Lessons from the (un)rule of law in Crimea

Post-annexation Crimea represents an area of limited statehood which is also an area of contested sovereignty: while Ukraine’s statehood is not so much ‘limited’ as it is absent, the ‘alternative governor’ is another State, namely Russia, meaning that statehood as such is abundant. This chapter examines the governance gaps that ensue and the rule of law dilemmas that this case poses at the international and domestic levels. The analysis reveals that Russia has violated a plethora of international law principles and provisions, its bilateral and multilateral commitments to Ukraine, Ukraine’s domestic legislation and its very own domestic law. Under conditions of contested sovereignty (as in the case of Crimea), the application of two legal regimes to a territory - one de jure (Ukraine) and one de facto (Russia) - have created a reality that does not satisfy the rule of law threshold in either of the two domestic legal orders and poses significant challenges to the international rule of law