In the present article author analyzes secession of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in Ukraine in spring of 2014 through the light of existing international legal norms theories of the right to secession. Author discusses advantages and disadvantages of the theory of the initial right for the secession, including inscriptive and associative sub theory and human rights theory. The article focuses on the analysis of the Crimean secession complication by the existing normative theory, the subject - people are enough polyethnic, and self-determination is happening more on linguistic and cultural characteristics, as well as on the basis of historical memory. Author noted a gap in contemporary international law regarding the interpretation of the subject of the right to secession and bases for secession. In addition, the increase in the secessionist conflict in international relations is pushing to develop the Institute more detailed. The article stresses the need to develop a new normative theory of the right to secession, establishment of responsibilities of the parties in the implementation of secession. There is the hypothesis about the formation of a new historical stage of development of the right to self-determination in international law and, as a consequence, it becomes necessary to develop the regulatory limits and implementation in advance. In conclusion, author notes that the states themselves must feel the social processes and respect its citizens, to consider the unfortunate experience of other States in the suppression of social unrest. Latent and long-term secessions are still relevant and international law should promptly and effectively respond to their possible aggravation, offering a balanced approach and taking into account the previous one, albeit an ambiguous separation experience and recognition of secession.
Crimea, secession, standard theory, people, remedialny secession, askriptivny, associative, subtheory.