The Russian Federation has claimed that its unilateral intervention in Crimea represents a case for Responsibility to Protect. This study investigates how the international community reacts to and determines a case of Responsibility to Protect. Three criteria to justify use of Responsibility to Protect are created from an analysis of international deliberations in previous interventions in Côte d'Ivoire (2010), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011). The Russian Federation involvement in Kosovo is analyzed in order to better understand its stance regarding intervention in Crimea. Classification as Responsibility to Protect requires (1) the case must have confirmed human rights violations; (2) the state must demonstrate that the human rights violations are more important than the state's sovereignty; and, (3) the state must use the multilateral system in the United Nations Security Council. The Russian Federation's intervention in Crimea constitutes a case for Responsibility to Protect to a minimal extent as their case did not have confirmed human rights violations and did not intervene multilaterally through the United Nations Security Council. / Master of Arts / The Russian Federation has claimed that its unilateral intervention in Crimea represents a case for Responsibility to Protect. The study investigates how the international community reacts to and determines a case of Responsibility to protect. By analyzing the humanitarian intervention of Kosovo and the prior Responsibility to Protect cases of Côte d'Ivoire (2010), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011), three criteria are established to determine if use of Responsibility to Protect is appropriate. The case of Kosovo is analyzed since the Russian Federation used this to further justify its intervention in Crimea. Classification as Responsibility to Protect requires the following: (1) the case must have confirmed human rights violations; (2) the state must demonstrate that the human rights violations are more important than the state's right to rule over its own population; and, (3) the state must use the multilateral system in the United Nations Security Council. The Russian Federation's intervention in Crimea constitutes a case for Responsibility to Protect to a minimal extent only since its case did not have confirmed human rights violations and did not intervene multilaterally through the United Nations Security Council.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Mainz, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [405]-442) and indexes.

LL.M. (International Law) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

The prohibition of the threat or use of force is part of the structural principles of contemporary international law. As a corollary to this norm, no state may violate the territorial integrity of the other one. However, one of the most recent issues that has sparked intense debate has been the fact that the Russian Federation annexed Crimea in March 2014. In this context, the present article examines how Russia’s action is contrary to article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter, despite the arguments made by its authorities. It also evaluates if this situation creates an obligation of non- recognition for other members of the international community. Finally, we will discuss the potential impact of this event on the future development of international law relating to international peace and security. / La prohibición de la amenaza y uso de la fuerza pertenece al dominio de los principios estructurales del derecho internacional contemporáneo. Como corolario de esta norma, ningún Estado puede vulnerar la integridad territorial de otro. Sin embargo, uno de los problemas más recientes y que ha suscitado un intenso debate ha sido el hecho de que la Federación Rusa haya anexado Crimea en marzo de 2014. En este contexto y pese a los argumentos vertidos por sus autoridades, el presente artículo examina cómo es que la actuación rusa es una manifestación contraria al artículo 2, párrafo 4 de la Carta de Naciones Unidas. Se evalúa también si de esta situación se deriva una obligación de no reconocimiento para los otros miembros de la comunidad internacional. Por último, se verá cuál es el impacto que tiene este evento para el desarrollo futuro del derecho internacional en materia de paz y seguridad internacionales.

Изменение геополитической ситуации Крыма в марте 2014 года требует от органов власти формирования бренда указанной территории и правильное позиционирование бренда. Работа посвящена анализу проблем позиционирования бренда Крым в молодежной аудитории, как наиболее перспективной целевой аудитории, которая может составить основу человеческого капитала, необходимого для развития экономики Крыма в ближайшее время. В работе проведено исследование, направленное на определение актуального образа Крыма в сознании молодежи, проведен анализ текущего информационно-коммуникационного позиционирования бренда Крым органами власти и сравнительный анализ позиционирования бренда Крым органами власти и существующих представлений молодежи о Крыме. На основе полученных результатов разработана концепция позиционирования бренда Крым в молодежной аудитории, направленная на изменение отношения молодежи к Крыму, с учетом выявленных проблем позиционирования. / The change in the geopolitical situation of Crimea in March 2014 requires the authorities to form a brand of the specified territory and correctly position the brand. The work is devoted to the analysis of the problems of positioning the Crimea brand in a youth audience, as the most promising target audience, which can form the basis of human capital necessary for the development of the Crimean economy in the near future. The study conducted a study aimed at determining the current image of Crimea in the minds of young people, conducted an analysis of the current information and communication positioning of the Crimea brand by the authorities and a comparative analysis of the Crimea brand positioning by the authorities and existing youth perceptions of Crimea. Based on the results, a concept was developed for positioning the Crimea brand in a youth audience, aimed at changing the attitude of young people to Crimea, taking into account the identified positioning problems.

This research presents a comparative case study between the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the United State’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. It specifically examines how the two interventions were framed by the political executives. Frame theory and a qualitative content analysis served as theoretical­ and methodological benchmarks to assess selected speeches and public statements delivered by president George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, in order to detect similar motives and justification patterns for the armed occupations. Four distinct war frames emerged from the text material: prevention, common good, state liability and imposed war. The results demonstrate that state leaders are prone to strategically communicate their military ambitions and legitimize their policy agendas through corresponding framing processes.

Early in the year 2014 Russia conducted an irregular warfare campaign in the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, in a surprisingly swift operation towards an Ukrainian loss . The warfare strategy focus of this thesis is the irregular aspect of the conflict. The conflict was discussed by NATO in a debate earlier this year. Conclusions stated that both NATO and the EU should enhance their defence and resilience against the irregular aspect of warfare, in order to repel and deter such threats in the future. Academics have different arguments about whether the Russian success was achieved using enemy centric or population centric irregular warfare. The aim of this study is to examine Russia´s annexation of Crimea based on theories of irregular warfare. By adding this research based on the conflict in Crimea, other studies based on the case may increase their scientific validity and reliability. The result shows that during the conflict, Russia used population centric irregular warfare, in parallel with a few aspects of enemy centric warfare. Therefore the irregular warfare conducted by Russia could be explained using both of the stated theories.

This thesis explores the autonomy of the Crimean region in Ukraine in terms of its impact on Ukraine&rsquo / s relations with Russia in the post-Soviet era. Thesis analyzes also the impact of the relations between Ukraine and Russia on the autonomy of the Crimean region. Contrary to the views that consider the Crimean autonomy as a product of the ethno-territorial relations between the Crimea which is populated by mainly ethnic Russians and Kiev, thesis argues that the interstate relations between Ukraine and Russia have played a crucial role in the evolution of the autonomy of the Crimean region within Ukraine. Thesis is composed of six chapters. Following the introductory First Chapter, the Second Chapter examines the origins of the Crimean autonomy. The Third Chapter examines the Crimean Autonomous Region during the post-Soviet period until the signing of the Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and Russia in 1997. The Fourth Chapter explores the period between 1997 and 2004. The Fifth Chapter analyses the period in the aftermath of the Orange revolution in 2004. The Last Chapter is the Conclusion.

The aim of this thesis is to analyze the current situation of the Crimean Karaites. This community is one of the smallest groups with a population of 800 in the Crimean Peninsula and 2,000 in total all around the world. However, they are trying to resist assimilation via launching a cultural revival project. This thesis studies the cultural loss among the Crimean Karaites and analyzes the factors leading to assimilation. It is argued that despite their efforts of cultural revival, Crimean Karaites constitute a disappearing community.

The aim of this thesis is to define factors that are influential in the ethnic identification process of Crimean Tatars, Russians and Ukrainians in Crimea. To better understand the current ethnic situation in Crimea, Soviet nationality policy as well as Soviet ethnos theory are reviewed. The divergence of the definitions in Soviet and Western traditions is shown. Crucial historical events that took place in Crimea are examined from the viewpoints of Russian, Ukrainian, Crimean Tatar, Soviet and Western historiographies. The influence of the historical myths on shaping ethnic boundaries of these ethnic groups in Crimea is shown. Main factors such as the cultural, political, economic, and global ones which are shaping the ethnic self-consciousness of Crimean Tatars, Russians and Ukrainians in Crimea are studied. Therefore the thesis helps us to understand the meaning of being a Russian, an Ukrainian and a Crimean Tatar in Crimea.