Advertisement

Conclusion

  • Juan Francisco Escudero Espinosa
Chapter

Abstract

Twenty-five years after the historic adoption of Resolution 678 (1990) by the Security Council with the co-operation of all the permanent Member States so as to confront the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, it would appear that dissent has raised its head once more among Members. That was the first time that authority was given to Member States ‘to use all necessary means […] to restore international peace and security’. Among many others, it was followed by Resolution 688 (1991), which attempted ‘to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi populations’. The Yalta Conference of February 1945 laid down the broad lines for today’s Europe, recognizing an international status for the Ukraine, but also bringing the start of the Cold War. Within this same framework antagonism seems to be emerging in the shape of indignant Russian actions triggered by an aggressive Western stance, so characteristic of what some authors interpret as a return to realpolitik.

References

  1. Buchanan, A.E. 2004. Justice, Legitimacy and Self-Determination. Moral Foundations for International Law. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Burke-White, W.W. 2014. Crimea and the International Legal Order. Survival 56: 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Crawford, J. 2007. The Creation of States in International Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ———. 2012. Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Guillemoles, A. 2014. Les cents jours qui ont changé l’Ukraine. Politique internationale 143: 45–63.Google Scholar
  7. Hilpold, P. 2015. Ukraine, Crimea and New International Law: Balancing International Law with Arguments Drawn from History. Chinese JIL 14: 237–270.Google Scholar
  8. Lauterpacht, H. 1947. Recognition in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Müllerson, R.A. 2014. Ukraine: Victim of Geopolitics. Chinese JIL 13: 133–146.Google Scholar
  10. Pronin, A. 2015. Republic of Crimea A Two-Day State. Russian LJ 3: 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Salvioli, G. 1933. Les régles générales de la paix. Recueil des cours 46: 5–163.Google Scholar
  12. Vidmar, J. 2012. Conceptualizing Declarations of Independence in International Law. Oxford JLS 32: 153–177.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2015. The Annexation of Crimea and the Boundaries of the Will of the People. German LJ 16: 365–383.Google Scholar
  14. Wilson, G. 2015. Crimea: Some Observations on Secession and Intervention in Partial Response to Müllerson and Tolstykh. Chinese JIL 14: 217–223.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