160 / 464
146
JAN ONDŘEJ
CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ
of the Crimea referendum is also questionable. Provided that Russia was persuaded
that the Russian population of Crimea was threatened, Russia should have resolved
the issue by negotiations with Ukraine, as obliged by the rules of international law
about peaceful conflict resolution. The result of the negotiations could have been a
referendum.
Provided we consider the referendum in Crimea due to the involvement of
Russia as illegal, the following Treaty about the incorporation of Crimean Republic
and the city of Sevastopol into Russia could logically be concluded as contrary to
international law. It would mean interference into the personality of another state,
in this case that of Ukraine. Russia would breach the rule on the territorial integrity
or political independence of any state as expressed by Article 2 of the Charter of
the United Nations. It should be stressed that the example which Russia followed is
especially that of the case of Kosovo, including disrespect for the territorial integrity
of a state.
It can be concluded that, if the international community is interested in strict
following of the rules about territorial integrity and political independence of states,
it should not use these rules according to the political purposes they follow and as
suits them but should observe them rather strictly in all cases. This unfortunately is
not the case in reality.
Future development will show what development the situation in Crimea will have.
American president Barack Obama expressed the view
60
that Russian annexation of
Crimea is not a closed case, because the international community does not recognize
the incorporation.
It can be said that the legal and real situation are not always in accordance. This
is the case in the above mentioned so called
de facto
regimes, that is various entities
which have certain features of a state that often have come into existence on the basis
of a breach of international law, including the use of armed forces.
The situation in Crimea is comparable to these
de facto
regimes. First, the declaration
of independence was approved by the Crimea deputies; then the referendum followed,
and on the basis of the referendum Crimea became an “independent state” which
acceded to the Russian Federation on the basis of an international treaty.The inspiration
taken from the Kosovo case is evident: in the Declaration
61
of the independence of
Crimea there is a direct reference to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court
of Justice of 2010 (see above). The referendum took place under the supervision of
unmarked soldiers who are believed to have been sent by Russia. In April 2015 e
Russian President announced
62
that the annexation of Crimea “includes elements
of historic justice” and that the purpose was not the strategic importance of the
60
See: Obama pro sankce i kdyby to mělo Západ bolet.
Právo
z 26. 3. 2014.
61
See: Krym přijal deklaraci nezávislosti.
Právo
z 12. 3. 2014.
62
See: Anexe Krymu nese podle Putina prvky historické spravedlnosti.
Právo
z 28. 4. 2015.