Abstract
This project aims to provide answer to some pressing questions. To start with, it will offer a short summary of historical background surrounding the Crimean Crisis, and compare the accusations made by the prominent western leaders with the strong opposition expressed by Russia and Crimean authorities. Then, it will look at valid requirements of statehood.

Then, the question of whether declarations of independence are legal under International Law, both in general and specifically, will be investigated and addressed to answer whether the Crimean authorities' declaration of independence constitutes an illegal international act or not. In addition, it will explore whether Crimea can invoke right to self determination as a valid explanation for seceding from Ukraine, and alternatively it also looks as if Crimea could claim right or remedial secession or not. Ultimately, a conclusion will be drawn.

Research Question:

1. Whether right to self determination is valid under existing International Law framework and whether it allows countries to use this right as basis of their unilateral declaration of independence?
2. Whether Crimea can avail doctrine of remedial secession to justify its unilateral secession from Ukraine?
3. Whether State seems to exist only when other states recognize it?

History of Crimea

Crimea is a region with a complex history and a legal dispute that allows each party involved in conflict to assert their claims for truth and justice. Crimea does not hold a prominent position in the national historiography of either Ukraine or Russia. The peninsula has been a disputed region due to its geopolitical position and loyalties, partly because of its connection to the Russian Empire and the Russian Federal Soviet Socialist Republic in the past, and also because of the presence of the Black Sea Fleet.[1]

Crimea has been part of Russia for many years[2] and Ukraine was also under Russian and Austrain Empire for brief period after World War I before being incorporated into Soviet Union. Back in 1954, when Russia and Ukraine were both under the part of USSR and it was during that time Crimea was given to Ukraine as token of friendship.[3] This was seen as a logical step to take, as Crimea was geographically close to Ukraine and it was thought that the move would strengthen the cultural and economic ties between the two regions. At the time, this was seen as an internal matter, but now it has become a point of contention.

The population of Crimea was majorly Russian after deportation of Tatars. Although, Crimea was under Ukraine but its major region was much closer to Russia, so it has strong cultural and ethnic ties with Russia. In 1994, after Soviet Union's dissolution, the newly –formed Russia agreed together with U.S and U.K that they will ensure the territorial integrity of Ukraine in Budapest Memorandum.[4]

The geopolitical location of Crimea and position of Black Sea are considered very significant by both Ukraine and Russia. This is perhaps why there is a lot of attention being paid to the radicalization and de-radicalization processes in the conflict over Crimea. Historically, Crimea has been an important military base and a hub for industries.

Several activities like machine-building, shipbuilding, agriculture, and food production used to take place there which served as a strategic location for both Ukraine and USSR.[5] Due to its natural features and geographic location it became a valuable site for submarine bases, warship ports, and air force bases. The Black Sea location of Crimea is the main reason for its strategic significance.

Historical Background of Crimean Crises

From 1990's onwards, European Union [hereinafter referred as 'EU'] was aimed to set up cooperative relations with the Soviet Counties. On August 24th, 1991, Ukraine's independence was declared by the Communist Supreme Soviet of Ukraine. This provided opportunity to European Union to reproach Ukraine and pure the cooperative objectives.[6] So, in 1994 EU and Ukraine signed Partnership and Co-operation Agreement (PCA).

The purpose of PCA was to lay down a legal framework for economic cooperation between the parties like promotion of trade, investment and other economic relations.[7] The agreement also aimed to establish a foundation for political discussions so that consolidation of democratic institutions could happen in Ukraine.[8] But the agreement has not changed much for establishment of political relations and formally it got expires in 2008.

During September of 2008, there was an announcement that negotiations were taking place between the EU and Ukraine regarding an "Association Agreement."[9] The main objective of this agreement was to enhance Ukraine's political ties and promote economic growth. By entering into this agreement, Ukraine commits to goal and objectives of EU and its economical, judicial, and financial reforms would be in alignment with the objectives of EU.[10]

However, the government of Ukraine, under the leadership of President Viktor Yanukovych suddenly halted the preparations for signing the agreement in November 2013 and effectively moved Ukraine farther from EU and more closer to Russia. This decision led to protests by pro EU groups across the country which is commonly called Euromaidan.

The protest does not seem to die in central Kiev so the government responded with repressive measures. This further outraged the protestors and resulted into toppling of the government and subsequently Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia. This revolution had major impact on Crimean population since most course of traffic and trade was coming from Russia. The peninsula has Russian ethnic majority and historically it had always been leaned towards Russia so they were supportive of pro-Russian stance of the President.

The newly elected pro-EU government of Ukraine passed a bill which prohibited Russian from being recognized as an official language in Ukraine. This caused unrest in Crimean population and slowly the demand for independence began to rise. Amid uncertainty and political instability, Russia became the opportunist and made a move onto Crimean Peninsula.

Some unidentifiable and unrecognized special forces appeared in cities of Simferopol, Sevastopol on 28th February, 2014. Later it was affirmed that they were Russian Special Forces and they occupied the strategic locations like airports and military bases on peninsula. As response, Ukraine government asked for aid from international community. But on 6th March, 2014 Crimean Parliament passed a decree declaring that they are separating from Ukraine.

Later government passed referendum which got 96.6% positive response from the people of Crimea. Population expressed their support for the region's secession from Ukraine and their desire to become part of the Russian Federation. Consequently, on March 18th, the officials in Crimea signed a treaty of annexation (also called agreement on accession), formally incorporating Crimea into the Russian Federation.

The Crimea's assertion of independence generates a conflict between two fundamental concepts of international law: the territorial integrity and the right to self-determination. First, we will look whether Crimea qualifies requirement of statehood for autonomous existence then will look whether it could exercise right of self-determination for such existence.

Statehood
The Montevideo Convention[11] has established four standards for statehood. The concept of statehood is independent of recognition from other states.[12] Since there is no universal entity that can recognize a state's identity on the behalf of the entire community of states, this notion has proven to be impractical in reality.

Therefore, each state has discretion to take decision of whether to acknowledge a newly formed state or not. Article 1[13] provides four components which must be present to certain extent to call an entity 'the state':

• Permanent population:
  States are not just defined by their geography, but also by the people live within their borders. It can be defined as 'stable community' that could support superstructure of the state.[14] It does not mean population should be homogenous in nature. The crucial requirement is that people have intention to live in the territory on permanent basis even though they are nomadic traditionally.[15]
  
  Therefore, having a permanent population is necessary for statehood, but there is on specific population requirement, for example, projected population of Nauru was only 6500. International law does not specify any criteria for composition of population which could be nomadic (like in Somalia), homogeneous (like Iceland), diverse (like in former Soviet Union). The Convention does not provide any particular details regarding the duration for which population should stay or the percentage of population must reside there permanently.
   
• Defined territory:
  There is no prerequisite for territorial size, global community includes small as well large countries. There is no such ruled that territory of a state must be strictly or tightly defined, even ICJ confirms this.[16] Thus, a mere territorial dispute or conflict with new state is not enough to challenge the notion of statehood. Rather what matters is that state has power to display governance power and controls a defined and manageable geographical area i.e. effective government.[17]
   
• Government:
  It is acknowledged that element of 'government' is possibly the most essential component of concept of statehood, as all other component rely on it. This is because the government has practical ability to fulfill essential functions of state. If state does not have 'functioning government' then they are called failed state. Therefore, a state must have ability to exercise its authority "effectively and independently" within its territorial limits.[18]
  
  But the word "effective" is not given under Montevideo Convention. This word got used in Island of Palmas Case (territorial dispute between Netherland and US).The effective government means independent and sovereign government that is not under the control or jurisdiction of any other state.[19] It also gives indication that state is not dependent on others for its primary state functions which are crucial for internal peace and stability. The requirement is not about any particular form of government rather it must be coherent, stable and effective political organization.[20]
   
• Capacity to enter into relation with other state:
  It is about capacity of acting independently in international legal relations. In practise this criteria is related to effective government.
  The situation with Crimea is unique in two aspects.
   

Firstly, following its annexation, Ukraine's authority in Crimea is not merely limited but is almost non-existed. Secondly, contested sovereignity of Crimea means that two states and their respective legal orders that of Russia and Ukraine, are both pertinent to and in accordance with the international legal system.. Therefore, question pertaining to 'whose rule of law' arises alongside the central question in this context, which is 'how much the rule of law'?

Recognition
On one hand 'declaratory hypothesis' proposes that acknowledgement is not the preexisting criteria of statehood and it is enough for existing state to express their desire to establish relations with a new state. On other hand 'constitutive hypothesis' argues that state can only become a state once it is recognized by other states.

The declaratory theory requires fulfillment of four factual requirements before its factuality can be verified by other states. There is no clarity about the importance of de jure and de facto recognition under international regime but generally it is agreed upon that de jure recognition is conclusive and other one is merely provisional and could be withdrawn.[21]

Hence, the 'practice of state recognition' has been continuous source of controversy under international law since 20th century. So, the legal effect of this practise is still unclear.

Response of International Community towards Crimea's Annexation

Annexation followed by wide criticism and condemned by the international community, which largely supported Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The international institutions and countries like United States of America and EU has imposed sanctions against Russia and Crimea which includes travel bans, freezing assets of individuals. Military personnel and politicians were blacklisted, their entry was banned and their bank accounts were also frozen by the EU.

At international level there was rise in call for justice as annexation is violative of sovereignity and territorial integrity which further breaches the peremptory norms international law. The generally accepted notion is that the boundaries of nations cannot be redrawn without permission of democratic head.[22]

Despite substantial resistance to the annexation, Russia and Crimea contended that the self-proclaimed independence was in line with principles of international law. The highest court of Crimea stated that Crimea's actions were in line with the UN Charter and various international agreements. It also made reference to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding the status of Kosovar[23] [dated 22 July 2010] which, according to Crimean and Russian officials affirmed that a section of state making unilateral declaration of independence would not against any international legal principles.

While addressing international community President of Russia [Vladimir Putin] verbally referred to a dictum of ICJ where it stated that general prohibition cannot be deduced from the Secretary Council's practice concerning the continued recognition of declarations of independence that international law does not prohibit such declarations.[24]

To further the justification of secession, Russia contended that Crimean people exercised their right of self determination enshrined in UN Charter by way of referendum. [25] Russia also aimed to invoke doctrine of remedial secession which justifies unilateral secession when serious injustice happens against people. Federation of Russia claimed that attempts were made time and again to deprive people of their language; historicity and they were subjected to forced assimilation.

Representative from the Russian Federation attempted to defend their military intervention by stating that the constant threat of violence from ultranationalist groups on security, well-being, and lawful interests of Russians and those who speaks Russian language in Crimea justified the creation of "self-defense units." These units would enable Russian military forces to enter Ukraine and remain there until the political and civil situation has been restored to normalcy.[26]

Unilateral declaration by Crimea raised pertinent question of International law like whether such declarations are in violation of international law principles, whether ICJ's advisory opinion could be relied upon for justifying Crimea's action, whether international legal framework allows to invoke right of self-determination for claiming independence. Answer to these questions will be sought below; first question on legality of Crimea's declaration for independence will be dealt with.

The legality or illegality of Crimean unilateral declaration for independence

As pointed above that many of western leaders claimed that such declaration violates fundamentals of international law whereas authority of Russia and Crimea stated that they have acted in accordance of legal framework relying on ICJ advisory opinion and invoking right of self determination under UN Charter. The 'State Sovereignity' idea is fundamental principle, and the territorial integrity of a state is an essential component of its sovereignty.[27]

This principle is protected under customary international law as well as enshrined in Article 2(1) of the United Nations (UN) Charter, which upholds the "equal sovereignty of all [nations]."[28] Thus, honoring the sovereignty of other countries is a fundamental standard not only outlined in the UN Charter but also in the broader realm of public international law and backed by established State Practice and Opinio Juris. Moreover, there exists a prohibition on the utilization of force against nation -states.[29]

Declaration on independence under international regime

The legality of such declarations is a subject of debate, with scholars arguing that they are irrelevant and fall outside the scope of the international law regime.[30] International Law becomes relevant only when states take action to put such declarations into effect. On other hand it is also argued that these declarations are covered under the scope of legal regime.

In essence, if the parent states consents for secession and approves the declaration of independence, then the new entity may be recognized as a state right after issuing the declaration. This perspective on state-formation is grounded in the widely accepted principle of international law that recognition is declaratory rather than constitutive.[31]

The legal relevance of such declarations could be traced in Montenegro's secession from Serbia in 2006. Montenegro declared that it is independent form Serbia invoking article under their Constitution. As a result, it effectively created a new state. Sometime these declarations having unilateral character may not led to formation of new state and raises fundamental questions of international law, therefore they hold legal relevance.

In general, proclamations of independence that are approved by the parent state do not instantly generate a conflict between the states. However, it could be contended that when entity declares independence without approval of parent state violates core principle of state's territorial integrity.[32]

Advisory Opinion of ICJ in respect of Kosovar

In February 2008, Kosovo government declared that they are independent.[33] The validity of the declaration was challenged by the Serbian government and took steps to seek international validation by proposing UN General Assembly resolution to obtain ICJ's opinion. The court was tasked with determining whether Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence was consistent with international law.

The court noted that declarations of independence have existed for centuries, but only in certain cases they have resulted in acknowledgement and real autonomy. However, according to state practise, these declarations were not in breach of international law. The notion of self-determination transformed into the right to independence during the era of colonialism. Several states were against the declaration and they have argued that there is implicit prohibition on unilateral declarations under the territorial integrity concept.[34]

It is stated by Court that such principle applies only when relations of states are in conflict. However, in this case scenario, there is no effect on Serbia's territorial integrity, as a non-state entity claimed Kosovo's independence which was located within the state borders.[35] In the end, ICJ determined that there international law regime does not provide general prohibition on such declarations of independence. However, when such kind of declarations are connected with the unlawful use of force or violate other peremptory norms, they will be incompatible with international law.

Kosovo Advisory Opinion: A missed opportunity

The opinion has elicited a mixed response, with some states expressing support for it while some states including Russia and Serbia criticized it stating that they will not recognize Kosovo's independence. Such declarations are mainly political act and can have far reaching consequences. Here court not commented on whether declaration would lead to secession from parent state or not.

It has also not addressed the substance and applicability of the right to self-determination. Court tried to resolve the issue in possible narrowest way which led to incomplete answer or even misleading because there are reasons to assume so. In international law, there is no explicit provision that confers the legal authority to parts of sovereign state to secede without consent of parent state.[36]

So court only concluded that declaration was not violative but it has not dealt with whether the right to make such unilateral declaration was there or not. Therefore, the issue was not addressed fully. Now question arises whether Crimea can invoke right to self determination or right of remedial secession for claiming independence.

Right to self determination

The 'Self-determination' as a concept is not necessarily a legal claim rather it is a pure political and moral expression and could be traced back to French and American Revolution.[37] Article 1 of both ICCPR and ICESCR asserts that every group of people has the right to self-determination. This right encompasses the liberty to select their political structure and to strive for social, economic, and cultural progression accordingly.[38]

The right to self-determination is strengthened by the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among states in accordance with the UN Charter of 1970.[39] This declaration states the same right as mentioned in both covenants however it comes with 'safety-clause' that 'foregoing paragraphs should not be interpreted as authorizing actions which could diminish or disrupt the territorial integrity or political cohesion of nation states.[40] With respect to this right under Charter and Covenants, only 'peoples' can claim it; minorities such as religious, linguistic, cultural etc are not included within claimant of this right. Right for minorities are given under Article 27 of ICCPR.

Self determination: whether it is general right to claim independence/unilateral secession

International legal scholars and writers have stated that there exists a differentiation in internal & external self-determination.[41] Former means people have freedom to enjoy their social, cultural and other rights without interference of mother state whereas latter applies to oppressed people, whose rights are violated by parent state so it allows them to severe and become autonomous from its mother nation by stepping out from it. There is currently no universal agreement or international legal instrument that covers the broad right to external self-determination, which refers to the right secede unilaterally.

For claim of such right and to have an impact, it must be asserted by the people, but the word 'people is not defined anywhere so how would Crimean population would be defined. Whether Crimea constitutes people or not is questionable. The external right of self determination only existed for colonial rule but only internal one could be used out of decolonization.

When the United Nations Charter was created, intention and object was to prevent the right of self-determination from including the right to unilateral secession for non-colonial entities. To achieve this, a safeguard clause was implemented, stating that if such a right would contradict the territorial integrity of a state, right to self determination could not be exercised.[42]

Article 2, paragraph 4 enshrines territorial integrity principle which prevents the exercise of external right of self-determination which results in independence. Therefore, Crimea's claim for external right would be violative of territorial integrity of Ukraine, so they cannot claim right to self-determination.

Right of Remedial Secession could be claimed or not

The concept of remedial secession originates from the safeguard clause in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, which was created in accordance with the UN Charter. [43] An interpretation of this clause in the opposite sense would indicate that if states fail to abide by equal rights and self-determination principles, they may lose protection provided by Declaration on Friendly Relations.

This right would then allow a group of people to use external self-determination as a solution. This interpretation was further supported by Supreme Court in Quebec Case.[44] Court said this right would only be applicable in exceptional scenario like infringement upon basic human rights, discriminatory treatment of particular group, or rejection of internal self-governance etc.

Malcolm Shaw maintained that significant modifications cannot be introduced to a clause by using an ambiguous provision, particularly when the principle of territorial integrity is recognized as a fundamental principle under regime of international law.[45] In case of Crimea, there is no indication or evidence to suggest that such extreme conditions exist. This right also lacks state practise, therefore it could not be upheld as universal entitlement of oppressed people, and it is not positive rule under IL. So it does not grant right to Crimean people to secede from Ukraine.

Conclusion
The self-proclaimed independence of Crimea has sparked noteworthy legal concerns. One such question is whether such a declaration on unilateral basis is permissible at international level or not. To address this issue, I have examined the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice regarding Kosovor. However, the opinion states that a unilateral declaration of independence is not legal in all cases.

But ICJ has not delved into the question of whether the act of unilateral independence is legal or not? Court stated that if such declarations are linked with the illegal employment of force or going against the peremptory norms then they would be incompatible with international law. Crimea notified the declaration only after military intervention of Russia and that the intervention was carried out without the necessary legal justification under international law, thus constituting a breach of the principle of territorial integrity as outlined in Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter.. Hence, declaration by Crimea is egregious violation of peremptory norms of International Law.

Second issue pertains to whether Crimea had right to claim self-determination under the existing legal framework of international law to justify their unilateral secession. For this, it is argued that this right can only be invoked by a group of individuals recognized as a "people" under international law, and that there is no clear definition of this term.

Whether population of Crimea could be termed as people, remains a question. Because population of Crimea is diverse including Russian, Crimean, Tatars and other ethnic groups, then there would be lot of differences. It is uncertain whether the individuals concerned share a mutual feeling of creating a separate group and have the determination to stay united. Furthermore, even if they do fall under the category of a "people," there is no international document that universally recognizes right to external self-determination, which would, provides a right to have independence in such manner.

There has been an opposition for such kind of right and for that purpose 'safeguard clause' has been inserted in Declaration on Friendly Relations to makes sure that such right should not be exercised in such a manner that which goes against peremptory norm of territorial integrity of nation state. Based on above discussion, it can be concluded that there is no general rule of external self determination under which Crimea can claim independence or unilateral secession. Also, Crimea was failed to provide evidence for claiming right to remedial secession.

Finally, because authorities lacked ability to rely on right to self-determination or right of remedial secession, the unilateral declaration made by Crimea was deemed illegal under international law. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion, it can be inferred that the act of unilateral secession by Crimea was not consistent with international law.

Bibliography
Statute:

• The UN Charter 1945
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN General Assembly, 16 December, 1966
• Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning friendly relation and cooperation among states in accordance with UN Charter' by UN General Assembly [1970]
• Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of State, signed at Uruguay on 26 December, 1933 and enforced from following year

Book:

• Malcolm N. Shaw, 'International Law', Cambridge University Press, 6th edition
• Kohen, M., 'Self Determination-In Vinuales', Cambridge University Press [2020]
• Gideon Boas, 'Public International Law: Contemporary Principles & Perspectives', Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. [2012]
• Sterio, 'Secession in International law' Edward Elgar Publication [2018]

Cases:

• ICJ, 'Accordance with the International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo', Advisory opinion, ICJ reports 2010
• Para Military Activities in & against Nicaragua Case [1986]
• Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara by International Court of Justice [1975]
• Advisory Opinion on North Sea Continental Shelf Cases by International Court of Justice [1969]

Agreements:

• Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between EU & Ukraine Enters into Force, European Commission DG 1A, Press Release, IP/98/198 [1998]
• Association Agreement between EU, its Members and Ukraine, OJ [2014] L 161/3
• Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurance, Council on Foreign Relations [1994]

Articles:

• Mc Corquodale, 'Self-determination: A human right approach' [1994] International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 43(3), 857-885
• Vidmar, J. 'Remedial Secession in international law: theory and lack of practice' [2010] St Antony's International Review, p-39
• Shaw M.N Peoples, 'Territorialism and Boundaries' EJIL 8, No.3, P-483
• Reference re Secession of Quebec, Supreme Court Vladimir Putin, 'Address by President of Russia' [2014]
• Representative of Russia (Vitlay Churkin) in public meeting on Ukraine situation in UN Security Council, UN document s/pv.7125 [2015]
• Bill Chappel & Mark Memmott, 'Putin says those aren't Russian armed forces in Crimea' NPR Online [2014]
• Haris &Sivakurmarann, 'Cases and material on IL' [2004] Vol. 134, London: Sweet and Maxxwell
• Ministry of foreign affairs of Kosovo, 'Kosovo declaration of Independence' [2008]
• CNBC with Reuters, 'Obama proposed Crimea referendum violates international law' [2014] CNBC News
• Migdal, J. 'Strong societies and weak states' Princeton University Press [2013]
• http://www.crimeahistory.org/timeline-of-the-history-of-crimea/
• Tetyana Malyerenko & David J. Galbreath, 'Crimea: Competing Self- Determination Movements and Politics at the Centre' Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 65, No. 5, Special issue: Self –Determination after Kosovo [2013] pp-915
• Jan Ejisbouts, 'The Crimean Crisis: Pertinent Questions of International Law' Russian and European Studies
• Hans Kelsen, 'Pure Theory of Law', University of California Press [1967], 320
• J Crawford, 'Creation of states in IL' Oxford University Press [2006]
• Jeremy Waldron, 'Foreign Law and the Modern Ius Gentium' (2005–06) 119 Harvard Law Review 129, 132

End-Notes:

1. Migdal, J. 'Strong societies and weak states' Princeton University Press [2013]
2. http://www.crimeahistory.org/timeline-of-the-history-of-crimea/
3. Id
4. Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurance, Council on Foreign Relations [1994]
5. Tetyana Malyerenko & David J. Galbreath, 'Crimea: Competing Self-Determination Movements and Politics at the Centre' Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 65, No. 5, Special issue: Self-Determination after Kosovo [2013] pp-915
6. Jan Ejisbouts, 'The Crimean Crisis: Pertinent Questions of International Law' Russian and European Studies
7. Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between EU & Ukraine Enters into Force, European Commission DG 1A, Press Release, IP/98/198 [1998]
8. Ibid
9. Association Agreement between EU, its Members and Ukraine, OJ [2014] L 161/3
10. Ibid, Article 1
11. Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of State, signed at Uruguay on 26 December, 1933 and enforced from the following year
12. Article 3, Id 1
13. Article 1, Id 35
14. Gideon Boas, 'Public International Law: Contemporary Principles & Perspectives', Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. [2012] pg 163
15. Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara by International Court of Justice [1975]
16. Advisory Opinion on North Sea Continental Shelf Cases by International Court of Justice [1969]
17. Id 37, pg 164
18. J Crawford, 'Creation of states in IL' Oxford University Press [2006]
19. Jeremy Waldron, 'Foreign Law and the Modern Ius Gentium' (2005–06) 119 Harvard Law Review 129, 132
20. Para Military Activities in & against Nicaragua Case [1986]
21. Hans Kelsen, 'Pure Theory of Law', University of California Press [1967], 320
22. CNBC with Reuters, 'Obama proposed Crimea referendum violates international law' [2014] CNBC News
23. ICJ, 'Accordance with the International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo', Advisory opinion, ICJ reports 2010
24. Vladimir Putin, 'Address by President of Russia' [2014] <http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889>
25. Ibid
26. Representative of Russia (Vitlay Churkin) in public meeting on Ukraine situation in UN Security Council, UN document s/pv.7125 [2015]
27. Bill Chappel & Mark Memmott, 'Putin says those aren't Russian armed forces in Crimea' NPR Online [2014]
28. Article 2, paragraph 1, The UN Charter, 1945
29. Article 2, paragraph 4, The UN Charter, 1945
30. Pleadings before ICJ while seeking advisory opinion on status of Kosovo
31. Haris & Sivakurmarann, 'Cases and material on IL' [2004] Vol. 134, London: Sweet and Maxwell
32. Kohen, M., 'Self-Determination-In Vinuales', [2020] Cambridge University Press, p 145
33. Ministry of foreign affairs of Kosovo, 'Kosovo declaration of Independence' [2008] <www.mfa-ks.net/repository/docs/Dek_Pav_e.pdf>
34. Article 2, paragraph 4, The UN Charter 1945
35. Id 11, para 80
36. Reference re Secession of Quebec, Supreme Court of Canada [1998], para 217
37. Malcolm N. Shaw, 'International Law', Cambridge University Press, 6th edition, pp-523
38. Article 1, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN General Assembly, 16 December, 1966
39. UN General Assembly, 'Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning friendly relation and cooperation among states in accordance with UN Charter' [1970]
40. Id 22, pg-9, paragraph 7
41. Sterio, 'Secession in International law' Edward Elgar Publication [2018]
42. McCorquodale, 'Self-determination: A human right approach' [1994] International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 43(3), 857-885
43. Id 23
44. Vidmar, J. 'Remedial Secession in international law: theory and lack of practise' [2010] St Antony's International Review, p-39
45. Shaw M.N Peoples, 'Territorialism and Boundaries' EJIL 8, No.3, P-483