It will be revealing to see how illegalities compete to occupy legal space in international geopolitical legal order in respect of the crisis in Ukraine. The following observations do present competing perspectives.
First, the reckless rioting that sought to remove the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED President of Ukraine, Mr Viktor Yanukovych, was ILLEGAL. Freedom of expression is guaranteed in Ukraine but has to be expressed according to law and Ukraine Constitution (Art 69; Art 71). Indeed, freedom of expression is equally embedded in the International Bill of Human Rights and considered as ‘bedrock of democracy’. Those such as EU and USA elements that were encouraging the rioters to disturb the peace of Ukraine were apparently however beyond the frontiers of democratic liberties and appeared to have been abetting crime and illegality.
Second, President of Ukraine can only be removed from office by Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine only through IMPEACHMENT which has to engage the certification of the constitutional and supreme courts of Ukraine (Art 111). The hurried and obscured manner in which President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine was removed from office where a meretricious voting was effected to impeach and elect the ‘acting president’ was undeniably ILLEGAL. The constitution of Ukraine and international fair-play appeared to have been disregarded by members of the Verkhovna Rada who may have only acted on the grounds of protecting their remaining stay in power and or to please the largely reckless rioters who succeeded in causing chaotic situation in Ukraine.
Third, Russian occupation of the Crimea region violates the letter and spirit of the UN Charter (Article 2 [1, 4, 7], in particular) and therefore amounts to ILLEGALITY with lack of good faith to the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. Even though the invasion of Russia is currently not remitting actions that endanger the lives of the people in the autonomous Crimea region, the nature of the occupation is still regarded as ‘an act of aggression’ by international legal imperatives.
Fourth, the referendum announced by the Crimea authorities expected to take place by the 15th or 16th of March 2014 thereabout can hardly be said to be legal because even though the local Crimea parliament has the ‘competence’ to hold local referendum as stipulated by article 138 (2) of the Ukraine Constitution. However, in respect of altering territorial borders of Ukraine, an ALL-UKRAINIAN REFERENDUM is only that which is tenable but which can only be 'designated' by Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine or the elected President (Art 73) but not the local Crimea parliament.
IRONICALLY and sadly enough though, all actors in the legal aberrations find comfort in churning out utter pretense in an unguarded support for their selfish geopolitical, military and economic interests without sincere regard to the real aspirations of the quiet and decent majority of Ukrainians, whose future appears to be hijacked by unreasonable uncertainty. Beyond Ukrainians however, the world's peaceful co-existence could severely be threatened.
All these players parading themselves as rightful owners of the legal existence and aspirations of Ukraine ought to come to terms with reality of mutual purpose and abandon their selfish interests, CONDEMN any acts of lawless rioting, dissolve the illegal government currently in place, form transitional government of national unity and help organize national presidential elections by the May 2014 schedule. The one that happens to emerge as President in the peaceful competitive elections could then and right then decide whether to have closer ties with EU, USA or Russia or all. At that point, the reckless rioting that made Mr Viktor to run for safety would have to be unreservedly condemned and resisted by all well-meaning patriots of democratic principles.
Mr Viktor Yanukovych may have been allegedly corrupt, coward and weak but he appeared to have shown good sense and respect for humanity by running away for cover but not entrenching himself in power to continue to witness the horrendous massacres that just started under his blind watch after several weeks of uncontrolled rioting. Some other leaders may not tolerate such public show of impudence and disrespect for the legal order of the country and so would want to be brave and too extreme at the expense of innocent lives - Such are the more criminals, nonetheless.
The escape route which should not escape our attention here is ALWAYS TO ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC, NO MATTER HOW DISSATISFIED OR DISGRUNTLED THEY ARE AT ANY POINT IN THE FRANCHISE CHAIN, TO HOLD THEIR LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE ONLY THROUGH TRUE DEMOCRATIC MEANS BUT NOT THROUGH PSEUDO-DEMOCRATIC ROADSHOWS AND AMBIVALENT DISPLAY OF BRAVADO BY INTERNATIONAL POWER PLAYERS.
