The Interplay between Ukraine’s Domestic Legislation on Conflict and Uncontrolled Territories and its Strategic Use of ‘Lawfare’ before Russia’s 2022 Invasion of Ukraine – A Troubled Nexus?

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Review of Central and East European Law Pub Date : 2022-12-22 DOI:10.1163/15730352-bja10070
M. Rabinovych
{"title":"The Interplay between Ukraine’s Domestic Legislation on Conflict and Uncontrolled Territories and its Strategic Use of ‘Lawfare’ before Russia’s 2022 Invasion of Ukraine – A Troubled Nexus?","authors":"M. Rabinovych","doi":"10.1163/15730352-bja10070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nRussia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 can be seen as a culmination of eight years of its aggression against Ukraine, including its annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and the control of the two ‘People’s Republics’ in Donbas. Before the invasion, the Ukrainian authorities had actively expressed their politico-legal stance on the conflict, using lawfare against the Russian Federation, e.g. at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the International Court of Justice (icj), and the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (itlos). In this context, the paper explores the interplay between Ukraine’s domestic legislation regarding the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s control of the People’s Republics in Donbas prior to the invasion, and Ukraine’s use of lawfare against Russia with a focus on policy and legal coherence. It is demonstrated that, while Ukraine’s lawfare strategy regarding Crimea had been in line with domestic legislation, Russia’s use of proxies in eastern Ukraine and the challenges of the Minsk peace process led to incoherence between Ukraine’s domestic laws and its use of lawfare. Though Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine is a game-changer, both for Ukraine’s domestic legislation and its use of lawfare, the analysis contributes to an understanding of the nexus between domestic and international law in Ukraine prior to the invasion and explores the implications such a nexus will have for Ukraine’s future lawfare against Russia, including the most recent icj case relating to the interpretation, application, and fulfillment of the 1948 Genocide Convention.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":"518 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Central and East European Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-bja10070","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 can be seen as a culmination of eight years of its aggression against Ukraine, including its annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and the control of the two ‘People’s Republics’ in Donbas. Before the invasion, the Ukrainian authorities had actively expressed their politico-legal stance on the conflict, using lawfare against the Russian Federation, e.g. at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the International Court of Justice (icj), and the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (itlos). In this context, the paper explores the interplay between Ukraine’s domestic legislation regarding the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s control of the People’s Republics in Donbas prior to the invasion, and Ukraine’s use of lawfare against Russia with a focus on policy and legal coherence. It is demonstrated that, while Ukraine’s lawfare strategy regarding Crimea had been in line with domestic legislation, Russia’s use of proxies in eastern Ukraine and the challenges of the Minsk peace process led to incoherence between Ukraine’s domestic laws and its use of lawfare. Though Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine is a game-changer, both for Ukraine’s domestic legislation and its use of lawfare, the analysis contributes to an understanding of the nexus between domestic and international law in Ukraine prior to the invasion and explores the implications such a nexus will have for Ukraine’s future lawfare against Russia, including the most recent icj case relating to the interpretation, application, and fulfillment of the 1948 Genocide Convention.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在俄罗斯2022年入侵乌克兰之前,乌克兰关于冲突和不受控制领土的国内立法与“法律战”的战略使用之间的相互作用——一个陷入困境的关系?
俄罗斯在2022年2月24日对乌克兰的全面入侵可以被视为其对乌克兰八年侵略的高潮,包括2014年3月吞并克里米亚和控制顿巴斯的两个“人民共和国”。在入侵之前,乌克兰当局曾积极表达其对冲突的政治-法律立场,在欧洲人权法院、国际法院和国际海洋法法庭对俄罗斯联邦进行诉讼。在此背景下,本文探讨了乌克兰关于吞并克里米亚和俄罗斯在入侵前控制顿巴斯人民共和国的国内立法之间的相互作用,以及乌克兰对俄罗斯使用法律战的重点是政策和法律一致性。研究表明,虽然乌克兰在克里米亚问题上的法律战战略符合国内立法,但俄罗斯在乌克兰东部使用代理人以及明斯克和平进程的挑战导致乌克兰国内法与法律战之间的不一致性。尽管俄罗斯2022年入侵乌克兰对乌克兰的国内立法和法律战的使用都是一个改变游戏规则的事件,但本文的分析有助于理解入侵前乌克兰国内法和国际法之间的联系,并探讨这种联系对乌克兰未来针对俄罗斯的法律战的影响,包括最近与1948年《种族灭绝公约》的解释、适用和履行有关的国际法院案件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Review of Central and East European Law critically examines issues of legal doctrine and practice in the CIS and CEE regions. An important aspect of this is, for example, the harmonization of legal principles and rules; another facet is the legal impact of the intertwining of domestic economies, on the one hand, with regional economies and the processes of international trade and investment on the other. The Review offers a forum for discussion of topical questions of public and private law. The Review encourages comparative research; it is hoped that, in this way, additional insights in legal developments can be communicated to those interested in questions, not only of law, but also of politics, economics, and of society of the CIS and CEE countries.
期刊最新文献
Is Transparency Enough? Informal Governance Networks and the Selection Process of a Georgian Judge to the European Court of Human Rights Validity of Jurisdiction Clauses in Standard Terms and Conditions of International Commercial Contracts under Turkish Law Multiplication of Extraordinary Appeal Measures in Polish Criminal Proceedings: A Guarantee of Justice or Erosion of the Principle of Legal Certainty? Balancing Initial Copyright Ownership in Czech and Slovak Private International Law Accented Universality: Exploring Accountability as a Non-Translatable Concept in Central Asia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1