SCOTUSblog » Academic Round-up

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

The Law on Crimea

Crimea in the Russian Empire

Ukraine

The United States and many European governments have taken the position that the Russian annexation of Crimea is a blatant violation of international law. 

Maybe, but it's complicated.

First, we have the ouster of Viktor Yanukovich as "president" of Ukraine. No one thinks Yanukovich was anything other than a kleptocrat supported b the brutally corrupt regime of Vladimir Putin in Russia. Technically speaking, the protests that forced him to leave the country may not have been legal, even if they were perfectly justified as dissent against a bad government. If you adhere to the Lockean/ Jeffersonian  notion that Yanukovich's government was inherently illegal and illegitimate and therefore all protests against it, including those intended to cause its overthrow, are legal, then we have one conclusion. If you prefer the idea that he was elected in a flawed but legal election, then we have another.

Next, we have the concept of self-determination, the Wilsonian idea that every "people" has the right to affiliate itself with whatever nation it chooses. Under this framework, the Crimean referendum to quit Ukraine and join Russia is not only acceptable, but preferable.

But Vladimir Putin is the fly in this ointment. His actions are so thoroughly dishonest, corrupt and illegitimate that law-abiding people can hardly stand by and watch. Putin is working to bring back the totalitarian model of Stalin and Hitler, with rejection of emperical  truth at its core. He invades Crimea, and then denies that Russian troops are there, even as journalists take pictures of them. He steals billions of dollars from his own government and complains of capitalist corruption. He resorts to force first and last.

Putin's very existence is an affront to the rule of law, and he ought to be opposed by everyone all the time.

But I'm not sure what to make of the Crimean separation.











No comments: