The war between Ukraine and Russia is referred to as the main security issue dominating the agenda in Europe, and in this context, various policy changes are being discussed across the continent. The war continues with Russian attacks on Ukrainian territory, while Ukraine is also capable of launching attacks on Russian targets. Efforts to declare a ceasefire and subsequently end the war, with US President Donald Trump’s involvement through his peace plan, are now at the forefront of the agenda. Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy continues to insist on demands such as increasing the current support given to his country and providing security guarantees to Ukraine, particularly in talks with his European counterparts. Europe, where anti-Russian sentiment prevails, where the Russian threat is perceived as a security concern in every sense, and where even Russian literary classics were once considered to be banned, therefore continues to share the same agenda items as Kiev. Trump’s involvement in the process has opened up not only international relations but also international law for debate due to the content of the peace plan being examined by the parties. Trump, one of the most controversial US presidents, has the potential to drastically change the process with his insistence on ending the Russia-Ukraine War. Thus, he is highly likely to influence international relations and, consequently, international law. Washington’s recently published new security strategy also serves as a summary of recent occurrences.
Trump, whose adherence to international law is a matter of debate, has also demonstrated this stance in his peace plan, which claims to end the war between Ukraine and Russia. If Ukraine accepts and implements the agreement’s provisions, which call into question the principles of international law that have erga omnes effect, such as the inviolability of borders, territorial integrity, and the prevention of border expansion through the use or threat of force, international law will continue to be questioned. A new controversial precedent will be added to those concerning border changes, annexation, occupation, territorial gains, and, finally, self-determination. According to the peace plan, consisting of 28 articles and reportedly prepared by Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio; eastern Ukraine, or in other words, the Donbass regions, will be left under Russian rule. Not only Donetsk and Luhansk, but Crimea will also be recognized as a de facto Russian territory. The US will also carry out this recognition. In other words, Russia’s control over Ukraine and the aforementioned territories will not be recognized de jure. On the other hand, it should be remembered that Ukraine still has control over some areas in Donetsk and Luhansk. According to the plan, the areas from which Ukraine has withdrawn will be considered demilitarized. Russian military forces will not be allowed to enter these areas. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be considered frozen zones. In 2022, Russia claimed Kherson and Zaporizhzhia as part of Russia, like Donetsk and Luhansk. Additionally, according to the plan, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear facility, which has been under Russian occupation since 2022, will be monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Moreover, the only controversial stance in the Russia-Ukraine War is not Trump’s de facto recognition of Russian sovereignty over Donbass. Since the Ukraine crisis began in 2013, Kremlin’s stance and policies have raised questions regarding its commitment to international law. It has recognized the “self-determination” of Crimea and, subsequently, Donbass, which declared independence from Ukraine, and has accepted the unification of both regions with Russia, as stated by Moscow. By incorporating the relevant changes into the Russian Constitution, the Vladimir Putin administration has opposed the West’s assessment of the situation as annexation. Citing Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence and its recognition by most Western countries as a precedent, Putin argued at the time that if Kosovo’s independence were accepted, Crimea’s self-determination would also have to be accepted. Hence, the debate over international law in Trump’s plan does not constitute a new situation; it goes back to 2008, or in other words, to Kosovo’s independence, which was contentious and encountered different responses internationally. It should be remembered that the relevant self-determination statement on Crimea referred to Kosovo and considered Kosovo’s independence as a “precedent.”
The Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic have been recognized as independent states by Russia on the grounds that they exercised their right to self-determination. Subsequently, Russian forces were sent to Donetsk and Luhansk on the justification that both political actors sought Russia’s assistance against Ukraine.
On the contrary, as mentioned above, Kosovo is also among the controversial examples in question. The inclusion of Kosovo’s self-determination in Crimea’s declaration of independence causes the two examples to be evaluated together. While Kosovo and Crimea can each be qualified as examples of self-determination, they have specific and different conditions. They have common points as well. For instance, Kosovo’s secession and Crimea’s unification with Russia differ from the right to self-determination recognized under international law. Previous attempts to implement internal self-determination options, such as autonomy, had been unsuccessful. Kosovo and Crimea chose to exercise the external self-determination option. When political conditions are taken into account, there is an opportunity to utilize self-determination through the option of secession.
Crimea, which held a referendum in 2014 claiming that the Ukrainian constitution was no longer in force, voted to join Russia with 95.5% of the vote. Self-determination was achieved when the Crimean Parliament voted to secede from Ukraine on March 6, 2014, and subsequently held a referendum to decide on unification with the Russian Federation. The Crimean Autonomous Republic’s demand for and exercise of self-determination, and the relevant process, were a response to the extraordinary political events that took place in Ukraine, particularly in Kiev.
Kosovo’s self-determination was achieved in a manner different from the application of the right that is generally accepted in international law. As the law states, independence did not come through a referendum, but through a decision taken by the Pristina Assembly in 2008. Serbia objected to the declaration, drawing attention to the form and timing of the decision, and received Moscow’s support. Belgrade pointed out that the Declaration of Independence was unilateral and was adopted at a time when negotiations on the resolution process were ongoing. The violence that reignited in Kosovo in 2004 culminated in the declaration of independence in 2008. Political factors were key reasons why the process in Kosovo resulted in a declaration of independence. Kosovo’s administrative and political relations with Yugoslavia and later Serbia; the Kosovo War and the international community’s intervention in the war and Kosovo’s governance process summarize the self-determination process. With the Kosovo people’s support for self-determination and socio-political developments, Kosovo’s separation process accelerated.
The Western world has opposed Crimea’s use of self-determination to secede from Ukraine and unite with Russia. The criticisms made have been of a political nature, similar to Crimea’s self-determination. Conjuncturally, these criticisms can be evaluated within the framework of the old parameters of the “New Cold War.” Therefore, not only Kosovo or Crimea, but also the self-determination of Donetsk and Luhansk cannot be considered separately from international politics. In the era of “post-colonial self-determination,” those claiming rights seek to alter and, consequently, redefine those rights by adding political elements. However, even in this period of debate and questioning, the four examples mentioned above still retain their controversial nature.
As a result, both the current state of the war and the involvement of US President Donald Trump in the process have once again brought international law to the forefront. Trump, who clearly stated that he could intervene militarily in Venezuela and Nigeria, in other words, that he would violate the prohibition on the use of force and the threat of force, also signed an executive order imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court due to the arrest warrant and related investigations concerning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Unlike his predecessor Barack Obama, Trump disregarded international law and withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. On the other hand, when Russia’s sovereignty over some of Ukraine’s territories is considered within the scope of Europe’s perception of threat from Russia, it is seen that not only international law but also international relations, primarily transatlantic relations, are being tested once again. If Russian sovereignty/borders in Donbass are accepted, the rhetoric of might makes right could be used again, and developments could occur that could set a precedent for similar border changes or annexation attempts, primarily by Israel.
The de facto recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk, a controversial provision in the peace plan, is not the only problematic aspect of these regions in terms of international law. In other words, the self-determination of Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk are controversial examples both in terms of international law and international politics. These examples differ from the right to self-determination, which is generally accepted in international law, as they have been realized in a manner contrary to that right.
