Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T01:12:02.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction: The Crisis in Ukraine Between the Law, Power, and Principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Zoran Oklopcic

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This special issue of German Law Journal (GLJ) originates from a colloquium co-sponsored by the GLJ, the Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law, and the Center for Constitutional Transitions that took place at the Berkeley School of Law in February 2015, just over a year after the revolutionary events at Maidan Square in Kiev triggered profound changes in the geopolitical map of contemporary Europe and shook the foundations of international order.

Beyond the gravity of the crisis itself, what animates the contributions in the following pages is an attendant awareness of the need to rethink the appropriateness of disciplinary responses to the conflict in Ukraine. Though the rhetoric of brazen takeovers, cynical ploys, stealing and redeeming, chronic authoritarianism and imperialism, hypocrisy, and broken promises have all contributed to a combustible political situation in and around Ukraine, a diverse sense of outrage has also been subtly, but nonetheless decisively, structured and amplified by the vocabularies of international and constitutional law, moral arguments, and their complicated interplay. Though differing in their practical ambitions, technical vocabulary, and the professional sensibilities they cultivate, the disciplines of international law, comparative constitutional law, and normative political theory, have each upheld one of the most important components of the modern social imaginary: The idea of popular sovereignty.

The idea that the will of the people ought to be a decisive factor in resolving the crisis in Ukraine continues to unite most commentators, partisans, and scholars, irrespective of their otherwise profound ideological and political differences. From the perspective of overarching social imaginary, the ominous geopolitical crisis in Ukraine, while dangerous in its potential outcomes, appears as a family quarrel among the believers of the constitutional creed of western political modernity. Unlike another geopolitical crisis of our time—the attempts of ISIS to redraw the map of the Middle East—the situation in Ukraine is not a conflict over the existence of international legal order, but rather one over the meaning of its foundational building blocks: The internal and external self-determination of peoples, territorial integrity, and the sovereign equality of independent states.

Type
Research Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 3: Special Issue - The Crisis in Ukraine , July 2015 , pp. 350 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Taylor, Charles, Modern Social Imaginaries 109-43 (2004).Google Scholar

2 Vidmar, Jure, The Annexation of Crimea and the Boundaries of the Will of the People, 16 German L.J. 365 (2015).Google Scholar

3 Roth, Brad, The Virtues of Bright Lines: Self-Determination, Secession, and External Intervention, 16 German L.J. 384 (2015).Google Scholar

4 Id. at 387.Google Scholar

5 Id. Google Scholar

6 Fabry, Mikulas, How to Uphold the Territorial Integrity of Ukraine, 16 German L.J. 416 (2015).Google Scholar

7 Id. at 417.Google Scholar

8 Umut Özsu, Ukraine, International Law and the Political Economy of Self-Determination, 16 German L.J. 434, 434 (2015).Google Scholar

9 Id. at 439.Google Scholar

10 Id. Google Scholar

11 Karhonen, Outi, Deconstructing the Conflict in Ukraine: The Relevance of International Law to Hybrid States and Wars, 16 German L.J. 452 (2015).Google Scholar

12 Mamlyuk, Boris, The Ukraine Crisis, Cold War II, and International Law, 16 German L.J. 479 (2015).Google Scholar

13 See generally, id. Google Scholar

14 Tierney, Stephen, Sovereignty and Crimea: How Referendum Democracy Complicates Constituent Power in Multinational Societies, 16 German L.J. 523, 524 (2015).Google Scholar

15 Id. at 527.Google Scholar

16 Yaniv Roznai and Silvia Suteu, The Eternal Territory? The Crimean Crisis and Ukraine's Territorial Integrity as an Unamendable Constitutional Principle, 16 German L.J. 542 (2015).Google Scholar

17 For the most powerful contemporary argument, see Pettit, Philip, On the People's Terms 302 (2012).Google Scholar

18 Catala, Amandine, Secession and Annexation: The Case of Crimea, 16 German L.J. 581 (2015).Google Scholar

19 Id. at 596.Google Scholar

20 Id. at 597.Google Scholar

21 Id. at 602. For a similar argument, see Wheatley, Steven, Modelling Democratic Secession in International Law, in Nationalism and Globalisation: New Settings, New Challenges (2015).Google Scholar

22 Banai, Ayelet, Territorial Conflict and Territorial Rights: The Crimean Question Reconsidered, 16 German L.J. 608 (2015).Google Scholar

23 Id. at 621.Google Scholar

24 Id. Google Scholar

25 Id. at 630.Google Scholar

26 Buchanan, Allen, Theories of Secession, 26 Phil & Pub. Aff. 30 (1997).Google Scholar

27 Catala, supra note 18.Google Scholar

28 See Maclaren, Malcolm, “Trust the People”? Democratic Secessionism and Contemporary Practice, 16 German L.J. 631, 633 (2015).Google Scholar

29 See generally, id. Google Scholar

30 Oklopcic, Zoran, The Idea of Early-Conflict Constitution-Making: The Conflict in Ukraine Beyond Territorial Rights and Constitutional Paradoxes, 16 German L.J. 658 (2015).Google Scholar

31 Arato, Andrew, International Role in State-Making in Ukraine: The Promise of a Two-Stage Constituent Process, 16 German L.J. 691 (2015).Google Scholar

32 Jennings, Ivor, An Approach to Self-Government 56 (1956).Google Scholar

33 For an influential and decisive rejection of this possibility, considering it “poisoned chalice,” see Koskenniemi, Martti, From Apology to Utopia 603 (2006).Google Scholar

34 See, Loughlin, Martin, Constitutional Imagination 78 Mod. L. Rev. 1, 12 (2015).Google Scholar

35 See Reus-Smit, Christian, The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations 6 (1999).Google Scholar

36 For a rare explicit consideration of the object of constitutional theory in literature, see Tierney, Stephen, Constitutional Referendums 2-3 (2012).Google Scholar