Political status of Crimea
The political status of Crimea is disputed between Ukraine and Russia. The dispute is known as the Crimean Problem or the Crimean Question. Russian forces seized Crimea by force in 2014. Russia then annexed Crimea in 2014 following a referendum, and administers it as two federal subjects of Russia, and claimed it to be 'fully integrated' in July 2015. Ukraine and the majority of international governments continue to regard Crimea as an integral part of Ukraine.
The dispute started after the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, contrary to Ukrainian law, held a referendum on rejoining Russia and then, when the results showed overwhelming support for the proposal, unilaterally declared their independence from Ukraine as a single united state under the name of Republic of Crimea. These two entities were then annexed by Russia, where the Crimean Autonomous Republic became the "Republic of Crimea" as a Russian republic and Sevastopol became a Russian federal city. However, Ukraine and the majority of the international community do not consider the merge, the independence, the referendum, nor the annexation legitimate and still consider both entities as parts of Ukraine. Despite international opinion however, the currency, tax and legal system are all operational under de facto Russian control. Ukraine has applied for multiple litigations through international crime, water resources, European Union and other courts.
Background
In 1920, immediately after the RSFSR recognized the independence of the Ukrainian SSR, the responsibility for all Crimean administration was reassigned directly to the Kremlin. In 1994 Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, which states that it would "Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence, sovereignty, and the existing borders".Evolution of status of the Crimean Peninsula within independent Ukraine
Crimean ASSR and Republic of Crimea
After the Crimean referendum of 1991, which asked whether Crimea should be elevated to a signatory of the New Union Treaty, the Ukrainian SSR restored Crimea's autonomous status, but confirmed that autonomy restored as a part of the Ukrainian SSR. The Crimean Oblast council became Supreme Council of Crimea and, on 4 September 1991, passed the Declaration of state sovereignty of Crimea.Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the autonomy renamed itself the Republic of Crimea. The Ukrainian government initially accepted its name, but not its claims to be a state. According to Ukrainian law "On status of the autonomous Republic of Crimea", passed on 29 April 1992, "Republic of Crimea is an autonomous part of Ukraine and independently decides on matters, which are delegated to it by the Constitution and laws of the Ukraine". The Regional Supreme Council, on the contrary, insisted that "Republic of Crimea is a legal democratic state", which "has supremacy in respect to natural, material, cultural and spiritual heritage" and "exercises its sovereign rights and full power" on its territory, but also a "part of the Ukraine and establishes relations in it on a basis of the treaty and agreements". Both Ukrainian law on autonomy status and the 1992 Constitution of Crimea were amended later that year, putting the Republic's status in between what was proposed in the initial revision of the 1992 Constitution and what was proposed in April 1992 Ukrainian law on the status of the Republic.
On 21 May 1992 the Supreme Soviet of Russia declared 1954 transfer of Crimea as having "no legal force", because it was [|adopted] "in violation of the Constitution of the Russian SFSR and legislative process", but because subsequent legislation and the 1990 Russo-Ukrainian treaty constituted that fact, parliament considered it necessary to resolve the Crimean question in negotiations between Ukraine and Russia and on the basis of the popular will of the inhabitants of Crimea. A similar resolution was adopted for Sevastopol a year later. Both moves were condemned by Ukraine and resulted in no changes to the Russian Constitution.
In 1994, after parliamentary and presidential elections in the Republic, the Supreme Council and the executive became dominated by the Russian Bloc. Following a referendum, held in same year, the Supreme Council of Crimea restored the 1992 Constitution to its original revision.
Autonomous Republic of Crimea
A year later, the 1992 Crimean constitution, along with the presidency and regional citizenship, was declared null and void by the Ukrainian Parliament, which by that time, had renamed the autonomy from "Republic of Crimea" to Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Another Constitution was passed by Crimean parliament in 1995, but many parts of it were rejected by the Ukrainian parliament; among them were Republic's name and citizenship. Meanwhile, during drafting of the new Ukrainian Constitution, the question of autonomy was much debated: some legislators proposed abolishing it altogether, while other legislators proposed legalising the 1992 Constitution of Crimea provisions in the new Ukrainian Constitution. Ultimately, the new Constitution of Ukraine adopted neither extreme and reiterated the autonomous status of the republic, while downgrading some of its powers. The Republic was declared to be the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", but also an "inseparable constituent part of Ukraine". A new Crimean constitution, complying with provisions of the Ukrainian one, was adopted in 1998.Status of Sevastopol
Before the 1954 transfer of Crimea, Sevastopol was into a "city of republican subordination" of the Russian SFSR. Nevertheless, in practice it was still governed as a part of Crimean Oblast and therefore was practically transferred too. The Ukrainian Constitution of 1978 listed Sevastopol as one of its "cities of republican subordination", whilst the Russian constitution of the same year didn't list Sevastopol as such. In 1993, the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation issued a, which "confirms Russian federal status of Sevastopol" and requested a parliamentary commission to prepare and present to Congress of People's Deputies of Russia corresponding constitutional amendments, but 1993 Russian constitutional crisis prevented that from happening and initial revisions of the Constitution of Russia, adopted on 12 December 1993, did not list Sevastopol as a federal subject. Three years later, the State Duma declared that Russia has a right to exercise sovereignty over Sevastopol, but this resolution went without any actual effect. An agreement was concluded in 1997 by the Russian and Ukrainian governments, allowing the Black Sea Fleet to stay in Sevastopol until 2017.Crimean crisis and subsequent developments
Amidst rising tension in the region as part of the Crimean crisis, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol held an unconstitutional referendum to join the Russian Federation. The referendum took place on 16 March 2014 with 97% of voters choosing to leave Ukraine and join Russia, according to Crimean government results. For this purpose, the Autonomous Republic and Sevastopol joined together as a single united nation under the name of Republic of Crimea. This nation then was annexed by Russia where it was converted into a federal district under the name of Crimean Federal District. However, the annexation divided the Autonomous Republic and the city of Sevastopol once again into two separate entities: the Autonomous Republic became the Republic of Crimea as a Russian republic while Sevastopol became a Russian federal city.Regardless of all this, Ukraine and the vast majority of the international community has not recognized the validity of the referendum, and has not recognized the accession of this country into Russia.
Only Russia and a few other nations have recognized all these events. The lack of recognition from Ukraine and the international community is based primarily on the fact that the referendum included an option to join Russia while the region was considered to be under military occupation by Russia itself. The European Union, United States, Canada and several other nations condemned the decision to hold a referendum. In addition, the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People—the unofficial political association of the Crimean Tatars—called for a boycott of the referendum.
The UN General Assembly eventually adopted a non-binding resolution considering the referendum as invalid and reaffirming Ukraine's territorial integrity by a vote of 100 to 11 with 58 abstentions and 24 absent.
The Ministry of Temporarily Occupied Territories and Internally displaced persons is a government ministry in Ukraine that was officially established on 20 April 2016 to manage occupied parts of Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea regions affected by Russian military intervention of 2014.
Stances
Russia
Russia recognized the short-lived Republic of Crimea as a country shortly before concluding the aforementioned treaty of accession, which was approved by the Constitutional Court of Russia.Russia claimed the Republic of Crimea as a federal district, the Crimean Federal District, on the grounds of historical control of the area and the local population's right to self-determination reflected in the annexation vote. On 28 July 2016 the Crimean Federal District was abolished and Crimea was included in the Southern Federal District.
Ukraine
The Government of Ukraine did not recognize the Republic of Crimea's claim to sovereignty, nor the unification of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea with Sevastopol, nor the referendum that paved the way for Crimean secession.The Ministry of Temporarily Occupied Territories and Internally displaced persons is a government ministry in Ukraine that was officially established on 20 April 2016 to manage occupied parts of Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea regions affected by Russian military intervention of 2014.
Others
Pro-Russian stances on Crimea
The following non UN-member states have recognized the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol as federal subjects of Russia:| Rank | State | Notes |
| 1 | The President of Abkhazia Alexander Ankvab said, "This is a classic example of when the will of the people is above to all" and "Abkhazia respects the will of Crimeans, support and recognize their fateful choice a nationwide solution is based not only on the historical past but on the modern political realities." | |
| 2 | ||
| 3 | On 5 March, Minister of Foreign Affairs David G. Sanakoyev released a statement blaming the unrest on the coup in Kiev carried out by "extremists" and U.S. interference. He further noted: "This unrest raised discontent of predominantly Russian speaking population of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Eastern regions of Ukraine who did not want to have the same scenario in the places of their residence. People of South Ossetia understand what is happening in Ukraine more than anybody else. South Ossetia suffered consequences of Georgian nationalism in August 2008, supported by clearly fascist Ukrainian organizations such as UNA-UNSO. It should be said that we express full solidarity with Russian Federation in support of the compatriots in Ukraine to prevent escalation and bloodshed." | |
| 4 | Transnistria's government asked the Russian government to make Transnistria become a part of Russia. Irina Kubanskikh, a spokeswoman for the Transnistrian parliament, said that the region's public bodies had "appealed to the Russian Federation leadership to examine the possibility of extending to Trans-Dniester. The legislation, currently under discussion in the State Duma, on granting Russian citizenship and admitting new subjects into Russia." |
In addition to most states listed above, the following states backed the Russian position on affirming the General Assembly's commitment to the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders and condemning the Kerch Strait incident.
| Rank | State | Notes |
| 1 | ||
| 2 | ||
| 3 | ||
| 4 | ||
| 5 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 7 | ||
| 8 | ||
| 9 |
Recognition of Crimea as part of Ukraine
The following member states have taken a pro-Ukrainian stance from sanctions against Russia to giving support to Ukraine to voting for Ukraine's claim on the territory:| Rank | State | Notes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | On 3 March, in a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the military intervention of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, in defiance of the norms of international law and in violation of territorial sovereignty and integrity of the country. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | Argentina had abstained from the United Nations General Assembly vote about the territorial integrity of Ukraine referring to some governments' lack of coherence on similar questions. President Cristina Fernández criticized what she called a double standard allowing the Falklands residents to hold a vote on their future, while condemning the Crimean referendum on union with Russia. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | On 2 March, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said that Russia's actions in Ukraine were "not the kind... of a friend and neighbour and I think Russia should back off". The Prime Minister told the Australian House of Representatives on 3 March that "Russia should back off, it should withdraw its forces from the Ukraine and people of the Ukraine ought to be able to determine their future themselves" with the Australian Government cancelling a planned visit to Russia by the Trade Minister Andrew Robb. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | Azerbaijani ambassador to Ukraine, Eynulla Madatli, expressed public support on 3 March 2014 for Ukraine's territorial integrity. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 | On 1 March, President Rosen Plevneliev said in a statement that "Bulgaria is for preserving the sovereignty, the territorial integrity and the democratic future of Ukraine". The President further said that the presence of foreign forces and their unauthorized activity within the territory of a sovereign state "raises serious concern" and called for an end to any provocative actions that could lead to "irreparable consequences not only for the region, but also for the international order". In a later statement that day, following the Russia's Parliament decree allowing the usage of Russian armed forces in Crimea, President Plevneliev reiterated that "the only lasting solution may be achieved by peaceful means and if the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine is guaranteed" and that "he usage of military force to occupy foreign territories is violation of the rules of international law". The President also called on the UN Security Council and the countries-guarantors to the Budapest Memorandum to ensure a peaceful solution to the problem and to avoid a further escalation of the tension. In conclusion, President Plevneliev stated that "he people of Ukraine should alone decide what their future should be in a democratic way". | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 | On Feb. 28 Foreign Minister Baird "congratulated the new government and emphasized the need to honour the 1994 Budapest Declaration's commitment to Ukraine's territorial sovereignty and national unity at this critical time." On a 1 March phone call President Obama and Prime Minister Harper "affirmed the importance of unity within the international community in support of international law, and the future of Ukraine and its democracy.' On the same day, Harper condemned Russia's military intervention in Ukraine; he announced that Canada had both recalled its ambassador to Russia and withdrew from preparations for the 40th G8 summit, which is to be chaired by Russia. On 3 March, the Canadian House of Commons passed unanimous motion condemning Russia's intervention in Crimea. This was followed by Prime Minister Harper calling Russia's actions an "invasion and occupation" and Foreign Minister Baird comparing them to Nazi Germany's occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938. Canada then suspended all military cooperation with Russia and the flag of Ukraine was flown on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on 4 March. On 7 March 2014 Canada requested any Russian military servicemen to leave its territory in 24 hours. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28 | 15 March the Chadian representative to the UN Security Council, Mamet Zene Cherif voted in favor of a US sponsored resolution condemning the 16 March referendum. He elaborated that his Government had consistently supported Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and had voted in favour of the resolution out of a commitment to such principles. Concerned about the continued escalation of the crisis, despite the Council's appeals for restraint and calm, he said it was still possible for the parties to open the way for national reconciliation and maintenance of territorial integrity by engaging in dialogue. With that, he reiterated the importance of upholding the principles of territorial integrity, non-use of force and peaceful settlement of disputes, in line with the Charter. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 | 15 March the Chilean representative to the UN Security Council, Octavio Errazuriz voted in favor of a US sponsored resolution condemning the 16 March referendum. He elaborated that "as it was an appropriate response to the crisis in Ukraine. The Budapest Memorandum required the parties to observe Ukraine's independence and current borders, and to refrain from military measures. The planned referendum was not in line with Ukraine's Constitution, he said, emphasizing the fundamental importance of ensuring that the rule of law was observed, nationally and internationally. Indeed, it was for Ukrainians to choose their future through a democratic process that respected minority rights. The crisis must be resolved peacefully through dialogue, and Chile regretted the Council's inability to support the resolution due to the use of the veto. The Council had not fulfilled its responsibility." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 | The Foreign Ministry, on behalf of the government, released a press release stating "deep concern about the situation in Ukraine" while also deploring the "acts of violence that have taken place in the last couple of days". In the same press statement, Colombia urged the Government of Ukraine to "guarantee security, human rights, and the fundamental liberties of its citizens". | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 | Foreign Minister Lubomír Zaorálek said on 1 March, "I unambiguously reject and condemn the steps taken by the Russian Federation over the recent days.... Russia has committed, not only to respect Ukraine´s territorial integrity and sovereignty, but also to guarantee them." He also said it reminded him of the 1968 Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia. On 6 April 2014, president of the Czech Republic, Miloš Zeman said in an interview for Czech radio that the EU should impose the toughest sanctions on Russia as "at the moment Russia would decide to widen its territorial expansion to the Ukrainian east, this will become really serious as this would trigger a chain reaction". But he also expressed an opinion that Crimea will not be returned to Ukraine in the foreseeable future. Czech President Zeman also said: "Even though I understand the interests of Crimea's Russian-speaking majority, which was annexed to Ukraine by Khrushchev, we have our experience with the 1968 Russian military invasion." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 | Foreign Minister Martin Lidegaard stated on 2 March that, "This is a partial invasion of Ukraine by Russia". He made it clear that Denmark is working closely with the rest of EU and is preparing a condemning statement. He also called for Russia to respect international law. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 29 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31 | Foreign Minister Urmas Paet stated on 1 March that, "The Russian parliament's decision to authorise the use of troops in Ukraine is a clear threat to Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity," and that Russia's "... military threats and actions against Ukraine must stop." He called for the Ukrainian leadership to pursue all actions to reduce tensions and restore societal unity. Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves stated that the annexation was "done too quickly and professionally not to have been planned far in advance" and said that the failure of the Budapest Memorandum "may have far-reaching implications for generations. I don't know what country in the future would ever give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a security guarantee." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32 | Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja stated on 1 March, that Russia is implementing a military takeover of Crimean territory and by doing so Russia is violating several international treaties and laws. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 33 | The representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Romain Nadal, expressed his concerns on events in Crimea and reminded the foreign minister Laurent Fabius repeatedly called upon to preserve the unity and integrity of Ukraine. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34 | On 1 March, President Giorgi Margvelashvili called on the international community "not to allow new conflict in Europe and to use all the available means in order to avert possible aggression and to preserve sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine." The following non UN-member states have also voiced support for Ukraine's claim on the territory:
In addition to most states listed above, The following states backed the Ukranian position on affirming the General Assembly's commitment to the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders and condemning the Kerch Strait incident.
Other positions |