Features of the legal status of the temporarily occupied territories: comparative and legal aspect

Abstract

The author of the article makes a comparative legal description of Ukrainian temporarily occupied territories’ legal status through the prism of the international experience that the Republic of Cyprus and Georgia had. Normalization of the legal status of the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine is a priority of the national legislator. However, the question is how effective this direction is. Scientific research is being held to find the answer to this question. It is carried out due to identifying common and distinctive features of the law enforcement practice of the Republic of Cyprus, as one of the longest and most successful examples of counteracting the temporary occupation. The absence of a legal definition of the status of the temporarily occupied territories of Cyprus is established within the framework of national legislation. Moreover, the demarcation line is characterized and the order of crossing the demarcation line is established. Common and distinctive features of normalization of this array of public relations are determined. In disclosing the results of this part of the study, the author establishes an approach to the definition and consolidation of the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine concerning specific values that are defined by national and international law. Further explorations of the study are conducted taking into account the practice of Georgia, a country whose practice was taken into account directly in the development of national regulators of the status of the temporarily occupied territory. In the course of the research, the author reveals the reasons why the temporarily occupied territories appeared and their consequences for Georgians. The normative basis for settling this issue is singled out, the impossibility of the order of entry / exit to/from the temporarily occupied territory, the responsibility for violating the order of crossing the demarcation line is substantiated. Particular attention is paid to the common features of the definition of the temporarily occupied territories of both states, and the distinctive features of further regulation.