The Legality of the Secessions of Kosovo and Crimea

  • Juan Francisco Escudero Espinosa


Contemporary international law does not prohibit secessions. However, in certain circumstances, an attempt at secession may be illicit because it infringes some norm of general international law, or a lex specialis, as explained in Chap.  3. Thus, effectiveness is not the only requirement for the appearance of a new entity; it is necessary for the creation to be licit through observing the peremptory norms forming international jus cogens, or the requirements in respect of the legal status of the territory set out in a lex specialis. Conformity with international law must be seen as a criterion for statehood alongside the needed effectiveness, so that the latter is a necessary, but not a sufficient requirement.


  1. Akehurst, M. 1977. The Use of Force to Protect Nationals Abroad. International Relations 5: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arcari, M. 2014. Violazione del divieto di uso della forza, aggressione o attacco armato in relazione all’intervento militare della Russia in Crimea? DUDI 8: 473–479.Google Scholar
  3. Bílkovà, V. 2015. The Use of Force by the Russian Federation in Crimea. ZaöRV/HJIL 75: 27–50.Google Scholar
  4. Bismuth, R. 2014. Odysée dans le conundrum des réactions décentralisées à l’illicite. JDI 141: 719–731.Google Scholar
  5. Borgen, C.J. 2009. The Language of Law and the Practice of Politics: Great Powers and the Rhetoric of Self-Determination in the Cases of Kosovo and South Ossetia. Chicago JIL 10: 1–33.Google Scholar
  6. Bowett, D.W. 1986. The Use of Force for the Protection of Nationals Abroad. In The Current Legal Regulation for the Use of Force, ed. A. Cassese, 39–55. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Brilmayer, L. 1991. Secession and Self-Determination: A Territorial Interpretation. YJIL 16: 177–202.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, C. 2005. Access to International Justice in the Legality of Use of Force Cases. (Yugoslavia v. The 10 NATO Countries which Militarily Intervened in Kosovo, in which the International Court of Justice Ruled it did not have Jurisdiction). Cambridge LJ 64: 267–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brownlie, I. 1990. Principles of Public International Law. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Burke-White, W.W. 2014. Crimea and the International Legal Order. Survival 56: 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caminker, E.H. 1994. Precedent and Prediction: The Forward-Looking Aspects of Inferior Court Decisionmaking. Texas Law Review 73: 1–82.Google Scholar
  12. Chernichenko, S.V. 1999. Teoria mezhdunarodnogo prava. Moscow: NIMP.Google Scholar
  13. Christakis, T. 2011. The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo: Has International Law Something to Say about Secession? LJIL 24: 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2014. Les conflits de sécession en Crimée et dans l’Est de l’Ukraine et le droit international (The Conflicts of Secession in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and International Law). JDI 141: 733–764.Google Scholar
  15. Cirkovic, E. 2010. An Analysis of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence. German LJ 11: 895–912.Google Scholar
  16. Corten, O. 2008. Déclarations unilatérales d’indépendance et reconnaissance prématurées: du Kosovo à l’Ossétie du sud et à l’Abkhazie. RGDIP 112: 721–759.Google Scholar
  17. Crawford, J. 2012. Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cvijić, S. 2007. Self-Determination as a Challenge to the Legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention: The Case of Kosovo. German LJ 8: 57–80.Google Scholar
  19. Delahunty, R. 2015. The Crimean Crisis, Legal Studies Research Paper Series. U.St.Thomas J.L. & Pub. Poly 9: 125–168.Google Scholar
  20. Dmitriev, Y.A. 2014. Crimea as a Bone of Contention Between Russia, the European Union and the USA. ПРАВО И ЖИЗНЬ Независимый научно-правовой журнал 189: 22–50.Google Scholar
  21. Douhan, A.F. 2015. International Organizations and Settlement of the Conflict in Ukraine. ZaöRV/HJIL 75: 195–214.Google Scholar
  22. Efevwerhan, D.I. 2012. Kosovo’s Chances of UN Membership: A Prognosis. GoJIL 4: 93–130.Google Scholar
  23. Fleiner, T. 2011. The Unilateral Secession of Kosovo as a Precedent in International Law. In From Bilateralism to Community Interests: Essays in Honour of Judge Bruno Simma, ed. U. Fastenrath, 877–894. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fox, G.H. 2015. Intervention by Invitation. In The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law, ed. M. Weller, 816–840. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Francioni, F. 2000. Of War, Humanity and Justice in International Law After Kosovo. Max Planck YUNL 4: 107–126.Google Scholar
  26. Gordon, D.J. 1977. Use of Force for the Protection of Nationals Abroad: The Entebbe Incident Note. Case W.Res.J. Int’l L. 9: 117–134.Google Scholar
  27. Gray, C. 2001. The Legality of NATOs Military Action in Kosovo: Is There a Right of Humanitarian Intervention? In International Law in the Post-Cold War World: Essays in Memory of Li Haopei, 240–253. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2005. Legality of Use of Force. (Serbia & Montenegro v. Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, and the United Kingdom; Cases Stemming from NATO Action in Yugoslavia and Kosovo). ICLQ 54: 787–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ———. 2009. The Protection of Nationals Abroad: Russia’s Use of Force in Georgia. In The Diversity of International Law: Essays in Honour of Professor Kalliopi K. Koufa, ed. A. Constantinides and N. Zaiker, 133–151. Leiden, Netherlands; Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Green, J.A. 2010. Passportization, Peacekeepers and Proportionality: The Russian Claim on the Protection of Nations Abroad in Self-Defence. In Conflict in the Caucasus: Implications for International Legal Order, ed. J.A. Green and C.P.M. Waters, 54–79. Basingstoke, England; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 2014. The Annexation of Crimea: Russia, Passportisation and the Protection of Nationals Revisited. JUFIL 1: 3–10.Google Scholar
  32. Greenwood, C. 1999. Humanitarian Intervention: The Case of Kosovo. Finnish YIL 10: 141–175.Google Scholar
  33. Hilpold, P. 2009a. The International Court of Justices Advisory Opinion on Kosovo: Perspectives of a Delicate Question. ARIEL 14: 259–310.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2009b. The Kosovo Case and International Law: Looking for Applicable Theories. Chinese JIL 8: 47–61.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 2015. Ukraine, Crimea and New International Law: Balancing International Law with Arguments Drawn from History. Chinese JIL 14: 237–270.Google Scholar
  36. Jaber, T. 2011. A Case for Kosovo? Self-Determination and Secession in the 21st Century. IJHR 15: 926–947.Google Scholar
  37. Jacobs, D., and Y. Radi. 2011. Waiting for Godot: An Analysis of the Advisory Opinion on Kosovo. LJIL 24: 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jennings, R.Y. 1999. Kosovo and International Lawyers. International Law FORUM du droit international 1: 166–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jia, B.B. 2009. The Independence of Kosovo: A Unique Case of Secession? Chinese JIL 8: 27–46.Google Scholar
  40. Kälin, W. 2000. Humanitäre Intervention: Legitimation durch Verfahren? Zehn Thesen zur Kosovo-Krise. SZIER/RSDIE 10: 159–176.Google Scholar
  41. Kapustin, A. 2015. Crimea’s Self-Determination in the Light of Contemporary International Law. ZaöRV/HJIL 75: 101–118.Google Scholar
  42. Kessedjian, C. 1999. La légalité de l’intervention de l’OTAN au Kosovo. International Law FORUM du droit international 1: 147–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kozhevnikov, F.I., ed. 1960. International Law. A Textbook for Use in Law Schools. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.Google Scholar
  44. Kranz, J. 2014. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Sovereign Democracy: Some Remarks on the Annexation of Crimea by Russia. AVR 52: 205–221.Google Scholar
  45. Krieger, H. 2001. The Kosovo Conflict and International Law: An Analytical Documentation 1974–1999. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krisch, N. 1999. Unilateral Enforcement of the Collective Will: Kosovo, Iraq, and the Security Council. Max Planck YUNL 3: 59–103.Google Scholar
  47. Lagerwall, A. 2014. L’agression et l’annexion de la Crimée para la Fédération de Russie: Quels enseignements au sujet du droit international. Questions of International Law, Zoom Out I: 57–72. Scholar
  48. Luchterhandt, O. 2014. Der Anschluss der Krim an Russland aus völkerrechtlicher Sicht. AVR 52: 137–174.Google Scholar
  49. Mansour, A.B. 2010. Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness in the ILC Articles on State Responsibility. Consent. In The Law of International Responsibility, ed. J. Crawford, A. Pellet, and S. Olleson, 439–449. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Marxsen, C. 2014. The Crimea Crisis – An International Law Perspective. ZaöRV/HJIL 74: 367–391.Google Scholar
  51. Merezhko, O. 2015. Crimea’s Annexation by Russia – Contradictions of the New Russian Doctrine of International Law. ZaöRV/HJIL 75: 167–194.Google Scholar
  52. Müllerson, R.A. 2014. Ukraine: Victim of Geopolitics. Chinese JIL 13: 133–146.Google Scholar
  53. Murase, S. 2002. The Relationship Between the UN Charter and General International Law Regarding Non-Use of Force: The Case of NATOs Air Campaign in Kosovo Crisis of 1999. In Liber amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, vol. 2, 1543–1554. The Hague; New York: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  54. Natoli, K. 2010. Weaponizing Nationality: An Analysis of Russia’s Passport Policy in Georgia. B.U. Int’l L.J. 28: 389–417.Google Scholar
  55. Nolte, G. 1999. Kosovo und Konstitutionalisierung: Zur humanitären Intervention der NATO-Staaten. ZaöRV/HJIL 59: 941–960.Google Scholar
  56. ———. 2010. Intervention by Invitation. In Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford Public International Law, Online edition.
  57. O’Connell, M.E. 2000. The UN, NATO and International Law After Kosovo. HRQ 22: 57–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Oeter, S. 2014. The Role of Recognition and Non-Recognition with Regard to Secession. In Self-Determination and Secession in International Law, ed. C. Walter et al., 45–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Olson, P.M. 2014. The Lawfulness of Use of Force in Crimea. ML & LWR 53: 17–44.Google Scholar
  60. Orakhelashvili, A. 2011. The International Courts Advisory Opinion on the UDI in Respect of Kosovo: Washing Away the Foam on the Tide of Time. Max Planck YUNL 15: 65–104.Google Scholar
  61. Pelc, K.J. 2014. The Politics of Precedent in International Law: A Social Network Application. APSR 108: 547–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Peters, A. 2015. The Crimean Vote of March 2014 as an Abuse of the Institution of the Territorial Referendum. In Staat und Mensch im Kontext des Völker- und Europarechts. Liber Amicorum für Torsten Stein, ed. C. Calliess, 255–280. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.Google Scholar
  63. Pronin, A. 2015. Republic of Crimea A Two-Day State. Russian LJ 3: 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Radan, P. 2012. Secessionist Referenda in International and Domestic Law. Nationalism and Ethic Politics 18: 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ronzitti, N. 1985. Rescuing Nationals Abroad Through Military Coercion and Intervention on Grounds of Humanity. Dordrecth: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  66. Ruys, T. 2008. The ‘Protection of Nationals’ Doctrine Revisited. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 13: 233–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ruys, T., and N. Verlinden. 2014. Digest of State Practice 1 January–30 June 2014. JUFIL 1: 324–340.Google Scholar
  68. Ryngaert, C. 2010. The ICJs Advisory Opinion on Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence: A Mixed Opportunity?: International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010. NILR 57: 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ryngaert, C., and C. Griffioen. 2009. The Relevance of the Right to Self-Determination in the Kosovo Matter: In Partial Response to the Agora Papers. Chinese JIL 8: 573–587.Google Scholar
  70. Sciso, E. 2014. La crisi ucraina e lintervento russo: profile di diritto internazionale. RDI 97: 992–1031.Google Scholar
  71. Şen, İ.G. 2015. Sovereignty Referendums in International and Constitutional Law. Dordrecht, Boston, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  72. Sofaer, A.D. 2000. International Law and Kosovo. SJIL 36: 1–21.Google Scholar
  73. Tancredi, A. 2008. Neither Authorized nor Prohibited? Secession and International Law After Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Italian YIL 18: 37–62.Google Scholar
  74. ———. 2012. Some Remarks on the Relationship Between Secession and General International Law in the Light of the ICJs Kosovo Advisory Opinion. In Kosovo and International Law: The ICJ Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, ed. P. Hilpold, 79–108. Leiden; Boston: M. Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. ———. 2014a. Crisi in Crimea, referéndum ed autodeterminazione dei popoli. DUDI 8: 480–490.Google Scholar
  76. ———. 2014b. The Russian Annexation of the Crimea: Questions Relating to the Use of Force. Questions of International Law, Zoom Out I: 5–34. Scholar
  77. Thürer, D. 2000. Der Kosovo-Konflikt im Lichte des Völkerrechts: Von drei-echten und scheinbaren – Dilemmata. AVR 38: 1–22.Google Scholar
  78. Tolstykh, V. 2015. Three Ideas of Self-Determination in International Law and the Reunification of Crimea with Russia. ZaöRV/HJIL 75: 119–139.Google Scholar
  79. Tunkin, G.I. 1975. International Law in the International System. Recueil des cours 147: 1–218.Google Scholar
  80. Van den Driest, S.F. 2015. Crimea’s Separation from Ukraine: An Analysis of the Right to Self-Determination and (Remedial) Secession in International Law. NILR 62: 329–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vidmar, J. 2009. International Legal Responses to Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence. Vand. J. Transnatl L. 42: 779–851.Google Scholar
  82. ———. 2011. The Kosovo Advisory Opinion Scrutinized. LJIL 24: 355–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. ———. 2013. Democratic Statehood in International Law: The Emergence of New States in Post-Cold War Practice. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  84. ———. 2015. The Annexation of Crimea and the Boundaries of the Will of the People. German LJ 16: 365–383.Google Scholar
  85. Volova, L.I. 1972. Plebistsit v mezhdunarodnom prave. Moscow: Mezhdunar. otnosheniia.Google Scholar
  86. Voronin, E.R., V.N. Kulebyakin, and A.V. Nikolaev. 2015. Государственный переворот в Киеве в феврале 2014 г.: международно–правовые оценки и последствия [The coup d’état in Kiev in February 2014: International Law Context and Consequences]. Московский журнал международного права/Moscow Journal of International Law 97: 11–28.Google Scholar
  87. Waldock, H. 1952. The Regulation of the Use of Force by Individual States in International Law. Recueil des cours 81: 455–515.Google Scholar
  88. Wall, A.E. 2002. Legal and Ethical Lessons of NATOs Kosovo Campaign. International Law Studies 78: 571.Google Scholar
  89. Walter, C. 2014. Postscript: Self-Determination, Secession and the Crimean Crisis 2014. In Self-Determination and Secession in International Law, ed. C. Walter, A. Von Ungern-Sternberg, and K. Abushov, 293–311. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Weller, M. 2009. Contested Statehood: Kosovo’s Struggle for Independence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wilson, G. 2009. Self-Determination, Recognition and the Problem of Kosovo. NILR 56: 455–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. ———. 2015. Crimea: Some Observations on Secession and Intervention in Partial Response to Müllerson and Tolstykh. Chinese JIL 14: 217–223.Google Scholar
  93. Wippman, D. 2001. Kosovo and the Limits of International Law (NATOs Bombing of Kosovo Under International Law). Fordham Intl L.J. 25: 129–150.Google Scholar
  94. Yee, S. 2010. Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 4): The Kosovo Advisory Opinion. Chinese JIL 9: 763–782.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Francisco Escudero Espinosa
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of LeonLeonSpain

Personalised recommendations