The book examines Crimeas case and its accession to the Russian Federation (RF) in light of the Kosovo independence. It relies on academic sources including journals and archives from the Soviet Union, RF, Ukraine, Former Yugoslavia, Serbia, and Kosovo as well as current media sources in light of the continuing evolution of the Crimean situation.

It is increasingly suggested in literature that a right to unilateral secession, stemming from the right to self-determination of peoples, may arise as ultimum remedium in case of serious injustices suffered by a people. This book examines the conventional content and meaning of the right to self-determination and scrutinizes whether the various sources of international law disclose (traces of) a right to remedial secession.

Provides a detailed analysis of how Russia's understanding of international law has developed Draws on historical, theoretical, and practical perspectives to offer the reader the 'big picture' of Russia's engagement with international law Extensively uses sources and resources in the Russian language, including many which are not easily available to scholars outside of Russia

The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo, handed down in 2010, was the first instance at which the Court had ruled on an unilateral declaration of independence. It stated that there was no objection to the declaration of independence under international law. It was highly controversial, as the Opinion could be seen to set a precedent for endorsing secession more widely. This book, written by an unparalleled team of experts, investigates the interplay between law and politics that took place over Kosovo's independence, both generally and in the specific context of the Advisory Opinion. It investigates how the International Court of Justice became the battleground over which Kosovo's independence was fought, and how the political arguments in favor of Kosovo's independence changed in the legal setting of the Court. It studies what the Court wanted to achieve, whether it succeeded in those aims, and the contentious reception its Opinion received. The book is structured in five parts, first setting out the historical and political context to the case, focusing on the conflicting narratives of reality within Serbia and Kosovo, of which the ICJ case was only a continuation, and the political arguments for and against Kosovo's independence. Secondly it examines in detail how the case was argued, what were the litigation strategies of the participating states, why some arguments rose to the forefront while others did not. In doing so it will extensively discuss the written and oral pleadings of all the participating states. Thirdly it analyses the Advisory Opinion itself, as well as things that the Court left unsaid with regard to general international law. Fourthly it looks at the consequences that the Opinion has had on the continuing dispute between Serbia and Kosovo, and how it was received in the international legal sphere. Finally, it examines the broader repercussions the Opinion might have on other cases of secession, even if it was probably designed not to have any.

The right to self-determination is renowned for its lack of clear interpretation. Broadly speaking, one can differentiate between a 'classic' and a 'romantic' tradition. In modern international law, the balance between these two opposing traditions is sought in an attempt to contain or 'domesticate' the romantic version by limiting it to 'abnormal' situations, that is cases of 'alien subjugation, domination and exploitation'. This book situates Russia's engagement with the right to self-determination in this debate. It shows that Russia follows a distinct approach to self-determination that diverges significantly from the consensus view in international state practice and scholarship, partly due to a lasting legacy of the former Soviet doctrine of international law. Against the background of the Soviet Union's role in the evolution of the right to self-determination, the bulk of the study analyses Russia's relevant state practice in the post-Soviet space through the prisms of sovereignty, secession, and annexation. Drawing on analysis of all seven major secessionist conflicts in the former Soviet space and a detailed study of Russian sources and scholarship, it traces how Russian engagement with self-determination has changed over the past three decades. Ultimately, the book argues that Russia's approach to the right of peoples to self-determination should not only be understood in terms of power politics disguised as legal rhetoric but in terms of a continuously assumed regional hegemony and exceptionalism, based on balance-of-power considerations.

The book comprehensively discusses legal and political issues of non-recognized entities in the context of international and European Law, combining perspectives of international and European law with those of the non-recognized entities themselves.

This Council Special Report, commissioned by CFR's Center for Preventive Action, takes all these issues into account and examines the many challenges facing Ukraine. The report comprehensively analyzes the country's difficulties, related to both domestic conditions -- for example, fractious politics and deeply divided public opinion -- and foreign policy -- for example, issues related to the Black Sea Fleet and Ukrainian and European dependence on Russia's natural gas. The report then recommends ways for the United States to encourage Ukraine on a path of stability and integration with the West. It proposes measures to bolster high-level dialogue between Washington and Kiev, foster effective governance in Ukraine, and reduce Ukraine's susceptibility to Russian pressure. On the crucial NATO question, the report urges the United States to support continued Ukrainian integration with the alliance, though it recommends waiting to back concrete steps toward membership until Kiev achieves consensus on this point. One need not agree with this judgment to find Pifer's analysis of value. Averting Crisis in Ukraine takes a clear-eyed look at the issues that could cause instability -- or worse -- in Ukraine. But it also recommends practical steps that could increase the prospect that Ukraine will enjoy a prosperous, democratic, and independent future.

Secession in International Law argues that the effective development of criteria on secession is a necessity in today’s world, because secessionist struggles can be analyzed through the legal lens only if we have specific legal rules to apply. Without legal rules, secessionist struggles are dominated by politics and sui generis approaches, which validate secessionist attempts based on geo-politics and regional states’ self-interest, as opposed to the law. By using a truly comparative approach, Milena Sterio has developed a normative international law framework on secession, which focuses on several factors to assess the legitimacy of a separatist quest.

This book addresses questions in connection with the international legal regime on demands for secession, which have arisen in various States. More specifically, it examines the unilateral declarations of independence by Kosovo in 2008, and by Crimea and its subsequent annexation by the Russian Federation in 2014. The work investigates the two cases so as to shed light on the international legal regime affecting entities that are smaller than a sovereign State. It analyzes the relevant principles of international law, the intention being to determine their scope and review them in light of the most recent practice and developments in international law. In turn, the book examines and explains the events of relevance for international law that occurred in the changing situations in Kosovo and Crimea. On the basis of these legal considerations, it explores how the international community can respond when faced with situations that may violate international law, together with the effectiveness of various measures. It also discusses whether certain situations might be legitimate as a concept could now be emerging that secession may be justified in specific circumstances, such as serious and widespread violations of basic human rights.

An insider’s account of the complex relations between the United States and post-Soviet Ukraine The Eagle and the Trident provides the first comprehensive account of the development of U.S. diplomatic relations with an independent Ukraine, covering the years 1992 through 2004 following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The United States devoted greater attention to Ukraine than any other post-Soviet state (except Russia) after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Steven Pifer, a career Foreign Service officer, worked on U.S.-Ukraine relations at the State Department and the White House during that period and also served as ambassador to Ukraine. With this volume he has written the definitive narrative of the ups and downs in the relationship between Washington and newly independent Ukraine. The relationship between the two countries moved from heady days in the mid- 1990s, when they declared a strategic partnership, to troubled times after 2002. During the period covered by the book, the United States generally succeeded in its major goals in Ukraine, notably the safe transfer of nearly 2,000 strategic nuclear weapons left there after the Soviet collapse. Washington also provided robust support for Ukraine’s effort to develop into a modern, democratic, market-oriented state. But these efforts aimed at reforming the state proved only modestly successful, leaving a nation that was not resilient enough to stand up to Russian aggression in Crimea in 2014. The author reflects on what worked and what did not work in the various U.S. approaches toward Ukraine. He also offers a practitioner’s recommendations for current U.S. policies in the context of ongoing uncertainty about the political stability of Ukraine and Russia’s long-term intentions toward its smaller but important neighbor.