Estonian Professor: In Case Of Crimea, International Law Must Be Observed

• 28.04.2025, 12:02

Otherwise, Narva and Daugavpils could be next.

According to Lauri Mälksoo, professor of international law at the University of Tartu, in a situation where the US is discussing the possible recognition of the Crimea as de jure part of Russia, Estonia and Europe should certainly follow international law in this matter, err.ee reports.

Mälksoo expressed this opinion on Sunday in the program “Ukraina stuudio” on the ETV channel, commenting on the US peace proposals that have leaked to the media, which include a clause stating that the territories seized by Russia will be recognized de facto, and the occupation of the Crimea – de jure.

“This is a rather important moment in history. The very rule in international law according to which it is forbidden to annex territory by force was proposed by the US at the time. It began in the late 1920s. For almost 100 years, the United States has defended this rule that you can’t seize territory in this way. And if now, under President [Donald] Trump, they are ready to change their policy, I would say that this is a pretty big concession to Russia,” Mälksoo said.

In his opinion, the problem is that the consequences of such a move are not limited to the situation between Ukraine and Russia, since such decisions are always capable of creating a precedent.

“There are other situations where the status of a territory has been changed as a result of the use of armed force. For example, in Northern Cyprus. This is not recognized for the simple reason that armed force was used, that this fundamental rule was violated. If Russia now receives de jure recognition of the Crimea, the question arises why Turkey should not receive some recognition of Northern Cyprus, what is the difference then,” the international lawyer said.

Mälksoo noted that although de facto recognition can be considered temporary, it is also more dangerous. “De jure, at least, brings some clarity. If Ukraine were at some point to recognize that the Crimea now belongs to Russia, then under international law it would no longer have the right to start demanding its return or, moreover, to use armed force. In this sense, such [recognition] is de facto dangerous. At the same time, Russia has already written into its constitution that these territories are part of Russia, and in a sense this postpones the problem for the future. We can learn one lesson from the history of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union: this situation is not permanent. The ceasefire period can be long, but if the final status of the territory remains unclear, then the issue can be revisited in 10 or 20 years, waiting for more favorable circumstances,” he said.

“International law has always developed in a dialogue of different principles. On the one hand, there is a very clear principle that you cannot seize territory through the use of armed force. On the other hand, there is also a very democratic principle in international law, according to which we listen to what people really want. “And the starting point of the principle that we do not recognise territorial changes as a result of conquest actually means that in a sense it does not really matter what the people [living in that territory] think or prefer, because armed force was used, a fundamental rule was violated,” Mälksoo said.

“But in the case of the Crimea, there was always this question hanging in the air in the background: what do these people really want, what to do with these territories that belong to one state, for example, Ukraine, but where certain pro-Russian positions are also represented in a certain part of the population?” Mälksoo said.

“It would also be a very bad precedent for Estonia and Latvia if this became the basis for such a legitimate intervention, because in the end it could also be used somewhere in Daugavpils or Narva,” he said.

According to Mälksoo, if Estonia and the Europeans are forced to choose between supporting Ukraine and international law or an alliance with the United States, then the choice should be made in favor of international law.

“I would support international law,” Mälksoo said.

“This consent should not be given without very serious and fundamental clarifications. But in reality, Estonia's sovereignty also means that no country, including the United States, can command us,” he added.