Conflict in Crimea: War Over Ukraine's Sovereignty - Research Paper

Introduction

In the last four decades, there has been an increased rate of armed violence, which has been accompanied by the disintegration of several states in the Mediterranean. The war has led to the creation of internationally recognized rules, and unrecognized states and other states have been left frozen with conflict. The latest battle is the russia- Ukraine conflict over Crimea. Most international conflict still believes that Crimea belongs to Ukraine amid its annexation by russia. The continuous secession and armed hostilities have left the western side of Europe to be frozen in convict.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Crimea state for a long time has been under the rule of the Greeks, Bulgers, and Scythians, Romans, Genoa, Goths, Huns, and many more rulers. In 1441 Crimean taters established an independent Crimea Khanate after the destruction of the golden Hoed by Tamerlane. The Crimean Khanate encompasses most of the Peninsula along with the territory of today’s Southern Ukraine and some parts of southern russia. The Ottoman’s later forced the empire to become an ottoman dependency. Through this example, I can conclude that Crimea has been an independent state for almost four decades.

Two leaders are currently in the new conflict of Crimea, the Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko and russian Puttin. They represent Slavic nations; these two presidents are now on a dispute over the peninsular bearing Krim or Krym's name, which is related to Slavic language.

In the 18th Century, during the first and second world wars, russia won the battle, and this made Crimea become its colony. The first of these wars broke in 1768, caused by russian interference with Poland's internal affairs and russian troops' presence that supported the newly elected Polish president. russia was urged to withdraw its forces from a foreign land, but it refuses. This, therefore, forced the ottoman to start nation and naval warfare. When this fight erupted, the Khan of Crimea Sahim Giray invaded southern russian and won, thus returning to Crimea. In the year 1974, after another defeat, the Ottoman Empire recognized Crimea as an independent state.

In 1783 Crimea was annexed by russia, and Sahim Giray fled Crimea in 1787 and was late executed by Ottoman for Treason. This is when the russian conquers gave Crimea a new name (Taurida Government).

There have been two revolutions since the collapse of the russian Empire; it has led to numerous changes of names for the Peninsula. The russian government launched a campaign to sensitize the importance of changing the name of those two cites. The name's evolution would symbolize the new national policy and a friendly gesture towards Kemal Artutu’s turkey. The previous official name derived from the Greek was replaced with a Turkic name Krym.

On October 1921, the Criminal was broadcasted to be a unit of SFSR. The new name status was identified with the nearness of a couple of new russian minorities defined with the Crimean Tatars. In 1945 after the extreme purifying of national minorities, Crimea was stripped prewar Autonomous status, and it turned into the familiar territory of russian SFSR. In 1922 Crimea was joined into the Soviet Union and stayed with n the USSR until it disintegrated in 1991. Another status change for Crimea occurred during the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1990 - 1991. After the Ukrainian choice in 1991, Crimean status was updated again to the state of a self-sufficient republic however with Ukraine. On February 26, 1992, the incomparable soviet of the Crimean ASSR without speaking with the Ukrainian power changed the official name of the land to the Republic of Crimea. May 5, 1992, Crimean Parliament declared Crimean's freedom and asked its first constitution, which was later revised, and a sentence included creation Crimean become some portion of Ukraine.

Negotiation and Adjudication as a Means of Dispute Resolution

Negotiation as an Admissibility Requirement

Negotiation is communication that is meant to attain a mutual decision between states without involving a third party. They are necessary means to settle disputes and are directed to achieve a consensual solution to a conflict. The success of negotiation between the states depends on their goodwill and readiness. To supplement this readiness, all parties should settle their international disputes peacefully and carefully to avoid endanger global security. Negotiation can be divided into phases. The pre-negotiation stage deals with identifying parties, detecting mutual desires, and choosing a means of communication. The conceptualization phase is where the positions of each of the parties and subjects for negotiation are identified. In the bargaining phase, both parties outline their terms of consultation, which will result in a resolution. The final step is the dispute resolution phase. Treaties often use negotiation as the primary means of resolving disputes. For example, in Chapter 1, Article 27 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, conflicts between states as to the application of the convention should be resolved through negotiation. If that fails, the dispute may be submitted to the judicial council or arbitration.

If the states are unable to resolve, the judicial council or arbitration may take control of the dispute, which is called adjudication. Adjudication generally means resolving conflict through an authorized third party. The most common way is through the court. States may agree to forward their disputes to a judicial council, such as the International court of justice. Some questions may arise while relating negotiation to adjudication. For example,' are the states obliged to negotiate a resolution before one country decides to submit the dispute to the judicial council?' The fact is, no rule in international law states the exhaustion of negotiations has a precondition for the debate to be submitted to the court. However, should there be a precondition, it should be incorporated in treaties compromisers’ clauses. Also, such a condition may be written in an agreement and signed with only the right to submit the dispute to court if negotiations fail. While the court's function is to resolve conflicts by applying international law, its fundamental aim is to settle disputes peacefully. Hence it welcomes states to peacefully resolve their disputes even if the process is performed outside the court. If the negotiations are unsuccessful, the court automatically takes up the role of legal arbitration. Even the simple matter that a dispute is on the court's docket can be an incentive to states to negotiate a decision of their argument according to the international law.

Negotiations in Relations to the Implementation of Judgments

Negotiations may be required even after judicial processes to determine how a judgment will be implemented. After judgment is given, consultation between the states may be held with the assistance and professionalism of a third party. The willingness and readiness of both countries to agree to the aid would reflect good faith with which they perform negotiation to implement the judgment of the court. Mediation would also help in implementing decisions because it involves the third party's intervention to act as a communication channel between the states and help them resolve their disputes by making proposals. For mediation to be effective, there must be a willing third party that can be accepted by both parties. The mediators make some proposals that can be agreed upon by the parties to resolve the dispute.

Advantages and Disadvantage of Negotiation

Dispute Resolution by Negotiation is voluntary and usually doesn't require a third-party facilitator. It is an advantage over adjudication because both parties feel that they can keep control over the proceeding and the process. This process simply means that no party will prove that it is right or wrong. It is also an informal process that doesn't require hard factual proof of any allegations, and the agreement on the resolution is usually acceptable to both parties. Also, some court-annexed forms of mediation fall into this category. It is also the least expensive form of Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes.

The disadvantages of using this method of dispute resolution are that there is no appeals process; the contract/agreement (if written) is still enforceable in a court of law. There are also no bounds or structure for discussion, which could allow the debate to run out of control without a neutral in the room to keep them focused on the core issues at hand in the dispute. Another disadvantage is that because this is a private process, some relevant parties that could be affected could be left out of the discussion, in some situations, that could make matters worse.

Attorneys can also play as the intermediates in a negotiation. However, according to our text, sometimes using legal counsel works, and sometimes it does not depend on the types of disputes. Some of the kinds of "fusses" that could be resolved by Dispute Resolution by Negotiation include. Some examples of employment disputes, landlord-tenant disputes, probate disputes within a family, neighborhood disputes, and other types of conflicts that parties wish for relief, closure, and ready to plan for the future, a fresh start and a new beginning.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Adjudication

Dispute Resolution by Adjudication can sometimes be voluntary or mandated due to clauses in prior agreements or contracts. Dispute Resolution by Adjudication may also take the form of a mini-trial or even private (rent a judge) judging.

This public process can be an advantage when the parties do not voluntarily wish to negotiate their dispute, and they utilize a third party to mediate their dispute without going through the entire civil litigation process. It is a formal process in which differences are settled within a highly structured framework with rigid rules to keep the parties focused on the core issues at hand in the discussion. Another advantage is that the parties will benefit from some factual discovery without the rigors of ordinary civil litigation; therefore, it does tend to lower the out-of-pocket costs for all involved parties. There is a final decision that is brought up by Adjudication resolution as compared to other negotiation processes that lack final judgment and may not last for long.

One disadvantage of this type of dispute resolution is the removal of the ability to speak out on the open and bring out issues regarding a dispute; these kinds of proceedings are usually of extreme focus. Adjudication is an involuntary, adversarial process. It means arguments are presented to prove one side right and one side wrong, resulting in win-lose outcomes. Additionally, the third-party neutral generally has no specialized expertise in the dispute's subject matter, and that alone could result in misinterpretation and misapplication of the facts. Even though the decision is supported by a well-reasoned opinion and is usually binding upon both parties, the choice is also subject to appeal through the civil litigation process, which could negate the entire spirit of the Alternative Resolution Process. This process does have some costs involved, including any discovery and the fee for the third party neutral.

Adjudication has particular relevance in the construction industry but could, by agreement, be used in other areas. Most union contracts contain adjudication clauses in the form of binding arbitration in which this decision acceptable among these parties. In this kind of dispute, the judge is called the "referee." This process could also allow parties to solicit a third party "detached" response to a public policy question before initiating a long, drawn-out court action.

In conclus...