CRIMEA INTERVENTION OF RUSSIA IN THE CONTEXT OF UKRAINE-EU-NATO RELATIONSHIP

Yıl 2023, , 84 - 107, 30.06.2023

Aslı Büşra Kurakcı , Rumeysa Dursun

https://doi.org/10.46849/guiibd.1219221

Öz

There is noconsensus in international law regarding the definition of the interference or the scope of the legitimate interference. The definition of intervention is quite broad and has been the subject of extensive debate in scientific studiesin terms of the United Nations (UN) international law. Ukraine is located in a strategically important are a between the European Union (EU), Russia and Turkey's Black Sea Region. As a result of the east ward expansion strategy of the EU and NATO, Ukraine's desireto join the EU and NATO has been a factor causing tension for Russia. After the President of Ukraine Yanukovych announced that he would not participate in the Association negotiations with the EU in 2013, the demonstrations that started in the Independence Square in Kiev led to an internal crisis. With the intervention of Russia in Crimea, this internal crisis has reached an international dimension. In this context, the Ukraine crisis has shown that Russia will once again challenge the international community and international law as to the changes that may occur in its post-Cold War environment. From this point of view, the aim of this study is to examine the factors that generated Russia’s intervention in Crimea. In addition, it is to investigate the effectiveness of the interventions and their compliance with international law, taking into account the EU-NATO effect. Although Russia, with its intervention in Crimea, provided arguments to justify the reasons for the annexation of Crimea to Russia after the independence referendum, the absence of an effective solution in the current international legal system paved the way for Russia's intervention.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Intervention, EU-NATO, Russia, Ukraine, Crimea

UKRAYNA-AB-NATO İLİŞKİSİ BAĞLAMINDA RUSYA’NIN KIRIM MÜDAHALESİ

Öz

Müdahalenin tanımı veya meşru müdahalenin kapsamıyla ilgili uluslararası hukukta görüş birliği mevcut değildir. Müdahale tanımı oldukça geniştir ve Birleşmiş Milletler (BM) uluslararası hukukla ilgili bilimsel çalışmalarda kapsamlı tartışmaların konusu olmuştur. Ukrayna, Avrupa Birliği (AB), Rusya ve Türkiye’nin Karadeniz Bölgesi arasında stratejik açıdan oldukça önemli bir alanda yer almaktadır. AB ve NATO’nun doğuya doğru genişleme stratejisi sonucu Ukrayna’nın AB ve NATO’ya katılma arzusu Rusya için gerilime yol açan bir unsur olmuştur. Ukrayna devlet başkanı Yanukoviç’in 2013 yılında AB ile Ortaklık görüşmelerine katılmayacağını bildirmesi üzerine Kiev'de Bağımsızlık Meydanında başlayan gösteriler iç krize yol açmıştır. Rusya’nın Kırım’a müdahale etmesiyle bu iç kriz uluslararası bir boyuta ulaşmıştır. Bu bağlamda Ukrayna krizi, Rusya’nın uluslararası topluma ve uluslararası hukuka Soğuk Savaş sonrası çevresinde meydana gelebilecek değişikliklere yeniden meydan okuyacağını göstermiştir. Buradan hareketle çalışmada amaçlanan Rusya’nın Kırım’a müdahalesinin gerçekleşmesine yol açan unsurları incelemektir. Ayrıca, müdahalelerin etkinliğini, uluslararası hukuka uygunluğunu AB-NATO etkisini de göz önünde bulundurarak araştırmaktır. Rusya, Kırım’a müdahale etmesiyle Kırım’ın bağımsızlık referandumu sonrası Rusya’ya bağlanma gerekçelerini uluslararası toplum karşısında haklı çıkarmak için argümanlar sağlasa da mevcut uluslararası hukuk sistemi içerisinde etkin bir çözüm bulunmaması Rusya’nın müdahalesine zemin hazırlamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Müdahale, AB-NATO, Rusya, Ukrayna, Kırım

Kaynakça

• Allison, R. (2014). Russian ‘deniable’ Intervention in Ukraine: How and Why Russia Broket the Rules. International Affairs, 90/6, 1255-1297.
• Antonenko, O. & Giegerich, B. (2009). Rebooting NATO-Russia Relations. Survival, 51(2), 13-21.
• Bayraklı, E. (2014). Avrupa Birliği’nin Ukrayna Kriziyle İmtihanı. Seta Perspektif.
• Barry, M. P. (2014). The Loss of Crimea How Much Does Ukraine Lose, and How Much Does Russia Gain, a Computable General Equilibrium Model. Journal of Global Peace and Conflict, (21), 103-119.
• Bebler, A. (2015). Crimea and the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict. Romanian Journal of European Affairs, 15(1), 35-54.
• Becker, M. Cohen, M. S., Kushi, S., & McManus I. (2016). Reviving the Russian Empire: The Crime an Intervention through a Neoclassical Realist Lens. European Security, 25(1), 112-133.
• Bilkova, V. (2015). The Use of Force bythe Russian Federation in Crimea. ZaöRV 75, 27-50.
• Bukkvoll, T. (1997). Ukraine and NATO: The Politics of Soft Coopretaion. Security Dialouge, 28(3), 363-374.
• Burke-White, W. (2014). Crimea and the International Legal Order. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 56(4), 65-80.
• Cosgrove, J. (2020). The Russian Invasion of the Crimean Peninsula, 2014-2015. National Security Report.
• Constitutional Court of Ukraine. https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/44a280124.pdf
• Cross, S. (2015). NATO-Russia security challenges in the aftermath of Ukraine conflict: managing Black Sea security and beyond. South east European and Black Sea Studies, 15(2), 151-177.
• Hoyle, B. (2014). Exodus begins for the families fearing future under Russian yoke. The Sunday Times, Monday March 17, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/exodus-begins-for-the-families-fearing-future-under-russian-yoke-8fctzr5wxz3
• Forsberg, T. (2015). Graeme Herd, Russia and NATO: From Windows of Opportunities to Closed Doors. Journal of Contemporary Europen a Studies, 23(1), 41-57.
• Gafarlı, O. (2015). Avrasya Çıkmazı-Yeni Büyük Oyunu Kim Kazanacak. Ankara: Nobel Akademik.
• Gardiner, N., Spencer, J., Coffey, L., Loris, N. (2014). Beyond the Crimea Crisis: Comprehensive Next Steps in U.S.–Russian Relations. https://www.heritage.org/europe/report/beyond-the-crimea-crisis-comprehensive -next-steps-us-russian-relations
• Gölcü, A. & Nurlanova, A. (2022). Savaşın Söylemi, Söylemin Savaşı: Sputnik Haber Ajansının RusyaUkrayna Çatışması Haberlerinin Söylemi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 231-250.
• Güneş, H. (2014). Ukrayna Krizi: Euromeydan, Kırım Referandumu ve Doğu Ukrayna. Emek ve Toplum Araştırmaları Merkezi, 15-32.
• Graeme P. H. (2005). Russia and the “Orange Revolution”: Response, Rhetoric, Reality? Connections, 4(2), 15-28.
• Hancılar, Ö. (2011). Uluslararası Hukukta İnsani Müdahale. Çankaya University Journal of Law, 7(2), 97-124.
• Haukkala, H. (2015). From Cooperative to Contested Europe? The Conflict in Ukraaine as a Culmination of a Long-Term Crisis in EU-Russia Relations. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 25-40.
• Hilpold, P. (2015). Ukraine, Crimea and New International Law, Balancing International Law, with Arguments Drawn from History. Chainese Journal of International Law, 14(2), 237-270.
• Karasoy, H. A. (2022). Hibrit, Asimetrik ve Vekâlet Savaşları: 2022 Rusya Ukrayna Savaşını Üçlü Sacayağı Üzerinde Bir İnceleme. Medeniyet Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 44-56.
• Katchanovski, I. (2015). Crimea: People and Territory Before and After Annexation. Agnieszka Pikulicka-Wilczewska, Richard Skwa (Ed.) E-International Relations, (8)1, 80-89.
• Katchanovski, I. (2008). The Orange Evolution? The “Orange Revolution” and Political Changes in Ukraine. Post-Soviet Affairs, 24(4), 351-382.
• Kerem, S. (2018). Rusya-Ukrayna: İki Dost Nasıl Düşman Oldu. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-46391387
• Kirchner, S. (2014). Crimea’s Declaration of Independence and The Subsequent Annexation by Russia Under International Law. 18 Gonzaga Journal of International Law, (49), 41-65.
• Kuzio, T. (1998). Ukraine and NATO: The Evolving Strategic Partnership. Journal of Strategic Studies, 21(2), 1-30.
• Kuzio, T. (2012). Ukraine’s Relations with the West since the Orange Revolution. European Security, 21(3), 395-413.
• Kuzio, T. (2016). Ukraine between a Constrained EU and Assertive Russia. Journal of Common Market Studies, (3), 1-18.
• Lieven, A. (1995). Russian Opposition to NATO Expansion. The World Today, 51(10), 196-199.
• Marten, K. (2015). Putin’s Choices: Explaining Russian Foreign Policy and Intervention in Ukraine. The Washington Quarterly, 38(2), 189-204.
• Marples, D. & Duke, D. (1995). Ukraine, Russia, and The Question of Crimea. Nationalities Papers, 23(2), 261-289.
• Marxsen, C. (2014). The Crimea Crisis An International Law Perspective. ZaöRV, 74(2), 367-391.
• Marxsen, C. (2015). International Law in Crisis: Russia's Struggle for Recognition. German Year book of International Law Vol. 58, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law& International Law (MPIL) Research Paper No. 2016-05.
• Mizrokhi, E. (2009). Russian "Separatism" in Crimea and NATO: Ukranie's Big Hope, Russia's Grand Gamble. Chaire de recherchedu Canada sur lescon flits identitaires et le terroris meand for the Programme Paix et sécurité internationales, Institutqué bécoisdes hautesétudes internationales at Laval University, Quebec.
• Macfarlane N. & Menon A. (2014). The EU and Ukraineç Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 56(3), 95-101.
• Nitoiu, C. (2016). Towards conflict or cooperation? The Ukraine crisis and EU-Russia relations. South east Europe an and Black Sea Studies, 1-17.
• Nye, J. S. & Welch, D. A. (2021). Küresel Çatışmayı ve İşbirliğini Anlamak, (Çev. R. Akman), İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları,
• Pazarcı, H. (2004). Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri. 2(8), Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi.
• Aljazeera (2013). Putin’den Yanukoviç’e yardım eli. 18 Nisan 2022 http://www.aljazeera.com.tr/haber/putinden-yanukovice-yardim-eli
• The Moscow Times (2014). Putin Recognizes Crimea as a Sovereign and Independent State. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/03/18/putin-recognizes-crimea-as-a-sovereign-and-independent-state-a33064
• President of Russia (2014). Putin Address by the President of the Russian Federation.
• http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20603 adresinden alındı
• Rühle, M. (2015). NATO and the Ukraine Crisis. American Foreign Policy Interests, 37(2), 80-86.
• Sur, M. (2019). Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları. İstanbul: Beta.
• Taşdemir, F. & Özer, A. (2015). Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Kırım Sorunu: Kosova'nın Rövanşı mı?. Erciyes Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(1), 43-61.
• Wrdra, D. (2004). The Crimea Conundrum: The Tug of War Between Russia and Ukraine on the Questions of Autonomy and Self-Determination. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, (10), 111-130.
• White, S. & McAllister, I. (2009). Rethinkingthe ‘Orange Revolution. Jounal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 25(2), 227-254.
• Zon, H. (2005). Why Orange Revolution succeeded. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 6(3), 373-402.