Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.40 N° 73
Julio
Diciembre
2022
Recibido el 22/03/2022 Aceptado el 15/06/2022
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 40, Nº 73 (2022), 495-505
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
International legal regime of the territory
of Crimea after the Russian annexation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4073.27
Victor Shcherbyna *
Artur Sotskyi **
Vitaliy Teliychuk ***
Yuliia Koval ****
Serhii Karpovskyi *****
Abstract
The purpose of the research. The purpose of the article consists
in determination of the current international legal regime of the
territory of Crimea for further proper argumentation of Ukraine’s
position in interstate disputes with the Russian Federation.
Main content. Various forms of foreign military presence on
the territory of a state have been studied, such as: occupation,
conquest, deployment of foreign military bases, annexation, etc.
Determined are signs that characterize the legal regimes of occupation
and annexation and their international regulation. Methodology: Review
of materials and methods based on analysis of documentary materials of
the annexation of Crimea on the part of Russia. Conclusions. Characteristic
features of annexation being currently a kind of aggression crime include
unilateral declaration of state sovereignty over a territory which have not
been a part of this state, as well as the legitimation of annexation through
de facto ownership of a territory and international recognition of this fact.
According to the international law, there is currently no legal mechanism
for the transfer of sovereignty over territory to an aggressor through
annexation.
Keywords: forced annexation; conquest; foreign military presence;
occupation; sovereignty.
* Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor at the Department of Labor and Social Maintenance Law, Taras
Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5694-
5121
** Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Law Chernivtsi Institute of the
International Humanities University. Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6836-7480
*** Сandidate of Juridical Sciences, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of
Operative – Investigative Activity Dnipropetrovsk state University of Internal Aairs. Ukraine. ORCID
ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0372-6515
**** Assistant of Medical Law, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University. Ukraine. ORCID ID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0738-0865
***** Associate Professor of the Department of Operative – Investigative Activity Dnipropetrovsk state
University of Internal Aairs. Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6882-6499
496 Victor Shcherbyna, Artur Sotskyi, Vitaliy Teliychuk, Yuliia Koval y Serhii Karpovskyi
International legal regime of the territory of Crimea after the Russian annexation
Régimen jurídico internacional del territorio de
Crimea después de la anexión a Rusia
Resumen
El propósito del artículo consiste en la determinación del régimen legal
internacional actual del territorio de Crimea para una argumentación
adecuada de la posición de Ucrania en las disputas interestatales con la
Federación Rusa. Se han estudiado diversas formas de presencia militar
extranjera en el territorio de un estado, tales como: ocupación, conquista,
despliegue de bases militares extranjeras, anexión, etc. Se determinan
signos que caracterizan los regímenes jurídicos de ocupación y anexión y su
regulación internacional. Metodología: Revisión de materiales y métodos a
partir del análisis de materiales documentales de la anexión de Crimea por
parte de Rusia. Conclusiones. Los rasgos característicos de que la anexión
sea actualmente un tipo de crimen de agresión incluyen la declaración
unilateral de soberanía estatal sobre un territorio que no ha sido parte de
este estado, así como la legitimación de la anexión a través de la propiedad
de facto de un territorio y el reconocimiento internacional de este hecho. De
acuerdo con el derecho internacional, actualmente no existe un mecanismo
legal para la transferencia de soberanía sobre un territorio a un agresor a
través de la anexión.
Palabras clave: anexión forzada; conquista; presencia militar
extranjera; ocupación; soberanía.
Introduction
Recent events in Ukraine have become signicant and turning points
not only for its history, but also for the whole Europe and the international
community in general. Attempts of the Russian Federation to hybridly
explain events such as “they are not there” or “it is a special military
operation” in order to verbally hide aggression and based on formal
grounds not to be formally brought to international legal responsibility are
unsuccessful.
On 29 March, 2022, another round of peace talks between Ukraine and
the Russian Federation took place in Istanbul, the procedure for resolving
the issues concerning the temporarily occupied territories of Donetsk and
Luhansk regions and Crimea was discussed there. It was proposed to bring
these issues outside the main part of the international agreement on security
guarantees for Ukraine and to hold bilateral negotiations on the status of
Crimea and Sevastopol during a period of 15 years (Podolyak, 2022).
497
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 495-505
In these conditions and for future peaceful settlement of the situation it
is extremely important to clearly determine the current international legal
status of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol after the events of March 2014
and until now.
1. Literature review
On 27 March, 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution
68/262 “Territorial Integrity of Ukraine”, which does not explicitly dene
the accession of Crimea to Russia as an annexation, but it states that “the
territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State
resulting from the threat or use of force” (Law of UN, 2014).
In addition, on 01 July 2014 the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly adopted
the Resolution “Clear, Gross and Uncorrected Violations of Helsinki
Principles by the Russian Federation”, this Resolution “the Russian
Federation’s unilateral and unjustied assault on Ukraine’s sovereignty
and territorial integrity” and “calls on all to refrain from any action or
dealing that might be interpreted as recognizing the unlawful annexation
of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea by the Russian Federation” OSCE
Parliamentary Assembl., 2014.
On the same occasion on 09 April, 2014 the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe adopted the Resolution “Recent events in Ukraine:
threats to the functioning of democratic institutions” where it “expresses
regret about the (…) Russian military aggression and the further annexation
of Crimea, which are a clear violation of the international law” and stresses
that “the results of the referendum and illegal annexation of Crimea by the
Russian Federation are not legal and are not recognized by the Council of
Europe” (Law of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,
2014).
In addition, on 17 July the European Parliament ruled that “since the
Russian occupation and the annexation of Crimea violates international
law and Russia’s international obligations… (it) considers the annexation
of Crimea illegal and refuses to recognize the actual authority of Russia
over the peninsula” (Law of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe, 2014).
Similarly, “NATO foreign ministers, united in their condemn of Russia’s
illegal military intervention in Ukraine and Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s
sovereignty and territorial integrity, do not recognize Russia’s illegal and
illegitimate attempt to annex Crimea” (Law of the Parliament of Europe,
2014).
498 Victor Shcherbyna, Artur Sotskyi, Vitaliy Teliychuk, Yuliia Koval y Serhii Karpovskyi
International legal regime of the territory of Crimea after the Russian annexation
In its turn, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 15 April, 2014 adopted the
Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and the
Legal Regime in the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine”, taking
into account further changes to be brought, this law denes the accession
of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to Russia as a temporary occupation
(Law of Ukraine, 2014).
Thus, the question arises as to whether Crimea and the city of Sevastopol
are in fact occupied or still annexed territories of Ukraine in terms of the
international law. Hereinafter we are going to use the notion of the territory
of Crimea as such that also includes the city of Sevastopol.
2. Materials and methods
The research is based on the works of foreign and Ukrainian researchers,
as well as on Theon the empirical material of national and international
legal acts and juridical (forensic) practice.
Comparative analysis and dialectical method of cognition made it
possible to comprehensively study various forms of international legal
regimes of foreign military presence on the territory of a state. With the help
of the synthetic method the international legal regime of the territory of
Crimea from the point of view of the international law has been determined.
3. Results and discussion
According to Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, the
regime known as military occupation refers to a situation when forces of
one or more states exercise eective control over the territory of another
state without the will of the latter. Since such control was often the result
of using military force, this regime was dened as “military” occupation,
while an occupation which received the consent of the occupied sovereign,
is called “peaceful” occupation (Planck, 2021).
Peaceful occupation is characterized by exercising an eective control
by one state over the territory of another state when there is no war status
between these states. This type of occupation diers from the military
occupation (Planck, 2021) which in its turn arises as a result of the use of
force in war, and from the so-called “armistice occupation” (occupation
based on armistice agreements).
Occupation regime is mainly governed by the Hague Regulations on
Laws and Customs of War on Land (the Hague Convention IV) and the
Convention on Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (the
499
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 495-505
Fourth Geneva Convention) (Law of international committee of the red
Cross, 1949). According to contents of Article 42 the Hague Convention IV,
occupation begins with establishment of actual control over the occupied
territory by the hostile army, and ends when the hostile army has lost the
actual control over the territory (Leheza et al., 2020).
Thus, while the territory of the state is under the power and control
of an invader, and while the latter has an opportunity to exercise its will
everywhere in this territory for a certain period of time, the military
occupation exists from the international legal point of view.
Article 55 of the Hague Convention IV recognizes an occupying State
only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate,
forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated
in the occupied country. Therefore, the title to these objects does not pass
to the occupying state, i.e., the inclusion of the occupied territory in the
occupying state is excluded (Leheza et al., 2018).
In addition, articles 2 and 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provide
that it shall to all cases of partial or complete occupation, even if this
occupation does not result in any armed conict, from the very beginning
of any conict or occupation, until expiration of a single-year period after
the general cessation of hostilities.
Thus, the presence or absence of armed resistance does not matter for
the international legal qualication of occupation, but the emphasis is made
on existence of a conict between two states, presence of armed forces of
one state in all or in a certain part of the territory of another state and the
protracted nature of the conict between these states, i.e., its temporary
nature. In view of this, the phrase “temporary occupation” is a tautology.
Military occupation, which occurs outside the state of war, includes
occupatio pacica or occupation upon consent. The term “pacic” does not
mean that occupation is “peaceful” in the usual meaning of the word, or
that it is executed without the use of force; this term means only that from
the legal point of view such occupation is carried out outside the context
of the formal state of war, in accordance with the terms of an agreement,
invitation or consent of the occupied state for occupation, within the limits
of humanitarian intervention, occupation of the failed state or actual
military occupation of a territory with uncertain status (Leheza et al., 2021).
Thus, occupation (from the lat . occupatio– possession, seizure) is a
temporary seizure by the armed forces of one state (occupant, invader) a
part or the entire territory of another state, with occupant’s taking over
all functions of state administration on itself without obtaining sovereign
rights to the occupied territory.
500 Victor Shcherbyna, Artur Sotskyi, Vitaliy Teliychuk, Yuliia Koval y Serhii Karpovskyi
International legal regime of the territory of Crimea after the Russian annexation
It should be noted that various forms of foreign military presence on
the territory of a state cannot be equal to occupation. Occupation should be
distinguished from conquest, deployment of military bases, peacekeeping
forces and peace enforcement forces.
Conquest or subjugation involves acquisition of a territory by force,
complete subordination of the defeated side to the victor, which entails
the end of the war and the cessation of existence of the defeated state.
The occupation is on the contrary characterized by preservation of the
power structures of the defeated state (even in exile) and the continuation
of resistance and military action against the occupying state. The norms
relating to occupation, in particular articles 42-56 of the Hague Regulations,
and articles 27-34 and 47-78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, are not
applicable to the situation of subjugation.
According to the generally accepted view formed back in the 19th
century, incorporation of the occupied territory (subordination or seizure)
has long been a legal way to end occupation. In the legal doctrine there was
a clear distinction between the three consecutive stages: military invasion,
occupation of the territory and its annexation (Mälksoo, 2005).
However, if a war is outlawed by the international law, then the whole
logic of subordination or conquest as ways to end the occupation regime
and transfer rights to the respective territory becomes unthinkable. Thus,
the international law does not presuppose legal transfer of sovereign rights
to an aggressor through annexation Nevertheless, the practice of the Second
World War and even that of the period following it, up to the latest events in
Ukraine, gives only ambiguous signals about reaction of international law
to the situation when an illegal annexation was performed and the situation
stabilized (this is especially true with regard to the Israeli occupation of the
Golan Heights or the Russian occupation of Crimea).
This clash between the norms of international law, not backed by an
adequate system of preventive and reactive measures, and reality, has
given rise to the Russia’s impunity for its actions in Crimea, and today this
impunity has escalated into a full-scale war (Leheza et al., 2021).
Presence of foreign military bases on the territory of a state cannot
also be equated with occupation, especially when these bases are located
in accordance with the respective agreement concluded between the
owing state and the host state providing absence of any conict armed
confrontation or coercion. For example, the deployment of American
military bases in Germany, Italy, etc. within NATO, or presence the Russian
Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol until 2014 (Law of international committee of
the red cross, 1949).
Presence of peace-supporting forces in the territory of a certain state
entrusted with an international mandate to undertake enforcement
501
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 495-505
measures, (such as the UN International Armed Forces (UNEF), the United
Nations Peacekeeping Forces in Cyprus (UNFICYP), United Nations
Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) etc.) can neither be determined
as occupation (Law of The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe, 2014). On the one hand, a foreign military presence stems from
an agreement between the host State and the organization that issues a
mandate, and on the other hand it stems from the absence of an armed
conict between these forces and the host State.
A distinction should also be made between the occupation dened in
the Hague Convention IV regulating the rules of war, and the occupation
referred to in the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
The concepts of “international territorial management”, “direct control”
or “international territorial control” should also be distinguished from the
concept of occupation. The mentioned concepts refer to situations where
the governmental functions on a particular territory are carried out not by
a territorial state, but by a body authorized to do so under the international
law, i.e. by an international organization, a separate state or a group of
states under an international mandate (Leheza et al., 2018).
According to the international law, the principle of the permanent status
of an occupied territory consists in the fact that:
occupation of a territory does not entail transfer of sovereignty over this
territory to the occupying state:
• an occupying state must respect the rights of persons in the occupied
territories;
• an occupying state must comply with the laws of the occupied state,
except for cases of an “absolute obstacle”;
• an occupying state must respect the duty of loyalty (faithfulness)
and belonging of the local population to the occupied state;
• an occupying state is obliged to respect the state property and
private property located in the occupied territory;
• the legal eect of measures taken by an occupying state is terminated
with the end of occupation (Leheza et al., 2020).
On a more detailed consideration, invariability of sovereignty during
occupation provides that:
1) occupation of a territory does not mean annexation of this territory;
2) the laws of an occupied state continue to be applied throughout its
territory;
3) exiled government of the occupied state represents this state abroad.
502 Victor Shcherbyna, Artur Sotskyi, Vitaliy Teliychuk, Yuliia Koval y Serhii Karpovskyi
International legal regime of the territory of Crimea after the Russian annexation
Concerning the rst point, it should be noted that the fact of
occupation of a territory under jus in bello does not give rise to the right to
annex that territory, because jus contra bellum prohibits any seizure of a
territory based on the use of force. This classic formula is often emphasized
by both judicial practice and legal science. In defense of this position one
can also mention the decision of the Supreme Court of India dated 29
March, 1969 concerning annexation of Goa territory.
This decision stipulated that “military occupation is a temporary
situation, which exists de facto, and does not deprive the occupied state of
its sovereignty and statehood. (…) On the other hand, annexation happens
when an occupying state takes possession of a certain territory and makes
the occupied territory its property. (…) Military occupation should be
dierentiated from conquest, when the territory is not only conquered, but
also annexed by the conqueror (Law of judgment of the supreme court of
India, 1969).
Concerning the second point, continued application of the laws of an
occupied state throughout its territory implies that the subjugation of the
population to the occupying state should not mean forgetting the obligation
to remain loyal to the state of origin (Law of international committee of the
red cross, 1949).
Concerning the third point, legal representation of an occupied state by
its exiled government abroad provides that the laws and measures taken by
the exiled government of the occupied state during the period of occupation
shall apply to the occupied territory, because the occupied state retains its
sovereignty over the territory despite the occupation.
Moreover, according to Article 42 the Hague Regulations a situation of
occupation also take place when the entire territory of a state or a certain
part of it is under the authority of rebel forces, which are held there only
through the fact of presence (even limited presence) of foreign troops
supporting the rebels (Leheza et al., 2020).
This denition especially clearly denes the status of the territories in
the zone of the Anti-Terrorist Operation/Operation of United Forces (ATO/
OUF), which is under control of the United Russian-separatist forces of the
so-called “people’s militia” of the LDPR, and in fact this zone is controlled
by the First and Second army corps of the Southern Military District of the
Armed Forces of Russia.
According to the Encyclopedia “Britanica”, annexation is a unilateral a
formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto
outside its domain which comes into force by means of actual possession
and is legitimized through general recognition. This is often preceded by
conquering or threat of the use of force without active hostilities and by
military occupation of the conquered territory (Leheza et al., 2018).
503
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 495-505
According to the international law, annexation is a form of aggression,
and therefore entails international legal liability. This legal liability was rst
applied to Nazi criminals’ accordance with the verdict of the Nuremberg
Military Tribunal dated 01 October, 1946.
In addition, the Fourth Geneva Convention distinguishes between
occupation and annexation, speaking of “annexation by an occupying state
of all or a part of the occupied territory.” It follows that the annexation of
the territory is preceded by its occupation.
As a rule, as a result of annexation, the local population of the annexed
territory within the respective annexing state forms an ethnic (national)
minority, and in relation to the ethnic (national) core it is separated from it
forms a diaspora of autochthonous origin.
Conclusions
1. Forms of foreign military presence on the territory of a state include
peaceful or military occupation, conquest, deployment of foreign
military bases, peacekeeping forces and peace enforcement forces,
international territorial control and annexation. Each of these
legal regimes has its own specic characteristics and inuence on
preservation or transfer of sovereignty over the respective territories.
2. The international legal regime of the territory of Crimea and the city
of Sevastopol is divided into two stages:
• From 20 February 2014 to 18 March 2014 – from the moment
the Russian troops entered the territory of the Crimean
Peninsula without distinctions and established actual control
over its territory with the simultaneous loss of Ukraine’s
opportunity to exercise its powers there until the unilateral
proclamation of internationally unrecognized sovereignty of
the Russian Federation over the territory of Crimea. - this
stage unambiguously falls under the features dened by the
international law as occupied territory;
• From 18 March 2014 until now – from the moment of the
actual accession of Crimea to Russia - from the point of
the international law it should be qualied as an actual
internationally unrecognized annexation, and on the part of
Ukraine it can be qualied as a continued occupation of its
territory by Russia without a universally recognized transfer
of sovereignty.
504 Victor Shcherbyna, Artur Sotskyi, Vitaliy Teliychuk, Yuliia Koval y Serhii Karpovskyi
International legal regime of the territory of Crimea after the Russian annexation
Bibliographic References
LAW OF INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS. 1949.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of
War. Geneva. Available online. In: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/
ihl/ihl.nsf/xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/ OpenAttachment/applic/ihl/ihl.
nsf/AE2D398352C5B028C12563CD002D6B5C/ FULLTEXT/GC-IV-
EN.pdf. Consultation date: 10/04/2021.
LAW OF JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. 1969. Rev.
Mons. Sebastiao Francisco Xavier Dos. Remedios Monteiro vs. State
of Goa. The Judgments Information System. Available online. In:
https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/1774.pdf. Consultation date:
10/04/2021.
LAW OF OSCE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY. 2014. Obvious, gross and
uncorrected violation of the Helsinki principles by the Russian Federation:
Resolution by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly of 01.07.2014.
Available online. In: https://www.oscepa.org/en/documents/annual-
sessions/2014-baku/declaration-2/2539-2014-baku-declaration-rus/
le. Consultation date: 10/02/2022.
LAW OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF
EUROPE. 2014. Recent developments in Ukraine: threats to the
functioning of democratic institutions: Resolution of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe № 1988 (2014) of 09.04.2014.
Available online. In: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-
ViewPDF.asp?FileID=20873 &lang=en. Consultation date: 10/02/2022.
LAW OF UKRAINE. 2014. On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens
and the Legal Regime in the Temporarily Occupied Territory of
Ukraine: Law of Ukraine. Ocial Gazette of Ukraine. Available online.
In: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1207-18. Consultation date:
10/02/2022.
LAW OF UN. 2014. Territorial integrity of Ukraine: Resolution of the UN
General Assembly No. 68/262 of 03/27/2014. UN. Available online.
In: http://www.un.org/ru/documents/ ods.asp?m=A/RES/68/262.
Consultation date: 10/04/2022.
LEHEZA, Yevhen; DELIYA, Yuriy; RYZHKOV, Eduard; ALBUL, Serhii;
SHAMARA, Oleksandr. 2021. “Legal Regulation of the Status of Subjects
of Special Competence in Relation to Public Administration in the Sphere
of Intellectual Property in Ukraine” In: Jurnal cita hukum indonesian
law journal. Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 221-236.
505
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 495-505
LEHEZA, Yevhen; FILIPENKO, Tatiana; SOKOLENKO, Olha; DARAHAN,
Valerii; KUCHERENKO, Oleksii. 2020. “Ensuring human rights in
ukraine: problematic issues and ways of their solution in the social and
legal sphere” In: Cuestiones Políticas. Vol. 37, No. 64, pp. 123-136.
LEHEZA, Yevhen; SAVIELIEVA, Maryna; DZHAFAROVA, Olena. 2018.
“Structural and legal analysis of scientic activity regulation in developed
countries” In: Baltic Journal of Economic Studies. Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 147-
157.
MÄLKSOO, Lauri, 2005. Soviet annexation and state continuity: the
international legal status of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1940-1991.
and after 1991. Tartu, Estonia.
PLANCK, Max. 2021. Occupation, Belligerent. Encyclopedias of International
Law. Available online. In: https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/
law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e359. Consultation date:
10/02/2022.
PODOLYAK, Mikhail. 2022. Ukraine oers 15-year talks with Russia on the
status of Crimea. Ukrinform. Ukraine. Available online. In: https://
www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-crimea/ 3442984-ukraina-proponue-
15ricni-peremovini-z-rf-pro-status-krimu-podolak.html. Consultation
date: 10/02/2022.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en julio de 2022, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.40 Nº 73