Annexation of Crimea to Russia: Contrast between Right to Self-Determination and Territorial Integrity Preservation in International Law

Abstract

After several months of protests against Ukraine's political restructuring and the subsequent developments, finally, on March 16, 2014, Crimea announced its accession to Russia after holding a referendum. The results of the announced vote indicated that the overwhelming majority of participants in the referendum voted for the annexation of Crimea to Russia. The developments in Ukraine have created a new perspective in the international arena. Relatively intense conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine's issues shows that in the coming years and until the formation of a specific legal system in this area, the international arena will undergo intense tensions, and these developments have triggered a lot of speculation at the international level. In terms of international law, especially after the events in Kosovo, one cannot answer in one word that whether what has happened in the Crimea peninsula is legal or illegal .For example, the advisory opinion of the Court of Justice at The Hague regarding the concept of "right to self-determination" is ambiguous and has not been clarified in the international law. The new approach to the crisis which is now happening in Crimea may become a great challenge to the future global security, because using referendum and involvement of a foreign power in the act of self-determination of a country and nation may become a legal procedure causing instability in other regions of the world; therefore, the study of the right to self-determination as one of the important principles that is applied in certain circumstances and that can lead to the destabilization of territorial integrity is very important. On the other hand, observing this principle in international law ensures respect for human rights and realization of democracy and the rights of minorities in the countries.