general process of nuclear disarmament ...... 89 III. ARMED CONFLICT IN PARTS OF THE DONETSK AND LUHANSK REGIONS ...... 93 3.1. There is a civil war going on in eastern Ukraine. Russia (especially its Armed Forces) is taking no part in it and bears no responsibility for these events ...... 95 3.2. The counter-terrorist operation is an illegal military operation waged by Kyiv in response to justifiable demands of the inhabitants of southeastern Ukraine ...... 99 3.3. “DPR” and “LPR” are subjects of international law ...... 103 General conclusions ...... 105 Notes ...... 114