A Research Proposal Sample on Russia - Ukraine Crisis

Abstract

The rationale behind the annexation of Crimea by Russia has puzzled the minds of students, actors, observers and scholars of international relations alike. Many, especially, the idealists considered it a wanton disregard of the international laws. This proposal seeks to investigate National Interest and International Law: A Case Study of Russian Annexation of Crimea. With the framework of realism, it seeks to probe into the questions: What interest(s) informed Russian annexation of Crimea? Why did the International Law fail to restrict Russia from the annexation of Crimea? It hypothesized that:

H_1:     Russia wants to restore her Soviet Empire.

H₂:   International Law lacks enforcement mechanism.

Secondary method of data collection and content analysis is the proposed method of data collection and analysis. The result of the study is expected among other things, to reveal why Russia annexed Crimea; and offer practical advice to the Ukrainian government on how to deal with the threat on her territorial integrity.

Proposed Title

                                                                    

National Interest and International Law: A Case Study of Russian Annexation of Crimea

                                                                             

Introduction

International Law is one of the instruments of stabilizing the international arena. It prescribes and proscribes actions in international relations. But the recent annexation of Crimea by Russia against extant international laws has raised concern about the continued relevance of international law as a tool of stabilization in the international arena.

On March 16, 2014, Crimea’s referendum to join Russia was backed by %97 of the votes (BBC News, September 9, 2014).

A mission of observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a military observer mission of 37 people from 18 countries, including USA, formed at Ukraine’s request to help monitor tense situation in Crimea was stopped by unidentified men in Military fatigues from entering Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula (CBS News March 6, 2014); while Russian observers arrived Crimea nine days later (Reuters March 15, 2014).

Russian President, Vladimir Putin signed a law completing Crimea as part of the Russian Federation as two administrative districts, Crimea and the port city of Sevastopol (NBC News, March 21, 2014).

Western leaders and the new regime in Kiev rejected the move claiming Moscow’s move was an illegal land grab. They sanctioned Russian officials and Moscow returned same in response (Ibid.).

This Russia’s action to say the least, sacrificed International Law at the altar of National Interest. Appleton (n.d) wrote that the referendum held by the people of Crimea on March 16 may have seen the local population vote to join Russia, but it provides no justification for the annexation of the province under international law.

According to Robert Volterra quoted in Appleton (Ibid.):

Under Article 2 of the UN Charter the forceful acquisition of territory is illegal. This is clearly happened in relation to Crimea. It doesn’t matter what the result of the so-called referendum was, or what the will of the Crimean people may have been. Russia used force against the territorial integrity of Ukraine. That cannot be retrospectively legitimized.

Based on the issues discussed supra, this study asks the following questions:

What interest(s) informed Russian annexation of Crimea?

Why did the International Law fail to restrict Russia from the annexation of Crimea?

The following hypotheses will be tested in the study:

H_1:     Russia wants to restore her Soviet Empire.

H₂:   International Law lacks enforcement mechanism.

Brief Literature Review

National Interest and International Law: The Realists’ Perspective

The realists are in favour of national interest in their argument. They stressed that international law is too legalistic and moralistic that any national interest pursued under its umbrella is bound to fail.

Eagleton (1951) wrote, quoting Hans J. Morgenthau that toed the line of thought above thus:

‘Professor Morgenthau writes In Defense of National Interest and regards the interest of the nation as superior to anything else. He appears to regard the pursuit of accepted moral principle as in itself immoral: “a foreign policy guided by moral abstractions, without consideration of the national interest is bound to fail”; “the appeal to moral principles in the international sphere has no concrete universal meaning” (pp. 33-35).

It is “an iron law of international politics, that legal obligation must yield to the national interest “(pp. 144); and the only alternative roads to peace is war or negotiation.’

This study will examine the extent of the compatibility of this Morgenthaun position in Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Establishing the possibilities or otherwise of achieving the same interest within the ambit of the international law.

Morgenthau (1948) outline what constitutes the national interests, and which must be pursued without regard to any international code of conduct. According to him,

“The interest of the national society for which government has to concern itself are basically those of its military security, the integrity of its political life and the well being of its people.”

This study will examine how these factors as given by Morgenthau informed Russia’s annexation of the Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula. It will investigate the strategic importance of the peninsula to Russia; verify the contribution of the annexation to the overall integrity of Russia’s political life and how it promoted the well-being of the Russian people in Russia in general and the Russian-speaking populace in Crimea, in particular.

Kennan (1985-86), unlike the die-hard extreme realist, Morgenthau, admitted an exception where morality (international law) is considered in the pursuit of the national interests. He wrote focusing the United States of America thus:

“When we talk about the application of moral standards to foreign policy, therefore, we are not talking about compliance with some clear and generally accepted international code of behaviour. If the policies and actions of the U.S. government are to be made to conform to moral standards, those standards are going to be America's own, founded on traditional American principles, and when their failure to conform has an adverse effect on American interests, as distinct from political tastes, we have every right to complain, and, if necessary, to take retaliatory action.”

This position reveals the possibilities of agreement between international law and national interest of a nation, as it is observable from the excerpt that if the policies and actions of the U.S. government are to be made to conform to moral standards, those standards are going to be America's own, founded on traditional American principles. 

This study will demonstrate how international law could serve as the instrument for achieving national interest. It will establish its validity and reliability overtime; and narrow it down to the case under study.

National Interest and International Law: Idealists’ perspective

The idealists’ perspective is the obverse side of that of the realists. Their argument is weighty on the side of international law. They harp melodiously on the need for peace and stability in the international arena which can only be achieved with the instrumentality of mutual agreements embodied in the international law. Agreements they believed that since they were freely entered, should be binding (Pacta sunt servanda).

Oliver (1986) pointed out the threats to the survival of the human species that needs to be checked with the international law by prioritizing the need for the human species survival in typical national interests of a state. In his words,

It might be fair, were this question to be asked to respond: can the species reasonably be expected to survive in any state of civilization if we do not do something soon? (Given) the steadily intensifying threats to survival - now moving rapidly from superpower nuclear adventurism, through the dreadful risks of nuclear proliferation amongst rogue states, to the new horrors resulting from organized violence by overtly non-governmental groups.

“If we recognize the risk of non-survival of the species, is it not fair to ask, what then is needed for survival? Threat-related order-structure, rather than an at-the-instant protective seems essential” (Ibid.)

“The slide to imminent threat of total destruction has been so steep that it is not certain that "mutually assured survival" is even possible. If the urgency and the stark need for it can be made a first charge on humans, then a legal system designed to ensure survival might come just in time, provided nation-state system does not obstruct too much. Such non-obstruction by states urgently requires the conceptualization of state "national interest" to include survival of people and moral support of moderate, threat-effective public order” (Op. Cit.).

This study will demonstrate the threat posed by the Russian annexation of Crimea on the general survival of the human species and advise the actors accordingly.

Stating the position of the idealists on national interest and international law, Rourke (n.d) in his analysis wrote:

“Liberals (Idealists) also dismiss the realists' warning that pursuing ethical policy often works against the national interest. The wisest course, liberals contend, is for countries to recognize that their national interests and common interests of the world are inextricably tied.”

This study holds this position to be erroneous because every national interest of a nation is not mutual. There are national interests that are by all known parameter, selfish.

Theoretical Framework of Analysis

This study will employ the explanatory capability of Realism in the study of the Russian annexation of the Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. The choice of the theory was largely informed by its ability to explaining the Russia’s raison d’état, national interest in the annexation – summed as the “struggle for power.”

Realists argue that international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power (Morgenthau, 1948). They are pessimistic about human nature which they described as “selfish.” They contend that the selfish nature of human beings is reflected in the international arena, a place that they hold to be anarchical, given the fact that there is no overarching authority regulating the inherent selfishness of states. This scenario, they argue makes the international arena conflictual and also a place where the fittest survives.

Realism as an approach to international politics is traced back to such ancient practitioners and thinkers as Sun Tzu (544-496 B.C.), the Chinese general and author of The Art of War; Thucydides (460-399 B.C.), a Greek historian and author of The History of the Peloponnesian War; and Kautilya (4th Century B.C.), minister to the Mauryan emperor of India, who wrote in Arthashastra, "A king shall always endeavour to augment his own power." More recently, realism also marked the diplomacy of such statesmen as Otto von Bismark (1815-1898), the Iron Chancellor, who engineered the unification of Germany under Prussia's control (see Rourke n.d.).

The thoughts of Niccolo Machiavelli, a sixteenth-century Italian political thinker, and the seventeenth century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes are also invoked to demonstrate how realism is supposedly founded on age-old wisdom. Machiavelli is famous, or perhaps notorious, for offering practical advice to the statesman which would ensure that they remained in power and achieved their objectives. He proposed a series of guides by which states’ leaders might maximize their power. His advice included the instruction that promises must be broken when there is an interest to do so and that it is better to be feared than loved (see Realism).

The Post World War II realists include Hans Joachim Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz. The former represented the classical realists that had their focus on the states; whereas the later championed the opinion of the neo-realists which criticized the traditional realists for their disregard to the system itself for the units. They argued that the anarchical nature of the international arena explained the behavior of states, the units (see Walz 1979).

In summary the assumptions of realism are that:

Ø States are the key actors in international relations.

Ø Sovereignty, or independence and self-control, is the defining characteristic of the state.

Ø States are motivated by a drive for power, security and pursuit of the ‘national interest’.

Ø States, like men, behave in a self-interested manner.

Ø The central problem in international relations is the condition of anarchy, which means the lack of a central sovereign authority at the global level to regulate relations between states.

Ø The aggressive intent of states combined with the lack of world government, means that conflict is an unavoidable and ever-present reality of international relations.

Ø A semblance of order and security can be maintained by shifting alliances among states so preventing any one state from becoming overwhelmingly powerful and, thus, constituting a threat to the peace and security of others.

Ø International institutions and law play a role in international relations, but are only effective if backed by force or effective sanction.

Ø Power is the key to understanding international behaviour and state motivation. For realists the main form of power is military or physical power.

Ø Human nature can be said to be inherently selfish and constant. As a result, humans will act to further their own interests even to the detriment of others, which can often lead to conflict.

Ø Because human nature is unchanging, there is little prospect that this kind of behaviour will change (Op. Cit.).

This theory will help to understand the Russian expansionist move into Ukraine. It will explain the underpinning selfish interest that necessitated the move; and equally give a practical advice to balancing the threatening power to the Ukrainian territoriality.

Methodology

Method of Data Collection

This study will employ secondary method of data collection. Documented data from libraries and the internet would be consulted.

Relevant textbooks on the subject matter would be carefully thawed and thumbed for relevant data. Journals and articles from academic and research institutions which are considered relevant to the subject under study would be sought for and consulted either online or from the libraries and archives.

News items especially from the print and the online media would be of great importance to this study and as such would also be consulted.

Method of Data Analysis

This study will employ content analysis. It will carefully study the collected data and establish logical connection between and among them in advancing the proposition of the study.

Expected Results

At the end of the study, the following outcomes are anticipated:

1.     Understanding the reason for the annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula: This will help the Ukrainian government in their policy making regarding the problem. It will also be useful to the concerned members of the international community. The literature on the subject matter would be improved by this study; thus making more resources available to International Relations scholars and students.

2.     Highlighting the weaknesses of the international law;

3.     Marking the extent of international law as an instrument of national interest.

4.     Indicating the dangers of the Russian annexation of Crimea to the survival of humanity.

References

Appleton, S. (n.d) Ukraine: clear breaches of international law in Crimea; http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=0b6a41e4-bca2-4234-8b3e-9cb027b98607

Eagleton, C. (1951) International Law or National Interest; The American Journal of International Law  Vol. 45, No. 4, Oct., 1951  American Society of International Law International Law Review 1, no. 1 (1986): 57-65

Kennan, G. (1985-86), Morality and Foreign Policy, 64 Foreign Aff.      

Morgenthau, H. (1978), Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace , NewYork: Knopf

Oliver, Covey T. "International Law, Morality, and the National Interest: Comments for a New Journal." American University

Realism, http://media.routledgeweb.com/pdf/9781408204887/realism_chpt.pdf; accessed, October 7, 2014

Rourke, J.T. (n.d) International Politics on the World Stage,http://jeffreyfields.net

Waltz, K. (1979), Theory of International Politics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley


READ MORE:
The history of Aguleri