Are there any international laws governing the change of country of a region?

Question

Russia last week held a referendum on whether the occupied regions of Ukraine would want to join Russia. Many states and international institutions have already made clear that they will not accept the result, because it seems obvious that the outcome will be faked and people are not free in their decision.

Therefore my question: What would be a legal way of achieving this? Are there any international laws on that, or does it depend mostly on the laws of the countries involved? I do know that there have been some polls about regions changing state in the past (e.g. the 1919 poll in Vorarlberg), but I don't know of a recent one and I don't know of any successful ones.

Answer 1

So generally, when a region of a nation tries to break away and form a new nation or join a nation, it's acceptance as a nation is generally based on the Diplomatic Recognition of other Nations. This can either be de facto or de jure, with the former acting in a manner of having some acknowledgement of a government of a territory, while a de jure recognition typically is stronger with embassies, consulates, and treaties between the two nations. For example, the United States has de jure recognition of France and vice versa, while they merely have de facto recognition with Iran (They recognize there is a government of the territorial area known as Iran, but they feel that the current government is illegitimate and refuse to engage with it in diplomatic relationships. Iran similarly knows there is a United States, but refuses to recognize it for political reasons as well.). When two nations do not have de jure recognition they will often appoint another nation "Protecting Power" who will act as a representative of the appointing nation in the nation they do not recognize. Currently, the Swiss Embassy in Iran has an office dedicated to U.S. affairs as it is the Protecting Power of the United States in Iran. Iran has asked Pakistan to have the same duties. And before you ask, yes, it is the geopolitical equivalent of two people in the same room not speaking to one another, but telling a third person to give the other person a message (U.S.: Switzerland tell Iran that they will give us back our citizens who are being held in their jail cells or we will drop bombs on them. Switzerland: rolls eyes Iran, the U.S. says they want their guys back or they will bomb you. Iran: Oh yeah? Tell U.S. 'Death to America!' Switzerland: eye roll They said... U.S.: Already routing the bombers!)

If a region is claimed by more than one government, than it becomes disputed territory. Presently China has a lot of disputed territory with its neighbors and Maritime neighbors. Ongoing disputes include territories also claimed by India, Bhutan, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and The Philippines. Interestingly, the dispute with Taiwan is over who is the real government of China... Taiwan claims much of the other disputed territory China does... plus some territories which China has resolved disputes over.

The Russia-Ukraine situation will likely leave the territory in question (The Donbas and Crimea Regions) listed as disputed. Generally, disputed territory doesn't mean nations cannot be friendly, as the United States has a number of territorial disputes with Canada, despite being very strong diplomatic allies (with the single largest land boarder between two nations in the world, disputed territory was bound to happen). Perhaps the most interesting is the now resolved dispute of the San Juan Island in Washington State. Oversimplified History has a good video about it on his YouTube channel, specifically the "Pig War" confrontations and does a pretty good job of highlighting just how dramatic the change to the modern border would have been.

Answer 2

What would be a legal way of achieving this?

The meaning of "legal" at international scale is whimsical. What people usually refer to as "international laws" are not, strictly speaking (and can't be) laws as such. Rather, they are just treaties, agreements, conventions etc. between certain countries (sovereign states). Some participate in those treaties, some don't. Some are more or less consistent in their attitude, other would sway depending on their current political agenda.

Hence, if a country doesn't participate in any of those treaties, there is no basis to accuse it of breaking "international laws". Whatever it does outside its borders becomes a matter of geopolitics, not law.

Now, "the change of country of a region" may be considered "lawful" from the point of view of those countries that participate in international treaties, but only in a scenario like this:

1. The region itself declares independence and gets diplomatic recognition. Importantly, this separation must be genuinely driven from inside the region by its residents, not pushed or orchestrated from outside.
2. The region itself requests to become a part of another country. Again, this must be driven by the region's own residents, and not in any way orchestrated (let alone forced) by the would-be new home country.

Answer 3

Legally, territory transfer should be the subject of a treaty between the two countries concerned, duly ratified by each country according to its constitutional requirements. In recent decades (or centuries?) there has been increasing attention paid to the right of self determination, so a referendum showing that a majority of the population is in favor would be desirable politically. I'm not aware of any existing treaty that would require this or that otherwise describes any mechanism for determining the will of the people. A treaty concerning such a transfer could contain such a requirement; if I recall correctly the Good Friday agreement is an example of such a treaty, but of course this provision of the treaty has not been invoked.

Without doing any research, I can think of one such transfer (without any population), which is the adjustment of the border between France and Switzerland in connection with construction of the Geneva airport. Like you, I am unaware of a transfer of populated territory that wasn't brought about by a war.

Answer 4

The only legal way is for both countries claiming that territory to agree on who owns what. There is no other mechanism. In particular, self-determination of people within that area is not a factor.

The situation of the Golan Heights is similar. In that case, an invading army first occupied an area of another country and then fully annexed it. Under international law this area still belongs to Syria, in spite of the fact that it has been under full Israeli control for decades. (The fact of Israel initially occupying this area for strategic military reasons after being attacked by Syria is not relevant legally.)

It's worth noting that the land border of Ukraine was previously well-established as the border of what was a well-defined area of the USSR. (Ownership of islands may have been in dispute, but the land border was not.) At the time, the people of Crimea were significantly opposed to becoming part of Ukraine, but this did not affect the status of Crimea as being part of Ukraine. It may also be worth noting too that Crimea's inclusion as part of Ukraine was itself imposed by USSR central government, without consideration of Crimea's citizens.