How has Russia’s position on the legality of the use of force changed over the last 40 years? 2. What explains these changes? (50%) Allocate (50%) in discussing each of the above questions. (Don’t worry about legal language) Key readings for this case study Russia doesn’t just violate international law – it follows and shapes it too http://theconversation.com/russia-doesnt-just-violate-international-law-it-follows-and-shapes-it-too-92700 Crimea, Kosovo, Hobgoblins and Hypocrisy https://www.ejiltalk.org/crimea-kosovo-hobgoblins-and-hypocrisy/ Illegal but Legitimate? https://www.ejiltalk.org/illegal-but-legitimate/ And three PDF very short readings (Please read all four sources very carefully to be able to understand and therefore, be able to discuss the two above questions?) • This case study is not simply about writing a desсrіptive piece • Divide your answer into two parts, each answering one question. You don′t need to devote exactly 750 words to each answer, but your response shouldn′t be unbalanced in favour of one of the questions. Only focus on major changes that took place in relation to Russia’s position on the legality for the use of force. • Use the first paragraph to summarise the argument of the whole piece, or just the first section. Do not include a waffle intro with pointless context that everyone knows: e.g. ′Russia′s attitude towards international law is increasingly in the news, and is very important to understand because … etc, etc′. Get straight to the point. • Look for the changes. First look for the changes and then explain them in the second part of the question. How these changes have shifted. Remember this is not a case study for foreign intervention but rather a country case study. Use cold war and post-cold war as guide to answer the above questions. • Break them down and only focus on key changes that took place – Explain what these changes were and how it changed the state’s position on the legality of use of force • Identify the changes that took place and explain why they happened. Make an account of why they happened, don’t only tell what happened. Take consideration on the legality of it. • What do you think these changes were and how do you define their legality • Keep focused on the question which is about the “change” within the last 40 years. Do not focus on individuals, Foreign Policy but rather the changes that occurred and why their position shifted? What are the key turning points? What happened before and after the key turning points? • Think about why states take certain positions, and why these positions change. Possible things to consider include: New kinds of arguments becoming accepted as international law, • Discuss the changing state attitudes towards international law, changing domestic politics, broader ideological shifts, ′self-entrapment′ because of previous positions taken on other issues, changing state interests, changes to the global economy and this state′s position in it, new geo-political alliances, activism around particular issues etc. • You should be precise with language without worrying about legal technicalities. Use the distinction between legal and legitimate • By ′position on legality′ we mean general statements such as: ′intervention is legal without Security Council resolution in case of mass atrocities′, ′international law has become a tool of the Third World ′tyranny of the majority′ at the UN and can legitimately be ignored′, ′intervention without Security Council is legitimate if not legal only in case of mass atrocities′, ′intervention in socialist states is legal since the boundaries between socialist states are artificial′, and ′intervention is legal if the Security Council veto has been used irrationally′. • Any words that are not your own must be in quote marks with a reference. All ideas that are not your own must be referenced. All references to specific quotes or pieces of information must have reference so that it can be found in the bibliography.
