¹ See President of Russia Press Release, Laws on Admitting Crimea and Sevastopol to the Russian Federation (Mar. 21, 2014), available at http://en.kremlin.ru/acts/news/20625.

² Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea No. 1702-6/14, On Holding of the All-Crimean Referendum (Mar. 6, 2014); see also Illegal Referendum Is Being Held in Crimea, Ukr. Crisis Media Ctr., Mar. 16, 2014, at http://uacrisis.org/v-krimu.

³ Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on All-Crimean Referendum: News from Ukraine’s Diplomatic Missions (Mar. 15, 2014), available at http://mfa.gov.ua/en/news-feeds/foreign-offices-news/19573-rishennya-konstitucijnogo-sudu-v-ukrajini-shhodo-referendumu-v-krimu (providing unofficial translation of the referendum dated March 6, 2014). Volume 6(3) of the Journal of Eurasian Law (2014) includes “Documents of Note” relating to the annexation of Crimea.

⁴ Crimea Parliament Declares Independence from Ukraine Ahead of Referendum, RT News, Mar. 13, 2014, at http://rt.com/news/crimea-parliament-independence-ukraine-086.

⁵ Paul Roderick Gregory, Putin’s ‘Human Rights Council’ Accidentally Posts Real Crimean Election Results, FORBES, May 5, 2014, at http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation.

⁶ With 100% Ballots Counted, 96.77% of Crimeans Vote to Re-unite with Russia—Crimean Election Chief Voice Of Russia, Mar. 17, 2014, at http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_03_17/With-100-of-ballots-counted-96-77-of-Crimeans-who-came-to-polls-on-Sunday-voted-to-re-united-with-Russia-Crimean-election-chief-1708.

⁷ UN Security Council, Letter Dated 15 March 2014 from the Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations Addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2014/193 (Mar. 17, 2014). UN documents are generally available online at http://documents.un.org/simple.asp.

⁸ Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on All-Crimean Ref erendum (Mar. 14, 2014), available at http://mfa.gov.ua/en/news-feeds/foreign-offices-news/19573-rishennya-konstitucijnogo-sudu-v-ukrajini-shhodo-referendumu-v-krimu (unofficial translation of Decision No. 2-rp/2014).

⁹ Id.

¹⁰ European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission), Opinion on “Whether the Decision Taken by the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in Ukraine to Organise a Referendum on Becoming a Constituent Territory of the Russian Federation or Restoring Crimea’s 1992 Constitution Is Compatible with Constitutional Principles,” Doc. No. CDL-AD(2014)002, para. 15 (Mar. 21, 2014), available at http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2014)002-e (based on comments by Honorary President Peter Paczolay (Hungary), and Members Hanna Suchocka (Poland), Evgeni Tanchev (Bulgaria), and Kaarlo Tuori (Finland)) [hereinafter Venice Commission Opinion].

¹¹ Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), OSCE Chair [Didier Burkhalter] Says Crimean Referendum in Its Current Form Is Illegal and Calls for Alternative Ways to Address the Crimean Issue (Mar. 11, 2014), at http://www.osce.org/cio/116313.

¹² See, e.g., Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013, No. 242 (Feb. 12, 2013), available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/242/pdfs/uksi_20130242_en.pdf.

¹³ See Conference on Yugoslavia, Arbitration Commission, Declaration on Yugoslavia and on the Guidelines on the Recognition of New States, Opinion No. 8, 92 ILR 199, 202 (1991), 31 ILM 1521, 1523 (1992).

¹⁴ “‘Secession’ is the process by which a group seeks to separate itself from the state to which it belongs and to create a new state on part of that state’s territory. It is essentially a unilateral process.” James Crawford & Alan Boyle, Referendum on the Independence Of Scotland—International Law Aspects 72, para. 22.1 (Dec. 10, 2012), available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79408/Annex_A.pdf.

¹⁵ See Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010 ICJ Rep. 403, paras. 56, 79 (July 22) [hereinafter Kosovo Advisory Opinion].

¹⁶ President of Russia Press Release, Executive Order on Recognising Republic of Crimea (Mar. 17, 2014), available at http://en.kremlin.ru/acts/news/20596.

¹⁷ President of Russia Press Release, The President Has Notified the Government, the State Duma and the Federation Council of Proposals by the Crimean State Council and the Sevastopol Legislative Assembly Regarding Their Admission to the RF and the Formation of New Constituent Territories (Mar. 18, 2014), available at http://en.kremlin.ru/acts/news/20599.

¹⁸ President of Russia Press Release, Treaty Between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Adoption of the Russian Federation of the Republic of Crimea and Admission in the Russian Federation of New Subjects (Mar. 18, 2014), available at http://www.kremlin.ru/news/20605 (unofficial translation); see also President of Russia Press Release, Executive Order on Executing Agreement on Admission of Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation (Mar. 18, 2014), available at http://en.kremlin.ru/acts/news/20600.

¹⁹ See President of Russia Press Release, Executive Order on Holding a Celebratory Gun Salute in Moscow, Simferopol and Sevastopol (Mar. 21, 2014), available at http://en.kremlin.ru/acts/news/20628.

²⁰ President of Russia Press Release, Request to Verify Compliance of Agreement on Accession of Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation with the Constitution (Mar. 18, 2014), available at http://en.kremlin.ru/acts/news/20614.

²¹ See Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Summary of Judgment No. 6-II/2014, Appraisal of Constitutionality of the International Treaty Between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea (Mar. 19, 2014), available at http://www.ksrf.ru/en/Decision/Judgments/Documents/Resume19032014.pdf.

²² Id.

²³ See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Arts. 2(1)(a), 3(c), May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.

²⁴ See Grant, Tom, Who Can Make Treaties? Other Subjects of International Law, in The Oxford Guide to Treaties 125 (Hollis, Duncan B. ed., 2012)Google Scholar.

²⁵ See Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 3, GA Res. 56/83, annex (Dec. 12, 2001), available at http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/9_6_2001.pdf (“The characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international law. Such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by internal law.”).

²⁶ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 1(1), Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171 [hereinafter ICCPR]; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 1(1), Dec 16, 1966, 993 UNTS 3 [hereinafter ICESCR]. Ukraine signed the ICCPR and ICESCR on March 20, 1968, and ratified them on November 12, 1973. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) signed on March 18, 1968, and ratified on October 16, 1973; see also Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, paras. 114–21 (Can.), available at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index.do [hereinafter Quebec Secession].

²⁷ GA Res. 1514 (XV) (Dec. 14, 1960); GARes. 1541 (XV) (Dec. 15, 1960); see also Kosovo Advisory Opinion, supra note 15, para. 79.

²⁸ E.g., GA Res. 41/41A, para. 1 (Dec. 2, 1986) (considering that “New Caledonia is a Non-Self-Governing Territory within the meaning of the Charter”).

²⁹ See, e.g., Crawford, James, Creation Of States in International Law 119–28 (2d ed. 2006)Google Scholar; Allen Buchanan, Justice, Legitimacy and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law 271 (2004); cf. Radan, Peter, International Law and the Right of Unilateral Secession, in The Ashgate Research Companion to Secession 321, 330 (Pavkovicć, Aleksandar & Radan, Peter eds., 2011)Google Scholar.

³⁰ See, e.g., Request for an Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Question “Is the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in Accordance with International Law?,” Written Statement of the United Kingdom, paras. 5.30–5.32 (Apr. 17, 2009), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15638.pdf; Request for an Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Question “Is the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in Accordance with International Law?,”Written Comments of the United Kingdom, para. 10 (July 15, 2009), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15702.pdf.

³¹ Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Written Statement of the Russian Federation, para. 88 (Apr. 16, 2009), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15628.pdf.

³² See UN Security Council, Annex to Letter Dated 19 March 2014 from the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General, at 5, UN Doc. A/68/803–S/2014/202 (Mar. 20, 2014) (speech of President Vladimir Putinto Duma on March 18, 2014) [hereinafter Putin Speech].

³³ UN Economic and Social Council, Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Consideration of the Sixth Periodic Reports of States Parties Under Articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant, Ukraine, paras. 393–410, UN Doc. E/C.12/UKR6 (Dec. 27, 2012 & Apr. 1, 2014).

³⁴ See generally Alan W. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars (1978); Robert Conquest, The Nation Killers: The Soviet Deportation Of Nationalities 13–15, 64–66, 105–07, 160–62, 185–87, 202–09 (1970); see also Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), Summary Record of the First Part (Public) of the 2099th Meeting, paras.59–75, UNDoc. CERD/C/SR.2099(Aug.19, 2011)(noting the”very strong claims” and critical overview by Daisuke Shirane of the International Movement Against All Forms of Dis crimination and Racism, Geneva Office) [hereinafter CERD 2099th Meeting Summary].

³⁵ Subtelny, Orest, Ukraine: A History 609, 632 (4th ed. 2009)Google Scholar.

³⁶ State Statistics Committee of Ukraine, All Ukrainian Population Census 2001 (2003–04), at http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/Crimea.

³⁷ See Quebec Secession, supra note 26, para. 139; see also Alexandra Zanthaki, Indigenous Rights and United Nations Standards: Self-Determination, Culture and Land 141–46, 166–69 (2007).

³⁸ See, e.g., Committee Against Torture, Sixth Periodic Reports of states Parties Duein 2011, Ukraine, para. 346, UN Doc. CAT/C/UKR/6 (Mar. 4, 2013) (noting desecration of Tatar Crimean graves).

³⁹ See, e.g., Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention, Concluding Observations: Ukraine, para. 90, UN Doc. CRC/C/UKR/CO/3-4 (Apr. 21, 2011) (noting that the Committee urged Ukraine to “intensify efforts to ensure the right to education for all children belonging to minorities, focusing on Roma and Crimean Tatar children”); see also, e.g., CERD, Summary Record of the 2104th Meeting, para. 15, UN Doc. CERD/C/SR.2104 (Dec. 30, 2011) (statement of Cedric Thornberry, Ukraine country rapporteur); CERD, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, para. 17, UN Doc. CERD/C/UKR/CO/19-21 (Sept. 14, 2011); Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Summary Record of the 38th Meeting, Fifth Periodic Report of Ukraine, para. 22, UN Doc. E/C.12/2007/SR.38 (Dec. 5, 2007); Human Rights Committee, Summary Record of the 2408th Meeting, para. 45, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.2408 (Oct. 31, 2006) (statement of Ruth Wedgwood, Ukraine country rapporteur).

⁴⁰ See, e.g., Human Rights Council (HRC), Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Ukraine, para. 46, UN Doc. A/HRC/22/7 (Dec. 20, 2012) [hereinafter HRC Working Group Report].

⁴¹ Id., para. 97 (listing recommendations of Turkey).

⁴² Cf. CERD 2099th Meeting Summary, supra note 34, paras. 59–81 (referring to the Crimean Tatars but raising no questions as to the ethnic Russian population of Crimea or of Ukraine as a whole); Committee Against Torture, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 19 of the Convention: Follow-up Information Provided by Ukraine to the Concluding Observations, para. 51, UN Doc. CAT/C/UKR/CO/5/Add.1 (Apr. 15, 2011) (indicating that Uzbek nationals might be tortured if deported to Uzbekistan but raising no questions as to the treatment of the Russian ethnic population).

⁴³ HRC Working Group Report, supra note 40, para. 28.

⁴⁴ Id., para. 97.68.

⁴⁵ A White Book circulated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation on May 5, 2014, contained extensive allegations of political extremism in Ukraine. Even accepting the factual allegations in the White Book, political unrest over the course of several months is not a basis in modern international law for the partition of the state. Moreover, evidence generated only after a dispute has arisen is unlikely to be received as credible; it even may be rejected as inadmissible. Where the evidence contradicts earlier practice, it is likely to be questioned all the more. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, White Book on Violations of Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Ukraine (July–November 2014) (Nov. 2014), available at http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/ns-dgpch.nsf/03c344d01162d351442579510044415b/38fa8597760acc2144257ccf002beeb8/$FILE/White%20Book%2007.2014-11.2014.pdf; cf. Territorial and Maritime Dispute Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicar. v. Hond.), 2007 ICJ Rep. 661, para. 117 (Oct. 8) (relating to the concept of “critical date” as applied by the International Court of Justice).

⁴⁶ OHCHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, para. 73 (Apr. 15, 2014) [hereinafter OHCHR April 2014 Report], in Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Ukraine, UN Doc. A/HRC/27/75, annex (Sept. 19, 2014) [hereinafter OHCHR Summary Report].

⁴⁷ OHCHR April 2014 Report, supra note 46, para. 89.

⁴⁸ Id.

⁴⁹ See OSCE Press Release, Statement by Astrid Thors, OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, on Her Recent Visits to Ukraine (Apr. 4, 2014), at http://www.osce.org/hcnm/117175; see also HRC, Note Verbale Dated 19 March 2014 from the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva Addressed to the Secretariat of the Human Rights Council, at 2, UNDoc. A/HRC/25/G/19, annex (Mar. 20, 2014).

⁵⁰ See, e.g., Bulgakov v. Ukraine, Communication No. 1803/2008, UN Doc. CCPR/C/106/D/1803/2008, annex (May 23, 2008); Bulgakov v. Ukraine, App. No. 59894/00, paras. 53–54 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Sept. 11, 2007) (finding no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights); id., paras. 58–59 (finding no violation of Article 14).

⁵¹ See, e.g., GA Res. 53/164, para. 8 (Dec. 9, 1998) (noting, inter alia, “summary executions, indiscriminate and widespread attacks on civilians, indiscriminate and widespread destruction of property, mass forced displacement of civilians”); Repertory Of Practice Of United Nations Organs, Art. 98, para. 48 (Supp. 5 1970 –78), available at http://www.un.org/law/repertory (the secretary-general identifying the need as of March 1971 for “international assistance on an unprecedented scale”); id., Art. 99, para. 16 (noting secretary-general’s statement of July 20, 1971, that the situation posed “a potential threat to peace and security”). India’s intervention began on December 3, 1971, following airstrikes by Pakistan on Indian airbases: the loss of life from Pakistan’s attempted suppression of Bangladeshi independence before intervention has been estimated at three million. Rudolph J. Rummel, Statistics Of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900, at 157– 58, tbl. 8.1 (1998).

⁵² Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, Written Statement of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, para. 3.6 (Apr. 17, 2009), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15652.pdf.

⁵³ Id., para. 3.11.

⁵⁴ Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, Written Statement of the Republic of Poland, para. 6.7 (Apr. 2009), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15632.pdf.

⁵⁵ Quebec Secession, supra note 26, paras. 112, 135, 138. A not greatly dissimilar position has been expressed under the African human rights system.See Shelton, Dinah, Self-Determination in Regional Human Rights Law: From Kosovo to Cameroon, 105 AJIL 60, 66–71 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁶ See, e.g., Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Report of the United Nations Mission to New Cale donia, 2014, para. 6, UN Doc. A/AC.109/2014/20/Rev.1 (June 18, 2014); cf. East Timor (Port. v. Austl.), 1995 ICJ Rep. 90, 194 (June 30) (Diss. Op. Weeramantry, J.); Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), 1986 ICJ Rep. 554, 653 (Dec. 22) (Sep. Op. Luchaire, J. ad hoc).

⁵⁷ GA Res. 1541 (XV), annex, princ. VII (Dec. 15, 1960); cf. id., princ. IX(b) (further requiring “universal adult suffrage” if integration is elected).

⁵⁸ GA Res. 1350 (XIII), paras. 2, 6–7 (Mar. 13, 1959); GA Res. 1473 (XIV), para. 3 (Dec. 12, 1959). For the report of the plebiscite commissioner, see UNDoc. A/4727, noted in GA Res. 1608 (XV) (Apr. 21, 1961); Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v. UK), Preliminary Objections, 1963 ICJ Rep. 15, 32 (Dec. 2).

⁵⁹ GA Res. 2504 (XXIV) (Nov. 19, 1969); see also Musgrave, Thomas D., An Analysis of the 1969 Act of Free Choice in West Papua, in Sovereignty, Statehood and State Responsibility: Essays in Honour of James Crawford 209 (Chinkin, Christine & Baetens, Freya eds., 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁰ GA Res. 54/194 (Dec. 17, 1999).

⁶¹ Venice Commission Opinion, supra note 10, paras. 25–26.

⁶² UN Charter, Art. 51.

⁶³ GA Res. 3314 (XXIX), annex (Dec. 14, 1974).

⁶⁴ SC Res. 242 (Nov. 22, 1967) (concerning the situation in the Middle East).

⁶⁵ See Thomas D. Grant, Aggression Against Ukraine: Territory, Responsibility, and International Law 103–31 (2015).

⁶⁶ Putin Speech, supra note 32, at 5.

⁶⁷ Agreement Between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Status and Conditions of the Russian Federation Black Sea Fleet’s Stay on Ukrainian Territory, Russ.-Ukr., May 28, 1997 [hereinafter Black Sea Fleet’s Stay Agreement]; Agreement Between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Parameters for the Division of the Black Sea Fleet, Russ.-Ukr., May 28, 1997 [hereinafter Black Sea Division Parameters Agreement]; Agreement Between the Russian Federation Government and the Government of Ukraine on Clearing Operations Associated with the Division of the Black Sea Fleet and the Russian Federation Black Sea Fleet’s Stay on Ukrainian Territory, Russ.-Ukr., May 28, 1997 [hereinafter Black Sea Clearing Operations Agreement]. None of the agreements appears to have been registered in accordance with Article 102 of the UN Charter, and they are not widely available in Western languages. The first of the three as listed here appears in English translation in 1 Russia & Eurasia Doc Uments Annual 1997, at 129 (J. L. Black ed., 1998). The agreements appear in French translation in Ministère des Affaires Étrangères, 16 Documents D’Actualité Internationale (DAI) 577–82 (Aug. 15, 1997). As to the three 1997 instruments and the transactions leading to their adoption, see Hélène Hamant, Démembrement De L’urss Et Problèmes De Succession D’états 385–88, 407 (2007).

⁶⁸ Agreement Between Ukraine and Russia on the Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine, Russ.-Ukr., Apr. 21, 2010, available at http://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2010/04/22/4956018 [hereinafter Kharkiv Agreement].

⁶⁹ Black Sea Fleet’s Stay Agreement, supra note 67, Art. 15(4).

⁷⁰ Id., Art. 15(1).

⁷¹ See also id., Arts. 6(1), 19(1); Black Sea Division Parameters Agreement, supra note 67, Art. 1(2); Black Sea Clearing Operations Agreement, supra note 67, Art. 2.

⁷² Black Sea Clearing Operations Agreement, supra note 67, Art. 2.

⁷³ Id.

⁷⁴ See, e.g., Black Sea Fleet’s Stay Agreement, supra note 67, Art. 3 (notification of personnel appointments).

⁷⁵ See Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, Nov. 19, 1990, 30 ILM 1 (1991), available at http://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/108185.htm#text (referring to preexisting obligatory ceilings). Concerns were raised that the introduction of additional Russian forces in Crimea constituted a breach of the Treaty. See UN Security Council, Letter Dated 17 September 2014 from the Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations Addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2014/677 (Sept. 18, 2014) (The Ukrainian protest refers to “a ‘grey zone’ in part of the sovereign territory of Ukraine, which de facto is currently not covered by any multilateral arrangements in the sphere of arms control.”).

⁷⁶ Black Sea Division Parameters Agreement, supra note 67, Art. 10.

⁷⁷ Kharkiv Agreement, supra note 68.

⁷⁸ Id., Art. 1. The author thanks Lora Soroka and Maciej Siekierski for the English translation.

⁷⁹ Id., Art. 2.

⁸⁰ See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 753 (2008).

⁸¹ See Treaty Concerning the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, Art. 1 & Annex A, Aug. 16, 1960, T.S. No. 4 (1961), 382 UNTS 10, 16–20; Treaty of Guarantee, Art. III, Aug. 16, 1960, T.S. No. 5 (1961), 382 UNTS 3, 4; see also UK Ministry of Defence, SBA Administration, Sovereign Base Areas (undated), at http://www.sbaadministration.org.

⁸² Alexander Cooley & Hendrik Spruyt, Contracting States: Sovereign Transfers in International Relations 3 (2009).

⁸³ Id. at 87.

⁸⁴ Cf. Agreement Between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on Further Development of Interstate Legal Relations, Russ.-Ukr., para. 9, June 23, 1992, 2382 UNTS 13, available at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%202382/v2382.pdf; Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership Between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, Art. 3, May 31, 1997, UN Doc. A/52/174, Annex I (June 9, 1997) [hereinafter Treaty on Friendship]; Treaty Between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Russian-Ukrainian State Border, Art. 2 & Appx. 2, Jan. 28, 2003, available at http://archive.kremlin.ru/text/docs/2003/01/30632.shtml; see also Lauri Maälksoo, Crimea and (the Lack of) Continuity in Russian Approaches to International Law, EJIL: TALK! (Mar. 28, 2014), at http://www.ejiltalk.org/crimea-and-the-lack-of-continuity-in-russian-approaches-to-international-law (citing Petr P. Kremnev, Raspad SSSR: Mezhdunarodno-Pravovye Problemy [Disintegration of the USSR: International legal problems] 68–91 (2005)).

⁸⁵ The Russian president said that “we did not exceed the personnel limit of our Armed Forces in Crimea... because there was no need to do so.” Putin Speech, supra note 32, at 5.

⁸⁶ Nonpaper on Violations of Ukraine’s Laws in Force and of Ukrainian-Russian Agreements by Military Units of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation on the Territory of Ukraine, UN Doc. CD/1976, annex (Mar. 10, 2014) [hereinafter Ukraine Nonpaper].

⁸⁷ Treaty on Friendship, supra note 84, Art. 3.

⁸⁸ See Ukraine Nonpaper, supra note 86, para. 2.

⁸⁹ Id., para. 5 (citing Black Sea Fleet’s Stay Agreement, supra note 67, Art. 6); see also id., para. 7 (referring, inter alia, to breach of Article 30 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea).

⁹⁰ President of Russia Press Release, Termination of Agreements on the Presence of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine (Apr. 2, 2014), available at http://en.kremlin.ru/acts/news/20673.

⁹¹ Putin Speech, supra note 32, at 5; see also UN GAOR, 68th Sess., 80th plen. mtg., at 3, UN Doc. A/68/PV.80 (Mar. 27, 2014) (statement by Vitaly Churkin) [hereinafter Churkin Statement].

⁹² Id. ; see also Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, para. 20 (Feb. 5, 2010), available at http://carnegieendowment.org/files/2010russia_military_doctrine.pdf.

⁹³ See, e.g., C. H. M. Waldock, The Regulation of the Use of Force by Individual States in International Law, 81 Recueil Des Cours 451, 455, 467 (1952 II); Crawford, James, Brownlie’s Principlesof Public International Law 754 (8th ed. 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dinstein, Yoram, War, Aggression and Self-Defence 218 (5th ed. 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gray, Christine, The Use of Force and the International Legal Order, in International Law 615, 627 (Evans, Malcolm D. ed., 3d ed. 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁴ See Daniel Wisehart, The Crisis in Ukraine and the Prohibition of the Use of Force: A Legal Basis for Russia’s Intervention?, EJIL: TALK! (Mar. 4, 2014), at http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-crisis-in-ukraine-and-the-prohibition-of-the-use-of-force-a-legal-basis-for-russias-intervention.

⁹⁵ UN SCOR 38th Sess., 2487th mtg., paras. 189–96, UNDoc. S/PV.2487 (Oct. 25, 1983) (statement of U.S. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick) [hereinafter Kirkpatrick Statement].

⁹⁶ GA Res. 38/7, para. 1 (Nov. 2, 1983).

⁹⁷ See Ruys, Tom, The Meaning of “Force” and the Boundaries of the Jus Ad Bellum: Are “Minimal” Uses of Force Excluded from UN Charter Article 2(4)?, 108 AJIL 159 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁸ See, e.g., David Rohde, The Obama Doctrine: How the President’s Drone War Is Backfiring, Foreign Pol’y, Feb. 27, 2012, at http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/02/27/the-obama-doctrine.

⁹⁹ Full Transcript of President Obama’s Commencement Address at West Point, Wash. Post, May 28, 2014, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/full-text-of-president-obamas-commencement-address-at-west-point/2014/05/28/cfbcdcaa-e670-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html.

¹⁰⁰ See Zorkin, Valery, To Walk the Razor’s Edge: Peace Enforcement and Human Rights, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Aug. 13, 2008, at http://www.rg.ru/2008/08/13/zorkin.htmlGoogle Scholar (noting the Georgia intervention, which Zorkin, the chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, said was justified as a measure to protect Russian Federation nationals). The author thanks Michael Reynolds, Princeton University, for the translation.

¹⁰¹ Putin Speech, supra note 32, at 9.

¹⁰² SC Res. 1239 (May 14, 1999).

¹⁰³ UN Security Council, Letter Dated 3 March 2014 from the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/2014/146, annex (2014) (statement of V. F. Yanukovych).

¹⁰⁴ Id.

¹⁰⁵ Yanukovich Regrets ‘Mistakes’ on Crimea, Aljazeera, Apr. 3, 2014, at http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/04/yanukovich-regrets-mistakes-crimea-2014421989300891.html.

¹⁰⁶ Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), 2005 ICJ Rep. 168, paras. 49–54 (Dec. 19).

¹⁰⁷ Id., para. 52.

¹⁰⁸ See Kirkpatrick Statement, supra note 95, paras. 191–95 (but not invoking invitation as a legal ground).

¹⁰⁹ Moore, John Norton, Grenada and the International Double Standard, 78 AJIL 145, 159 – 61 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁰ See UN SCOR, 38th Sess., 2489th mtg., para. 9, UN Doc. S/PV.2489 (Oct. 26,1983) (statement of Eugenia Charles (Dominica)); id., para. 146 (statement of Luc de la Barre de Nanteuil (France)).

¹¹¹ For that government’s determination that Yanukovych had abdicated and thus no longer held office, see On Self-Withdrawal of the President of Ukraine f om Performing His Constitutional Duties and Setting Early Elections of the President of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, No. 757-VII, Feb. 22, 2014, available at http://iportal.rada.gov.ua/en/news/News/News/88138.html.

¹¹² Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Res. 1988, para. 3 (Apr. 9, 2014), available at http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=20873&lang=EN

¹¹³ Somalia v.Woodhouse Drake & Carey (Suisse) S.A., [1993] Q.B. 54,68; Kingsbury, Benedict, Judicial Determination of Foreign “Government” Status, 109 L. Q. Rev. 377, 382 (1993)Google Scholar. For application of the Woodhouse Drake criteria to Ukraine, see Thomas D. Grant, The Yanukovych Letter: Intervention and Authority to Invite in International Law, 2 Indon. J. Int’l & Comp. L. (forthcoming 2015).

¹¹⁴ See also Olivier Corten, The Law Against War: The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law 240 – 43, 288–310 (Christopher Sutcliffe trans., 2010); Georg Nolte, Eingreifen Auf Einladung. Zur VöLkerrechtlichen ZulaäSssigkeit Des Einsatzes Fremder Truppen Im Internen Konflikt Auf Einladung Der Regierung 261–68 (1999); Louise Doswald-Beck, The Legal Validity of Military Intervention by Invitation of the Government, 1985 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 189.

¹¹⁵ As to the events ending Yanukovych’s presidency, see PACE, The Functioning of Democratic Institutions in Ukraine, Exploratory Memorandum by Ms Reps and Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, Co-rapporteurs, paras. 1–7, 9, 17–30, Doc. 13405 (Jan. 28, 2014), available at http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewPDF.asp?FileID=20426&Language=EN (presented by co-Rapporteurs Mailis Reps (Estonia) and Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin (Sweden)); OHCHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, para. 60 (Dec. 15, 2014), available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/OHCHR_eighth_report_on_Ukraine.pdf.

¹¹⁶ Such questions include those by Yanukovych in his suit against the Council of the European Union to challenge restrictive measures adopted against him. See Case T-347/14, Yanukovych v. Council, Pleas in Law and Main Arguments, Aug. 4, 2014, 2014 OJ. (C 253/53) 39, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62014TN0347&from=EN (noting action brought on May 14, 2014, alleging, inter alia, that the Council “wrongly assert[ed], and act[ed] on the basis that, the legitimate democratically elected President of Ukraine, President Yanukovych, was a ‘former President’”).

¹¹⁷ Damien McElroy, Ukraine Opposition Asks EU to Intervene in Talks as Viktor Yanukovych ‘Wastes Time,’ Telegraph, Feb. 5, 2014, at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10618880/Ukraine-opposition-asks-EU-to-intervene-in-talks-as-Viktor-Yanukovych-wastes-time.html.

¹¹⁸ El Salvador’s request for permission to participate in Nicaragua v. United States, notwithstanding substantial evidence of Nicaraguan intervention in El Salvador, was rejected, and the United States’ arguments of counterintervention as an act of collective self-defense failed. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Declaration of Intervention, 1984 ICJ Rep. 215 (Oct. 4); id., Judgment (Merits), 1986 ICJ Rep. 14, paras. 126 – 60 (June 27) [hereinafter Military and Paramilitary Activities, Judgment (Merits)].

¹¹⁹ Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, GARes. 2625 (XXV), annex (Oct. 24, 1970) (noting “[t]he principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”).

¹²⁰ Id.

¹²¹ Id.

¹²² Id.

¹²³ E.g., Military and Paramilitary Activities, Judgment (Merits), supra note 118, Diss. Op. Schwebel, J., para. 180.

¹²⁴ See, e.g., Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, GA Res. 36/103 (Dec. 9, 1981).

¹²⁵ This compilation transposes the criteria suggested by states in the Kosovo proceedings that espoused a (largely limited) rule of remedial secession. In view of the legal values at stake, it is hard to see how less stringent criteria could apply when considering the question of intervention.

¹²⁶ As to the distinction between NATO’s intervention and the establishment of Kosovo’s independence, see Tricot, Roland & Sander, Barrie, Recent Developments: The Broader Consequences of the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, 49 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 321, 344–45 (2011)Google Scholar.

¹²⁷ Judith Gardam, Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States 121–22 (2004).

¹²⁸ See, e.g., Council of the European Union, Conclusions on Ukraine, para. 1 (Mar. 17, 2014), available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/141601.pdf; Venice Commission Opinion, supra note 10, para. 22.

¹²⁹ See GA Res. 1350 (XIII), supra note 58; GA Res. 1473 (XIV), supra note 58; GA Res. 2504 (XXIV), supra note 59; GA Res. 54/194, supra note 60.

¹³⁰ See Yves Beigbeder, International Monitoring of Plebiscites, Referenda and National Elections: Self-Determination and Transition to Democracy (1994).

¹³¹ Peters, Anne, The Crimean Vote of March 2014 as an Abuse of the Institution of the Territorial Referendum, in Herausforderungen an Staat und Verfassung, VöLkerrecht—Europarecht-Menschenrechte, Liber Amicorum Für Torsten Stein zum 70. Geburtstag 278 (Calliess, Christian ed., 2015)Google Scholar.

¹³² See, e.g., Lake Lanoux (Fr. v. Spain), 12 R.I.A.A. 281, para. 13 (1957), 24 ILR 101 (1957); Treatment of Polish Nationals, Advisory Opinion, 1932 PCIJ (ser. A/B), No. 44, at 28 (Feb. 4); Minority Schools in Albania, Advisory Opinion, 1935 PCIJ (ser. A/B), No. 64, at 19–20 (Apr. 6).

¹³³ Putin Speech, supra note 32, at 9.

¹³⁴ Zanzibar had acceded to independence from the United Kingdom as of December 10, 1963. Zanzibar Act, 1963 c. 55, §1(1), available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1963/55/pdfs/ukpga_19630055_en.pdf. As of April 25, 1964, it entered into a union with Tanganyika to form the Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar, which was shortly afterward renamed United Republic of Tanzania. Act to Ratify the Articles of Union Between Tanganyika and Zanzibar Act, Act No. 22, 1964. In between, Zanzibar was admitted as a member state to the United Nations. SC Res. 184 (Dec. 16, 1963). For the international law transactions that are involved in the proper execution of such a union, see International Law Commission, Fifth Report on Succession in Respect of Treaties, [1972] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 1, UN Doc. A/CN.4/256 & Add.1–4 (1972), available at http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/Ybkvolumes(e)/ILC_1972_v2_e.pdf (defining union of states) (prepared by Special Rapporteur Humphrey Waldock). The Mali Federation lasted two months (June 20, 1960, to late August 1960), following which its parts separated. None was annexed or otherwise became part of a preexisting state. See Alain Gandolfi, Naissance et mort sur le plan international d’un état ephémère: La fédération du Mali, 1960 Annuaire Français De Droit International 881. The attitude of the former colonial administering power remained one of ”prudente circonspection et neutralité“ Id. at 899.

¹³⁵ OHCHR April 2014 Report, supra note 46, paras. 88–92.

¹³⁶ Id., para. 92.

¹³⁷ Id.

¹³⁸ OHCHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, para. 5(iii) (May 15, 2014), available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/HRMMUReport15May2014.pdf [hereinafter OHCHR May 2014 Report].

¹³⁹ Id.

¹⁴⁰ Id., para. 154 n.34.

¹⁴¹ Id., paras. 73, 119.

¹⁴² OHCHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine (Aug. 17, 2014), available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/UkraineReport28August2014.pdf [hereinafter OHCHR Ukraine Report]; see also OHCHR Summary Report, supra note 46 (including the OHCHR Ukraine Report). Concerns were expressed in the Security Council, PACE, and Organisation for the Islamic Conference (OIC). PACE Res. 1988, para. 12 (Apr. 9, 2014), available at http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=20873&lang=EN; OIC Calls for Respecting the Rights of Muslims in Crimea (Mar. 25, 2014), at http://www.oic-oci.org/oicv2/topic/?t_id=8947&ref=3592&lan=en&x_key=Crimea; UN SCOR, 69th Sess., 7144th mtg., at 11, UN Doc. S/PV.7144 (Mar. 19, 2014) (statement of Octavio Errázuriz (Chile)).

¹⁴³ OHCHR April 2014 Report, supra note 46, para. 100.

¹⁴⁴ OHCHR May 2014 Report, supra note 139, para. 129.

¹⁴⁵ Michael Birnbaum, Eight Months After Russia Annexed Crimea from Ukraine, a Complicated Transition, Wash. Post, Nov. 27, 2014, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/eight-months-after-russia-an-nexed-crimea-from-ukraine-a-complicated-transition/2014/11/27/d42bcf82-69b3-11e4-bafd-6598192a448d_story.html.

¹⁴⁶ See SC Res. 242 (Nov. 22, 1967).

¹⁴⁷ But see Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Yugo. (Serb. & Mont.)), Further Requests for Provisional Measures, Sep. Op. Lauterpacht, J. adhoc, 1993 ICJ Rep. 325, 434, para. 81 (Sept. 13) (“It is beyond question that territory cannot lawfully be acquired by the aggressive use of force....” (emphasis added)).

¹⁴⁸ GA Res. 68/262 (Mar. 27, 2014).

¹⁴⁹ See Daugirdas, Kristina & Mortenson, Julian Davis, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 108 AJIL 802, 803–05 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵⁰ Ukraine—Communiqué Issued by Francçois Hollande, President of the Republic (Mar.18, 2014), available at http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/ukraine/events-7684/article/ukraine-communique-issued-by; UN Doc. S/PV.7144, supra note 142, at 20 (statement of Gérard Araud); id. at 14–15 (statement of Mark Lyall Grant); David Cameron, PM Statement on President Putin’s Actions on Crimea (Mar. 18, 2014), available at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-statement-on-president-putins-actions-on-crimea; Office of the Federal Government of Germany Press Release, German Government Condemns Referendum (Mar. 17, 2014), available at http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/EN/Artikel/2014/03/2014-03-17-krim-statement-sts.html?nn=709674 (statement of Steffen Seibert); Office of Federal Government of Germany Press Release, Russia Violates International Law (Mar. 19,2014), available at http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/EN/Artikel/2014/03/2014-03-19-ukraine-abkommen.html?nn=709674 (statement of Steffen Seibert).

¹⁵¹ European Council, Statement of the Heads of State or Government on Ukraine, para. 2 (Mar. 6, 2014), available at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/141372.pdf; see also European Council, Conclusions, para. 28 (Mar. 21, 2014), available at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/141749.pdf

¹⁵² Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan on the Measures Against Russia over the Crimea Referendum (Mar. 18, 2014), at http://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press4e_000239.html.

¹⁵³ See, e.g., UN Doc. S/PV.7144, supra note 142 (statement of Oh Joon (Republic of Korea)); UNSCOR, 69th Sess., 7138th mtg., at 8, UN Doc. S/PV.7138 (Mar. 15, 2014) (statement of Octavio Errázuriz (Chile)); UN Doc. A/68/PV80, supra note 91, at 18–19 (statement of Joy Ogwu (Nigeria)); Indonesia Respects Ukraine’s Sovereignty Concerning Crimea Issue, Antara News, Mar. 21, 2014, at http://www.antaranews.com/en/news/93293/indonesia-respects-ukraines-sovereignty-concerning-crimea-issue (statement of Marty Natalegawa (Indonesia)); UN Doc. A/68/PV.80, supra note 91, at 19 (statement of María Perceval (Argentina)); Crimea Vote as Worthless as Falklands Poll: Argentina President, Reuters, Mar. 19, 2014, at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-ukraine-crisis-falklands-idUSBREA2I1GG20140319; see also Permanent Delegation of the Republic of Moldova to the OSCE, Statement by the Republic of Moldova on the Situation in Ukraine (Mar. 13, 2014), Doc. No. PC.DEL/287/14 (Mar. 14, 2014), available at http://www.osce.org/pc/116774?download=true; Georgia Does Not Recognize Crimea Vote, Agenda. Ge, Mar. 17, 2014, at http://agenda.ge/news/10655/eng.

¹⁵⁴ See, e.g., Statement of the Foreign Minister of France on Chechnya (Feb. 9, 1995), reprinted in 1995 Annuaire Français De Droit International 852, 911–12; 563 Parl. Deb., H.L. (Apr. 18,1995) 476 (UK), available at http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1995/apr/18/chechnya (statement of Richard Inglewood); see also Marston, Geoffrey, United Kingdom Materials on International Law, 1995 Brit. Y. B. Int’l L. 621, 683Google Scholar; Statement of Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, Supporting Democracy and Economic Reform in the New Independent States: Statement Before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 6(8) Dep’t of State Dispatch 119–21 (Feb. 20, 1995), available at http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/briefing/dispatch/1995/html/Dispatchv6no08.html. Regional organizations adopted the same position. See, e.g., NATO, Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, Final Communiqué (May 29, 2001), available at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_18892.htm?selectedLocale=en (affirming “Russia’s right to preserve its territorial integrity”).

¹⁵⁵ Shannon Tiezzi, China Reacts to the Crimea Referendum, Diplomat, Mar. 18, 2014, at http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/china-reacts-to-the-crimea-referendum (noting statement of Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei (China)).

¹⁵⁶ UN Doc. A/68/PV.80, supra note 91, at 10–11 (statement of Liu Jieyi (China)).

¹⁵⁷ China, by means of a note verbale to the Philippines, “rejected and returned” the Philippines’ notification. Permanent Court of Arbitration, Summary of the Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China (2014), at http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1529; see also Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines, paras. 30–56 (Dec. 7, 2014), at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1217147.shtml.

¹⁵⁸ Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Written Statement of the People’s Republic of China to the International Court of Justice on the Issue of Kosovo, at 1–3 (Apr. 16, 2009), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15611.pdf

¹⁵⁹ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the People’s Republic of China Press Statement, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei’s Regular Press Conference (June 3, 2014), at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1161810.shtml.

¹⁶⁰ UN Doc. A/68/PV.80, supra note 91, at 15 (statement of Ingha Rhonda King (Saint Vincent and the Gren adines)).

¹⁶¹ Id. at 16 (statement of Cristina Carrión (Uruguay)).

¹⁶² Id. at 25 (statement of Julio Xavier Lasso Mendoza (Ecuador)).

¹⁶³ Id. at 26 (statement of Charles Thembani Ntwaagae (Botswana)).

¹⁶⁴ See, e.g., id. at 24 (statement of Shorna-Kay Richards (Jamaica)); id. at 25 (statement of Sabri Boukadoum (Algeria)).

¹⁶⁵ Id. at 13 (statement of Sacha Sergio Llorentty Soliz (Bolivia)).

¹⁶⁶ Territorial Integrity of Ukraine, UN Doc. A/68/L.39 (Mar. 24, 2014). The sponsors of the draft resolution were Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine.

¹⁶⁷ GA Res. 68/262, supra note 148, para. 1.

¹⁶⁸ Id., para. 2.

¹⁶⁹ As to the element of intent in the act of recognition, see Institut de droit international, La reconnaissance des nouveaux états et des nouveaux gouvernements, Art. 4 (1936), available at http://www.idi-iil.org/idiF/resolutionsF/1936_brux_01_fr.pdf. As to opposability, see Sixth Report on Unilateral Acts of States, para. 67, UN Doc. A/CN.4/534 (May 30, 2003) (prepared by Special Rapporteur Victor Rodríguez Cedenño); see also Tom Grant, How to Recognise a State (and Not): Some Practical Considerations, in Sovereignty, Statehood and State Responsibility, supra note 59, at 192, 198–204.

¹⁷⁰ GA Res. 68/262, supra note 148, para. 6.

¹⁷¹ SC Res. 662, para. 2 (Aug. 9, 1990).

¹⁷² UN Doc. A/68/PV.80, supra note 91, at 17. Negative votes were cast by eleven states: Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, the Russian Federation, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.

¹⁷³ Yaël Ronen, Transition from Illegal Regimes under International Law 46 (2011) (noting the nullity of the purported legal effects).

¹⁷⁴ Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, supra note 25, Art. 41.

¹⁷⁵ See Grant, Thomas D., Doctrines (Monroe, Hallstein, Brezhnev, Stimson), in Max Planck Encyclopedia Of Public International Law, paras. 8–15 (Wolfrum, Ruüdiger ed., Mar. 2014)Google Scholar; Dawidowicz, Martin, The Obligation of Non-recognition of an Unlawful Situation, in The Law of International Responsibility 677 (Crawford, James, Pellet, Alain & Olleson, Simon eds., 2010)Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁶ GA Res. 68/262, supra note 148, para. 6.

¹⁷⁷ For the proposed analogue to Article 41 in the context of the responsibility of international organizations, see Responsibility of International Organizations, Art. 42, GA Res. 66/100, annex (Dec. 9, 2011).

¹⁷⁸ As to dispute settlement, the China-Ukraine bilateral investment treaty, to take one example, provides, inter alia, for the settlement of interstate disputes in accordance with “the universally recognized principles of international law.” China-Ukraine Agreement for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, Art. 9(5), Oct. 31, 1992, 1849 UNTS 81, 100 (entered into force May 29, 1993).

¹⁷⁹ Tomuschat, Christian, International Crimes by States: An Endangered Species?, in International Law: Theory and Practice: Essays in Honour of Eric Suy 254, 259 (Wellens, Karel C. ed., 1998)Google Scholar, quoted in ILC Commentaries, Art. 41, cmt. 5, n.652, [2001] 2(2) Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 114 (corr.), available at http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf.

¹⁸⁰ See SC Res. 283 (July 29, 1970).

¹⁸¹ Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 1971 ICJ Rep. 16, para. 125 (June 21).

¹⁸² See, e.g., Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, App. No. 46347/99, Judgment (Merits), paras. 27–32, operative para. 5 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Dec. 22, 2005) (requiring a legal mechanism in Cyprus to address the unlawful character of similar land transfers); id., Judgment (Just Satisfaction), para. 37, operative para. 1 (Dec. 7, 2006) (affirming that the required legal mechanism is in operation and indicating substantial compensation for the land transfer addressed in the case); Case No. C-420/07, Apostolides v. Orams, 2009 ECR 1-3571, paras. 19, 26, operative paras. 2, 3 (Apr. 28, 2009) (Grand Chamber), available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-420/07 (ECLI:EU:C:2009:271) (determination in a court of the Republic of Cyprus of the invalidity of a putative property transfer in Northern Cyprus is not to be refused recognition and enforcement in courts of other EU member states).

¹⁸³ See, e.g., Draft Convention on the Elimination of Future Statelessness, pmbl., [1954] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm N 143. See generally William E. Conklin, Statelessness: The Enigma Of the International Community (2014).

¹⁸⁴ For criticism of the strategy in Georgia, see 2 Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia Report 19 (Sept. 2009), available at http://rt.com/files/politics/georgia-started-ossetian-war/iiffmcg-volume-ii.pdf

¹⁸⁵ See Eur. Parl. Legal Serv., Re: Fisheries Partnership Agreement Between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco—Declaration by the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) of 21 January 2009 of Jurisdiction over an Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 Nautical Miles off the Western Sahara—Catches Taken by EU-Flagged Vessels Fishing in the Waters off the Western Sahara, Doc. No. SJ-0269/09EU (July 13, 2009), available at http://www.wsrw.org/a105x1346; Eur. Parl. Legal Serv., Re: Protocol Between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco Setting out the Fishing Opportunities and Financial Contribution Provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement in Force Between the Two Parties, Doc. No. SJ-0665/13, at 4 (Nov. 4, 2013), available at http://www.sadr-emb-au.net/legal-opinion-by-21-jurists-and-lawyers-from-8-countries-qualifies-eu-fish-agreement-that-include-western-sahara-as-illegal; Letter Dated 29 January 2002 from [Hans Corell,] the UnderSecretary-General for Legal Affairs, the Legal Counsel, Addressed to the President of the Security Council, para. 25, UN Doc. S/2002/161 (Feb. 12, 2002).

¹⁸⁶ This position is visible in UN human rights organs. E.g., OHCHR April 2014 Report, supra note 46, paras. 12, 99; see also OHCHR Ukraine Report, supra note 142, paras. 6–8.

¹⁸⁷ Ilaşscu v. Moldova and Russia, App. No. 48787/99, para. 330 (Eur. Ct. H.R. July 8,2004) (Grand Chamber).

¹⁸⁸ Loizidou v. Turkey, App. No. 15318/89, 1996-VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 2216, para. 52 (Dec. 18, 1996) (citing Loizidou, Preliminary Objections, para. 62 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 23, 1995)); Cyprus v. Turkey, App. No. 25781/94, Just Satisfaction, para. 41 (Eur. Ct. H.R. May 12, 2014) (Grand Chamber).

¹⁸⁹ President of Russia Press Release, Address by President of the Russian Federation (Mar. 18, 2014), available at http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20603.

¹⁹⁰ Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Speech by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, and His Answers to Questions from the Mass Media During the Joint Press Conference with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, Ahmet Davutoğlu, Summarising the Results of the IV Session of the Russian-Turkish Joint Strategic Planning Group, Moscow (May 27, 2014), available at http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/e78a48070f128a7b43256999005bcbb3/14d01e4c3955748c44257ce70063a8ee!OpenDocument; see also Chur- kin Statement, supra note 91, at 3.

¹⁹¹ See, e.g., UN Security Council, Letter Dated 2 May 2014 from the High Representative for Bosnia and Her zegovina Addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/2014/314, annex, at 9 n.3 (quoting Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik, Voice Of Russia, Mar. 10, 2014).