International law is unambiguous on how countries should decide the fate of disputed territories like Crimea. Countries can acquire territory by discovering uninhabited land, signing a treaty – as with Khrushchev’s transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 – or occupying an area peacefully over a long period of time. The legal methods for resolving questions of sovereignty are founded on widely recognized principles of international law. These do not include, and have never included, a simple referendum of people living in a contested territory. That is why every successful secessionist movement has founded its claim on legal entitlement to the territory that they seek to “liberate”.
The Guardian: Why the Crimean referendum is illegal, March 24, 2014
International law traditionally supported a right to secede only as an expression of the right to self-determination where that right has been suppressed by colonial domination or foreign occupation. Beyond these recognised contexts, references to self-determination offer little support for breakaway movements, and international law recognises no general right to secede. Indeed, attempts at unilateral secession are trumped by a foundational and clear principle of the international order under the UN Charter: the territorial integrity of sovereign states.
openDemocracy: Why Crimea is not Kosovo and why it matters, March 18, 2014
Here are the results of Saturday's referendum, followed by Russian President Putin approving the draft for an annexation bill, and the transcribed (and annotated) speech given to a joint session of Russian parliament (and the first death occurring in the course of the Russian occupation of Crimea). This Washington Post article speculates about Putin's motivation behind the occupation and annexation (from the economic and geo-political importance of the region to a wider view of Russia's future strategy, internal political opposition within Russia, and a fear that that the way Viktor Yanukovych was removed from power may inspire unrest). openDemocracy on the implications Russia's role has for European security and the European Union.
Elsewhere,
A haunting UN report on human rights violations in North Korea.
Foreign Policy maps the development of Al Qaeda as a franchise.
Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, goes after the CIA and what she sees as an attempt to intimitate the committee that is meant to oversee it (her full statement), and New York Review of Books on the implications of the cover-up and the fact that "torture does far more than merely “taint” evidence. It corrupts all who touch it."
The New Republic on a new book about Denmark's defiance against the deportation of its Jewish citizens during Nazi occupation.
Pop Culture:
New records by the Blood Red Shoes (self-titled), Dawn Landes (Bluebird) and The Notwist (Close to the Glass).
While True Detective is kind of sort of about misogyny but mostly forgot to include women in its story, Keeley Hawes is absolutely amazing in the second season of Line of Duty (other best ofs include Pretty Little Liars for Best Use of Shovels and some special recognition for letting the least dependable narrator tell an awesome alternative story in its fourth season finale, and Vikings and The Americans racing each other for best depiction of marriage). I'm too sad to list all the new pilots that I tried and didn't like but let's just say that remaking or sort-of remaking European shows is likely not going to win me over, statistically.
No comments:
Post a Comment