Abstract
In the pages above an attempt has been made to show how events developed, and to analyse the fundamentals asserted, with regard to the unilateral declarations of independence by Kosovo and Crimea from the viewpoint of international law. This chapter will endeavour to study the scope of these declarations within the international community and the consequences they may have on the impact of secession in international law.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See supra, Chap. 4, note 134.
The day after the unilateral declaration of independence, on 18 February 2008, it was recognized by Afghanistan, Albania, Costa Rica, France, Senegal, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Three of these are permanent members of the Security Council. In the following 2 days, recognition was also granted by Australia (19 February), and Latvia and Germany (20 February), until 21 recognitions had been made during the month of February. By the end of 2010, this figure had reached 53 recognitions.
- 2.
The States recognizing the new situation were Afghanistan, Bolivia, Cuba, Kyrgyzstan, Nicaragua, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
- 3.
Cfr. Frowein (2010), at para. 6, http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1086?rskey=0y3Wx1&result=1&prd=EPIL.
- 4.
Cfr. Oeter (2014), p. 45.
- 5.
Cfr. Tomuschat (2012), p. 31.
- 6.
Cfr. Jia (2009), p. 42.
- 7.
Cfr. Dugard (2011), p. 13.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
In the words of Hans Kelsen: ‘By the legal act of recognition the recognized community is brought into legal existence in relation to the recognizing state, and thereby international law becomes applicable to the relations between these states. Hence the legal act of recognition has a specifically constitutive character’. Kelsen (1941), p. 609. Lauterpacht (1947). Anzilotti (1999), pp. 159–177.
- 11.
- 12.
Opinion No. 1, of 29 November 1991, at para. 1(a). 31:6 ILM (1992), 1494; 3:1 EJIL (1992), 182–183, http://ejil.org/pdfs/3/1/1175.pdf.
The Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia of the EEC, known as the Badinter Arbitration Committee, issued Opinion No. 1 in which it confirmed the process of dissolution of the SFRY. Cfr. Opinion No. 1, of 29 November 1991, supra, Chap. 3, note 70, at para. 2 and 3. See Craven (1995).
- 13.
- 14.
Cfr. ‘Letter from the President to the President of Kosovo’ of 18 February 2008, at para. 1 and 3. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080218-3.html. United States Recognizes Kosovo as an Independent State, 2008, AJIL 102:638–640, p. 640.
- 15.
- 16.
Cfr. Brownlie (1990), p. 93, note 3.
- 17.
Cfr. Vidmar (2012), p. 153.
- 18.
See supra, Chap. 3, note 68.
- 19.
- 20.
Cfr. Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec, supra, Chap. 2, note 71, p. 274, para. 106.
- 21.
- 22.
Cfr. Crawford (2007), p. 21.
- 23.
Cfr. Oppenheim et al. (1992), Vol. I, p. 143.
- 24.
Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 437, para. 81.
- 25.
See supra, Sect. 3.3.
- 26.
- 27.
On the Stimson Doctrine, see: Current (1954), Turns (2003).
The ‘General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy’, signed at Paris, on 27 August 1928, which was to come into effect on 24 July 1929. 94:1–4 LNTS (1929), No. 2137, 57–64 https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%2094/v94.pdf.
- 28.
‘The Secretary of State to the Consul General at Nanking (Peck), Washington, January 7, 1932’, Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1932, The Far East, Vol. III, 782, pp. 7–8. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1932v03/pg_7.
- 29.
- 30.
‘Anti-war Treaty of Non-aggression and Conciliation’, signed in Rio de Janeiro on 10 October 1933, at Art. 2. 163 LNTS (1935), No. 3781, 394–413.
- 31.
‘Convention on Rights and Duties of States’ adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States, signed at Montevideo on 26 December 1933, supra, Chap. 3, note 68, at Art. 11.
- 32.
Théodore Christakis highlights among others the resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the League of Nations on 11 March 1932 after the occupation of Manchukuo by Japan in 1931, which requested members ‘not to recognize any situation, treaty, or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations or to the Pact of Paris’ (League of Nations Official Journal 87) (Cfr. Turns (2003), p. 123). This same obligation was restated in the context of the Gran Chaco Conflict (1928–1935) between Bolivia and Paraguay in the shape of the ‘Declaration of Nineteen American Republics’ of 3 August 1932, and of the Leticia Conflict between Colombia and Peru in the resolution of the Council of the League of Nations of 18 March 1933. The hiatus arising from the annexation of Ethiopia by Italy in 1935 in practices prior to the Second World War was no hindrance to non-recognition of this by some States and support for the continuity of the Ethiopian State at the end of World War II. See Christakis (2005), pp. 137–138.
One particularly relevant event was the annexation of the Baltic States by the USSR in June 1940. This seizure was given no recognition by a large number of states, but triggered a movement opposing non-recognition on the grounds of the negative consequences it had for the population. With the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1990, the Baltic States argued that their independence had been restored and that they had no need to make any declaration of independence. This reasoning was supported by various States that had refused recognition of the original annexation. See Christakis (1999), pp. 200–201. Himmer (1992), pp. 253–291. Rich (1993), p. 37. Vidmar (2010), p. 44.
- 33.
- 34.
- 35.
Cfr. UN Doc. A/RES/31/6A, of 26 October 1976; A/RES/3411D (XXX), of 28 November 1975; A/RES/32/105N, of 14 December 1977; and A/RES/37/69A, of 9 December 1982. UN Doc. S/RES/402 (1976), of 22 December, and S/RES/407 (1977), of 25 May.
Text of the ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts - Article 41 Commentary’, supra, Chap. 6, note 49, p. 289, para. 8.
See supra, Sect. 3.3.
- 36.
- 37.
An account of the resolutions may be found in: Dugard (1987), p. 112.
- 38.
Cfr. UN Doc. S/RES/662 (1990), of 9 August.
- 39.
UN Doc. A/RES/2625 (XXV), of 24 October 1970, at Annex, ‘The Principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations’, para. 10.
- 40.
UN Doc. A/RES/3314 (XXIX), of 14 December 1974, at Annex.
- 41.
UN Doc. A/RES/36/103, of 9 December 1981, at Annex, para. 2(III) (e).
- 42.
UN Doc. A/RES/42/22, of 18 November 1987, at Annex, para. 10.
- 43.
The text of Art. 41(2) of the ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts,’ supra, Chap. 6, note 49, pp. 43–59), runs as follows:
No State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach within the meaning of article 40, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation.
- 44.
The text of Art. 44(2) of the ‘Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations’ adopted by the ILC in its sixty-third session (‘Report of the International Law Commission, Sixty-third Session (26 April–3 June and 4 July–12 August 2011)’, UN Doc. A/66/10, 384, pp. 54–69), is the following:
No State or international organization shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach within the meaning of article 41, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation.
- 45.
Cfr. Vidmar (2012), p. 166.
- 46.
Article 17 of the ‘Charter of the Organization of American States’, signed in Bogotá, on 30 April 1948, 119 UNTS (1952), No. 1609, 3-97, declares:
The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever. No territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained either by force or by other means of coercion shall be recognized.
- 47.
‘Protocol of amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States’, signed in Buenos Aires, on 27 February 1967, 721 UNTS (1970), No. 1609, 322–389.
- 48.
‘Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe Final Act’, Helsinki, 1 August 1975, supra, Chap. 2, note 61, at ‘Declaration of Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States’ (IV) ‘Territorial Integrity of States’, in which the States declare:
The participating States will likewise refrain from making each other's territory the object of military occupation or other direct or indirect measures of force in contravention of international law, or the object of acquisition by means of such measures or the threat of them. No such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal.
- 49.
‘Declaration of the European Council on the Guidelines on the Recognition of the New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union’, of 16 December 1991, 31:6 ILM (1992), 1485–1487, UN Doc. A/46/804, of 18 December 1991, at Annex, the last paragraph of which reads:
The Community and its member States will not recognize entities which are the result of aggression. They would take account of the effects of recognition on neighbouring States.
- 50.
See supra, this chapter, note 12.
For a more detailed study of its content, see: Türk (1993), pp. 66–71.
- 51.
‘Dissenting Opinion of Judge Skubiszewski’, East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, supra, Chap. 2, note 70, p. 262, para. 125.
- 52.
- 53.
Cfr. Bismuth (2014), p. 725.
- 54.
Cfr. Cimiotta (2014), p. 493. Milano (2014), p. 39.
During its Cracow meeting of 2005, the Institut de Droit International passed a resolution on ‘Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law’, Art. 1(a) of which defines obligations erga omnes:
an obligation under general international law that a State owes in any given case to the international community, in view of its common values and its concern for compliance, so that a breach of that obligation enables all States to take action; or.
71:2 Annuaire de l’Institut de droit international (2005), p. 287.
- 55.
‘Text of the ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts - Article 41 Commentary’, supra, Chap. 6, note 49, p. 289, para. 8.
- 56.
Cfr. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 2, note 70, p. 55, para. 122.
- 57.
- 58.
Cfr. Christakis (2014), p. 758.
- 59.
Cfr. Talmon (2005b), p. 125.
- 60.
Cfr. Milano (2014), p. 49.
- 61.
Cfr. Ibid.
- 62.
Cfr. Verhoeven (1975), p. 288.
- 63.
Text of the ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts - Article 41 Commentary’, supra, Chap. 6, note 49, p. 289, para. 8.
- 64.
Cfr. Christakis (2005), p. 133.
- 65.
Cfr. Ibid.
With regard to instances of claimed unilateral declarations of independence based on violation of norms of international law, see supra, Sect. 3.3.
- 66.
- 67.
See supra, this chapter, note 2.
- 68.
See supra, Sect. 5.2.2.
- 69.
See supra, Sect. 5.2.3.
- 70.
Resolution on ‘Territorial Integrity of Ukraine’, UN Doc. A/RES/68/262, of 27 March 2014, at para. 6.
- 71.
Cfr. Intervention of Mr. Araud (France); intervention of Sir Mark Lyall Grant (United Kingdom); intervention of Ms. Murmokaitė (Lithuania); intervention of Mr. Quinlan (Australia); and intervention of Ms. Lucas (Luxemburg), UN Doc. S/PV.7138, of 15 March 2014, 12, pp. 5, 5, 6, 9, and 11.
- 72.
Cfr. Intervention of Mr. Mayr-Harting (European Union); intervention of Ms. Power (United States of America); intervention of Mr. Wenaweser (Liechtenstein); intervention of Mr. Imnadze (Georgia); intervention of Mr. Çevik (Turkey); and Intervention of Mr. Pedersen (Norway), UN Doc. A/68/PV.80, of 27 March 2014, 27, pp. 4, 6, 7, 11, 11, and 14.
- 73.
Cfr. ‘Joint statement on Crimea by the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, and the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso’, Brussels, 18 March 2014, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-74_en.htm.
- 74.
Cfr. ‘Declaration of The Hague’, of 24 March 2014 http://www.international.gc.ca/g7/2014_hague_declaration.aspx?lang=eng.
- 75.
‘NATO Secretary General condemns moves to incorporate Crimea into Russian Federation’, NATO Doc. Press Release (2014) 050, Issued on 18 March 2014, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_108100.htm?selectedLocale=en.
- 76.
Within the EU, Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP was adopted on 17 March, concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of the Ukraine, OJEU L 78, 17.3.2014, 16–21; and the Council Regulation (EU) No. 269/2014, of 17 March, concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, OJEU L 78, 17.3.2014, 6–15. Thereafter further measures were adopted: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 284/2014, of 21 March, OJEU L 86, 21.3.2014, 27–29; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 433/2014, of 28 April, OJEU L 126, 29.4.2014, 48–50; and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 477/2014, of 12 May, OJEU L 137, 12.5.2014, 3–4; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 577/2014, of 28 May, OJEU L 160, 29.5.2014, 7–10, followed by updates down to the present.
In the United States, the President approved Executive Order 13660 of 6 March 2014, Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, Federal Register 79, No. 46, Monday, March 10, 2014, 13493–13495; Executive Order 13661 of 16 March 2014, Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, Federal Register 79, No. 53, Wednesday, March 19, 2014, 15535–15538; Executive Order 13662 of 20 March 2014, Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, Federal Register 79, No. 56, Monday, March 24, 2014, 16169–16171; and Executive Order 13668, of 19 December 2014, Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine, Federal Register 79, No. 247, Wednesday, December 24, 2014, 77357–77359.
- 77.
Cfr. Cimiotta (2014), p. 492.
- 78.
Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of State, ‘Address before the Council on Foreign Relations, 6 February 1931’, Department of State, Latin American Series, No. 4, p. 6.
- 79.
Cfr. Hilpold (2015), p. 269.
- 80.
Cfr. Cimiotta (2014), p. 496.
- 81.
Cfr. Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), p. 586.
- 82.
Cfr. Tolstykh (2015), p. 139.
- 83.
Cfr. De Visscher (1967), p. 25.
- 84.
Cfr. Id., pp. 37–38.
- 85.
- 86.
Cfr. Tancredi (2008), p. 53.
- 87.
- 88.
Montevideo Convention, at Art. 1.
- 89.
Cfr. Tancredi (2006), p. 206.
- 90.
- 91.
Cfr. Tancredi (2006), p. 181.
- 92.
Cfr. Id., p. 205.
- 93.
Cfr. Id., p. 206.
- 94.
Cfr. Tancredi (2008), p. 54.
- 95.
- 96.
- 97.
- 98.
Cfr. Pegg (1998), p. 122.
- 99.
Cfr. Christakis (2014), p. 764.
References
Anzilotti, D. 1999. Cours de droit international. Paris: Librairie Générale de Droit et Jurisprudence.
Berlin, A.H. 2009. Recognition as Sanction: Using International Recognition of New States to Deter, Punish, and Contain Bad Actors. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 31: 531–591.
Bismuth, R. 2014. Odysée dans le conundrum des réactions décentralisées à l’illicite. JDI 141: 719–731.
Briggs, H.W. 1949. Recognition of States: Some Reflections on Doctrine and Practice. AJIL 43: 113–121.
Brownlie, I. 1982. Recognition in Theory and Practice. BYIL 53: 197–211.
———. 1990. Principles of Public International Law. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christakis, T. 1999. Le droit à l’autodétermination en dehors des situations de décolonisation. Paris: La Documentation française.
———. 2005. L’obligation de non-reconnaissance des situations créées par le recours illicite à la force ou d’autres actes enfreignant des règles fondamentales. In The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order: Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes, ed. C. Tomuschat and J.M. Thouvenin, 127–166. Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
———. 2006. The State as ‘Primary Fact’. Some Thoughts on the Principle of Effectiveness. In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M.G. Kohen, 138–170. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2011. The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo: Has International Law Something to Say about Secession? LJIL 24: 73–86.
———. 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.
Cimiotta, E. 2014. Le reazioni alla ‘sottrazione’ della Crimea all’Ucraina. Quali garanzie del diritto internazionale di fronte a gravi illeciti imputati a grandi potenze? DUDI 8: 491–504.
Craven, M. 1995. The European Community Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia. BYIL 66: 333–413.
Crawford, J. 2007. The Creation of States in International Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Current, R.N. 1954. The Stimson Doctrine and the Hoover Doctrine. American Historical Review 59: 513–542.
De Visscher, C. 1967. Les effectivités du droit international public. Paris: Pedone.
Dugard, J. 1987. Recognition and the United Nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2011. The Secession of States and their Recognition in the Wake of Kosovo. Recueil des cours 357: 9–222.
Dugard, J., and D. Raič. 2006. The Role of Recognition in the Law and Practice of Secession. In Secession: International Law Perspectives, ed. M.G. Kohen, 94–137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frowein, J.A. 2010. Recognition. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford Public International Law, Online edition. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1086?rskey=0y3Wx1&result=1&prd=EPIL.
Gowlland-Debbas, V. 1990. Collective Responses to Illegal Acts in International Law: United Nations Action in the Question of Southern Rhodesia. Dordrecht, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
Grant, T. 1999. The Recognition of States: Law and Practice in Debate and Evolution. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
Grant, T.D. 2014. Doctrines (Monroe, Hallstein, Brezhnev, Stimson). Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford Public International Law, Online edition. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e697?prd=EPIL.
Hilpold, P. 2009. The Kosovo Case and International Law: Looking for Applicable Theories. Chinese JIL 8: 47–61.
———. 2015. Ukraine, Crimea and New International Law: Balancing International Law with Arguments Drawn from History. Chinese JIL 14: 237–270.
Himmer, S.E. 1992. The Achievement of Independence in the Baltic States and Its Justification. EILR 6: 253–291.
Jia, B.B. 2009. The Independence of Kosovo: A Unique Case of Secession? Chinese JIL 8: 27–46.
Kelsen, H. 1941. Recognition in International Law: Theoretical Observations. AJIL 35: 605–617.
Kohen, M.G. 2006. Introduction. In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M. Kohen, 1–20. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
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. www.qil-qdi.org.
Lauterpacht, H. 1947. Recognition in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Milano, E. 2014. The Non-Recognition of Russia’s Annexation of Crimea: Three Different Legal Approaches and One Unanswered Question. Questions of International Law, Zoom Out I 35–55. www.qil-qdi.org.
Müllerson, R.A. 2009. Precedents in the Mountains: On the Parallels and Uniqueness of the Cases of Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Chinese JIL 8: 2–25.
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.
Oppenheim, L., R.Y. Jennings, and A.D. Watts. 1992. Oppenheim’s International Law. 9th ed. Harlow, England: Longman.
Pegg, S. 1998. International Society and the De Facto State. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Pronin, A. 2015. Republic of Crimea A Two-Day State. Russian LJ 3: 133–142.
Rich, R. 1993. Recognition of States: The Collapse of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. EJIL 4: 36–65.
Roth, B.R. 2010. Secessions, Coups and the International Rule of Law: Assessing the Decline of the Effective Control Doctrine. Melbourne Journal of International Law 11: 393–440.
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.
Ryngaert, C., and S. Sobrie. 2011. Recognition of States: International Law or Realpolitik? The practice of recognition in the wake of Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. LJIL 24: 467–490.
Talmon, S. 2005a. The Constitutive versus the Declaratory Theory of Recognition: Tertium non Datur? BYIL 76: 101–181.
———. 2005b. The Duty Not to ‘Recognize as Lawful’ a Situation Created by the Illegal Use of Force or Other Serious Breaches of a Jus Cogens Obligation: An Obligation without Real Substance? In The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order: Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes, ed. Ch. Tomuschat and J.M. Thouvenin, 99–126. Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
Tancredi, A. 2006. A Normative Due Process in the Creation of States Through Secession. In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M. Kohen, 171–207. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2008. Neither Authorized nor Prohibited? Secession and International Law after Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Italian YIL 18: 37–62.
———. 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: Martinus Nijhoff.
Tolstykh, V. 2015. Three Ideas of Self-Determination in International Law and the Reunification of Crimea with Russia. ZaöRV/HJIL 75: 119–139.
Tomuschat, C. 2012. Recognition of New States – The Case of Premature Recognition. In Kosovo and International Law: The ICJ Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, ed. P. Hilpold, 31–46. Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
Türk, D. 1993. Recognition of States: A Comment. EJIL 4: 66–71.
Turns, D. 2003. The Stimson Doctrine of Non-Recognition: Its Historical Genesis and Influence on Contemporary International Law. Chinese JIL 2: 105–143.
Verhoeven, J. 1975. La reconnaissance internationale dans la pratique contemporaine: les relations publiques internationales. Paris: A. Pedone.
Vidmar, J. 2010. Remedial Secession in International Law: Theory and (Lack of) Practice. St Antony’s International Review 6: 37–56.
———. 2011. The Kosovo Advisory Opinion Scrutinized. LJIL 24: 355–383.
———. 2012. Conceptualizing Declarations of Independence in International Law. Oxford JLS 32: 153–177.
———. 2015. The Annexation of Crimea and the Boundaries of the Will of the People. German LJ 16: 365–383.
Wilson, G. 2009. Self-Determination, Recognition and the Problem of Kosovo. NILR 56: 455–481.
———. 2015. Crimea: Some Observations on Secession and Intervention in Partial Response to Müllerson and Tolstykh. Chinese JIL 14: 217–223.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Escudero Espinosa, J.F. (2017). The International Community Faced with Illegal Secessions by Sub-State Units. In: Self-Determination and Humanitarian Secession in International Law of a Globalized World. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72622-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72622-9_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72621-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72622-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)