(no subject)
May. 10th, 2014 10:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeletsThe annexation of Crimea by Russia is a textbook example of "Breach of Contract," the contract being the Budapest Memorandum. Why is it a valid contract? Because the parties bargained, achieved a multi-party agreement, and exchanged considerations. According to the agreement, Ukraine transferred its nuclear weapons in return for Russian guarantees of the former's territorial integrity. Neither at the time of signing, nor over the last 20+ years, Russia expressed any doubt that Crimea belongs to Ukraine, i.e. both sides accepted the contract as a valid set of binding obligations.
When Russia annexed Crimea it directly violated the terms of the contract. By violating the contract, Russia not only caused damages to Ukraine, but also damaged the international system of contract enforcement [Russia signed as one of the contract's guarantors]. Therefore, Russia is liable for:
1. Returning Crimea to Ukraine and paying associated damages;
2. Paying the costs of restoring the contract system;
3. Compensating for the risk of future breaches.
When Russia annexed Crimea it directly violated the terms of the contract. By violating the contract, Russia not only caused damages to Ukraine, but also damaged the international system of contract enforcement [Russia signed as one of the contract's guarantors]. Therefore, Russia is liable for:
1. Returning Crimea to Ukraine and paying associated damages;
2. Paying the costs of restoring the contract system;
3. Compensating for the risk of future breaches.
