naeime saliminejad

This paper examines the legitimacy of the unilateral separation of the Crimea from Ukraine in accordance with public international law, with respect to the right to self-determination and the right to remadial secession. It is examined in detail that, beyond decolonization, the right to self-determination does not include a general right to external self-determination. In non-colonial situations, there are two theories of unilateral secession and remedial secession. By examining the Crimea case in the light of each the cases, we conclude that unilateral secession is generally permitted under international law, but the unilateral secession of Crimea from Ukraine is an exception and prohibited under international law. Because it is the result os Russian military intervention in the peninsula and a sort of widespread violation of international law. On the other hand, by examining the practices of gevernments and judicial and semi-judicial bodies, we find that remedial secession is not yet a part of customary international law and the doctrine is also cntroversial. Assuming Crimea cannot be cinsidered a viable secession due to the diversity of the peninsula population and lack of “people” and lack of evidence of human rights violations or organized discriminatory behavior by Ukrainian authorities.