Times do change then because in 1991 more than 90% voted for the Declaration if Independence on an electoral turnout in excess of 80%. I have no data for the voting specifically for Crimea and is does naturally enough have significantly stronger logistical ties with Mother Russia quite apart from the cultural and geographical ones. So there may well be a genuine consensus to return, but under the Declaration of Independence there is no legal facility for any region to carry out such a referendum let alone have any international recognition.
Not sure if you're serious, but it's the equivalent to Cornwall holding a referendum to become part of Southern Ireland. There's no legal basis for that either.
Yes, I understand that there's no legal facility in place for this vote, and others like it. However, this is pretty murky stuff that we're venturing into, as the principle of self-determination is established in international law as a fundamental human right. Thus, you could claim that it prevails over considerations of territorial integrity. Again, there seems to be a lot of division within the legal profession over this, but it would make sense to me, given it's enshrined as a "fundamental human right".
Re legal basis, see above. Catalonia seems to be proceeding towards a self-determination referendum, it seems, regardless of the objections of the Spanish government and the Constitutional Court. It appears that a whole variety of world govts and leaders who have an issue with Crimea, don't have a problem with Catalonia. I wonder why this might be? And let's not even talk about Kosovo and the International Court of Justice opinion, as that's, supposedly, "unique" and special.
There’s murky and there’s murky. There is still no clear definition of ‘nation’ or what groups can legitimately claim that right. So as rights go, as with most rights, it’s whatever you can grab.
Unlikely. Putin’s been through it all before with Georgia. Water off a duck’s back. Plus he sees how the EU and the US respond (or not) to far more significant abuses of international law and human rights all across the globe. He has very little to worry about and this is a real crowd pleaser back home.
Indeed, in which case why should we, a priori, treat some grabbers differently than others? That is, if we're talking about purely moral and legal considerations, rather than realpolitik.
I would disagree with you about Georgia. It's reasonably well-established that it was Mikheil Saakashvili who, in a bid to preserve Georgia's "territorial integrity", decided to change the status quo in South Ossetia in a rather aggressive and unmistakably violent fashion. Given the history of the conflict and the recorded cases of human right abuses by the Georgian paramilitaries in 1991-92, South Ossetia's bid for independence could be easily supported as "remedial". Under these circumstances, I fail to see how Russia could have behaved otherwise.
There is no fitting of post hoc rationale, certainly not in the Georgian case. The facts are reasonably clear, now as they were originally in 2008. In Crimea, we're not yet in the "post" phase, so let's wait...
The part that's asking us for help to protect our German interests. Just kidding. Thanks for the reasoned debate - it's just a little too late in the day for me to do the necessary research to make a sensible response. AKA you beat the Kvasse out of me - please invade and annex me.
They all look the same to me.Hank, mate, not Frank!
