How to use this Page

With the situation in Crimea moving rapidly, our law editors recently put together a debate map on the potential use of force in international law. To further support the background reading that many students and scholars of international law need, we’ve compiled a brief reading list to better understand the context and application of international law, including concepts of sovereignty, international responsibility, the laws of war, self-determination, secession, and statehood.

Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, Eighth Edition by James Crawford

Check Part III: Territorial Sovereignty, Part VI: International Transactions, Part IX: The Law of Responsibility, and Part XI: Disputes for overviews of the major issues in the Crimea crisis. Identify the different elements of the public international system at play.

Documents on the Laws of War, Third Edition, edited by Adam Roberts and Richard Guelff

Review the core rules, protocols, and conventions governing rights, duties, protections, and applications in wartime. What guidance can they provide?

The Law of International Responsibility, edited by James Crawford, Alain Pellet, and Simon Olleson; assistant editor Dr Kate Parlett

With discussion in Europe and the United States about their obligations to Ukraine, it’s essential to understand what protections there are to offer – and what qualifications must be met before enforcement.

Contested Statehood: Kosovo’s Struggle for Independence by Marc Weller

What can we learn from the international attempts to settle the Kosovo crisis and apply these lessons to Crimea? What failures can be avoided?

The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States by James Ker-Lindsay

Gain insight from interviews with leading experts on the territorial integrity of states versus the right to self-determination.

The War Report: 2012, edited by Stuart Casey-Maslen

Much of the actions that the international community may take are predicated on the definition of war — or at least aggressive action. If Crimea doesn’t undergo a seamless transition, will this conflict be included the the 2014 war report?

Robert Beck on Grenada and Georg Nolte on Intervention by Invitation from Wolfrum (Ed.) in The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law

Crimea has voted for annexation and invited Russia into the country. What lessons can be drawn from Grenada 1983?

A panoramic view from Çufut Qale (Chufut Kale) in Crimea, Ukraine. Photo by Sergiy Klymenko. CC BY SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

Louise Doswald Beck’s “The Legal Validity of Military Intervention by Invitation of the Government” in The British Year Book of International Law

While scholars debate the meanings of the basic theoretical principles of international law, how do they compare to historical interventions?

Two approaches to South Ossetia: Philip Leach from Wilmshurst (Ed.) The Classification of Conflicts and Angelika Nussberger from Wolfrum (Ed.) The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law

In 2008, tensions between Georgia and Russia spilled over into an armed conflict. Are there lessons for Russia’s conduct — as well as the international community’s — for today?

Georg Nolte and Albrecht Randelzhofer on Article 51 from Simma (Ed.) The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary

There is no doubt the UN Charter will be invoked in the debates, so clear commentary is crucial to understanding it.

Both Stefan Oeter and Daniel Thurer on Self-Determination

If the people of Crimea choose to join Russia, who is the international community to stop them?

James Crawford on Secession from The Creation of States in International Law, Second Edition

What are the tests for international recognition now that Crimea has seceded?

Yves Beigbeder on Referendum from Wolfrum (Ed.) The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law

There have been a number of disputes over Crimea’s referendum — from lack of choice to intimidation at the polling stations.

Jens Ohlin on Aggression from Cassese (Ed.) The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice

Shots have been fired. If the conflict escalates, how and when does it qualify as aggression under international law?

Oxford University Press is a leading publisher in international law, including the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, latest titles from thought leaders in the field, and a wide range of law journals and online products. We publish original works across key areas of study, from humanitarian to international economic to environmental law, developing outstanding resources to support students, scholars, and practitioners worldwide. For the latest news, commentary, and insights follow the International Law team on Twitter @OUPIntLaw.

Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only law articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.

The post An international law reading list for the situation in Crimea appeared first on OUPblog.

        

Related Stories

• Iraq, detainee abuse, and the danger of humanitarian double standards
• Sovereignty disputes in the South and East China Sea
• The Ukraine crisis and the rules great powers play by

 

By James Ker-Lindsay

There has rarely been a more interesting time to study secession. It is not just that the number of separatist movements appears to be growing, particularly in Europe, it is the fact that the international debate on the rights of people to determine their future, and pursue independence, seems to be on the verge of a many change. The calm debate over Scotland’s future, which builds on Canada’s approach towards Quebec, is a testament to the fact that a peaceful and democratic debate over separatism is possible. It may yet be the case that other European governments choose to adopt a similar approach; the most obvious cases being Spain and Belgium towards Catalonia and Flanders.

However, for the meanwhile, the British and Canadian examples remain very much the exception rather than the rule. In most cases, states still do everything possible to prevent parts of their territory from breaking away, often using force if necessary.

It is hardly surprising that most states have a deep aversion to secession. In part, this is driven by a sense of geographical and symbolic identity. A state has an image of itself, and the geographic boundaries of the state are seared onto the consciousness of the citizenry. For example, from an early age school pupils draw maps of their country. But the quest to preserve the borders of a country is rooted in a range of other factors. In some cases, the territory seeking to break away may hold mineral wealth, or historical and cultural riches. Sometimes secession is opposed because of fears that if one area is allowed to go its own way, other will follow.

For the most part, states are aided in their campaign to tackle separatism by international law and norms of international politics. While much has been made of the right to self-determination, the reality is that its application is extremely limited. Outside the context of decolonisation, this idea has almost always taken a backseat to the principle of the territorial integrity of states. This gives a country fighting a secessionist movement a massive advantage. Other countries rarely want to be seen to break ranks and recognise a state that has unilaterally seceded.

When a decision is taken to recognise unilateral declarations of independence, it is usually done by a state with close ethnic, political or strategic ties to the breakaway territory.Turkey’s recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are obvious examples. Even when other factors shape the decision, as happened in the case of Kosovo, which has been recognised by the United States and most of the European Union, considerable effort has been made by recognising states to present this as a unique case that should be seen as sitting outside of the accepted boundaries of established practice.

However, states facing a secessionist challenge cannot afford to be complacent. While there is a deep aversion to secession, there is always the danger that the passage of time will lead to the gradual acceptance of the situation on the ground. It is therefore important to wage a concerted campaign to reinforce a claim to sovereignty over the territory and prevent countries from recognising – or merely even unofficially engaging with – the breakaway territory.

At the same time, international organisations are also crucial battlegrounds. Membership of the United Nations, for example, has come to be seen as the ultimate proof that a state has been accepted by the wider international community. To a lesser extent, participation in other international and regional bodies, and even in sporting and cultural activities, can send the same message concerning international acceptance.

The British government’s decision to accept a referendum over Scotland’s future is still a rather unusual approach to the question of secession. Governments rarely accept the democratic right of a group of people living within its borders to pursue the creation of a new state. In most cases, the central authority seeks to keep the state together; and in doing so choosing to fight what can often be a prolonged campaign to prevent recognition or legitimisation by the wider international community.

James Ker-Lindsay is Eurobank EFG Senior Research Fellow on the Politics of South East Europe at the European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science. He is the author of The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States (2012) and The Cyprus Problem: What Everyone Needs to Know (2011), and a number of other books on conflict, peace and security in the Balkans and Eastern Mediterranean.

Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only articles on law and politics on the OUPblog via email or RSS.

The post Secession: let the battle commence appeared first on OUPblog.