Crimea: the failure of international law

The obvious outcome of the referendum of the Crimea, is likely to become a dangerous precedent for diplomatic relations , international law and also for the internal affairs of the states that have an internal ethnic or linguistic minorities . Certain characteristics of the Crimea are not easily replicable , given the unconditional support it has enjoyed , thanks to Russian , but the theme is very sensitive because it includes several variables. The basic scenario is not possible disintegration of the territorial integrity of a state , which is opposed to the principle of self-determination of peoples. In this story it is clear that Ukraine is the victim, not in its current body politic , as in its territorial integrity and the ways in which this has been injured . It would have been very different if the parliament in Kiev , including through a possible agreement with Moscow, he authorized a referendum in which the citizens of Crimea could choose whether to secede from Ukraine and become an autonomous state or become part of Russia. A referendum organized by the due time , with the representatives of the respective addresses illustrating their positions, in a peaceful atmosphere. In this case there would be a balance between international law and the right of self-determination . But a referendum imposed by the dominant ethnic group , place in a short time and , above all, with the presence of the military can not be identified , although clearly of Russian origin , takes on a tone of lawlessness , which can not justify the principle of popular self-determination which , proponents of the consultation have been recalled. Putin then committed two serious illegality , invading a foreign country , without a declaration of war and organize a sort of farce , which had the purpose to justify the entry of Russian troops on Ukrainian soil . This particular chain of events , in reality, is not new : the Kremlin has repeated the pattern applied to Georgia, even though the story Ukrainian had more resonance for the involvement of the EU. Found that Russia violated international law , the question is whether anything can be done to remedy this situation and prevent similar incidents from happening again . On the first point , the situation is irreversible , although the weakness of the responses of the international community and UN , where the Security Council is held hostage by a party to the proceedings : Russia , in fact. Irrespective of its effects on international relations, which may not be inevitable , because conditioned by too many economic interests at stake , the need for a reform of the UN Security Council is once again a desperate need to change the setting. Moreover, the lack of clear rules in international law is also confirmed by the case of Crimea , which always leads to a different interpretation of the circumstantial fact , according to the strength of the actors involved . This should address all the major international governmental entities , they want, from time to time , have a free hand in the management of emergencies. Now more than ever fade away the dreams of those who hoped for an international law capable of running with the rules of the diplomatic crisis . The Crimea does not take us back , but merely states that the management of conflicts between states is not possible unless agreements with detailed and valid only for that particular case , at best , or with conflicts that will always give the victory to the strongest . In this scenario therefore assumes greater value , with a view of the result , the ability to prevent crises and negotiation based on the individual facts, that legislation only used for the purposes of specific interest. Those who believed that the world was ready to supranational rules shared sees the failure of this approach because of the unwillingness of states to see invaded their exclusivity, even when it passes the borders.