Abstract
Fitzpatrick’s writing on international law did not constitute the main focus of his oeuvre. However, the determinate-responsive nature of law that characterised so much of his work did extend to an analysis of the generative force of international law. This article picks up on commentary from Modernism and the Grounds of Law (2001) and ‘Latin Roots’ (2010), among other contributions, to test this generative force of international law, which Fitzpatrick identifies as a necessary affirmation of the movement between the ‘determinate but not ultimately determinate’ sovereignty of a singular nation state and the ‘illimitably responsive but not ultimately responsive’ force of the community (Fitzpatrick 2010, p. 46). We test Fitzpatrick’s view of international law through two examples of un-recognised states and the mechanism of non/recognition utilised by the international legal community to determine what constitutes a singular nation-state for participation in the community of international law. Our two case studies, North Cyprus and Crimea, illuminate the continuing relevance of Fitzpatrick’s schema. Through non/recognition, ‘states’ that are included-as-excluded participate in the ongoing affirmation of an international legal ‘community’, a community that continues to be constituted through the affirmation of imperial power.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brownlie, Ian. 2008. The principles of public international law, 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bryant, Rebecca. 2004. Imagining the modern: The cultures of nationalism in Cyprus. London: I.B. Tauris.
Burke-White, William W. 2014. Crimea and the international legal order. Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 1360. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1360. Accessed 20 May 2021.
Campana, Aurélie. 2008. Sürgün: The Crimean Tatars’ deportation and exile. SciencesPo. Mass Violence & Résistance. http://bo-k2s.sciences-po.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/fr/document/suerguen-crimean-tatars-deportation-and-exile, ISSN 1961–9898. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Cassese, Antonio. 2005. International law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chen, Ti-Chiang. 1951. The international law of recognition, ed. L.C. Green. London: Stevens & Sons Limited.
Coynash, Halya. 2020. Acquittal and monstrous sentences in Russia’s offensive against Crimean Tatar civic journalists & activists. KHPG: Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group. 17 September. http://khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1600272707. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Coynash, Halya. 2021. Crimean Tatars sentenced to 18, 17 and 13 years for discussing their faith and Russian persecution. KHPG: Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group 12 January. http://khpg.org/en/1608808736. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Craven, Matthew. 2014. Statehood, self-determination, and recognition. In International law, 4th ed., ed. Malcolm D. Evans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crawford, James. 2006. The creation of states in international law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Davutoğlu, Ahmet. 2001. Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu. İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.
Derrida, Jacques. 2002. Force of law: The mystical foundation of authority. In Acts of religion, ed. Gil Anidjar, 230–298. New York: Routledge.
European Council. 2014. Statement of the Heads of State or Government on Ukraine, para. 2. 6 March. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/141372.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Fitzpatrick, Peter. 1992. The mythology of modern law. London: Routledge.
Fitzpatrick, Peter. 2001. Modernism and the grounds of law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fitzpatrick, Peter. 2010. Latin roots: The force of international law as event. In Events—The force of international law, ed. Sundhya Pahuja, Richard Joyce, and Fleur Johns. Abingdon: Routledge.
Fitzpatrick, Peter. 2013. Foucault’s other law. In Re-reading Foucault: On law, power and rights, ed. Ben Golder. London: Routledge.
Fitzpatrick, Peter. 2014. The revolutionary past: Decolonizing law and human rights. Metodo. International Studies in Phenomenology and Philosophy 2 (1): 117–133. ISSN 2281–9177.
GARF. 1992. f.7523 op.57, d.963, ll. 1–10. Istoricheskii arkhiv 1(1). Trans. Gary Goldberg. Cold War International History Project (CWIHP) https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/119638
Geneva Convention IV. 1949/1958. https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/GC_1949-IV.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Grant, Thomas. 2015. Annexation of Crimea. American Journal of International Law 109(1): 68–95. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.109.1.0068. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Hall, W. Edward. 1895. Treatise on international law, 4th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Harding, Luke, and Shaun Walker. 2014. Crimea votes to secede from Ukraine in ‘illegal’ poll. 16 March. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/16/ukraine-russia-truce-crimea-referendum. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Hitchens, Christopher. 1997. Hostage to history: Cyprus – From the Ottomans to Kissinger. London: Verso.
Human Rights Watch. 2019. Hostilities in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. World Report 2018. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/ukraine#. Accessed 21 May 2021.
International Law Commission Yearbook (ILCYB). 1979. Volume II. Part 1. https://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_1979_v2_p1.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Issaeva, Maria. 2015. The case of Crimea in the light of international law: Its nature and implications. Russian Law Journal 3 (3): 158–167. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2015-3-3-158-167. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Kızılyürek, Niyazi. 2002. Milliyetçilik Kıskacında Kıbrıs. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Koskenniemi, Martii. 2010. What is international law for? In international law, 3rd ed., ed. Malcolm D. Evans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kremlin. 2014. Address by President of the Russian Federation, 18 March. http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Marxsen, Christian. 2014. The Crimea crisis – An international law perspective. Zeitschrift Für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht Und Völkerrecht (Heidelberg Journal of International Law) 74 (2): 367–391.
Milanovic, Marko. 2021. ECtHR Grand Chamber declares admissible the case of Ukraine v. Russia re Crimea. EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. 15 January. https://www.ejiltalk.org/ecthr-grand-chamber-declares-admissible-the-case-of-ukraine-v-russia-re-crimea/. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. 2014. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on All-Crimean Referendum. 14 March. http://mfa.gov.ua/en/news-feeds/foreign-offices-news/19573-rishennyakonstitucijnogo-sudu-v-ukrajini-shhodo-referendumu-v-krimu (unofficial translation of Decision No. 2-rp/ 2014).
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. 1933. https://www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/01/1-02/rights-duties-states.xml. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Necatigil, Zaim M. 1993. The Cyprus Question and the Turkish position in international law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nuridzhanian, Gaiane. 2017. Non-recognition of the de facto regimes in case law of the ECtHR. EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law https://www.ejiltalk.org/non-recognition-of-de-facto-regimes-in-case-law-of-the-european-court-of-human-rights-implications-for-cases-involving-crimea-and-eastern-ukraine/. Accessed 21 May 2021.
O’Maller, Brendan, and Ian Craig. 1999. The Cyprus conspiracy: America, espionage and the Turkish invasion. London: I.B. Tauris.
OHCHR. 2014. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Ukraine. UNDoc.A/HRC/27/75, annex September 19, 2014. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A-HRC-27-75_en.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Oppenheim, Lassa. 1905. International law, vol. I., Peace, 1st edn. London: Longman.
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). 2014. Res. 1988, para. 3. 9 April. http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid20873&langEN. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Peters, Anne. 2014. Sense and nonsense of territorial referendums in Ukraine, and why the 16 March referendum in Crimea does not justify Crimea’s alteration of territorial status under international law. EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law 16 April. https://www.ejiltalk.org/sense-and-nonsense-of-territorial-referendums-in-ukraine-and-why-the-16-march-referendum-in-crimea-does-not-justify-crimeas-alteration-of-territorial-status-under-international-law/. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Shaw, Malcolm N. 2017. International law, 8th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sneider, Noah. 2014. Two votes in Crimea and neither is ‘no’. The New York Times 15 March. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/world/europe/crimea-vote-does-not-offer-choice-of-status-quo.html. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Tamkoç, Metin. 1988. The Turkish Cypriot state–The embodiment of the right of self-determination. London: K. Rustem & Brother.
UN General Assembly Resolution 2014. A/RES/68/626 27.03.2014 UN GA.
UNSC. 1964. Security Council resolution 186, 4 March. S/RES/186
UNSC. 1974. Security Council resolution353, 20 July. S/RES/353
UNSC. 1983. Security Council resolution 541. 18 November. S/RES/541.
Weiner-Bronner, Danielle. 2014. What would an independence vote really mean for crimea? The Atlantic. 11 March. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/crimea-independence-russia-us-ukraine/359058/. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Williams, John Fischer. 1929. Recognition. Transactions of the Grotius Society 15, Problems of Peace and War: 53–81.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Ben Golder and Sara Ramshaw for organising this special edition, and for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts. We are forever grateful to Peter Fitzpatrick, who brought us together as PhD students, and whose approach unites us now as friends and colleagues, in ongoing intellectual and social community.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tataryn, A., Ertürk, E. Unrecognised States: The Necessary Affirmation of the Event of International Law. Law Critique 32, 331–345 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-021-09302-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-021-09302-1