The Instigator
GreatOratorStalin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Biodome
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Did Russia Annex Crimea?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Biodome
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 533 times Debate No: 74059
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

GreatOratorStalin

Con

Russia did not annex Crimea as Crimea asked Russia to send in soldiers to protect them from Ukrainian Fascists, and as Crimea is it's own government, they had a referendum whether Crimea should join Russia, and most people were for that idea.
Biodome

Pro

I would like to greet my opponent and thank him for the opportunity to have a debate on this important topic. Since my opponent did not provide any outline of the debate in the 1st Round, I will do it myself. Also, since my opponent provided an argument in the 1st Round, I will assume that the 1st Round is not only for acceptance. Thus, I will also present my case.

I would like to see the definition of annex, so I will provide it below:

Annex -
to add (an area or region) to a country, state, etc. : to take control of (a territory or place) [1]

The Burden of Proof is solely on me to show that the Russian Federation has annexed Crimea by the standards of International Law. In order for my opponent to be successful in this debate, he will have to show that my arguments and reasoning are unsound.

Let's begin and Good luck!


1. Crimea's Referendum was illegitimate.

My opponent states that "as Crimea is it's own government, they had a referendum whether Crimea should join Russia". That is correct, however, this action by the government of Crimea was illegitimate. Here's why.

A. While Crimea is an autonomous republic, it is not independent and, thus, has to adhere to Ukrainian Law. [2] Article 73 of the Constitution of Ukraine states the following: "Issues of altering the territory of Ukraine are resolved exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum." [3] Therefore, since Crimea is a territory of Ukraine, the referendum should have been organized throughout the whole country. Since it was organized only within Crimea, it is illegitimate under Ukrainian Law. Indeed, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine declared unconstitutional the Resolution "On holding of the all-Crimean referendum". [4] Vladimir Putin has argued that Crimea has a right to hold an all-Crimean referendum under International Law, but this does not seem the case on further inspection, as the International Law does not specifically allow such separatist resolutions, even if they are democratic. [5]

B. Even if Crimea did have the legal capacity to hold such referendum, the results of it were deemed fraudulent, rendering it illegitimate. Firstly, there were no OSCE or UN observers to ensure a transparent referendum. [6][7] Although Russia claimed that there was a presence of non-OSCE observers, their trustworthiness has been questioned. Secondly, the results have been shown to be fraudulent and predetermined; there have been reports on military intimidation of citizens and the falsification of results [8]. Thirdly, the UN and the international community has on several occasions deemed the referendum invalid, although Russia has vetoed the UN resolutions. [9][10]

Therefore, I conclude that the Crimean Referendum was illegitimate and thus Con should not be able to use it as a valid argument for his case.

2. Russia broke International Law.

In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, Ukraine agreed to sign a Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, whereas Russia agreed to do the following, among other things:

a) Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
b) Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine. [11]

Since Russia sent its soldiers into Ukrainian territory, it broke both (a) and (b), thus dishonoring the Memorandum. This qualifies as a violation of International Law.

3. The Republic of Crimea is not internationally recognized as a part of Russia.

One of the reasons why Russian forces in Crimea are unlawful, is because it goes against the beliefs of the International community. These actions by Russia have not gained any support from most members of the UN and only a minority of UN countries actually recognize Crimea as a part of Russia. [12]

4. Russian has annexed Crimea by definition.

Let's again take a look at the definition of the word annex: to add (an area or region) to a country, state, etc. : to take control of (a territory or place)

Now let's see what Russia has done in Crimea:

A. Russia has sent its troops into Crimean territory and gained de facto control in the region.
B. Russia has signed laws on reunification of Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol with Russia. [13]

(A) and (B) qualify as annexation, because they fit the definition of the word.

Conclusion. I have not only shown that Russia has annexed Crimea by the definition of the word, but I have also shown that it was done in an unlawful manner, violating International Law. I now await my opponent's response and rebuttals in the following Round.


Sources:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.rada.crimea.ua...
[3] http://www.ccu.gov.ua...
[4] http://mfa.gov.ua...
[5] http://blogs.ft.com...
[6] http://www.worldbulletin.net...
[7] http://www.talkradionews.com...
[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[9] http://www.npr.org...
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[11] https://www.msz.gov.pl...
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[13] http://tass.ru...
Debate Round No. 1
GreatOratorStalin

Con

GreatOratorStalin forfeited this round.
Biodome

Pro

I am extending my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
GreatOratorStalin

Con

GreatOratorStalin forfeited this round.
Biodome

Pro

Unfortunately, my opponent forfeited all available rounds and thus has not rebutted any of my arguments, nor strengthened his own case. As I think that my case sufficiently satisfies my burden of proof, I encourage you to Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by JackOfDiamonds 2 years ago
JackOfDiamonds
GreatOratorStalin I'm sorry, do we both live in the same world? Are you from some alternate dimension where the USA have annexed Canada and Mexico?
Posted by GreatOratorStalin 2 years ago
GreatOratorStalin
JackofDiamonds at least its not led by idiots from the EU or idiots like Obama or the rest of Western europe. Russia doesnt have half the problems the west has. And I think that Obama is the maniac.
Posted by JackOfDiamonds 2 years ago
JackOfDiamonds
There's no point arguing about Russia, it's a disgracefully corrupt and aggressive nation, led by a complete maniac. It's only going to be so long before Putin does something he will really regret.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Death23 2 years ago
Death23
GreatOratorStalinBiodomeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
GreatOratorStalinBiodomeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture, Con also needs to learn the definition of Annex. Justified or not, it is annexation.
Vote Placed by orangutan 2 years ago
orangutan
GreatOratorStalinBiodomeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Also, Con's first round is a run-on sentence. And Con did not use any sources.