The secession of Crimea from Ukraine: an international law perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The secession of the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014 was one of the most talked-about issues by the media, politicians, and decision-makers. The secession worsened relations between the West and Russia thereby, threatening international peace and security. This paper looks at the secession of Crimea from Ukraine from an international law perspective. The goal of the paper is to examine whether Crimea’s secession from Ukraine was legal or illegal under international law. This paper argues that the secession of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and its subsequent incorporation into Russia is illegal under international law because Russia intervened in Crimea. On the one hand, the findings of this paper support my central thesis/ argument. On the other hand, the findings of this study revealed that proponents of Crimea’s secession from Ukraine like Russia argue that the secession of Crimea is legal under international law because of international laws on self –determination and because Crimea’s secession from Ukraine is similar to Kosovo’s secession from Serbia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".