The Legality of Crimea's Annexation

Having read and heard more on the legality of the Crimean secession from Ukraine, I remain unconvinced that the whole thing is bogus.

The argument against the legality Crimea's departure and its ensuing annexation by Russia is that the process was coerced. Although there was a referendum, no one thinks it was clean. For one thing, the margin of victory was far too wide. You can't get 99% of any group to vote for any thing; I would expect the margin for voter error -- people accidentally voting against it -- would be higher than 1%. For another, the voting was closely "supervised" by Russian soldiers, present despite denials of their existence by Putin.*

Putin's reflexive paranoid ranting reinforces the impression of illegitimacy. His railing against Western interference in Ukraine and his calling protesters "fascists" and "extremists" indicates his wacko world view and his inclination to behave erratically.

That Crimean Tatars report increasing persecution under the newly Russianized government makes matters worse.

At Dartmouth College this weekend I heard lecturer Jason Sorens argue that this coercion made the referendum clearly illegal. Only when both entities in the matter -- the separatists and the recognized government -- agree to the secession is it truly legitimate, he said. Such concessions are not unheard of, he pointed out, and include Congressional authorization for Puerto Rico to leave the United States at any time it chooses.

Viktor Yanukovich: Out for good reason

This line of reasoning, however, has its weaknesses. The new Ukrainian interim government derives its own legitimacy form a popular mandate not achieved through normal elections. I have no doubt that the people of western Ukraine were right to expel the corrupt, brutal puppet Yanukovich. But it's not obvious to me that Crimeans are bound by that choice, and if their move was irregular it should not surprise us. The form of the referendum was wrong, and in situations like this form matters. No one argues, however, that the majority of Crimeans would have voted against secession if a clean vote had been held.

* The fact that the soldiers were wearing uniforms without insignia is in fact a violation of international law, which requires legal combatants to display name, rank and national identifiers.

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.