The article is dedicated to the analysis of ideologically meaningful proper names, mainly oikonyms, and also to the indication and description of the three main tendencies noticed in Ukrainian oikonyms from the end of 1989 until 2016, during the social and political transformations in Ukraine and the decommunization processes connected with it. Using examples, the authors illustrate the phenomenon of korenizatsiya (nativisation), namely the recovery of historical names from before sovietisation, allusiveness, ensuring a neutral nature for names by referring to objects outside the area of politics and ideology, as well as glorification, the honoring and memorializing of events, heroes, and symbols connected with the past and modern history of Ukraine.
The natural gas supply is used from Russia Federation as a political instrument in the geopolitical and territorial conflict with Ukraine. The effectiveness of Russian strategy towards Ukraine is due to the fact that power in Kiev is also exercised by the pro-Russian politicians and supported on the part of Ukrainian oligarchs. The two countries are interdependent in terms of energy by means of the existing gas infrastructure and long-term contracts, because Ukraine guarantees the Russian Federation the transit of natural gas to Europe through its system of transmission gas pipelines, and Russia pays for the transit and used to supply the agreed amount of gas to Ukraine. For the first time – in 2016 – Ukraine didn’t import natural gas directly from the Russia Federation. This article attempts to obtain an answer to the research question, whether Ukraine actually strives to diversify its natural gas supply. What part of this policy is the Ukrainian political instrument in terms of Russia, and what part is the real political objective? Especially in the context of the gas contract between both States, ending in 2019. What role will be played the underground gas storage in the geopolitical struggle? Despite Nord Stream II the Russian Federation still needs the Ukrainian pipelines to fulfill contractual obligations in gas supplies to Europe. What are the strategic goals of the energy policy of Ukraine and Russia? The geopolitical as well as geo-economic theories will be applied. Moreover, a factor analysis as well as a decision-making analysis will be used. The political analysis method and the forecasting technique are applied to obtain, not only theoretical, but also practical input.
This article is dedicated to the publications of the Russian legal scholars on the annexation of Crimea in 2014 or, according to the Russian version of the events “Crimea’s reunification with Russia.” Based on the factual circumstances of the case and the norms of Ukrainian constitutional law and international law, as well as modern approaches in international legal doctrine, the article analyses the key arguments of the Russian authorities and its legal scholarship, namely the following: 1) Russia’s use of force against Ukraine was necessary to defend Russian nationals and compatriots; 2) Russia’s use of force against Ukraine was a lawful response to the request for assistance by the legitimate leaders of Ukraine (V. Yanukovych) and Crimea (S. Aksyonov); 3) the events in Crimea were a secession, with the subsequent accession of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation as an independent state; 4) Ukraine disregarded the principle of the equality and self-determination of peoples vis-à-vis the residents of Crimea, therefore, Crimeans had the right to secede; 5) Crimea is historically Russian; 6) Ukraine had been exercising peaceful annexation of the peninsula since 1991, and Russia did not object to this (subject to certain conditions, which Ukraine violated in 2014); 7) the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 was illegal. This article evaluates whether these claims hold any weight under international law. In addition the general trends in contemporary Russian approaches to international law are outlined and their effects on its foreign policy are examined.
In light of international law, the incorporation of the Crimean Peninsula (Crimea), which forms part of Ukraine’s territory, into the Russian Federation qualifies as annexation, i.e. the illegal acquisition of the territory of another state by the threat or use of force. In this respect, Crimea remains an occupied territory under international law. The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation has violated many treaties and fundamental principles of international law, namely the principle of territorial integrity of states, non-intervention into the domestic affairs of another state, and the prohibition of the threat or use of force against another state. Consequently, the Russian Federation has violated Ukraine’s rights which enjoy international protection. Moreover, due to the special legal status of the principles of international law that have been violated, the Russian Federation has breached its commitments under law to the entire international community. This community has an international legal obligation not to recognize the illegal situation created by the illegal use of force in the form of armed aggression, and its consequences.
The decapod fauna from the Badenian (middle Miocene) deposits of western Ukraine comprises in total 31 taxa: 20 species, 9 taxa left in open nomenclature, and 2 determined at family level. Thirteen of these taxa are reported for the first time from the territory of Ukraine. Among them are the first records of Trapezia glaessneri Müller, 1976 in the Fore-Carpathian Basin and Pachycheles sp. in Paratethys. One taxon (Petrolisthes sp. A) probably represents a new species. The occurrence of this significant decapod fauna is restricted almost exclusively to the Upper Badenian (i.e., early Serravallian) coralgal reefs of the Ternopil Beds. The taxonomic composition of the decapods indicates that the Late Badenian depositional environment was a shallow marine basin dominated by reefs that developed in warm-to-tropical waters of oceanic salinity. The decapod assemblage from the Ternopil Beds is similar in its taxonomic composition to numerous decapod faunules from fossil reefs of Eocene to Miocene age from the Mediterranean realm and of Miocene age from Paratethys. In contrast, decapod remains are very scarce in Badenian siliciclastic deposits (Mikolaiv Beds) and are represented by the most resistant skeletal elements, i.e., dactyli and fixed fingers. This scarcity was caused by the high-energy environment, with frequent episodes of redeposition, which disintegrated and abraded the decapod remains.
An activist of two big traditions. Skaryna and Ukraine Scholarly research of Francysk Skaryna legacy has been initiated by J.V. Bacmejster in 1776 and V.S. Sopikow in 1813. Further research conducted in the XX century by Alexander Bilecki, Pavel Popov, Yaroslav Isayevich, U. Anichenko and contemporary studies of Halyna Kovalchuk, Alexandr Nauvov, Mariola Walczak-Mikolajczak and others demonstrate how important were Skaryna’s activities on the border of two big traditions. In this context it’s worth to focus on a topic “Skaryna and Ukraine” in all its depth: biographical, publishing, polygraphic, academic, bibliographical. Ukrainian episode in Skaryna’s life and his birth town of Polotsk is related to the cult of Saint Euphrosyne of Polotsk who established the fi rst female monastery and is considered a patron of female monasticism of Rus. Polygraphic context of Skaryna’s activities is tied to Western Europe. Upon the receipt of a doctorate in medicine at the University of Padua he visited Venice – one of the most prominent centers of printing and publishing including Slavic, Greek and Hebrew texts where he also mastered modern printing techniques. In Prague Skaryna used two color printing technique to publish The Song of Songs and print the title page of Biblia Ruska. In Vilnius two color printing technique has been applied to print fi ve chapters of the Bible and just one title page of Psalter.
On 11 March 2014 Crimea declared independence. Ukraine and international society has not recognised that act. However Crimea’s independence was recognised by Russia and on 18 March 2014 an agreement on the accession of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation was signed. Many countries and international organisations have condemned that step, viewing it as illegal annexation. Regardless of how this situation is treated however, it is at present a fait accompli. Such a situation evokes legal consequences both in the internal law of Ukraine and Russia as well as on the plane of international law. The residents of Crimea appear to be in the worst situation. Legal certainty is a fiction for them now. There are also problems on the international plane. Despite the fact that in the opinion of international society Crimea remains an integral part of Ukraine, in practice there are many conflicting problems of a legal nature that cannot be solved, at least for the time being. This article analyses the legality and certain legal consequences of the “accession” of Crimea to Russia and the effect of this accession on the legal situation for residents of Crimea. The article concludes that legal situation of Crimeans will not improve anytime soon, and that the legal problems which have arisen on the international plane will not be resolved soon either.
One of the direct results of the collapse of the former USSR was the emergence of centrifugal ethnic minority nationalisms, which posed a threat to the stability of the then newly-established (or restored in the case of the Baltic democracies) states. In this context, one of the mechanisms introduced by the leading elites in several countries (e.g. Latvia, Ukraine, Estonia, the Russian Federation) in order to address the minority diversity issue, ensure stability, and gain international support (in the case of the Baltic states) was a cultural autonomy scheme, which has its origins in the ideas of the late 19th century Austro-Marxist school of thought. This model was successfully implemented once in the past, in inter-war Estonia. However, its modern application, even in cases when it does not just remain on paper (such as in Latvia and Ukraine), seems to serve other motives (e.g. a restitutional framework in Estonia, control of the non-titular minority elites in Russia) rather than the satisfaction of minority cultural needs, thus making cultural autonomy a dead letter.
The article deals with the question of linguistic interference among Slavic languages at the example of Choroszczynka, a bilingual village in Biała Podlaska County, Lublin Voivodeship. The presentation of two complete questionnaires for the Slavic Linguistic Atlas (OLA), Polish and Ukrainian, not only makes it possible to capture grammatical and lexical peculiarities of both sets assigned to individual dialects, but also reveals carelessness of the fi eldworkers who collected the data. This, in turn, contributed to such an interpretation of dialectal data presented in OLA maps which does not refl ect linguistic reality.
The author of the article makes an attempt to show borrowings from the perspective of their penetration into Polish and presents the most common and less frequent words. Special attention is paid to the usage and context of separate words in pairs (native word ~ borrowed word) in two idiolects that demonstrate the preservation of the Polish language tradition and show a new wave of loanwords as well. The author describes some word-formative peculiarities of verbs in the dialectal Polish language of Gródek Podolski. This text can be a supplement to the previous papers concerning borrowed vocabulary and morphological derivation in Polish dialects.
The article deals with the issue of formation and functioning of rural tourism clusters in Ukraine. Here, formation of cluster structures in rural tourism is at its initial stage. Analysis of existing clusters resulted in their classification into groups based on the criterion of specialization: lodging and food (farmsteads), agritourist and local history tourism clusters. Analysis of the main research models for the creation and analysis of rural tourism clusters functioning has been performed. A multilevel universal model of the rural tourism clusters with basic structural levels (basic, affiliate and accompanying) has been proposed for scientific and practical purposes. This model was used to form two cluster initiatives in the ethnographic region of the Ukrainian Carpathians – in the Boykivshchyna. The need to use foreign experience in rural tourism cluster research has been emphasized.
The aim of this article is to classify the armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia in light of international law. Firstly, the Russian armed activities are qualified through the lens of use of force and it is shown that Russia committed an aggression. Secondly, the Russian- Ukrainian conflict is qualified according to the law of armed conflict, not only identifying the applicable norms of law of armed conflict but examining whether atrocities have been committed and whether they are war crimes or mere crimes or acts of terror. The article posits that there is an international armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine and in addition a non-international one between Ukrainian insurgents and governmental forces. The methodology used in the article is legal analysis of documents and international law doctrine.
The international community anxiously awaited delivery of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Kosovo’s declaration of independence, hoping it would clarify the controversial right of self-determination and the right of secession. Although it was hailed by many as a confirmation of both rights, the advisory opinion was disappointing regarding that part of the analysis which was based on general international law. The ICJ interpreted the question posed in a very narrow and formalistic way. It concluded that declarations of independence (not their consequences) are not in violation of international law, but it did not rule that they are in accordance with international law, as was requested in the posed question. The ICJ refused to examine whether there is a positive entitlement to secession under international law. Although Kosovo and its supporters claimed that the case of Kosovo is unique and will not set a precedent, Russia used the case of Kosovo and the advisory opinion to justify the so-called referendum in Crimea and the subsequent incorporation of Crimea into Russia. However, the situation in Crimea is only superficially comparable to Kosovo and the advisory opinion gives little or no support in the case of Crimea
Ukraine, upon giving up the nuclear arsenal left on its territory by the USSR, entered in 1994 into a Memorandum on Security Assurances with the United Kingdom, United States and Russian Federation (Budapest Memorandum). Since the crisis began between the Russian Federation and Ukraine in February 2014, a number of States have invoked the Budapest Memorandum. Unclear, however, is whether this instrument constituted legal obligations among its Parties or, instead, is a political declaration having no legal effect. The distinction between political instruments and legal instruments is a recurring question in inter-State relations and claims practice. The present article considers the Budapest Memorandum in light of the question of general legal interest – namely, how do we distinguish between the legal and the political instrument?