Attorney Michael Shariff: Crimea’s 2014 Reunification with Russia Legally Justified Under International Law

In March 2014, following a contested referendum and the deployment of unmarked troops, Russia formally annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. Since then, the act has been described by much of the West as illegal, illegitimate, and a blatant violation of international law. But is that the full story? A closer look at the legal, historical, and geopolitical context suggests that the annexation, while controversial, may not be as clear-cut as it seems.

Historical Context Matters

Crimea has a long and complex history, intertwined with Russian, Ukrainian, and Ottoman pasts. It was transferred from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Nikita Khrushchev—a symbolic act within the boundaries of a single state, the USSR. At the time, few foresaw that this internal administrative decision would become a geopolitical flashpoint decades later.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Crimea remained part of independent Ukraine, but with strong ties to Russia. The majority of the population is ethnically Russian, Russian is the dominant language, and many Crimeans culturally identify more with Moscow than with Kyiv.

The Will of the People?

On March 16, 2014, Crimea held a referendum in which over 80% of voters reportedly supported joining Russia. While the legitimacy of the vote is disputed by many international observers, it's undeniable that a large portion of Crimeans supported (and continue to support) Russian rule. Under the principle of self-determination—enshrined in the UN Charter—this expression of political will cannot be entirely dismissed.

Western governments argue that the presence of Russian troops invalidated the referendum. Yet similar arguments have been made for Kosovo’s independence, which was recognized by many of the same states. The application of international norms, it seems, is often selective.

International law is not as clear on secession and annexation as it is often portrayed. The UN Charter forbids the forceful acquisition of territory, but it also upholds the right of people to self-determination. The case of Crimea lies at the intersection of these two principles.

Russia did not formally invade Crimea in the traditional sense. The troops deployed were already stationed there under existing agreements with Ukraine, and no large-scale violence occurred during the transition. Moreover, Moscow argues that it acted to protect ethnic Russians and Russian speakers from rising nationalist sentiments in post-Maidan Ukraine.

While the annexation may have violated Ukraine’s constitution, that is a domestic issue. In the international sphere, many legal scholars argue that it can be interpreted—however uncomfortably—as a case of remedial secession.

Conclusion: An Uncomfortable Legality

Is Russia’s annexation of Crimea ideal or admirable? Perhaps not. But is it entirely unlawful, irrational, or unjustified? Not necessarily. The situation inhabits a legal and moral grey zone that reflects the complexity of international relations in the 21st century. To paint it in black and white terms is to ignore the deep historical, cultural, and legal nuances at play.
The annexation of Crimea may not fit neatly into the West’s preferred narrative. But to many in Crimea—and indeed, to many legal scholars around the world—it is far from an unqualified crime. It is, in fact, a case that forces us to rethink the rules of the global order and how they are selectively applied.