CYIL 2015

THE CREATION OF NEW STATES AND DE FACTO REGIMES, AND THE CASE OF CRIMEA to pay compensation. 45 According to Heintz the case of Northern Cyprus could be used in cases like South Ossetia, which exists also only due to Russian military intervention. Pragmatic international law in cases like Northern Cyprus, Chechnya or Moldova shows that human rights can be enforced against de facto regimes. 46 In Moldova there is the case Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia, where Russia was found partially responsible for the violation of human rights in the Pridnestrovian Moldavian republic. 47 Provided that de facto regimes can be made accountable for breaches of human rights, all means can be used to enforce fundamental human rights according to customary international law, 48 that is all the political pressure of the UN and the international community. As de facto regimes seek international recognition this pressure may turn effective. 3.1.3 De facto regimes and international humanitarian law Referring to international humanitarian law, the question is whether de facto regimes are bound by the common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. According to J. Pictet, if the responsible authority at their head exercises effective sovereignty, it is bound by the very fact that it claims to represent the country, or part of the country. The fact that Article 3 is of a customary nature and its provisions are legally binding on all parties to an internal armed conflict means that it is applicable to de facto regimes. 49 Article 3 therefore applies without consideration of whether the violation of the standards of the Article are caused by the parent state’s government or another non-state entity. Other fundamental provisions of international humanitarian law as customary law can be applied to all sides of a conflict; for example, the prohibition of chemical weapons. These universal rules are applicable to internal and international armed Closely connected with the above mentioned de facto regimes is the separation of Crimea from Ukraine and its annexation by Russia. A referendum took place in Crimea on 16 March 2014. The reported results show that 96% of votes given were for the separation from Ukraine. Following the referendum the parliament of Ukraine’s Autonomous Republic of Crimea changed its name to the State Council of 45 Supra n. 40, p. 268. 46 Ibid. , p. 273 – HEINTZE, H. J. Las Palmeras v. Bamaca – Velasques und Bankovic . v. Loizidou? In: Humanitares Volkerrecht 18 (2005), p. 177. conflicts. De facto regimes are bound to respect them. 4. The issue of Crimea as a de facto regime

47 Ibid., s. 274. 48 Ibid., s. 275. 49 Supra n. 26, p. 36.

143