UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
The Legality of Crimean Secession
University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Social Sciences Political Science (International Relations)
Date: June 27
Supervisor: Sara Kendall Student: Jinke Sun Student ID: 10634983
THE LEGALITY OF CRIMEAN SECESSION
CONTENT
CHAPTER 1 ... １
INTRODUCTION ... １
1.1THE DILEMMA OF THE CRIMEAN CRISIS ... １1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND THE HYPOTHETICAL FRAMEWORK ... １
1.3 THEORIES OF SELF-‐DETERMINATION, SECESSION, AND IDENTITY ... ３
1.4 THE SUB-‐FRAMEWORK—IDENTITY ... ４
1.5 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE CRIMEAN CRISIS ... ５
1.6 MOTIVATION, CONTRIBUTIONS AND METHODOLOGY ... ６
CHAPTER 2 ... 10
THE RELATION BETWEEN SECESSIONS BASED UPON THE
RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE PRINCIPLE OF
TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY ... 10
2.1 SCHOLARS’ OPINIONS ON THE RELATION BETWEEN SECESSIONS BASED UPON THE RIGHT TO SELF-‐DETERMINATION AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY ... 10
2.2 MY OPINION ON THE RELATION BETWEEN SECESSIONS BASED UPON THE RIGHT TO
SELF-‐DETERMINATION AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY ... 14
CHAPTER 3 ... 16
THEORETICAL APPROACH: SELF-DETERMINATION
PRINCIPLE ... 16
3.1 HISTORICAL EMERGING OF THE SELF-‐DETERMINATION PRINCIPLE ... 163.2 IR LITERATURE ON IDENTITY ... 20
3.3 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-‐DETERMINATION, IDENTITY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY 22
3.4 THE RELATION BETWEEN THE RIGHT TO SELF-‐DETERMINATION AND SECESSION ... 24
CHAPTER 4 ... 27
CASE STUDY: THE CRIMEAN CRISIS AND THE EXISTING
STATES’ PRACTICES ... 27
4.1 THE KOSOVO CASE ... 283.2 QUEBEC CASE ... 30
CHAPTER 5 ... 33
THE METHOD TO RESOLVE SECESSION ISSUE ... 33
CHAPTER 6 ... 36
INTERNATIONAL LAW OR POLITICS ... 36
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1The Dilemma of the Crimean Crisis
With respect to the current crisis that is happening in Crimea, both the Russian Federation and the U.S. invoke international law to justify their arguments. On the one hand, the Russian Federation argues that Crimea can join them on the grounds of a right to self-determination. Meanwhile, President Putin argues that Kosovo’s secession from Serbia sets an example for Crimea’s secession from Ukraine. Crimea is doing what Kosovo had done. On the other hand, strong Western political powers like the U.S. and the E.U. were opposed to such an argument based on the following two reasons. First, these powers argue that Crimea and the Russian Federation cannot use the Kosovo case as a precedent, since what happened in Kosovo was arguably much more serious than that in Crimea. As an expert on Eastern Europe, Franz-Lothar Altmann argued, “In Kosovo, the Albanian population was actually threatened by Serbia's military action. There were extensive expulsions and the danger of genocide existed” (Franz-Lothar Altmann, 2014). Second, they argue the people’s right to self-determination cannot damage the territorial integrity of parent states. Given these contested views on the Crimean Crisis, its resolution presents a matter of concern to the field of international relations. This thesis explores this dilemma by comparing the different arguments held by the Russian Federation and the Western political powers by interpreting them in light of the broader theme of self-determination, particularly as it pertains to several case studies that raise similar issues. In summary, the dilemma in the Crimean Crisis illustrates the clash between a self-determination principle and a territory integrity principle.
1.2 Research Questions and the Hypothetical Framework
My research will answer the following question: under what conditions the right to self determination can be invoked for justifying secessions and whether such
secessions can be compatible with international law and not in violation of the principle of territorial integrity? In other words, the subject of this paper is how self-determination can affect the legality of Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and participation in the Russian Federation. This question will be addressed in three main stages. First of all, I will answer the question regarding whether or not the Crimean Russians are entitled to the right of self-determination. Next, could Crimea unilaterally decide to join the Russian Federation? Does the principle of self-determination include a right of secession? Finally, under what circumstance should a right to self-determination prevail over the principle of territorial integrity? My hypothesis is that international law does not provide definitive instructions for governing the relationship between the right to self-determination and the protection of territory integrity. In order to assess my hypothesis, I analyzed the definition of the right to self-determination, the historical development of the self-determination principle, the issue of bearers of a right to self-determination, i.e. who is capable of invoking a right to self-determination, and the conditions of using a right to self-determination, i.e. under what circumstances peoples are entitled to rely upon a right of self-determination. Further, I discuss the relationship between self-determination and identity and the relationship between self-determination and secession. What is the key factor that stimulates peoples to peruse an independent status? Is it ethnicity, history, or the political powers’ guideline? In addition, I analyze the status of the self-determination principle under international customary law. Both self-determination and territorial integrity are general principles of international law. When these two principles are in conflict with one another, to which one should we give priority? Some scholars have argued that territory integrity may yield to self-determination in certain situations (a so-called right to ‘remedial’ secession). (A. Buchanan, 2004, pp.229-30, D. Orentlicher, 1989, pp.49-50). However, states are reluctant to recognize that right to self-determination can lead to secession under international customary law (Tamara Jaber, 2011, pp.927). Finally, I access the limitation of international law in in settling the relation between the secession based upon the right to self-determination and the principle of the territorial integrity. States do not have common opinion on the Crimean Crisis; each state’s position is based on their own
interest. For example, the Russian Federation supports for the Crimea accession. Meanwhile, the Western political powers, such as the U.S., strongly oppose the Crimean conduct. In light of those circumstances, I shall examine whether international law established the rules for governing the relation between secessions based upon the right to self-determination and the protection of the principle of territorial integrity.
1.3 Theories of Self-Determination, Secession, and Identity
The current events in Crimea have tested many international law norms such as humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect; through analysis of these norms, the legality of the Russian Federation’s action will be answered. However, this is not the focus of my research. In this text, I shall test the legality of Crimea’s secession according to ICCPR, UN Charter, Advosory Opionion of International Court of Justice and several case studies. I decided to analyze the Crimean Crisis through using the self-determination principle as my thesis’s framework. The following are the reasons why I used the self-determination principle for my thesis’s framework. First, Putin, to justify Russia’ s actions, proposed that the residents of Crimea could secede from Ukraine and take part in the Russian Federation on the grounds of the right to self-determination. He related the Crimean Crisis to self-determination. My understanding of Putin’s argument is that a right to secession is incorporated into the right for self-determination. Understanding Putin’s argument requires research on the perception of self-determination, secession and the relations between the two. Thus, the question of whether the content of the right to self-determination includes the option of secession will be addressed.
Secondly, the Crimean Crisis is an issue of secession. Simone van den Driest notes that a right of unilateral secession, which stems from self-determination, should be recognized (Simone van den Driest, 2013). Meanwhile, some cases reflect that the realization of the right to self-determination may lead to secession under particular circumstances. Two examples of this are the Kosovo case and the Quebec case.
Although Quebec is not allowed to secede from Canada by Canadian Supreme Court, the Quebec case clearly describes the conditions in which an action of secession could use self-determination as a justification. To ascertain the legality of Crimea’s secession requires research on the self-determination principle, who can invoke it, and under what conditions it may be done.
In conclusion, I personally find that discussing the Crimean people’s rights to self-determination or rights to secession is an initial step for testing other norms of international law. For example, if the Crimean people do not have the self-determination right, obviously the Russian Federation’s intervention and its justification of R2P1 are not in accordance with international law, since Russia’s intervention would be an unlawful action. On the contrary, if the Crimean people have that right, should we then say that Russia’s actions violate Ukraine’s sovereignty? If I can solve the problem of self-determination and secession, the other related issues can also be solved easily. Furthermore, the self-determination issue is not simply an issue for Crimea, but also an issue for Kosovo or Canada’s Quebec. It is an issue of importance for many countries. It is worth taking some time to research on this topic.
1.4 The Sub-Framework—Identity
When I researched the self-determination of Crimea, I found identity plays a critical role. It is impossible to understand self-determination without an understanding of one's identity. Identity helps us better understand who can invoke the right to self-determination. In my thesis, identity is a sub-framework for researching the Crimean issue. The Ukrainian government agreed to cancel the legal status of Russian as one official language on February 23, 2014, after 232 councilors voted to abolish the National Language Policy Act. For Crimean Russians, the cancelling of the Russian language was traumatic mentally. Language loyalty is an indispensable factor in the process of identity-building, which cannot be ignored. Another important factor that helps create identity is
distribution of ethnicities. According to the local 2001 census, ethnic Russians in Crimea constituted the majority with 58.5% (State Statistics Committee of Ukraine, 2001). Ethnic diversity in fact weakens social solidarity within a state. It is like the “conflict theory” which Putnam has referred to in the article entitled “Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century.” “Ethnic diversity creates out-group distrust and in-group solidarity. In this theory, the more we come into physical proximity with people of other races or ethnic backgrounds, the more we stick to ‘our own’ and the less we trust the ‘other’”(Putnam, 2007 pp.142). Meanwhile, Crimea has a distinctive historiography. From 1918 to 1954, the Crimean Peninsula was traditionally part of the Soviet Union. In 1954, to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the “alliance” between Ukraine and Russia, both members of the U.S.S.R., a resolution was passed that gave the Crimean region to Ukraine without concerning the consensus of Crimean people. This meant that Crimea was still under the central control of Russia. In order to realize how the resulting identity has been established, historiographical studies cannot be avoided. The function of a nation’s historiography is to establish what Edward Shils called “consensus through time”(Gwendolyn Sasse, 2007,). History is a tool to know who we are. History allows us to construct “we” or “identity.”
1.5 Brief Description of the Crimean Crisis
Before I delve into the theoretical part, some background of what has happened in Crimea is necessary. At the end of 2013, Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign an Association Agreement and Free Trade Agreement with Europe. Afterwards a wave of demonstrations and civil unrest occurred in Ukraine, demanding a closer relation with Europe. As a result, President Viktor Yanukovtch was impeached by the Ukrainian Parliament in February 2014. The political affair was followed by a presidential election in May. The Yatsenyuk government became the interim government. In the period of interim government, a resolution was passed resulting in a prejudicial treatment to Crimean Russians. On February 23, 2014, Ukraine decided to abolish its National Language Policy Act.2 The
action has caused dissatisfaction within the ethnic Russians in Ukraine, and a series of protests occurred that were launched by the opponents of the interim government, especially in Crimea. The majority of Crimean Russians was opposed to such an action and organized an anti-government protest. The majority of Russians in Crimea hoped to establish a relationship with the Russian Federation. The Crimean pro-Russia group in Parliament voted to dismiss the interim government and gradually took control of the Crimean Peninsula. They called for a referendum on Crimea’s autonomy. Parliament adopted a resolution to show its intention to unilaterally declare itself independent, with the possibility of becoming part of the Russian Federation. The following referendum had an official turnout of 83 percent and resulted in a 96.99% Crimean and 95.6% Sevastopol affirmative vote (Xinhuanet, 17.03, 2014.). On March 17, Crimea declared its independence from Ukraine, and on April 15, Crimea declared it had already joined the Russian Federation.
In the eye of Russia and Crimea’s pro-Russian group, the result of the referendum held in Crimea was “extremely convincing” and was in accordance with legal norms since Crimea had always been an integral part of Russia. Crimea’s
pro-Russia group argued that Crimean people could justify their secession on the grounds of the right to self-determination (Xinhua, 2014). In contrast, the
referendum was regarded as illegal in the eyes of Ukraine. As a result, the U.N. General Assembly, on March 27, 2014, passed a non-binding resolution with an aim of protecting territorial integrity of Ukraine, which declared the Crimea's referendum on secession from Ukraine invalid, which hold on March 16, 2014. (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262, 2014).
1.6 Motivation, Contributions and Methodology
The Crimean Crisis is quite an important issue. After World War II, secession is a common phenomenon—for example, Chechnya, Quebec, Catalonia, Tibet,
Language Act conferred Russian the official language in some areas, such as Crimea. The law regulated that in a region the percentage of speakers is more than 10% Russian, then the Russian would receive official language status in that region.
Scotland, and Kosovo. Secession has never stopped. At the same time, secession has caused serious consequences, like regional conflict and violence. It has caused mass causalities, as in Kosovo. Even though the Crimean Crisis is not as serious as the Kosovo case, the atmosphere in Crimea is quite unstable. As Cedric Ryngaert and Sven Sobrie said, “ Currently, the unrestrained political arbitrariness generates uncertainty and unrest in a region, which threaten to endanger the international security and stability. A best method to counter political arbitrariness is to have a completely legal framework” (Cedric Ryngaert and Sven Sobrie, 2011, pp.468). There needs to be a resolution of the conflict between the territory integrity and self-determination.
The Crimean Crisis is a current issue, so there is little research on it yet. Most arguments about the Crimean Crisis come from blogs and the sources lack credibility and deep analysis. My thesis’s contribution is to analyze the Crimean Crisis from a legal perspective and analyze the Crimean Crisis in a more scholarly approach to fill this gap. I also find that the international public law to some extent is controversial. There exists a clash of international law between
self-determination and territorial integrity in the face of secession. Most scholars attempt to provide an evaluation on which principle is more important under international law. My argument, which attempts to eliminate the clash by paying attention to identity (ethnicity and language), is different than those scholars. In fact, I cannot give an absolute answer to evaluate the legality of the Crimean Crisis through treaty law, such as which argument is overwhelmingly strong or which side is absolutely permissible under international public law. International law does not produce definitive answer to the relation between self-determination and territorial integrity. Each argument has legal evidence to defend its stance. Rather, what I want to do is to collect the data from the Crimean Census and to research on historiography of Crimea, because I built a broader theme than self-determination. I also relate self-determination to identity. A research on identity helps me better understand self-determination of Crimean people. However it is just the first step.
Sometimes, international law is too ambiguous. We only know a right to
self-determination exists. However, many questions have not been answered. We have no idea about whether a right of self-determination can be used outside colonial context or whether a right of secession is incorporated in a right of self-determination. So, I related the Crimean Crisis to several cases which can provide guidance for the Crimean secession. Specifically, the cases I refer to, are the Kosovo case and the Quebec case. Through the analysis of the Crimean Crisis, the Kosovo case, the Quebec case, and the comparative study between them, I ascertain the legality of Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and joining the Russian Federation. Whether or not Crimean people have the right to self-determination will be answered. Does the right to self-determination of the Crimean people permit them to secede from Ukraine? As mentioned before, I will use the Kosovo case and the Quebec case. The reasons that I choose these two cases are the following. First, since Crimean and Russian authorities endeavored to justify their actions under international law, especially by reference to the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on Kosovo; they related the Crimean Crisis to the Kosovo case.
Secondly, both Kosovo and Quebec invoke self-determination to justify their secession. Through an analysis of cases, I can prove the question of whether self-determination confers a right to secession. Because the question cannot be answered by any treaty law, I investigated the answer in this thesis through research. Second, both of these cases happened out of a colonial context. It is the same background with the Crimean situation. They are comparable. When I decided to use self-determination as my thesis’s framework, the first comparison came to the Kosovo case. Since Kosovo has successfully been recognized as statehood, some scholars, like Brad Roth3 regard remedial secession as an existing
right under the particular conditions. I shall discuss the Kosovo case more in more detail in Chapter 4 and compare it with Crimea’s situation in order to test whether
Crimea’s situation satisfies the requirements that Kosovo did when seceding from Serbia.
However, as a researcher, I am always considering other points of view. Like the Quebec case which is also a secession issue by resorting to self-determination principle, the Crimean vote for independence was based on claims of language and ethnic origins. Quebec can trace its collective DNA to some original French
settlers. Crimea’s claim of independence was based on the protection of Crimean Russians. It is clear today that around 60 percent of the Crimean population speaks Russian and defines themselves as Russians. Quebec also has an even stronger linguistic focus: over 80 percent of Quebecers are francophone. In both the Quebec case and Crimea case, those language imbalances are largely reversed in the
domestic context. After analyzing these two cases, I will give my opinion
regarding the legality of the Crimean Crisis. What I try to argue in this post is that the Crimean issue is complex, and that instead of simply proclaiming that Ukraine is right and Russia is wrong, we need to step back and analyze the region’s history, as well as to take into account its population’s desires, distinctive languages and different ethnicities.
Chapter 2
The relation between secessions based upon the right to
self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity
There are few scholars’ responses directly to Crimea Crisis which is a secession issue. Most scholars in international relations have already given arguments to the existence of a right of secession in international law. They recognize a right of secession existing in international law; however, the existence of such a right should be restricted by some preconditions. Scholars hold different arguments to the preconditions. This chapter seeks to reveal the different discoveries of scholars on a right of unilateral secession. I will give a short literature review while locating the different approaches about secession in the field of international law and international relations. Through the analysis of different arguments, I will lay out my standpoint. Furthermore, I will justify the reasons that I agree with the approach, and attempt to apply this approach to explain the Crimean Crisis.
2.1 Scholars’ opinions on the relation between secessions based upon the right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity
First, I will start with analyzing the law treaty. In International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), self-determination has been defined as a right of people to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their cultural development (ICCPR, 1966). However, the document said nothing about key points, failing to define who the “people” are. Also, failing to define if “to freely determine their political status” is same with secession. Then, I will present the different discoveries of scholars. The liberal democratic theory argues that a state or a government must rest upon the people’s consensus. People have a right to dismiss the government or the state based on this consensus. (Harry Beran, 1984) The application of this theory to the Crimean Crisis will be that the outcome of referendum in Crimea demonstrated its secession based on the Crimean people’s consensus; their choice of secession rests upon that consensus and thus it did not constitute a violation of international law. Other scholars such as Onyenonoro
Kamanu, Lee Buchheit, noted that the question of self-determination belongs to issues of human rights and the welfare of minorities. Remedial secession as a method to protect individuals’ rights and minorities’ rights could be justified in an extreme situations (Onyenonoro Kamanu, 1974, Buchheit, 1984). For instance, a situation in which minorities’ lives are threatened or a society in which intense discrimination existed could be defined as extreme situation. However, it is not a practical guideline to evaluate the legality of secession, since the criteria for an “extreme situation” has not been clearly defined by international law. We cannot define what an extreme situation is and what an extreme situation is not. ICJ Judge Cançado Trindade added that ethnic cleansing, massive forced displacement of the population, genocide, or other oppressive actions are parts of extreme situations which make the “people” or “population” a victim. (Cançado Trindade, 2010) In those situations, a remedial secession which derives from a right of self-determination is convincible in accordance with international law. Another argument put forth by Lee Buchheit is that justification of the right to secession has identified in list of criteria that might be used in specific case to evaluate
secessionist claims. (Hurst Hannam)4 Such an argument is a general good
approach. He tried to achieve a calculation of extreme situations which could legitimate an action of secession through the analysis of a large amount of cases, as I did in this thesis by referrence to the Quebec case. Through the analysis of the Quebec case, whether identity homogeneity (shared historiography, mutual language, single ethnicity) is legitimate standard for statehood will be answered. However, this flexible approach leaves decision-making power to state actors. State actors will explain the case based on their political stand. Like Putin justified Russian Federation’s and Crimea’s action by citing the Kosovo case. But he simply cites the outcome of Kosovo case, rather than examines Kosovo case in detail. In order to fill this gap, I shall start with a case study of Kosovo and get a greater detail on this case. An argument hold by argument Professor Brad Roth likes the following: “External self-determination is far from generating new generally applicable doctrines that tend ineluctably to have an ad hoc5 character.” (Brad Roth, 2012) In other words, the existence of a right to secede under the
4 Hurst Hannam, Rethink Self-‐determination, pp47 5 Ad hoc means case by case.
self-determination principle outside colonial context is to want specific issue concrete analysis, without universally applicable skill. At least, he admitted a right to remedial secession existed on the grounds of self-determination. However, the existence of a right to self-determination should test that whether or not the state controls the region effectively. This means when a central government has effective control of its territory, the secession constitutes a violation of international law. If not, the group can freely secede. In conclusion, this means that if the existing state has effective control over a region which desires to secede, the secession cannot be permitted. Sarah Joseph proposed a ‘critical date’ theory to answer under what circumstance does a right to remedial secession exist. She related an external self-determination (which also means remedial secession) to the use of force, and he addtionally use a “critical” date to evaluate the legality of the use of force. A critical date theory means that “territorial acquisitions before a certain time should be deemed a accomplished fact. At what date should a right of self-determination of original people be subsumed within a right to protect territorial integrity of transplanted/remainder peoples? Or, at what date should a state’s territorial sovereignty be immune from secessionist claims?6” (Sarah Joseph, 2007) I shall explain the critical theory proposed by Sarah Joseph. She firstly divides the people into transplanted7 people and original8 people. She notes that the clash between territorial integrity and self-determination reflects in the conflict between patriotic claims9 of transplanted people and the secessionist claims of original people. Next, she distinguishes the context into colonial regions and post-colonial regions. She argues peoples’ secessionist claims should be accepted unconditionally in colonial context. However, in my thesis I work on the Crimean Crisis, it is an issue outside colonial context, so I thus concentrate on his arguments toward a secession which happens in post-colonial contexts. Furthermore, she discussed the method of territorial acquisition. Whether the territory acquisition is through use of force should be taken into consideration. If it is a voluntary
6 Sarah Joseph, resolving conflict claims of territorial sovereignty and external self-‐determination, International Journal of Human Rights.
7 Original people are those people, and their descendants, who inhabited a territory prior to a “critical date.” 8 Transplanted people are those people who have settled in the territory since the critical date. “Remainder” people are those people who live in the rest of the state that the relevant territory is a part of.
secession, meaning a territory was acquired without use of force, and the people in such a territory declared a proclamation of secession, it cannot be recognized as legal action under international law. So the territorial integrity principle should prevail. If the mode of acquiring territory is through use of force, like conquest or occupation, the critical date becomes a very critical factor. “Critical date” means the date at which the use of force became illegal. She said the first comprehensive prohibition of the use of force appeared in the General Treaty of Renunciation of War in 1928. So if a state party to the treaty acquired a territory through use of force after 1928, it constitutes a violation of international law. Furthermore, the U.N. Charter has been regarded as the universal acceptance of the prohibition of the use of force, so if a state acquires a territory through use of force after 1945, it constitutes a violation of international law. The territorial integrity principle should be immune from the secessionist claim on the grounds of self-determination. This approach is too absolute, because state has been conferred a right to use proportional right in order to protect its territory integrity (Nicaragua case, 1989). There is also some scholars like S. van den Driest argued that no right of remedial secession which is conferred by self-determination principle has materialized, however she suggested that under international law a right to secede unilaterally which stem from a right of self-determination should arise in a seriously unjust case in future. (S. van den Driest, 2013)
Since the Crimea Crisis is a quite current issue, there is a lack of scholarly analysis, which pertains directly to it. Only Professor Stefan Talmon has put forward an argument to the secession of Crimea. According to Stefan Talmon, what has happened in Crimea is not compatible to international law. As he said that under normal circumstances a nation is not supposed to send armed troops to another nation in order to protect the people who intend to secede, "The use of force by the people who claimed to secede is compatible with territory integrity, if there is no military intervention by other states. The Court is suggesting that secessionist groups are free to violate the territorial integrity of their own state.” (Stefan
Talmon, 2010) If the right of self-determination has been forcefully exercised by a group of people with the aid of other states, it leads to the violation of international
public law. Besides, as Stefan Talmon said, only when the international law has been gravely violated, such as genocide, can people turn to an external force and get it involved into their internal affair. From his perspective, Crimea’s secession, driven also by Russian Federation, is not consistent with the international law. As a result, Crimean people were not free to violate territory integrity. Controversially, the result of secession achieved by the aid of foreign intervention is not worthless as the state are ready to recognize it just as they did when Bangladesh has been accepted as a member of UN in 1974 (Bangladesh, 1974).
2.2 My opinion on the relation between secessions based upon the right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity
My position to secession is more close to Lee Buchheit. His approach to evaluate the legality of secession is just what I am doing in Chapter 4. I test the legitimacy of Crimea’s secession through analysis of the Kosovo case, the Quebec case and comparison study between these three cases. Since international treaty law is too ambiguous, it did not provide enough guidance for state actors while they are in face of secession issue. Through citing treaty law, secession cannot be justified. A secessionist group normally will look back to the old cases to find navigation for them. As Lee Buchheit argued, “By resorting to this approach, international community will avoid being forced to articulate a single, immutable standard of legitimacy, to be applied with arithmetical remorselessness against each and every group in the same way.” (Lee Buchheit, ) However, such an approach leaves the dominant decision-making right to political powers. To maximize their political interest, the political powers did not go into the details of the case. They just cite an outcome of case, rather than delve into the comparison. Like the Russian Federation did in justification Crimea’s secession, Putin just cite the outcome of Kosovo case, while he did not go through whether or not the situation in Crimea and Kosovo is same, whether or not the compilation is feasible. To ascertain the existence of a right to secession based on self-determination, I shall analyze the Kosovo case in detail in case study section to supply a gap of the Russian Federation’s justification.
After the Second World War, the ethnic secession becomes a common phenomena in international community. Serious violence and regional conflict ensue and spread all over the world, especially in the area which has a distinctive history, language, ethnicity, like Crimea, Quebec, Catalonia. It is urgent for international community to concentrate on secession issue and eliminate such an action to build a stable international environment. As a result, the approach of Lee Buchheit is not enough, this approach just provides clues for resolve a secession issue when secession happened. Or this approach is just an evaluation to define which principle under international law is more important. However, it approach has no idea about how to eliminate or at least decrease an attempt of secession. Regarding eliminating secession actions, I position myself on a liberal democratic value hold by Harry Beran, to some extent, who argues that self-determination rely on the concept of identity and consensus. This theory may cause the proliferation of ministates. However, if this theory work can be applied in a right approach, it could eliminate secession at the source, at least decrease the possibility of the secession’s happening. I do not completely agree with the argument of a liberal theory. For instance, an idea that a government must be established on the basis of the people’s consent, an idea that “a disaffected group has a right to opt out of an existing state and an idea that a non-consenting individual must be allowed to leave.” ( Lea Brilmayert, 1991, pp. 184), because such an idea is likely to cause more serious instability and uncertain in a region. I argue that state should provide more equal rights without any discrimination to the secessionist group. Meanwhile, dominant group within a state should know and respect the history of minorities, which is shaped by language, and ethnicity.
Chapter 3
Theoretical Approach: Self-Determination Principle
This section is the theoretical part of my thesis. I will focus on what the self-determination principle is and the historical development of the self-determination principle, especially external self-determination—which means the right to self-determination outside the colonial context, and who can invoke to the right to self-determination. To understand the meaning of “who,” I focus on the mental foundation of the right to self-determination—identity—and analyze the identity recognition in Crimea. Finally, I analyze the relationship between self-determination and secession and whether a right to self-determination gives people the right to secede. I chose the self-determination principle as my theoretical framework because President Putin justified Russia’s action and Crimea’s independence on the grounds of self-determination. On the other hand, the Western political powers claimed the Crimea’s secession constitute a violation of the principle of territorial integrity. This led me to research the principle of self-determination by reference of international treaty law. I also consider why Crimean Russians had the awareness of self-determination. I found that Crimea has a special history in the period of the U.S.S.R.; it was a part of Russia. Finally, I turn to my sub-framework: identity.
3.1 Historical Emerging of the Self-Determination Principle
I shall begin by setting out the theoretical framework of the Crimean Crisis. I will work on the legal norm of self-determination that was claimed by Crimean Russians when they requested becoming part of the Russian Federation. How does such a right develop? I first talk about self-determination in the French Revolution. What is the concept of self-determination from Lenin and Wilson’s argument? What is self-determination in the U.N. Chapter? What the definition of
self-determination in ICCPR?10 The right of self-determination has been repeated
frequently in many treaties such as Declaration of Friendly Relations, Vinnea
Declaration and programme of Action and Helsinki Final Act, after ICCPR has been ratified. Controversially, all of treaties have defined another right to protect territorial integrity, which causes many state actors and scholars confused. How does the self-determination develop into external self-determination becomes an unsolved question in international law. So I decide to build a broader theme on self-determination, particularly as it pertains identity and historic study, to see if identity and distinctive historiography of a group can legitimate external self-determination
Now I come to research on the historical development of the self-determination principle. Many scholars are trying to define the concept of self-determination and research the historical development of the right to self-determination. For instance, Antonio Casses and Robert McCorquodale shared a common idea about historical development of self-determination and defined the right to self-determination as a political expression of the people. Such a political desire may come from a unique experience, language, culture, or ethnicity. Because of the distinction from other groups within a state, a political group may want to change its current political status. Antonio Casses, in his book “Self-determination of Peoples a Legal Reappraisal”, traced a right to self-determination back to the French Revolution. During this time, the concept of plebiscite and self-determination had been proposed. Plebiscite was regarded as a tool for obtaining the right to self-determination. Taking Alsatians11 as an example, it is evidence that desires of the people prevailed over the Treaty. Furthermore, Casses discusses Lenin, stating that Lenin was the first person to insist that the right to self-determination was established as a general criterion for the liberty of people (Antonio Casses, 1995,pp.16). Three important factors had been proposed: the ethnic and national groups’ intention, military conflict, and the aim of anti-colonism. As a British legal scholar Michael Akehurst noted, “Until now the legal right of self-determination clearly applies to non-self-governing territory. Whether it also applies to other
11 The French leaders used self-determination to justify the annexation of lands which belonged to other states. If the plebiscite existed and was fair, the annexation was legal. For example, on October 28, 1970, by citing the Alsatian people’s desire to become part of France, rebels asserted that Alsace was part of France and no longer ruled by Germany under the Treaty of Westphalia.
territory is uncertain” ( Michael Akehurst, 1984, pp.296). Meanwhile, Hurst Hannum additionally noted, “One must recognize the shift from territorially based right of self-determination developed in the context of decolonization to the ethnic-linguistic-national principle of self-determination proposed by Wilson.” (Hurst Hannum, 1993) U.S. President Wilson developed his own ideas on self-determination and proposed that territorial adjustments must be decided by the interest of the people (Wilson’s original draft of a covenant) or that government actions must be based on the consent of governed. (Antonio Casses, 1995,pp.19) President Wilson tried his best to incorporate a right of self-determination into the Covenant of the League of Nations. In the end, unfortunately it was not included in the final covenant. Until 1920, in the Aaland Islands12 case, a right of self-determination still could not be regarded as general rule in international law. It is simply a purely political issue. The Second World War promoted the development of self-determination. The right of self-determination has since been written into U.N. Charter. The U.N. Charter proclaimed that one of the purposes of the U.N. was “respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” In Article 55, the document stressed once again that it is necessary to respect the self-determination of peoples. (UN Charter, 1945)Until now, the right to self-determination is nothing but a term, which often appears in treaties and international law documents. On December 14, 1960, the U.N. General Assembly adapted a resolution, 1514(XV), the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. It reflects the right to self-determination developed in the process of decolonization (). It means that the right to self-determination in the decolonization context can be regarded as international customary law. In the colonial context, the right to self-determination allows the colonized people to secede from the occupied state because the colonized people were not properly represented by the government of their occupied state. However, the definition of self-determination is still blurry until the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right had been ratified in 1966. Since then the right to
12 In 1920, the Council of the League of Nations appointed a commission of three jurists to examine whether the inhabitants of the Aaland Islands were free to secede from Finland and join the Kingdom of Sweden. Finally the report issued by the International Committee of Jurists concluded that although self-determination had been promoted, it could not be regarded as a legal norm, so the Aaland Islands case was a purely domestic concern.
self-determination was accepted as a basic human right and clear legal definition was provided. In Article 1 of ICCPR, “all people have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development” (ICCPR, 1966) Although the right to self-determination has been repeated frequently in following treaties, however, it does not mean international law positively recognize the right for groups to separate from their mother states, because there exists a counter-principle—the principle of territorial integrity. State actors fail to evaluate which one of these two principles (which refers to the principle of self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity) is more important, but to propose a distinction between so-called internal self-determination and external self-determination. The former justifies a kind of self-government or autonomy within the boundaries of their home state that could be established by groups and peoples. Such form of autonomy could be regarded as a realization of cultural or linguistic rights, or as a foundation of a regional parliament in its perfect conditions. So long as the home state attach great importance to the people's right to internal self-determination, it is meaningless for further political movements (Secession of Quebec.1996). On the contrary, lack of respect for the people or a part of people from home state will nevertheless lead to a more fierce form of self-determination, which is also named external self-determination. If the rights of people have not been properly exercised by the mother state, then people are entitled to external self-determination, which would eventually result in the separation from their home state. Doubtlessly, the majority of the nations are highly unwilling to grant a right to external self-determination for any minority group. In the meantime, the U.N. General Assembly, supported by the Security Council, is unable to create any kind of a useful normative framework on self-determination. (As a crucial part of U.N., the court on the other hand found that though the Kosovo declaration of independence was legal, the external self-determination or secession hasn't been claimed that it would be legal in the future.)
possible argument for the legality of Crimean secession is to focus on the Crimean peoples’ right to external self-determination. The argument would go as follows: the Ukrainian central government was no longer representative of ethnic Crimean Russians’ rights, and this triggered the latter’s right to external self-determination, leading to a remedial secession. Because the Ukrainian Parliament recently voted to cease the use of the Russian language in public life and the Crimean Russians felt threatened. This argument trigger me to research self-determination of Crimean People from an identity perspective.
3.2 IR Literature on Identity
Identity is the psychological underpinning of the right to self-determination. It is impossible to talk about the right to self-determination without an understanding of identity. I will review literature in international relations on identity in this section. Identity is a concept of social psychology. It tries to answer the question of who we are. Who are we through others’ eyes? The concept of identity was gradually used to explain some political phenomena and political action. Identity in the field of international relations mainly refers to the collective identity or in-group identity which explains collective action, such as integration, convergence, or secession. The collective identity or in-group identity is composed of shared culture and values, common memory, and experience. As a group has a similar identity to another group, this creates convergence. If a group of people has a different identity as other people within a larger group, this will lead to secession. Identity is not unchangeable; rather it is a process of cognition. At the beginning of the process, the boundaries of “self” and the “other” will gradually become blurred and form a group or a community which then becomes solidary. After the solidary community has been formed, you can find a clear boundary between insiders and outsiders. It is not easy work to make a clear definition of identity. Identity comprises a great variety of elements. Just as Roger Brubaker said, identity is made of a lot of things.(Roger Brubaker,2000) A weak definition of identity is hard to understand by readers. A strong definition of identity is too naïve for such a complicated term, so he did not try to re-define the concept of identity. To better
understand the meaning of identity, he instead used three alternative terms which stand for identity. In my view, two of them can better explain identity in my article, especially the situation in Crimea.
First, Brubaker called identity category. “One may be called upon to identify oneself, to characterize oneself, to locate oneself vis-à-vis known others, to situate oneself in a narrative, to place oneself in a category, or in any number of different contexts”(Roger Brubaker, 2000). I use community instead of category. One could find a sense of belonging in such a community. Identity is not unchangeable, but rather it is a process of cognition. At the beginning of the process, a group or a community will arise, and then solidary within a community is established. After the solidary community has been formed, you can find a clear boundary between the insiders and outsiders. Such a sense of belonging cannot exist independently. A feeling of belonging together needs to be supplemented by preconditions which Brubaker called commonality, connectedness, or groupness. He used this cluster of terms to refer to solidarity with fellow group members or difference from outsiders. “‘Commonality’ denotes the sharing of some common attribute. ‘Connectedness’ refers to the relational ties that link people. Neither commonality nor
connectedness alone engenders ‘groupness’, which means the sense of belonging to a distinctive, bounded, solidary group” (Roger Brubaker,2000, pp.14) . Through this abstract analysis, I have a vague idea of identity. But since identity is needed to explain political action or phenomena, I shall research the connotation of
identity. I shall change the alternatives that Brubaker proposed to some other terms. For instance, what he called category to my understanding is state. What he called commonness, connectedness, or groupness, to my understanding, is language, ethnicity, and common memory. Those things such as language, ethnicity, and common memory convince one to be a member of the state. Meanwhile the function of identity is not just to help us with finding where we belong. When a group of people has a different identity from other people, it is likely to break the society, like the situation in Crimea. As Joan Costa-Font argued, “the collective identity of a specific homogenous and geographically located group is perceived to be in conflict with that of the nation state, secession and support for nation state
opt-out becomes a prevalent option”(Joan Costa-Font ,Ramon Tremosa-Balcells, 2008). Crimean Russians have an identity of being a member of the Russian Federation, which is in conflict with the identity of being a member of Ukraine, so that secession become a prevailing option. It results in an unstable environment in Crimea. But why do they have an identity that is close to the Russian Federation? It is impossible to understand the people’ identity in the Crimean region without researching history, so it is time for us to look at the history of Crimea.
3.3 The relationship between Self-Determination, Identity and Historiography
Since I take a standpoint of the liberal theory which is proposed by Harry Baren, for me, self-determination is more broader topic which is related to identity, rather than a pure legal question. As Gwendolyn Sasse did, when he researched on the potential conflict in Crimea. He related successional conflict in Crimea to the issue of identity which is establish by historiography. In this part, I shall work on a short history review about Crimea, in order to understand that how does historiography shape the identity and how does Crimea people translate common identity to self-determination.
As Gwendolyn Sasse talked, after the October Revolution ended the Russian Empire in 1917, Crimea drifted into the Russian Civil War. Eventually it became the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in 1921, part of the Soviet Union. It remained like this until 1945, when it became the Crimean Oblast, an administrative region of Russia. Since Russia played a predominant role in the U.S.S.R., the peninsula was under control of the Soviet Russian Federation between 1918-1954. Although some of the most blatant historical bias and error of Soviet-era historiography has been abandoned, the predominant post-Soviet perspective on Crimea remains Russo-centric. However, to realize its constitutionality and the pragmatic Soviet purposes, the Russian Soviet Federation Socialist Republic decided to transfer Crimea to Ukraine as a gesture of “eternal friendship” between Russia and Ukraine during the celebrations marking the three hundredth anniversary of the “reunion” between Russia and Ukraine. Since then
Crimea has been integrated into Ukrainian historiography ( Maria Drohobycky, 2007, pp.4). From a Soviet census in 1989, Russians accounted for 67 percent of the whole local population and Ukrainians only 25.8 percent in the region of Crimea. A larger majority of the population considered Russia to be their native language. If it were not for the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Crimea question would not have arisen. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the committee decided to draw up a resolution which proposed the decisions of the Presidium of the U.S.S.R. Supreme of February 19, 1954 and the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet of April 26, 1954 concerning the removal of Crimea from RSFSR invalid. Due to the dissolution of the U.S.S.R., Crimea requested independence from Ukraine. The voice of Crimean independence became more and more strong. As a result, Ukraine Supreme Soviet passed a resolution that recognized the status of Crimean autonomy. In February 1992, the name of Crimea was changed to the Republic of
Crimea. Research findings13 will show us Russo-centric perspective on Crimea. In
the 1993-1994 school year, 99.7 percent pupils in Crimea’s general education schools were taught in Russian.
The historiography of Crimea tells us the following facts: Most Crimeans define themselves as Russians, they share a common history of being part of the Russian Federation, and they speak Russian. The Crimean Russians have the same experience, language, religion, and so on. These common characteristics make Crimean Russians distinct from the other Crimeans, like Crimean Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars. “Across countries, greater ethnic heterogeneity seems to be associated with lower social trust” (Putnam, 2007). “Within experimental game settings such as prisoner-dilemma or ultimatum games, players who are more different from one another (regardless of whether or not they actually know one another) are more likely to defect (or ‘cheat’). Such results have been reported in many countries, from Uganda to the United States” (Putnam, 2007).Thought the experiment, we can find that People trust in those who have similar characteristics with themselves. There is no exception in Crimea. Crimean Russians have a closer identity to the Russian Federation than to Ukraine. They think they are members of
the Russian Federation, so that they trust more in Russian society, rather than Ukraine society. If the identity is the political foundation for the right to self-determination, and in fact there is such a kind of identity among Crimea Russians,
Researching identity helps us to better understand why people want to use the right to self-determination. Hurst Hamnam notes that the research of self-determination should start with defining “ self ”. The key condition which can turn them into “ self ” is that group should think themselves as a distinct group. At least, they need to have some common characteristics, such as history, ethnicity, and language. Robert A. Friedlander lists a set of criteria, such a people consists of a community of individuals bound together by mutual loyalties, an identifiable tradition, and a common cultural awareness, with historic ties to a given territory. (Robert A. Friedlander, 1977) At the first stage, Crimea people are eligible to identified
themselves as “self” or “population”. The second step should define the component of this term----determination. Whether a determination means secession should be answered in the following.
3.4 The Relation between the Right to Self-Determination and Secession
There is an obvious argument in Putin’s speech. He justified Russia’s and Crimea’s action by arguing that Crimean Russians can legally secede from the Ukraine, since the self-determination principle gives Crimea Russians the right to secede from Ukraine. A very important point is that the Putin’s argument is corrected based on two assumptions.
The first assumption is that the Crimean Crisis is an issue of secession. Thus it is necessary to know the definition of secession. From the Online Etymology Dictionary, secession is from secessionem, which means withdrawal, separation. Secessionem is from another Latin word, secedere—“se” refers to apart and “cedere” refers to go (Online Etymology Dictionary). In the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of secession refers to “the action of seceding or formally
withdrawing from an alliance, a federation, a political or religious organization, or the like”(Macquarie Dictionary, 2005, pp.1277, Collins English Dictionary, 1998, pp. 1389). The definition of secession in international law means the withdrawal of territory (colonial or non-colonial) from part of an existing state to create a new state (Glen Anderson, 2013). But consider the Aaland Islands case: it has been defined as a secession issue, but in this case, the Aaland Islands had a desire to join the Kingdom of Sweden, not to create a new state. This is like the Crimea case. “Secession is the effort of a group or section of a state to withdraw itself from the political and constitutional authority of that state, with a view of achieving statehood for a new territorial unit” (Attorney General of Canada, 1998, PP. 217). But it does not regulate that achieving statehood for a new territorial unit must be to create a new state; to annex to an existing state can also be a choice. From the above discussion, I argue that the definition of secession is withdrawal from an existing state. However, with respect to the result of secession, it can be to create a new state or to annex to another existing state.
Next assumption of Putin’ argument would be that the right to self-determination gives the people the right to secede. Thus I will talk about the relationship between self-determination and secession. In following, I answer the question as to whether the self-determination principle gives the minorities of a state the right to secede from the parent state. In other words, what is the relationship between the right to self-determination and secession? According to Harry Beran, secession is
subsumed under the concept of self-determination, for the right to national self-determination is usually considered to include the right to secession (Harry
Beran, 1984). Many secessionist movements14 demonstrate that the right to
secession is a part of the right to self-determination. The right to secede has the same function with the external self-determination right: to protect the peoples’ human rights. Herry Beran made a short summary of other scholars’ arguments on
14 Strands of this type of argument can be found in secessionist movements in Algeria, Angola Burma, Cameroon, Chad, the Comoros, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Laos, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, the Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Vanuatu, and Zambia.
secession. Their arguments are as fellows, Althusius said, a right to remedial secession is included among the right to external self-determination against tyranny. Grotius also held an argument that a part of a state may have the right to unilaterally secede in exceptional conditions. From their arguments, secession is a solution to realize the right of self-determination. However, only when minorities within a state face unfair treatments, discrimination, and even oppression, they can claim unilateral secession from the parent state on the grounds of the right to self-determination. However, Pufendorf, on the other hand, holding a Hobbesian theory of absolute sovereignty of the ruler, denied that secession was permissible, although it is on the grounds of self-determination (Harry, 1984). So the scholars in international relations do not have a uniform answer with respect to the question of whether there is a right to self-determination under international law and whether it would give a part of the mother-state the right to effect the secession of the part from the mother-state unilaterally. Due to the distinct history, Crimean Russians established an identity, which is close to the Russian Federation. Meanwhile, they are now faced with language discrimination. This stimulated Crimean Russians’ awareness of self-determination. But these characteristics only illustrate Crimean Russians qualified for exercising the internal self-determination. With respect to external self-determination (which means whether a group of a state has the right to secede), it needs to be re-considered. It is really necessary to resort to
Chapter 4
Case Study: The Crimean Crisis and the Existing States’ Practices
As was argued in Chapter 3, the existence of a right to internal self-determination and external self-determination in colonial context has been widely recognized by state actors and considered as a general principle of international law. (Cassese, 1995, pp.171-72) With respect to a right to external self-determination outside colonial background, which includes a right to unilateral secession, “international law contains neither a right to external self-determination outside colonial context nor the explicit denial of such a right.” (Secession of Quebec, 1996, pp. 881) Through the analysis of international law, such as UN Charter, ICCPR, it is impossible to evaluate the legality of Crimean Crisis, thus I decide to follow the approach of Lee Buchheit----to resort to the specific cases which can provide an guidance to evaluate an secession issue. I will collect the criteria mentioned in the specific case (i.e. the Kosovo case and the Quebec case), which could legitimate an action of secession to ascertain the legality of the Crimean Crisis.
The first case is Kosovo, which Russian President Putin refers to in his speech to justify the Russian Federation’s actions. Putin argues that Kosovo’s secession set an example for Crimea. Regarding the Crimean Crisis, the international community should follow the outcome of the Kosovo case. I will analyze what happened in Kosovo. Why did Kosovo have the right to secede from Serbia? Can the judgment of the Kosovo case be applied to Crimea’s situation? I next reflect on the Quebec case, as it helps to understand the relationship between self-determination and secession. The Quebec case mainly answers the question if there is a right to self-determination under international law that would confer the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec the right to affect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally (Secession of Quebec, pp.875). Through analyzing this case, we test the legality and the correctness of the argument proposed by Putin (Crimean Russians have the right to secede from Ukraine on the grounds of the external self-determination right). Another reason why I chose this case is because both the Quebec case and the Crimean Crisis set
claims of independence on the grounds of languages and ethnic discrimination. No matter Quebec is French or Crimea is Russian, they have similar complaints. In Crimea, nearly 60 percent of Crimean people regard Russian as their mother language and define themselves as ethnic Russians. With respect to the situation in Quebec, people in Quebec have an even stronger linguistic link: over 59 percent of Quebec people can speak only French and 32 percent can speak both French and English. In both cases, those language imbalances are largely reversed in the national context. The different history, language, and culture make these regions distinct from the other parts of their parent state. By researching on Quebec case, I can understand the role which does the language and ethnicity play in secession.
4.1 The Kosovo Case
In this section, I will set out a case study of Kosovo in detail. I shall research into materials like newspapers, advisory opinion of ICJ and UN documents to learn what had happened in Kosovo. Finally, answer the question of “could Crimea Crisis compare with Kosovo case”, and how should we react to the argument proposed by the Russian Federation that “the unilateral secession of Kosovo from Serbia was exactly what Crimea is doing today”? And what is evaluation of the legitimacy of Crimean participation in the Russian Federation?
Kosovo’s Prime Minister Hashim does not agree with the argument held by Russian President Putin and argued that Kosovo's case was unique and cannot be compared with any cases, including the Crimean Crisis. (Reuter, 2014) Eastern Europe expert Franz-Lothar Altmann also disagreed with Putin’s argument(Franz-Lothar Altmann, 2014).In Franz-Lothar Altmann’s argument, he said, “Serbia's military action threatened the Albanians. When extensive expulsion and danger of genocide had been found, interventions from the outside took place. Regarding the Russian population in Crimea, they are not threatened. Those dangers, which in the case of Kosovo really did exist, don't exist in Crimea.” (Franz-Lothar Altmann, 2014) In order to better understand his argument, we should research on the situation of Kosovo when it claimed to be independent. I
