Crimea crisis before International Law

Murgia Riccardo Crimea crisis before International Law !1 Crimea Crisis before International Law (Revised version, 10.10.2016) Basic facts Ukraine is an eastern European country, with 45 millions of inhabitants. The name probably came from the word “Borderland”, and actually the country, which has been under the control of the Soviet Union, is located between the West and the East. More than two centuries has been spent by Russia for subjugate the country and the cultural divide which came from it can be seen also now and can be regarded as the key fact which led to the Crimea crisis. The first protest started in late 2013 in the western side of the country. The western side, who voted for Tymoshenko in 2010 presidential elections, is the pro-European side. Only 5% of the population in this area is native Russian speaker, and they want to enhance the relationship between Europa and Ukraine while weakening the one with Russian Federation. On the other side there’s the East, from which the former pro-Russian Ukrainian president Yanukovych is from. This side has historic cultural ties with Russia and more than the 75% of its inhabitants are native Russian speakers.1 Moreover the control of Ukraine is important both for NATO and Russia. For NATO its geopolitical importance is due to the fact that, as I wrote above, the country is located between Russia and Europe and the capital, Kiev, is only some hours by flight far from the most important European capitals. For Russia, the geopolitical importance of Ukraine is due to the fact that it not only works as a “buffer state” (as well as for the NATO), but, among other reasons, it also could allow Russia to deepen its relationship with other Central European countries and give it direct access to the Mediterranean sea, through the strategical port of Sevastopol.2 Key facts In February 2014, pro-Yanukovych protests, began in Crimea. In the following months the situation became unsustainable, since Russia gave its help to the “rebels” (calling them “rebels” instead of “insurgents” raises questions of great importance for International Law which will be discussed later). On February 27, unidentified troops sized the building of the Supreme Council of Crimea and the building of the Council of Ministers in Simferopol. The supreme council of Crimea dissolved the old Council of Ministers and designated Sergey Aksyonov, leader of the Russian Unity party as new prime minister. On March 1, Aksyonov declared that the new de facto authorities would exercise control upon all Ukrainian military facilities in the peninsula and asked the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, to intervene (request accomplished after the authorization of the Federal Council). By March 2, Russian troops started to operate in Crimea without insignia.3 On March 16, has been held a referendum by the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as well as by the local government of Sevastopol. The majority of votes (about 96%) were in favor of joining 1 For the historical background and for more information about the Ukrainian society see: Paul D'Anieri, Robert Kravchuk, and Taras Kuzio, Politics and Society in Ukraine (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999), https://www.questia.com/read/85964038 (Last accessed: 28.01.2015). Statistical data about the linguistic composition of the population according to the 2001 Census can be found at http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/, (Last accessed: 28.01.2015) 2 For further discussion about the strategic and geopolitical interests in Ukraine see: F. Stephen Larrabee, Russia, Ukraine, and Central Europe: The Return of Geopolitics, http:// jia.sipa.columbia.edu/russia-ukraine-and-central-europe-return-geopolitics/, (Last accessed 28.01.2015) 3 See footnote 5. Murgia Riccardo Crimea crisis before International Law !2 Russia as federal subject. Despite many criticisms about the validity of the vote, on March 18 has been signed between representatives of the Russian Federation and of the Republic of Crimea the “Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Crimea to Russia”, ratified by the Federal Assembly on March 21. However, the Referendum and the subsequent annexation of Crimea to Russia Federation have suddenly been declared illegal and therefore invalid by the Western Countries and by the UN General Assembly (with 100 votes in favour, 11 against and 58 abstentions), while the same resolution failed to pass in the UN Security Council because it has been vetoed by Russia.4 “The European Union remains committed to uphold the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders” stated the EU during the OSCE Permanent Council no. 992 on March 27, recalling the fact that Russia is in clear breach of the Helsinki Principles, on which OSCE is founded on.5 In the Statement by the Delegation of Ukraine at the 774-th FSC plenary meeting (December 10, 2014), is argued that the Russian aggression (of which the delegations brought proofs annexed to the Statement and which led to the occupation and annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, not only with illegal transfers of armaments but also with the presence in the East of Russian backed militant groups) violated the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and moreover undermined the European security and stability.6 The Russian involvement Russian Federation justified its intervention in different and often controversial ways: 1. Humanitarian aid. 2. Outside aid in order to restore the legitimate president, Victor Yanukovych, refugee in Russia. 3. Self-defence, according to the need to protect Russian nationals abroad. Moreover, we can also note a subtle claim on a former Russian territory. This different justifications find a different treatment according to International Law, but before analyzing the implications linked with them there are some principles that need to be explained, as for example the fundamental rights of states. According to the Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (1933), a state, for being considered as an international person, should possess a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with other states. A State so defined is granted of a series of rights preserved by the international legal order. Firstly, it has to be independent and sovereign. Independence is the capacity of a state to provide for its own well-being and development free from the domination of other states, providing it does not impair or violate their legitimate rights.The notion of independence implies the right of a state to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and permanent population, the right to engage upon an act of 4 Backing Ukraine’s territorial integrity, UN Assembly declares Crimea referendum invalid, UN News Centre, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp? NewsID=47443&Cr=Ukraine&Cr1=#.VMn8fMZ0k6U , (Last accessed: 29.01.2015). Russia vetoes U.N. resolution on Crimea’s future, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/story/ news/world/2014/03/15/russia-vetoes-un-resolution-crimea/6456495/, (Last accessed: 29.01.2015) 5 EU Statement on Ukraine at the OSCE Permanent Council Nr. 992, http://www.osce.org/pc/ 117093?download=true, (Last accessed: 29.01.2015) 6 Statement by the Delegation of Ukraine about the situation in and around Ukraine at the 774-th OSCE Forum for Security and Co-operation, http://www.osce.org/fsc/132441 (Last accessed 29.12.2014) Murgia Riccardo Crimea crisis before International Law !3 self-defense but also the duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of the other sovereign states, with some exception as in the case of the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This duty also covers any assistance or aid to subversive elements aiming at the violent overthrow of the government of a state. Secondly, each state is legally equal and possesses the same legal rights and duties of any other state, even if major states will always have more influence than the smaller ones. Moreover, there has to be a mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s affairs. Those prescriptions, along with the principle of equality, characterize the concept of “Peaceful Co-existence”. 7 Some of this rights and duties has been also recalled in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances regarding relationships between Ukraine and the other signatories countries, as the Russian Federation in 1994, in accordance with the CSCE Helsinki Final Act. In this memorandum the signatories reaffirm their commitment, already expressed by signing the Helsinki Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine, their obligation to refrain from the use of force against Ukraine except in self-defense or in accordance to the UN Charter as well as to refrain from economic coercion in order to subordinate to their own interest the country. However, it has to be mentioned the fact that both the Budapest Memorandum and the Helsinki Final Act do not imply any legal commitment since they are purely diplomatic agreements and therefore do not have treaty status.8 Another important principle, even if it can be defined more as a political concept than a legal rule, is the right of all peoples to self-determination. The history of this principle is centuries long, but it has been revived by Woodrow Wilson after the First World War. Therefore, after the Second World War it was included in the UN charter, which calls upon the respect of this principle both in Article 1(2) and in article 55. In the following years it acquired a “status beyond “convention” and is (now) considered as a general principle of international law”, as statued by the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference Re Secession of Quebec case in 1998. This principle provides that the people may freely determine their own political status, and this determination may result in independence, integration with a neighboring state, free association with an independent state or any other political status decided upon by the people concerned. 9 A new state comes into existence once it is clear that a new entity complying with the criteria of statehood, as established by the Montevideo Convention in 1993, has emerged. So while the presence of Montevideo’s criteria can be sufficient to establish statehood (that would be reinforced of course by international recognition), and can be seen as a essential matter of fact, the application of the principle of uti possidetis, although dependent on the same factual background, is more a presumption of law concerning the transmission of sovereignty from an existing state to another.10 The principle of uti possidetis arose for the first time in the Roman Law and it is still one of the founding principles of International Law regarding territorial disputes. 7 Malcolm Shaw, International Law. Sixth Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2008; pp. 211- 215 8 Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "Helsinki Accords", http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/ topic/260615/Helsinki-Accords, (Last accessed: 29.01.2015) 9 Malcolm Shaw (2008),op.cit; p. 257 10 Malcolm Shaw, "Peoples, territorialism and boundaries.”, Eur. J. Int'l L. 8 (1997), pp. 491 fol. Murgia Riccardo Crimea crisis before International Law !4 Uti possidetis is a Latin term which means “as you possess”. According to this principle of international law, the parties to a treaty can retain possession of what they have acquired by force during the war.11 The principle, which was on the basis of the decolonization process, has been applied in the recent years also in the Yugoslav case and in the process of dissolution of the USSR. The primary justification of this principle has been to seek to minimize threats to peace and security, where they be internal, regional or international. It is generally debated if the principle of self-determination outside the colonial context can be applied and which are the conditions to accept a “defense of human rights” justification, and in this case the uti possidetis juris has a great importance. Moreover it has also to be noted that the Guidelines on Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and in USSR, adopted in 1991 by the European Community, specifically referred to selfdetermination, underlining the need to respect the rule of law, democracy and human rights. Therefore the conditions required for recognition may in certain situations have an impact upon the criteria for statehood. Self-determination is a principle that has to be respected, but the main orientation is to grant its respect within the recognized boundaries of each state, and, as a consequence, in respect of the domestic law of the country. 12 According to this, it could be useful also to analyze the opinion no. 762/2014 of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). In this opinion has been noted that even if the Constitution of Ukraine, in particular Article 89, recognizes referendum as an expression of the will of the people, it also makes very clear that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country are fundamental principles of the constitutional order (see Article 1 and 2 of the Ukrainian Constitution). Article 134 moreover refers to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as an “inseparable constituent part of Ukraine” while Article 73 provides that “Issues of altering the territory of Ukraine are resolved exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum”. The prohibition on secession is widespread in all the Constitutional orders of the European Countries. But the Venice Commission notes that is questionable not only the validity of the referendum with respect to the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine but also in respect of the International standards for the holding of referendums. Some of the circumstances that, in the opinion of the Venice Commission, make it appear questionable whether the referendum of 16 March 2014 could be held in compliance with international standards, are not only procedural errors but also the massive public presence of (para)military forces and the limited freedom of expression in the Crimean peninsula (according to concerns expressed also by OSCE).13 While the acquisition of a territory by force is forbidden, as stated not only by article 2(4) of the UN Charter but also by the Security Council resolution 242, which emphasized the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of a territory by law, and by the 1970 Declaration of Principle of International Law, it is a more controversial question when the two parties (in this case Ukraine and Russia) have performed any sovereign act on that territory.14 Crimea has been under Russian control since 1783, when it was conquered by the Russian Empire, until 1954 when it was transferred from the Soviet Russia to the Soviet Ukraine and finally in 1991 to Ukraine as “Autonomous Republic of Crimea”. However Crimea has always been object of territorial dispute between Russia and Ukraine, as when in 1992 the Supreme Soviet of Russia adopted a resolution which declared the 1954 transfer 11 Uti Possidetis Law & Legal Definition, US Legal Inc., http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/utipossidetis/, (Last Accessed: 29.01.2015) 12 Malcolm Shaw (1997), loc.cit. 13 European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Opinion no.762/2014, Venice, 21 March 2014. 14 Malcolm Shaw (2008), op.cit. ; pp. 502, 505 Murgia Riccardo Crimea crisis before International Law !5 invalid, and it caused especially between 1992 and 1994 many attempts by pro-Russian political movement to separate Crimea from Ukraine, and again during the 2000s.15 If Russia has any legitimate claim on Crimea is a question that has to be put under judgement, anyway it is clear that according to the International Law the annexation can’t be considered legal since it hasn't been recognized by the other states and by the UN Assembly. Moreover the principle of uti possidetis has important implications in this case since it has been part of previous treaties between Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine but there hasn't been any new treaty between the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Republic of Ukraine so it is applicable the principle of status quo ante bellum (Crimea has to be considered still part of the Ukraine). On recognition, there are two main and opposed theories, the constitutive theory and the declaratory theory. For the constitutive theory it is the recognition by other existing states that creates a new state and endows it with legal personality while for the declaratory theory the recognition by other states is only an acceptance of the existing situation. Actual practice leads to a middle position between these two. Anyway, even if it is true that recognition is highly political, it is common practice to recognize a country only if it fulfills the basic requirements of international law as to the creation of the state, or the Montevideo Criteria.16 Moreover some other criteria for the recognition of states can be found in the European Community’s Declaration on the “Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union” (1991). According to this declaration, the recognition requires among other clauses: - “respect for the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and die commitments subscribed to in the Final Act of Helsinki and in the Charter of Paris, especially with regard to the rule of law, democracy and human rights”; - “guarantees for the rights of ethnic and national groups and minorities in accordance with the commitments subscribed to in the framework of the CSCE”; - “respect for the inviolability of all frontiers which can only be changed by peaceful means and by common agreements.” At the same time there in the declaration there was a commitment to not recognize any state resulting from an aggression, and this is the case of Ukraine, as it has been asserted by the International Community.17 Humanitarian Aid: Internal or International Conflict? The role of Russian Federation and his involvement has to be regarded in a different way linked with our consideration of the conflict. Are the Ukrainian hostilities against the self-proclaimed republic in the east of the country an internal civil war or an international one? Can we consider those who are fighting as insurgents or only as rebels? What is the involvement of the Russian Federation? The distinction between internal or international conflicts is important because on internal conflicts applies only the Humanitarian International Law, which regulate the conduction of hostilities between combatants and State authorities and their duties to protect the civilians. Moreover, as Russia, Ukraine is part of the 1949 Geneva Convention, whose common article 3 provides a series of minimum guarantees for protecting civilians, the sick and wounded people. Geneva Convention anyway applies also in case of international conflict. It can be argued that Russia did intervene in Ukraine in order to preserve the rights of the civilian of the area and protect their lives, as statued by Geneva Convention. In the 19th century such intervention was accepted under international law. For example it was the justification for the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo crisis of 1999 in support of the repressed 15 Wikipedia, Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation, (Last accessed: 30.12.2014) 16 Malcolm Shaw (2008), op.cit. ; pp. 445, 446 17 See 4 and 5. Murgia Riccardo Crimea crisis before International Law !6 ethnic Albanian population of that province of Yugoslavia or to justify the use of force by western troops to create a secure zone in norther Iraq after the Gulf War. However, the use of force against another country in relation of one of their internal disputes does not allow a country to intervene, since its intervention would be against article 2(4) of the UN charter, even if the UN hasn't never condemned the doctrine of humanitarian intervention as never supported it,18 and Russian intervention would have been illegal in any case since it wasn't authorized by the UN Security Council. Further, the use of force should be collective, limited in scope and proportionate to achieving objective consistent with international humanitarian law, according to UK Policy Guidelines on Humanitarian Crisis of 2001. Therefore the Russian Intervention hasn't been proportionated to the real threat for the civilians in the area and someone can also argue that Russian objectives were not merely linked with humanitarian aid. Also the distinction between insurgents, rebels and belligerent is important. Internal rebellions have to be dealt with internal law and are within domestic jurisdiction. This case applies if the rebels are seen only as criminals. Insurgency status arises when the rebels are treated as insurgents and in this case other states may or may not agree to grant them certain rights. Insurgency is anyway a provisional classification and the definitive one is belligerency. Belligerency is a formal status, involving rights and duties, which can be granted under classic international law to rebels if can be proved the existence of an armed conflict, the occupation by the rebels of a substantial portion of the national territory, the conduct of hostilities in accordance with the rules of war, the existence of an organized groups with a hierarchical structure. In this case the belligerents become subject of international law, responsible for each of their acts, but the recognizing states must adopt a position of neutrality, and every kind of help to the rebels is contrary to International Law.19 So, under the International Law, the humanitarian aid justification for Russian Intervention in Ukraine has to be refused, even if the threat for the population was real. Aid to the legitimate authorities As noted by the International Court of Justice in the Case Nicaragua vs. USA, intervention in internal conflicts is admitted at the request of the government of a state. There was a theory, sustained by Russia, according to which, in March 2014, the ousted Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was still the legitimate president instead of the interim president Olexander Turchynov. This theory was based on the fact that the Ukrainian Constitution provides the right of impeach the president only to the Parliament, which failed to obtain the number of votes required by the provision. According to this theory Russia justified its intervention by the fact that Yanukovych sent to the Russian Federation president, Vladimir Putin, a letter in which he asked him to use the armed forces of Russian Federation to restore legitimacy, peace, law and order, stability and defending the people of Ukraine. Anyway this justification hasn't been accepted by the UN since the other countries did not recognize anymore Yanukovych as legitimate president and moreover it was a general opinion that the threat for the Crimean population was not so critical to justify an armed intervention.20 Self-defense: the need to protect Russian nationals in Crimea The most heard reason given by Russian Federation for justifying is intervention is the need to protect their nationals in Crimea from the serious threat generated by the tension between Ukrainian regular army and the pro-Russia rebels. 18 Malcolm Shaw (2008), op.cit. ; pp. 1155 - 1157 19 ibidem, pp. 1149, 1150, 1152 20 Nick Bryant, “Ukraine’s Yanukovych asked for troops, Russia tells UN”, http://www.bbc.com/ news/world-europe-26427848 (Last accessed 29.12.2014) Murgia Riccardo Crimea crisis before International Law !7 The right of self-defense in the customary international law arose along with the Caroline case in 1837, when, after British subjects seized and destroyed a vessel accused of supplying American nationals who had been conducting raids in Canada in an American port, the US Secretary State laid down the essential of self-defense. There had to exist, according to his words, “a necessity, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation” while the action taken in pursuance must not be unreasonable and excessive”. Also the UN Charter provides the states with the right of self-defense in Article 51, only in case an armed attack had occurred. However is difficult to define more closely what an armed attack should consist of, even if the International Court of Justice affirmed both related to the Nicaragua Case and to the Oil Platform Case that has to be distinguished “the most grave forms of the use of force from other less grave forms”. 21 Moreover self-defense right has to be considered legitimate also in case the attack hasn't occurred yet but it’s perceived as imminent (pre-emption doctrine), even if this case goes beyond the Caroline case criteria (this is for example the justification given by US for the intervention in Afghanistan after 09/11). Another important concept inherent the right of self-defense right is that of proportionality. As stated by the Court in the Nicaragua case “self-defense would warrant only measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it”.22 The resort to force in order to protect nationals abroad was clearly regarded as lawful during the 19th century. However, after the adoption of the UN Charter, it has become a more controversial issue since article 2(4) statues the inviolability of the territorial integrity and political independence of a state while one interpretation of the article 51 would deny that “an armed attack” (if there really was or was going to be against Russian nationals in Crimea) could occur against individuals abroad within the meaning of that provision since it is the state itself that must be under attack, not specific persons inside another state domestic jurisdiction. Anyway the United States has in the recent years justified many times armed action in other countries on this ground, as in occasion of the invasion of Grenada in 1984, the intervention in Panama in 1989, the bombing raid on Libya in 1986 or even in a preemptive attack on the headquarters of the Iraqi military intelligence in Baghdad in 1993, on account of an alleged plot to assassinate the former US President Bush in Kuwait and justified as a means to protect US nationals in the future. After this last case the UK Foreign Minister concluded that force may be used in self-defense against threats to one’s nationals only if a) there’s a good evidence the target would continue to be used in support of attacks against one’s nationals; b) there’s no other way to forestall imminent further attacks; c) the force employed is proportionate to the threat. However on balance, considering both the principles of saving the threatened lives of nationals and preserving the territorial integrity of states, according to some interpretation seem preferable to accept the validity of the rule only within the conditions laid down in the Caroline case.23 In the Ukrainian case, moreover, it has been stated that Russian authorities issued more than 143,000 passports to Ukrainian people, in order to increase the number of “nationals” and hence justify in a stronger way their intervention.24 At the same time, on the news reports it’s impossible to find any evidence of threat agains Russian nationals, while the same pretext has been used by Russia also in occasion of its intervention in Georgia (2008). So, even if the same justification has been used many times in the past years by many countries, the Russian intervention in Ukraine in order to protect their nationals has been considered a) not legitimate under the principle of International Law; b) even if there was an actual and serious threat, the intervention didn't follow the principle of proportionality. 21 Malcolm Shaw (2008), op.cit ; pp. 1131- 1133 22 ibidem, pp. 1140, 1141 23 ibidem, pp. 1143 - 1145 24 Katie Stallard, Russia stands with Putin over Ukraine Gamble, http://news.sky.com/story/ 1219532/russia-stands-with-putin-over-ukraine-gamble (Last accessed 30.12.2014) Murgia Riccardo Crimea crisis before International Law !8 Conclusion Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter ( the Charter of the International Military Tribunal), characterizes aggressions as a crime against the peace (“planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances”), under its jurisdiction on the ground of individual responsibility. Another important legal definition of aggression is contained in the annex to the UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 1974. Aggression is defined in Article 1 as “the use of armed forces by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State”. In Article 3 there are some acts that can be qualified as an act of aggression and in our case study it’s particularly important the one under letter “a”, that is “The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State of part thereof” and “g” that is “The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein”. In addition, Article 5, paragraph 3 stated that “No territorial acquisition of special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful” while the paragraph 1 of the same article precluded the possibility of justify an act of aggression on any ground, whether political, economic, military or otherwise. 25 Aggression is defined in the same terms also by Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as amended by the Kampala Amendment of 2010, according to the same definition given by the already mentioned resolution of the UN General Assembly. While the humanitarian protection of civilians is far to be granted by both parties, Russia, as already mentioned above in relation to each proposed justification, has been accused to have violated a numbers of International Laws and principles, including the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Acts, the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances (even if these last two, as already written above, do not imply any legal commitment, since they’re not treaties). So while Russia accuses the Ukrainian government to be a result of an anti-constitutional coup and to not respect Humanitarian International Law, it also calls itself out from the Ukraine’s loss of territorial integrity while stating, indeed, that the policy of western countries neglected Ukraine sovereignty during the events on the “maidan”. Moreover it claims that “it should be highlighted that only the obligation not to use and not to threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states is the common element of the Budapest Memorandum and the concept of “negative guarantees” in its classic understanding” and thus “Russia has not violated this obligation vis-à-vis Ukraine in any way” while Budapest Memorandum has been violated by Ukraine which did nothing to counteract its growing nationalism.26 Anyway the International community is not bound to intervene in Ukraine, since the Budapest Memorandum doesn't offer any guarantee of intervention and Ukraine is not a member of NATO. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a conflict between two of the most important principles of International Law: the principle of self-determination statued by the Article 1, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter, which can bring justification to the Russian actions and the principle of respecting each state’s territorial integrity and political independence, statued by Article 2, paragraph 4 of the same charter. A precedent for Russia’s actions in Crimea can be found in relation with NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1998. The intervention in order to save Kosovo from ethnic cleansing by Serbian troops was not authorized by UN, and a resolution for declaring the intervention “a flagrant violation of the 25 Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of the UN General Assembly, 1974, http://www.un.org/ga/search/ view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/3314(XXIX), (Last accessed 01.02.2015) 26 Statement by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding accusations of Russia’s violation of its obligations under the Budapest Memorandum of 5 December 1994, http://mid.ru/BDOMP/ Brp_4.nsf/arh/B173CC77483EDEB944257CAF004E64C1?OpenDocument, (Last accessed 30.12.2014) Murgia Riccardo Crimea crisis before International Law !9 UN Charter” failed to pass, while the intervention was declared “illegal but legitimate”. Putin quoted in an official speech before Russia’s parliament on March 18, again in relation to Kosovo precedent, a statement of the United States in which it was written that “declarations of Independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law”. 27 Yet, as noted by the International Court of Justice, on its advisory opinion on the accordance with International Law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo (2010), in several cases the Security Council condemned particular declarations of independence (as southern Rhodesia in 1965, northern Cyprus in 1983 or Republika Srpska in 1992), because of an “illegality attached to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens).”28 What is clear so it’s that some concepts of International Law might be still controversial, malleable, open to different interpretations and can therefore justify wrong acts or illegal use of force against other states, while balance in the legal order is far from being granted because of the influence of the major states not only on the minor ones but also on the most important international institutions which should grant the legal equality and fairness. 27 Chrisella Herzog, Political legitimacy and international law in Crimea: Pushing the US and Russia apart, http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/topics/politics/2187-political-legitimacy-andinternational-law-in-crimea-pushing-the-u-s-and-russia-apart, (Last accessed 30.12.2014) 28 Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 403, paragraph 81.