University of the Philippines Cebu

Social Sciences Division

Lahug, Cebu City

Crimean Crisis: Sovereignty in the Midst of Conflict

Submitted by:
Escao, Mishel Francheska Y.

Submitted to:
Prof. Jesa Balahadia

December 8, 2014

CHAPTER I

Rationale
Sovereignty means, in simple terms, absolute and unlimited power; however, this
definition has resulted to confusion, misunderstanding, and disagreements among many due to its
ambiguity and the lack of clarity that the term absolute power possesses. In this light,
sovereignty can either refer to supreme legal authority or to unchallengeable political power,
which brings about the distinction between two kinds of sovereignty legal sovereignty and
political sovereignty. This concept may also be used in two different ways; that is, internal
sovereignty, or power that is distributed within the state, and external sovereignty, which refers to
the states role within the international order and its ability to operate as an autonomous actor
herein. (Heywood, 2004)
On the 21st of February 2014, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych fled the Ukrainian
capital of Kiev, and was officially removed from power the following day by the Ukrainian
parliament. An interim president was appointed, along with the establishment of an interim
government. This new Ukrainian government was recognized by the United States (US) and the
European Union (EU), but was rejected by Russia, who acknowledged this as illegitimate and the
result of a coup detat. On the 23rd of February, pro-Russian protests were held in Sevastopol, a
Crimean city, and pro-Russian forces were quickly occupying the territory. In response to this, a
session of the Crimean Parliament voted to overthrow the Crimean government, replace its Prime
Minister, and call for a referendum on the countrys autonomy. (Hewitt, 2014)
Since the outbreak of the Crimean Crisis which was caused by illegal annexation of
Crimea with Russia questions regarding the sovereignty of Crimean citizens have emerged.
Although Russian President Vladimir Putin, who approved a draft bill for the annexation,
recognized Crimea as a sovereign and independent state, the bill is still believed to violate
Ukrainian and international norms by various state actors such as the US, the EU, and Ukraines
new government on the grounds that Russias justification for annexation was moot.
The intent of this paper is to determine whether the choice of referendum was a
manifestation of upholding the sovereignty of Crimean citizens, as claimed by the Russian
government, or if it is seen as an act of indirectly undermining this very sovereignty by greatly
influencing the decision-making process, especially via deployment of Russian personnel and
1 | Page

using the righting of a historical anomaly (Ackerman & Bartkowski, 2014) as an auxiliary
procedure geared towards successfully annexing both countries. Moreover, with the absence of
ethnic Ukrainians and Muslim Tatars who were believed to have boycotted the vote the
effectivity of the referendum will henceforth be put into question as well.

Statement of the Problem

2 | Page

This study aspired to assess the current situation in Crimea with regards to its peoples
exercise of sovereignty, and the extent to which it is manifested in the midst of the Crisis.
The researcher specifically identified the following sub-problems:
1. Despite being given the call for a referendum, how permeable and accessible are
decisions made in the region to the citizens of Crimea?
2. In its secession from Ukraine, was the sovereignty of Crimean citizens upheld and
successfully exercised?
Objectives
This study aimed to satisfy the following objectives:
1. To identify the factors that were taken into account in the decision-making process in
Crimea with regards to its annexation with Russia
2. To determine the impact of this annexation on the sovereignty of Crimean citizens; and
3. To assess the situation of the region [Crimea] in the post-Crisis timeframe.

Significance of the Study

3 | Page

The primary purpose of this study is to raise awareness on the importance of sovereignty
within the people in any given state, as the researchers aim is to unravel the events that had
transpired in the Crimean Crisis which led to this sovereignty being either breached or upheld by
the countries involved. Analyzing the degree to which the decision-making process in the
country may affect its citizens, this study may provide a wider perspective on how a state may
preserve its sovereignty in times of conflict as such. Furthermore, along with the discussion of
the different levels in which decisions are made, this study also puts forth a deeper outlook on
how participation may affect the relations that take place within and outside a given state.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study mainly focuses on three main actors, namely: Crimea, Ukraine, and Russia,
and the ideas of political behavior that have been integrated are mostly of social nature in that
two theories of society will be incorporated in the data. Moreover, it more often than not digs
into various streams of events in a descriptive manner, and therefore takes the form of a
qualitative research, as opposed to presupposing mainly numerical data. The study also looks
into affairs that are encompassed within a certain timeframe as presented in its Historical
Background, and looks solely into what had occurred therein.
Instead of transcending events that had taken place outside the areas of concern, it was
deemed necessary by the researcher to focus solely on the three aforementioned territories,
limiting the papers range of analysis. Any mention of other state or non-state actors may merely
be incidental to the purpose of the study, and would serve as an accessory piece of information.

Theoretical Framework

4 | Page

This research is based on two theoretical areas, namely the Organic Theory of Society,
and the Elite Theory of Society.
a. Organic Theory
The Organic Theory of Society is based upon an organic analogy; that is, society may operate
as an organic whole in that it exhibits characteristics that are usually associated with living
organisms instead of being constructed by rational individuals to satisfy their personal interests.
Moreover, this suggests a more widely encompassing approach to society, providing that society
is mainly a series of complex relationships which ultimately exist to maintain the whole. Simply
put, the whole is more important than the individual parts. (Heywood, 2004)
In addition, this considers society as possessing a unity similar to that which distinguishes a
biological organism. The individuals that make up the society have been seen as analogous to the
parts of an animal body, in that all these parts are functionally interconnected. Just as the body
has a natural unity, so has a social group. (Pansare, 2014)
The integration of this theory in the research will serve as the basis in deeply understanding
how decisions in the country-parties and district involved are made, especially with the occurring
conflict between a collective body which makes up the whole of Crimea and various actors in
the form of leaders who have taken courses of action that greatly affect the former, possibly
breaching their sovereignty in the process. This will subsequently aid the researcher in
determining how these individualist or minority-oriented decisions have brought forth adverse
effects to the collective, manifested in the form of civil unrest.
b. Elite Theory
The Elite Theory of Society draws attention to the concentration of power in the hands of the
small minority, therefore shedding light on the existence of conflict between the elite and the
masses; this henceforth brings to the fore social order in the context of organizational advantage,
manipulation, and open coercion rather than consensus. Fascist thinkers are also believed to
subscribe to a form of elite orientation, in that their decisions imply organic harmony due to their
mindset that the masses willingly accept such subordination. (Heywood, 2004)

5 | Page

This theory also argues that the hierarchical organization of social institutions paves way for
a monopoly of power by the minority, and that power is always exercised by a small cohesive
group of the elite. This divides society into two groups; that is, the ruling elite, and the ruled,
which deems the said situation inevitable. (Sociology Guide, 2014)
With the conflict in Crimea being initiated due to decisions made by the few without taking
into account the bigger picture of the situation, this theory will supplement the former in
understanding the interaction between the two groups, specifically with regards to their control
over decision-making processes within and outside the area.
The following figure illustrates the relationship of the key decision-makers in the parties
involved as a fundamental causal impetus in the events that had unfolded in the current Crimean
Crisis. These decisions, both in the majority and minority-oriented perspective, are interrelated in
that they have a symbiotic relationship with regards to their effects on interactions that take place
within the territory, which will be referred to as intra-territory relations, as well as in area-to-area
or bilateral relations.
Fig 1.1 Theoretical Framework Flowchart

Decisions

Minority

Majority

Intraterritory
Relations
Bilateral
Relations

6 | Page

Conceptual Framework
In this framework, the theoretical approaches as presented previously will now be
incorporated in the specific concepts used in the study. The first concept that was discussed in the
theoretical framework pertained to the decisions made in the parties involved in the Crimean
Crisis. This particularly refers to the annexation event, wherein Crimea had chosen to secede
from Ukraine in order to allow occupation of Russian Special Forces and pro-Russian separatists
in the region, therefore allowing Russia to absorb the peninsula. (Smith & Eshchenko, 2014)
This decision subsequently affects the two groups to be studied; that is, the collective or the
majority which takes the form of Crimean citizens, and the elite or the minority which, in
this case, points to the districts leaders.
Whichever course of action these two groups of actors opt to take will henceforth affect
relations not only within the territory, but relations with other countries, as well. These are
embodied in its Citizen Relations, and Relations with the countries of Ukraine and Russia,
respectively.
Fig. 1.2 Conceptual Framework Flowchart

Annexation

Leaders

Citizens

Citizen
Relations
Relations
with
Ukraine &
Russia
7 | Page

CHAPTER II
Historical Overview of the Study
The current Crimean Crisis began in November 2013 when former Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych abandoned a proposed economic treaty with the European Union, choosing
to instead pursue stronger relations with its neighbor, Russia. His decision has then led to
protests throughout Ukraine that had capped off as Yanukovych fled the country, allowing a proWestern interim government to take his place. Pro-Russian Prime Minister Sergei Aksenov was
appointed, who declared himself in charge of all military forces, police, and other security
services in the region, at the same time making a direct appeal to Russian President Vladimir
Putin. (Lewis, Traynor, & Harding, 2014) In response to this, Russia deployed several thousands
of troops into the Crimean Peninsula, thus occupying that portion of Ukraine. With this, the
international community made the decision to condemn Russian action and affirmed the
sovereignty of Ukraine. This currently unfolding crisis in Ukraine and Crimea is deeply rooted in
its history, and Russian occupation of the region has long been the focus of dispute between both
countries. (Spencer, 2014)
The Crimean Peninsula a part of Ukraine that is separated from the rest of the country
in geographical, historical, and political terms was absorbed into the Russian empire by
Catherine the Great in the 18th Century, on the basis that the Queen was simply protecting ethnic
Russians in the region from the Ottoman Empire. (Spencer, 2014) Subsequent to its cession, the
Russian Black Sea Naval base was founded at Sevastopol, thus allowing it to host Russias Black
Sea Fleet. In the Crimean War of 1853-56, more than half a million people were killed as the war
was waged between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, paving the way for the First World War.
(The Associated Press and Reuters, 2014)
After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 had successfully toppled the imperial
government and established the Soviet Union, Crimea was, for a given period of time, an
independent state within the Soviet Union. It had stayed this way until the conclusion of the
Second World War, in which it had been absorbed into Russia itself. (Spencer, 2014)
In 1921, the peninsula, which was at the time populated mostly by Muslim Tatars,
became part of the Soviet Union. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, who, at the end of The Second
8 | Page

World War alleged collaboration with the Nazis, thereafter commanded mass deportation for the
Tatars. In 1945, Crimea became part of Ukraine under the Khrushchev Administration, when
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev gave the peninsula to his native land. Upon the collapse of the
Soviet Union in 1991, Crimea ended up being part of an independent Ukraine; however, nearly
60 percent of its population nevertheless identify themselves as Russians. Thereafter, there have
constantly been numerous political disputes over its status between Moscow and Kiev. (The
Associated Press and Reuters, 2014)
Crimea possesses a unique status as it remains formally a part of Ukraine, but enjoys a
high level of regional autonomy. It has a separate legislative body and constitution and,
following the collapse of the Yanukovych government, was able to name its own prime minister.
A high percentage of ethnic Russians continue occupy the region, which is still home to the
strategically significant naval base of Sevastopol. (Spencer, 2014)
In March 2014, the decision whether to remain part of Ukraine or not was given to the
people of Crimea in the form of a referendum. This was claimed to be done in order to uphold
the sovereignty of its citizens; however, with the presence of Russian troops, voters are
intimidated, thus disproving its essence of free and fair decision-making. Moreover, the
referendum is found to be inconsistent with the Ukrainian constitution, which clearly provides
that all Ukrainians have the right to vote on Crimeas secession not solely those who reside in
Crimea. (Brilmayer, 2014)

9 | Page

Discussion and Analysis of Data

On March 6, 2014, Resolution No. 1702-6/14 was adopted by Crimean Parliament. This
provided for a secession referendum to be heard on March 16, 2014. With just ten days notice
given to its citizens, the referendum was said to be lacking transparency with regards to the
composition of the list of voters, the electoral commissions, and the absence of impartial
international observers. This moreover did not offer voters the status quo option, leaving only
two possibilities: (1) to join the Russian Federation as a federal subject, or (2) to return to the
1992 Constitution of Crimea, once more becoming an integral part of Ukraine. This
Constitution entitled Crimea to full sovereign powers with regards to the establishment of
relations with other states which means that either of the two options would nevertheless entail
de facto break from Ukraine. (Stepanowa, 2014)
Russian President Vladimir Putin laid the groundwork for accession on March 17, 2014
by signing a decree that formally recognized Crimea as a sovereign and independent state on
the grounds that the proposal was seen as a key to self-determination by Crimean citizens due to
their identification as Russians. He then argued that the best way to decide whether Crimea
should remain part of Ukraine or secede and allow absorption into Russian territory was via a
referendum, letting the people of Crimea decide. (Davis, 2014)
As the referendum saw a massive voter turnout of 81.3%, results showed that an
overwhelming majority of this population (96.8%) favored the integration of Crimea into the
Russian Federation, which therefore paved way for a Crimean unilateral secession. The region
thereafter declared independence; however, the referendum results were only recognized by a
number of developing countries that had close ties with Russia. (RT News, 2014) Moreover, this
was seen by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as illegal and illegitimate,
asserting that the referendum was boycotted by a large number of ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars,
who did not want to take part in a voting process that reports a large majority against maintaining
the current status of the territory. (Herbst, 2014)
The reason behind such assertion lies in the significance of the role to be played by the
Ukrainians and Tatars had they decided to take part in the voting scheme. According to the 2001
Ukrainian Census, out of Crimeas population of 2,401,200, its ethnic makeup consists of the
10 | P a g e

following groups: 60.4% (1.45 million) Russians, 24% (577,000) Ukrainians, 10.2% (245,000)
Crimean Tatars, 1.4% (35,000) Belarusians, 0.5% (13,500) other Tatars, 0.4% (10,000)
Armenians, and 0.2% (5,500) Jews. However, its demographic changes, as illustrated in the
figure below, show that Russian Crimeans have decreased in number since 1989, whereas a
significant number of Tatars have been occupying the territory as of late.
Fig. 2.1 Population Composition of Crimea 1989 v 2001

1989

2001

Russians: 67%

Russians: 60.4%

Ukrainians: 25.8%

Ukrainians: 24%

Crimean Tatars: 1.6%

Crimean Tatars: 10.2%

Belarusians: 2.1%

Belarusians: 1.4%

Armenians: 0.1%

Armenians: 0.4%

Jews 0.7%

Jews: 0.2%

The next issue now lies in the legality of the secession. According to the Declaration on
the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, any attempt [aimed] at the
partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is
incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. To put it
simply, this act of self-determination undermines the principle of territorial integrity; only legal
secession would not undermine territorial integrity of the parent state. (Pelett, 2014)
The following circumstances are the factors that determine whether the secession may be
regarded as legal, according to Anna Stepanowa (2014): (1) it shall concern people in territories
that are subject to decolonization; (2) it shall be envisaged by the national legislation of the
11 | P a g e

parent state concerned; (3) the territory inhabited by a certain people should be occupied or
annexed after 1945; (4) the secessionists shall be a people; (5) their parent state shall flagrantly
violate their human rights and (6) no other effective remedies under national or international law
may exist, if any of these conditions are met. However, none of these requisites have been met
as the conditions present in Crimea are not as such, therefore reaffirming the lack of legality held
by the secession.
The Organic Theory of Society, according to English philosopher Herbert Spencer,
stipulates that an organism is analogous to society in such a way that the manner in which both
operate involves various, independent components working together to fulfill a goal aimed at
natural unity. (Pansare, 2014) These are the following assumptions provided in the theory, as
synthesized by Raees Ahmed (2012):
1. The Individual is the cell of the State; as the body is composed of cells, so the state is
composed of individuals. In both cases, the atomistic units are components that contribute
to the life of the whole.
2. There is a parallelism in growth and development; both the animal organism and the State
grow and develop. As they grow, there is a transition from simple to complex, from
similar to dissimilar. The society develops through the differentiation of functions, as
well as the division of labor, and this process is comparable to the evolution of the animal
body.
3. Each part is functionally interdependent on the other; the holistic health of both the
animal body and the society depends upon the proper functioning of all its parts. In the
latter, it specifically lies in the dependence of classes and the organs of society on each
others functioning.
4. There is an existing parallelism in structure; where an animal organism has three parts,
namely the sustaining system, the distributary system, and the regulating system, the state
also possesses these parts which are manifested in the productive system, the system of
communication and transport in the State, and the governmental system, respectively.
5. There is a wear and tear in the renewal of both; the animal body is constantly renewing in
the wear and tear of its old tissues that are to be replaced by new ones. In a similar
manner, the old and diseased individuals of the State die and younger generations take
their place.

12 | P a g e

From the following expositions, it was concluded that the State is therefore an organism in
that it is subject to the organic laws of growth, decay, and death. (Ahmed, 2012)
In the above mentioned assumptions of this theory, it is asserted that the functional
interdependence of the State is essential in order for the State to flourish, and it sees conflict as a
hindrance to the growth of the society, as this interdependence contributes to the proper
functioning of the entire entity; however, the present conflict brought forth by the Crimean Crisis
sprouted due to differing opinions and demands from the citizens of Crimea because of their
racial differences. That is, a large number of its population was believed to have opted for
secession from Ukraine and annexation with Russia, whereas the remaining populace preferred
otherwise. Moreover, with the deployment of Russian troops into Crimea during the earlier parts
of the Crisis outbreak, it is said that voting behavior in the referendum was greatly affected due
to their influence on Crimean peoples decision-making abilities. Their choices were not solely
based on their own preferences, but were caused by external factors those which exist outside
the organism itself therefore widening the gap between its parts. In addition, with the choice of
Tatars and Ukrainians to abstain from voting, there was a lack of cooperation within the
components of the region. This may then cause a rupture in the existing parallelism within
Crimea and disrupt its process of growth and development.
Elites are defined as those individuals with the organized capacity to make real political
trouble without being promptly repressed. (Higley, n.d.) The Elite Theory of Society asserts that
minorities out-organize and outwit large majorities, emphasizing that political elites usually have
a certain material, intellectual, or even moral superiority over those that are governed in a given
area. (Mosca, 1939) This therefore strengthens the assumption that power lies in the hands of a
small elite. In this respect, the pro-Russian leader and Prime Minister of Crimea, Sergei Askenov,
possesses the ability to impose his wishes upon his constituents, thus breaching their ability to
exercise individual and independent internal sovereignty.

Summary of Findings and Conclusion

13 | P a g e

With the integration of the Organic and Elite Theories of Society into the data discussed
above, it is found that decisions made by the majority, or the citizens of Crimea, have been
greatly affected by the ruling class in the area, and were also influenced by the presence of
external factors therefore bringing forth adverse effects in the functionality of the region.
With Russian troops being deployed into Crimea subsequent to the appointment of a proRussian prime minister, Russian influence in the region has been rampant since, and this has
resulted into a fragmented Crimea. Although they were given a choice to hold referendum, a
significant number of people withheld and abstained from the voting process, opting to instead
boycott the voting scheme. With the lack of cooperation in its components, this has led to a
dysfunctional relationship within the area, thus slowing its growth and development process, as
stipulated in the Organic Theory of Society.
With the rapid dispersion of Russian influence in Crimea, the ability of its people to
independently choose and impose their own wishes is disrupted, therefore undermining their
ability to exercise independent and individual sovereignty. This is also illustrated in the choices
given by Russia to the citizens of Crimea to either opt for annexation, or restore the 1992
Constitution, giving the body a narrow spectrum of options from which to choose. Therefore,
although it may appear on the surface that this process of decision-making is mostly permeable
and accessible to its constituents, it is still essentially impenetrable as there were other factors
affecting its outcome, exponentially influenced by external forces.
In conclusion, it was therefore found that sovereignty was not exercised to the fullest by
all citizens, being breached in the process due to reasons that discouraged them from taking part
in the referendum, as well as the fragmented structure of the region, which became the aftermath
of the Crisis. With regards to Crimeas relations with the two disputing countries, on the other
hand, it was found to be strained due to the secession of one [Ukraine], and the distaste of a large
number of people towards annexation with the other [Russia].

Recommendations
14 | P a g e

Due to the narrow scope of the research, it is advisable to study the issue in a wider
perspective; that is, to look at other factors that have led to Crimeas fragmentation as a people.
Moreover, since the study focused more on incorporating the two theories of society into the
issue, it is also recommended that other theories be used in order to supplement the consolidation
of pervasive concepts in a different viewpoint.
Also, looking into more resources and analyzing a larger number of opinions on the
Crimean Crisis would be highly encouraged so as to provide better understanding on the issue,
also taking into consideration the respective accounts of other state and non-state involved such
as the US, the constituents of the EU, and other various institutions

15 | P a g e

Bibliography

Ackerman, P., & Bartkowski, M. (2014, March 22). Challenging annexation: in Crimea, the
referendum that wasnt. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from Open Democracy: Free
Thinking for the World: https://www.opendemocracy.net/civilresistance/peter-ackermanmaciej-bartkowski/challenging-annexation-in-crimea-referendum-that-wa
Ahmed, R. (2012, July 23). Herbert Spencer's Organic Theory. Retrieved December 2, 2014,
from Awami Politics: Pakistan's Leading Blog on Politics:
http://www.awamipolitics.com/herbert-spencers-organic-theory-7334.html
America, A. J. (2014). Putin Approves Draft Bill for Annexation of Crimea by Russia. Al
Jazeera News, 1.
Brilmayer, L. (2014). Why the Crimean Referendum is Illegal. The Guardian, 1.
Davis, I. (2014, March 19). Tit-for-tat Escalation in the Crimea Crisis: Where Will It End? NATO
Watch, p. 5.
Herbst, J. (2014). Russia Would Lose a Fair Crimea Vote. The National Interest, 1-2.
Hewitt, G. (2014, March 17). Crimean Parliament Formally Applies to Join Russia. Retrieved
November 24, 2014, from BBC News: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe26609667
Heywood, A. (2004). Political Theory: An Introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Higley, J. (n.d.). Elite Theory in Political Sociology. Austin: University of Texas.
Lewis, P., Traynor, I., & Harding, L. (2014). Crimea crisis: pro-Russian leader appeals to Putin
for help. The Guardian, 1.
Mosca, G. (1939). The Ruling Class. New York: McGraw-Hill.

16 | P a g e

Pansare, N. (2014). Essay on the Organism Theory of Society. Retrieved November 27, 2014,
from Worlds Largest Collection of Essays! Published by Experts:
http://www.shareyouressays.com/87498/essay-on-the-organism-theory-of-society
Pelett, A. (2014). The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee. European Journal of
International Law, 8.
RT News. (2014, March 17). Crimea declares independence, seeks UN recognition. Retrieved
December 2, 2014, from RT: Question More.: http://rt.com/news/crimea-referendumresults-official-250/
Smith, M., & Eshchenko, A. (2014, March 18). Ukraine cries 'robbery' as Russia annexes
Crimea. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/18/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/
Sociology Guide. (2014). Elite Theory. Retrieved November 28, 2014, from Sociology Guide - A
Student's Guide to Sociology: http://www.sociologyguide.com/political-system/elitetheory.php
Spencer, C. (2014). Ukraine Crimea Crisis: The History. Liberty Voice, 1-2.
Stepanowa, A. (2014). International law and legality of secession in Crimea. Cambridge Journal
of International and Comparative Law, 1-2.
The Associated Press and Reuters. (2014). Everything You Need to Know About Crimea.
Haaretz, 1.

17 | P a g e