Public International Law - Essay Example

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW Student's Name Institution's Name Course Title Lecturer's Name Date Public International Law Introduction Ukraine has been experiencing political instability since February 2014. The country lost part of its land to Russians after the population exercised their self-determination right in unclear circumstances. Since then, the country has been in conflict with Russians who are said to be fuelling the unrest in east, a region with the biggest number of native Russians in Ukraine. The Ukrainian government has not been able to handle the situation and it is now calling upon the United Nations and other strong international governments to assist. This paper focuses on establishing how the public international law can be applied to resolve Russia and Ukraine conflict, regarding the territorial ownership of Crimea. Background Information Crimea is a land mass on the northern coast Black Sea which is almost fully surrounded by water. Crimea was initially part of Russian Empire. It became a republic after the 1917 Russian Revolution in the USSR. However after the Second World War, Crimea was downgrade and transferred to Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. In 1991, Crimea changed to Autonomous Republic but still operated under Ukraine after Ukrainian independence. Since then, Crimea had been known to be under Ukraine legislation until in 2014 when its control and sovereignty turned to be a continuous territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia1. The Crimea territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia started in March 2014. This was after Mr. Yanukovych, the then Ukrainian president decided to develop more political ties with Russia rather than the European Union. This act initiated a huge protest from pro-European and significant support from pro-Russians, a situation that resulted to a division in the country. Mr. Yanukovych decided to go to exile in South Russia via Crimea. Russia military was then sent to Crimea with an intention of safeguarding the region from pro-European Ukrainians. It is at this time that Crimea deputies voted to execute their right to self-determination to be disconnected from Ukraine and join Russia. This was passed by 73% among the deputies. This was followed by a referendum to determine people's choice regarding the matter. The poll results demonstrated that 97% of voters wanted to be part of Russia. Crimea was then disconnected from Ukraine by the Russian military, and since then, Crimea has been regarded as part of Russia, an act that is highly disputed by Ukraine and the rest of the international organizations2. The split of Crimea to Russia was followed by another strong upheaval of pro-Russians in the East of the Ukraine. This was attributed to the ill-treatment of a pro-Russian regions by the then acting president Mr. Turchynov. The Ukraine parliament after realizing that they cannot impeach Mr. Yanukovych they defined a new method to overthrow him as a president. The declared that the president withdrew from his seat after being unable to perform his duties. This was followed by an election directive and Mr. Yanukovych arrest warrant. He was then replaced by Mr. Turchynov, a pro-European. During his ruling, Mr. Turchynov mistreated pro-Russians who are located in Eastern Ukraine. This resulted in huge protest and a referendum to show the Eastern interest to join Russia if the condition does not improve3. Eastern Ukraine is a region with the largest population of native Russians. There has been an ongoing civil war between the government and pro-Russian rebels. Although there have been some efforts to ease the fire, the recent war eruption (on 14th of April 2015) clearly shows that it is not over yet. According to the Ukraine government the rebels are highly supported by Russians government to fight against the Ukraine government, and thus, it has been hard to curb the situation. The two situations: Crimea split and Eastern Ukraine undying unrest put Russia on the spot regarding its compliance with the international law4. Legal Guidelines and Legitimacy The entrance of the Russian militaries in Crimea after Mr. Yanukovych abandoned the office was against the international law that guides the State sovereignty. According to the international law that governs State territorial sovereignty, a State contains a number of essential elements that include government, defined territory, permanent population, and the ability to enter into an association with different States. Based on the public international law, sovereignty denotes the primary international legal State's status that a country is not subject to the judicial jurisdiction, legislative, executive, governmental of a foreign law or foreign state in its territorial jurisdiction except the public international law5. Generally, sovereign States abstain from snooping in the other's domestic affairs. Thus, whatever social institutions and political regime a State might experience is regarded as own matter in its own protective limits. Russian, being a sovereign nation is demanded by the pubic international law to respect the territorial boundaries, social and political affairs of Ukraine. However, Russia failed to do so and decided to send its military to Crimea6. Russia claimed that they sent its military troop to Crimea after they received a letter from the Ukraine president to assist him in protecting Crimea. Although Russia has produced a document showing Mr. Yanukovych letter and that contains its signature, Mr. Yanukovych has never confirmed Russians claim. Moreover, Mr. Yanukovych had already abandoned his position as the president of the country and thus, he did not have the power to make any request on behave of the country according to Ukrainian parliament. However, the claim of whether Mr. Yanukovych was still a president or not is subject to debate. According to Ukraine Constitution to Article 111 of the constitution, president impeachment can only be attained with 75% of the parliament votes. This demanded 337 votes out of 449 seats. However, the parliament only managed to get 328 votes7. Therefore, based on the constitution, Mr. Yanukovych was still the president. Moreover, the Constitution did not define any other way a president can be removed from power rather than impeachment. However, even as a president, Mr. Yanukovych had no power, based on Ukraine constitution to request for military support from a foreign nation, without the parliament approval. In this regard, Mr. Yanukovych acted against the constitution of the country and thus, the act was unlawful. The interim government was said to act against native Russians in the country and thus, Russians had an obligation to protect them as requested by Mr. Yanukovych, who was the president of the country. According to Russia, this government was unlawful government and it was misusing the presidential power. The Russian claim can be backed by Republic of Somali v. Woodhouse Drake S. A. case. In this case the judged ruled that the international law does not recognize any government which is not a constitutional successor of the previous government. Russians felt that they were obligated to assist Mr. Yanukovych to safeguard his citizens whose human rights were at stake. Although Russia was at fault for invading Ukraine territory, the question of the Crimea safety and rights comes in, after the president they supported was unable to handle the situation and flea. The question of interim government ability to manage the country also comes in. According to Republic of Somali v. Woodhouse Drake S. A. case, any government must have power over its territory and to internal peace; else it cannot be considered as a government8. Eastern Ukraine chaos started when interim government was ruling, but it could not manage the situation. This is a clear indication that the interim government could not have managed to handle Crimea. Crimea could have been experiencing the same instability and discrimination in their country as the rest of Eastern Ukraine. Russian support for Crimea and their protection against the mistreatment of the interim government seems more in support of the Public International Law and not against9. Moreover based on the Article 61(2) of the Russian Constitution, the country assures its citizens of their patronage and protection beyond their nation boundary. Therefore, Crimea originally being part of Russian holds a huge number of native Russians who the government could still consider as part of its own population. Thus, Russia acted to protect their own at international level. This analysis demonstrates that Russians could have been right in their decision to protect Crimea10. Russia also supports their act by claiming that Crimea had a right to self-determination, and they only acted after the population of Crimea requested for their protection via their president Mr. Yanukovych. Therefore, the Russian act to send the troop to Crimea was legitimate. Self-determination is defined as people's legal right in the international order to make a decision regarding their own destiny. This argument was based on the Article 1(2) of the United Nations Charter that permits a country to create friendly associations among states founded on respect for people's self-determination and equal rights principles, and to employ other suitable measures to enhance universal peace11. In this regard, Russian would be considered right in their move. However based on the Article 2(4) of the same treaty, no country is allowed to apply force to another country. Russian closed all means in which Ukraine could access to Crimea and even destroyed the bridge which linked Ukraine to Crimea, which was an act of aggression. According to the article all the UN members shall abstain in their international associations from use of force or threat to use force against the political independence or territorial integrity of any state, or in any way that is against to United Nations purpose12. Moreover, in the Border Treaty, Re, Kariņš and ors v Parliament of Latvia and Cabinet of Ministers of Latvia, Constitutional Review, it was held that armed forces deployment in another country's territory was unlawful in principle, unless there was valid deployment consent13. In this case, parliament approval was needed but the parliament was not consulted. The inner evaluation of the situation can lead to a conclusion that Russia was out of order to enter into Ukraine territorial boundary14. The question of whether Russia was legally right to invade Ukraine territory and protect Crimea depends on one's view regarding the matter. Crimea has a huge population of native Russians who uses Russian as their language. I addition, Crimea was in great support of pro-Moscow president Mr. Yanukovych. The president inability to persuade the rest of the population on importance of partnering with Russia and not European Union resulted in a massive protest of all pro-European. This put all his supporters in danger. Moreover, Ukraine geographical settlement is more defined by ethnicity, with the highest population of Russians living in Crimea and on the Eastern side of the country. Therefore, it was easy for pro-European to identify them and harm them. Moreover, 328 leaders out of 449 were pro-Europe. This politically defines the region that would be against Russians who supported the president. Therefore, it was actually right for the president to be concerned of the security of region with the highest population of his supporters. However, their protection was supposed to be lawful15. It was also right to care about human rights of a population that could or was suffering from any form of discrimination. The fact that Russian constitution pledges to protect his people even beyond the country boundary also gave the president an extra reason to seek for Russian help. The thought of what the illegal interim government would do against their opponents was also an aspect of concern. In this regard, Russian could have been considered right in its action. In addition, Ukraine government has since been at war with the Eastern part of the country, which according to Somali v. Woodhouse Drake S. A demonstrated their inability to rule the country and protect its citizens. Therefore, Russian can be considered to have protected Crimea from a similar situation. The current legal Ukraine government has not managed to handle the situation even after being in power for over nine months. Therefore, Mr. Yanukovych fear can be justified by the current situation in the east16. On the other hand, Russian could be found at fault and hence illegitimate to its act based on the fact that even as a president Mr. Yanukovych had no rights to seek for foreign military intervention without the approval of the parliament. Russia demonstrated aggression and willingness to fight the Ukrainian interim government when they closed all connections to Crimea even before the referendum, and when they supported Eastern rebels. This is against the international law. In addition, the self-determination right does not provide any country the powers to invade the territory of another country either through private actor or at own will. This could have been coordinated by the Ukraine government, failure to which, the international body could have intervened17. With regard to the Ukraine government, the ruling of the illegal interim government demonstrated clear discrimination to regions that contains more Russians. The employment of constitutional government has still not managed to restore peace and order in the region. There is still war even after signing the peace treaty with the supervision of the United Nations. If the claim that Russia is funding rebels is ascertained, Russia will have broken the international public law of sovereignty and need to be punished based on this law. Russia will also have broken the recent peace treaty to respect the boundary of Ukraine. It will also have broken the United Nations charter regarding interference and aggression.18 Thus, Russia should be answerable for its illegitimate acts against it neighbour Ukraine. Possible Action to Resolve the Dispute under the International Law The incident that took place on March 2014 has already passed. Whether Russians were in Ukraine legally or illegally may not matter much in this case. What matters is whether Crimea was forced to take the referendum or not and whether the results were accurate or not. The international law allows Crimea to exercise self-determination; however, this should be on a free will. If any form of force was used, this should be repeated under the supervision of the international bodies, to ensure the free will of the Crimea is exercised. The question of whether Russia acted legally or illegally based on this matter will depend on Ukrainian laws, Russian agreement with Ukraine, and on the international law that governs the two nations. This can only be determined by the court governing the United Nations affairs. In this regard, the United Nations and the other international bodies should consider facilitating this case19. Since the separation of Crimea from Ukraine, there has never been any complaint regarding how Crimea population is treated by Russians. Therefore, the matter can be settled at that, especially if the court will find the separation legal. The United Nations and other international bodies should consider concentrating more on the current unrest in Ukraine. Recently ( 14th of April 2015) , there was an attack in East which resulted in war between Ukraine forces and rebels. This happened two days after the signing of the peace treaty, between the government and Russian foreign minister. This shows that the rebels are still not ready to give up their fight. The United Nations and other G7 nations should consider getting deeper into the matter20. Based on the report, the rebels are not Ukraine-Russians but Russians from Moscow. So basically, Ukraine government is in war with Russian-rebels who find it necessary to support other Russians in East Ukraine. Apparently peace treaty seems to have no effect on the rebels and despite any agreement, the Russian government is still funding the rebels to fight the Ukraine government. However, Russia is currently experiencing a recession and thus, any more destruction of foreign ties may completely destroy its economy, and thus, its ability to fund the rebels. In this regard, the United Nations and other international bodies should consider cutting all their business ties with Russia to push their finance ability down to ensure that the country can only manage to finance their internal affairs. This way, Russia will not be able to finance or support the rebels in any way, and they will be defeated, and peace restored to the country. Although this is a viable remedy, this does not rule out the fact that Russia may have sympathiser in some parts of the world. They may therefore, get allies from other parts of the world who will support. If this happens, United Nations and other supporting international countries should not hesitate employing their military support to the Ukrainian government. The UN and other international organizations should consider supporting Ukraine with military training, military machine resources and financial support to maintain their soldiers in the war. This should be done with an intention of defeating Russian rebels and restoring the Ukrainian government power to rule the country without more bloodshed21. Conclusion Since the dissolving of the USSR in 1991, Ukraine had been fairing well as a sovereign nation until in 2014 when the president considered making relation with Russia rather than Europe. The pro-European protest pushed the then Ukraine president to abandon his seat. At this time, Russian entered Crimea and disconnected it with Ukraine. Crimea also conducted a referendum disconnecting its self with Ukraine and joined Russia, an act whose legitimacy has always been questioned. Worse, Russia invited the eastern Ukraine region with more Russians native to form a rebel group that they are currently funding to destabilize the government. This is completely against the international law that governs sovereign nations. Although there has been signing a peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine, it is still impossible to restrain peace and order in the east. In this regard, the United Nations and the rest of the strong international nations are coming together to strengthen Ukraine to fight the rebels. One possible solution that can be applied by the international bodies includes, cutting business ties with Russia to weaken their ability to support the rebels. The second possible option will include, supporting Ukraine with military training and military power, to strengthen their fighting power against the rebels. Bibliography Abraham Garth, 'Crisis in the Crimea: a Violation of International Law? South Africa Institute of International Affairs (online) 17 April 2015 < http://www.saiia.org.za/opinion-analysis/crisis-in-the-crimea-a-violation-of-international-law > BBC News, ' Ukraine Conflict: Soldiers Killed Despite Truce Talks,' 14 April 2015 < http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32296796> Border Treaty, Re, Kariņš and ors v. Parliament of Latvia and Cabinet of Ministers of Latvia, Constitutional Review, Case No 2007-10-0102, ILDC 884 (LV 2007), 29th November 2007, Constitutional Court Constitution of Ukraine, 'With the Amendments and Supplements Borne by The Law of Ukraine,' 8 Dec 2004< http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/country/foreign_law/ukraine/constitution.pdf> Delahunty Robert J, 'The Crimean crisis', University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy. U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14-39 (online) 2014 < SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2528340> Encyclopaedia Britannica, 'Crimean Peninsula,' 7 April 2014 Hausler Kristin and McCorquodale Robert, 'Ukraine Insta-symposium: Crimea, Ukraine and Russia: Self-Determination,' Intervention and International Law (online) 10 March 2014. < http://opiniojuris.org/2014/03/10/ukraine-insta-symposium-crimea-ukraine-russia-self-determination-intervention-international-law/ > IWB, 'Breaking-Ukraine's Parliament 328 - 0 Votes to Impeach President Yanukovych and Call Elections for 25 May,' Investment Watch (online) 22 February 2014 < http://investmentwatchblog.com/breaking-ukraines-parliament-328-0-votes-to-impeach-president-yanukovych-and-call-elections-for-25-may/ > Jerzog Chrisella, 'Political Legitimacy and International Law in Crimea: Pushing the U.S, and Russia Apart,' 2014 < http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/topics/politics/2187-political-legitimacy-and-international-law-in-crimea-pushing-the-u-s-and-russia-apart > Masahiro Miyoshi, 'Sovereignty and International Law,' < https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/conferences/sos/masahiro_miyoshi_paper.pdf > The Constitution of Russian federation, 12 Dec 1993< http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm> Thurer Daniel and Burri Thomas, 'Self-Determination,' Oxford Public International Law (online) 2015< http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873> Republic of Somalia v. Woodhouse Drake :32 Carey (Sttisse) SA. (The Mary). (1993) QB. 54. Reynolds Lionel, 'The Popular Uprising in East Ukraine. Rebellion Against the First Neo-Fascist Regime in Post-War Europe,' Global Research (online) 17 May 2014. < http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-popular-uprising-in-east-ukraine-rebellion-against-the-first-neo-fascist-regime-in-post-war-europe/5382682 > United Nations, 'Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice,' San Francisco 1945 < https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf > Vinopal Kely, 'Researching Public International Law,' Electronic Resource Guide (online) 29 September 2013 < http://www.asil.org/sites/default/files/ERG_PUBLIC_INT.pdf > Read More