Crimea’s annexation
As for the armed intervention, it should be noted that the use of force by Russia in Crimea violates article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter that prohibits “the appeal to the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.
Although in principle the use of the armed force was not very clear, the situation was clarified when Vladimir Putin asked the Russian Federation Council to authorize the Russian military deployment in Crimea and approved this request based on “the extraordinary situation thatIt takes place in Ukraine and […] threats against the life of Russian citizens, our compatriots, and members of the military contingent of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation deployed in accordance with the International Agreement in the territory of Ukraine, the Autonomous Republicof Crimea ".
Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter prohibits the appeal to the force, however, this principle has two exceptions: the authorization of the Security Council (article 42 of the Charter of the United Nations) and the right of legitimate defense (Article 51of the letter). Therefore, it is necessary to analyze whether said armed intervention enters into one of the two.
As for the exception of article 42 of the Charter, it is known that the Security Council did not give this authorization to Russia. So Russia trying to justify its armed intervention, “invoked an argument related to the protection of the Russian population and the Russian troops that insinuates the exercise of the legitimate defense. Due to the weakness of this argument, Russia was also based on the existence of a petition by Viktor Yanukovych to intervene in Ukraine, considering that the invitation of the official authorities of a State effectively rule out the violation of their sovereignty and prohibitionof the resource of force against its territorial integrity."
In relation to the exception of the right of legitimate defense collected in article 51 of the United Nations Charter, it only fits an “armed attack against a United Nations member”. For this, it is necessary to know what an armed attack or aggression consists, this concept was defined by resolution 3314 (XXIX) of the United Nations General Assembly as “the use of the armed force by a State against sovereignty, integrityterritorial or political independence of another state, or in any other form incompatible with the United Nations Charter ”.
In order for the legitimate defense to be applied to this specific situation, the Russian naval base in Sevastopol should have suffered an armed attack by Ukraine, so that it could justify that intervention as an act to protect Russian troops. However, in this regard the ICJ said that even having isolated attacks, these types of incidents are not enough.
Therefore, after stating that this first argument does not justify the armed intervention of Russia in Crimea as legitimate defense, we will analyze the second argument prepared by Russia as protection of the Russian-spending population in Ukraine. However, Tom Ruys has shown that the behavior of the states in this area is equivocal, since “the doctrinal thesis that supports the existence of said norm refer mainly to hostage rescue operations and include operations in which the State whose stateTerritory was the object of the intervention had consented ”, and that anyway, when the necessary opinion is missing to become an international custom there is no consensus regarding its obligation. Although the states would have agreed, the legitimate defense must only be exercised in the particular circumstances.
Because this double justification of the legitimate defense was not valid, Russia raised another argument, stating that the intervention was due to an invitation made by Viktor Yanukovych as president of Ukraine. On March 1, 2014, the representative of the Russian Federation before the Security Council said that “the Prime Minister of Crime. Aksyonov, addressed Russia’s president to request assistance in order to restore peace in Crimea. According to the information available, the application also received the support of the SR. Yanukovych, whose dismissal, in our opinion, was illegal ”.
According to the ICJ, the request must be made by the official authorities of the State, since the principle of non -intervention, “would lose its importance as a principle of law if the intervention could be justified in a single request for aid formulated by an opposition groupin another state". Therefore, this application does not serve as justification for the intervention, since it only represents an opposition group and not to the state authorities as such.
The doubt, however, could subsist regarding Viktor Yanukovych’s request in his alleged quality of Ukraine representative in the international order. The alleged invitation of Viktor Yanukovych cannot be considered as a justification for Russian military action in Ukraine, since it had replaced and a new government had formed by that time by that time.
Leave feedback