Argument: Approval of the Parliament

The Russian parliament has agreed to approve force “in connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine, the threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots” [1] The Russian Federal Council approved the move unanimously so allowing Russian troops to be used. [2] This gives President Putting the authority to use the Russian military in Crimea, or elsewhere in the Ukraine, if he believes it is necessary.

The Crimean Parliament has also asked to join Russia and is to have a referendum to show the support of the people for this action. “From today, as Crimea is part of the Russian Federation the only legal forces here are troops of the Russian Federation, and any troops of the third country will be considered to be armed groups with all the associated consequences.” [3] This clearly gives Russian troops the right to be in Crimea.

[1] Kelly, Lidia, and Polityuk, Pavel, ‘Putin ready to invade Ukraine; Kiev warns of war’, Reuters, 1 March 2014

[2] RT, 1/3/2014

[3] AP, ‘Crimean parliament votes to join Russia, referendum on move March 16’, FoxNews.com, 6 March 2014

Candidate 1: "Approval by one parliament may make the action legal within Russia but it does not make an invasion legal under international law. The Russian parliament has no legal authority over Crimea or other regions of Ukraine so cannot authorise the use of troops within that country – that is something only the Ukrainian parliament, or in extremis the UN Security Council can authorise.

Similarly the Crimean parliament cannot legally simply decide that Crimea is no longer a part of Ukraine, even a referendum does not enable such a transfer of sovereignty. Self determination should be internal, not external. [1]

[1] Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217"
Candidate 2: "Acting due to a change of government is not the prerogative of another state. Putin is within his rights not to recognise that government and to grant asylum to former president Yanukovych but not to take action within the Ukraine to change the situation.

The coup however was not a coup but an abdication. “Yanukovych has lost his legitimacy as he abdicated his responsibilities. As you know, he left Ukraine – or left Kyiv, and he has left a vacuum of leadership.” It was therefore Yanukovych who essentially decided that he was no longer in charge by leaving Kiev and not making any statements for several days. [1] Moreover the Ukrainian constitution (both 2004 and 2010 versions) gives the right to impeach the President to Parliament [2] this is what the Parliament has done.

[1] Psaki, Jen, ‘Daily Press Briefing’, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2014

[2] Constitution of Ukraine, Article 85 (7 &amp; 10), wikisource, 2004 , 2010"
Candidate 3: "Historical and cultural claims are not worth much when it comes to sovereignty over territory; if they were then every country in the world would be involved in disputes with their neighbours. In 1994 Russia agreed the Budapest Memorandum with the US, UK and Ukraine in it committing “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine [and] reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”. [1] Russia signed agreements in 1997 that recognised Crimea as a part of Ukraine in return for a lease on the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. [2] Russia has therefore not been contesting sovereignty and so has no legal claim.

[1] Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, ‘Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994’, cfr.org, 5 December 1994

[2] Felgenhauer, T., ‘Ukraine, Russia, and the Black Sea Fleet Accords’, dtic.mil, 1999"
Candidate 4: "“Russian mobilisation is a response to an imaginary threat. Military action cannot be justified on the basis of threats that haven't been made and aren't being carried out.” Argues US UN Ambassador Samantha Power. [1] There is little threat to Russian citizens or minorities from the new government. Putin has accused the new government of intimidating minorities and increasing anti-Semitism but Ukrainian Jewish organisations have said “does not correspond to the actual facts”. [2] Any protection of citizens should not be pre-emptive.

While it is right that the Crimea should be consulted on its future this should be done without any Russian intervention. Having Russian soldiers on the ground biases any referendum helping to make it illegitimate. With the referendum having happened after intervention Russia cannot say it was reacting to the demonstrated will of the people.

[1] Mardell, Mark, ‘Ukraine's Yanukovych asked for troops, Russia tells UN’, BBC News, 4 March 2014

[2] Zisels, Josef, et al., ‘Open letter of Ukrainian Jews to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin’, Voices of Ukraine, 4 March 2014"
Candidate 5: "This is a very different situation from a government inviting in UN peacekeepers. First the Russians are an involved party – part of the cause of the conflict due to the protests in Kiev first breaking out due to Yanukovych turning from the EU to Russia a country so involved would never be asked to be involved in a UN peacekeeping force. Secondly a UN peacekeeping force requires not only the approval of the government but of the UN Security Council. [1] This has not been forthcoming in this case.

On the other hand it is different from basing in another country as the US does as that does not involve coercion. Or for that matter taking vital strategic points such as airports and surrounding the host countries military bases. [2]

[1] ‘Role of the Security Council’, United Nations Peacekeeping, accessed 4/3/2014

[2] Fraser, 2014"

Approval by one parliament may make the action legal within Russia but it does not make an invasion legal under international law. The Russian parliament has no legal authority over Crimea or other regions of Ukraine so cannot authorise the use of troops within that country – that is something only the Ukrainian parliament, or in extremis the UN Security Council can authorise.

Similarly the Crimean parliament cannot legally simply decide that Crimea is no longer a part of Ukraine, even a referendum does not enable such a transfer of sovereignty. Self determination should be internal, not external. [1]

[1] Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217
