Persistent Objections to the Western Understanding of Territorial Integrity and Self-Determination: Russia's Reassessment Attempt

Abstract

The uneven reaction of the international community to the Crimean crisis has highlighted once more the different understanding among States of the relationship between the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination (already evident with, e.g., Kosovo). On the one hand, challenges to territorial integrity are scholarly considered only on grounds of “remedial secession” (which requires the actual commission of systematic repression over the people of a self-determination unit), and even then firmly opposed by many States. On the other, the application of the uti possidetis juris principle to the dissolution of the SFRY is questionable, as of its theoretical approach, results produced, and precedent set. The paper argues for the application, in specific cases, of a standard both less gruesome and more attentive to the nature and context that brought to the creation of domestic boundaries. By relying on five cumulative conditions, it is argued that, when i) a “deficient” title to territorial sovereignty is challenged by ii) the clear will of the people to reunite with iii) the former Sovereign, by virtue of iv) strong cultural and historical links, in light of v) the failure of the current Sovereign to properly address internal self-determination instances, the transfer may be legitimate, the lack of consent of the current Sovereign notwithstanding. In this perspective, the legitimacy of Crimea's secession from Ukraine and integration into Russia would depend on the timing and propriety of the self-determinative instance of the Crimean people, the other conditions being met.