{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/98537"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/98537","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Russian Intervention in Crimea and the Question of Responsibility to Protect","abstract":"The Russian Federation has claimed that its unilateral intervention in Crimea represents a case for Responsibility to Protect. This study investigates how the international community reacts to and determines a case of Responsibility to Protect. Three criteria to justify use of Responsibility to Protect are created from an analysis of international deliberations in previous interventions in Côte d'Ivoire (2010), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011). The Russian Federation involvement in Kosovo is analyzed in order to better understand its stance regarding intervention in Crimea. Classification as Responsibility to Protect requires (1) the case must have confirmed human rights violations; (2) the state must demonstrate that the human rights violations are more important than the state's sovereignty; and, (3) the state must use the multilateral system in the United Nations Security Council. The Russian Federation's intervention in Crimea constitutes a case for Responsibility to Protect to a minimal extent as their case did not have confirmed human rights violations and did not intervene multilaterally through the United Nations Security Council.","abstract_html":"The Russian Federation has claimed that its unilateral intervention in Crimea represents a case for Responsibility to Protect. This study investigates how the international community reacts to and determines a case of Responsibility to Protect. Three criteria to justify use of Responsibility to Protect are created from an analysis of international deliberations in previous interventions in Côte d'Ivoire (2010), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011). The Russian Federation involvement in Kosovo is analyzed in order to better understand its stance regarding intervention in Crimea. Classification as Responsibility to Protect requires (1) the case must have confirmed human rights violations; (2) the state must demonstrate that the human rights violations are more important than the state's sovereignty; and, (3) the state must use the multilateral system in the United Nations Security Council. The Russian Federation's intervention in Crimea constitutes a case for Responsibility to Protect to a minimal extent as their case did not have confirmed human rights violations and did not intervene multilaterally through the United Nations Security Council.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Dorsch, Jessica Frances"],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Arts","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Political Science","degree_department":"Political Science","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Stivachtis, Yannis A."],"committee_members":["Brantly, Aaron F.","Luke, Timothy W."],"year":2020,"date_issued":"2020-05-22","date_published":"2020-05-22","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:56:05Z","subjects":["Responsibility to Protect","Unilateral Intervention","Crimea","Russian Federation"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["vt_gsexam:26227"],"render_values":[{"text":"vt_gsexam:26227","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/98537","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Stivachtis, Yannis A."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Brantly, Aaron F.","Luke, Timothy W."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Political Science"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Dorsch, Jessica Frances"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2020-05-23T08:00:35Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2020-05-23T08:00:35Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2020-05-22"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Political Science"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Arts"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Responsibility to Protect","Unilateral Intervention","Crimea","Russian Federation"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["vt_gsexam:26227"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/98537"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The Russian Federation has claimed that its unilateral intervention in Crimea represents a case for Responsibility to Protect. This study investigates how the international community reacts to and determines a case of Responsibility to Protect. Three criteria to justify use of Responsibility to Protect are created from an analysis of international deliberations in previous interventions in Côte d'Ivoire (2010), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011). The Russian Federation involvement in Kosovo is analyzed in order to better understand its stance regarding intervention in Crimea. Classification as Responsibility to Protect requires (1) the case must have confirmed human rights violations; (2) the state must demonstrate that the human rights violations are more important than the state's sovereignty; and, (3) the state must use the multilateral system in the United Nations Security Council. The Russian Federation's intervention in Crimea constitutes a case for Responsibility to Protect to a minimal extent as their case did not have confirmed human rights violations and did not intervene multilaterally through the United Nations Security Council."]},{"key":"dc:description.abstractgeneral","label":"General Abstract","values":["The Russian Federation has claimed that its unilateral intervention in Crimea represents a case for Responsibility to Protect. The study investigates how the international community reacts to and determines a case of Responsibility to protect. By analyzing the humanitarian intervention of Kosovo and the prior Responsibility to Protect cases of Côte d'Ivoire (2010), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011), three criteria are established to determine if use of Responsibility to Protect is appropriate. The case of Kosovo is analyzed since the Russian Federation used this to further justify its intervention in Crimea. Classification as Responsibility to Protect requires the following: (1) the case must have confirmed human rights violations; (2) the state must demonstrate that the human rights violations are more important than the state's right to rule over its own population; and, (3) the state must use the multilateral system in the United Nations Security Council. The Russian Federation's intervention in Crimea constitutes a case for Responsibility to Protect to a minimal extent only since its case did not have confirmed human rights violations and did not intervene multilaterally through the United Nations Security Council."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Arts"]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["ETD"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Russian Intervention in Crimea and the Question of Responsibility to Protect"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Stivachtis, Yannis A."],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Brantly, Aaron F.","Luke, Timothy W."],"dc:contributor.department":["Political Science"],"dc:creator":["Dorsch, Jessica Frances"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2020-05-23T08:00:35Z"],"dc:date.available":["2020-05-23T08:00:35Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2020-05-22"],"dc:description.abstract":["The Russian Federation has claimed that its unilateral intervention in Crimea represents a case for Responsibility to Protect. This study investigates how the international community reacts to and determines a case of Responsibility to Protect. Three criteria to justify use of Responsibility to Protect are created from an analysis of international deliberations in previous interventions in Côte d'Ivoire (2010), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011). The Russian Federation involvement in Kosovo is analyzed in order to better understand its stance regarding intervention in Crimea. Classification as Responsibility to Protect requires (1) the case must have confirmed human rights violations; (2) the state must demonstrate that the human rights violations are more important than the state's sovereignty; and, (3) the state must use the multilateral system in the United Nations Security Council. The Russian Federation's intervention in Crimea constitutes a case for Responsibility to Protect to a minimal extent as their case did not have confirmed human rights violations and did not intervene multilaterally through the United Nations Security Council."],"dc:description.abstractgeneral":["The Russian Federation has claimed that its unilateral intervention in Crimea represents a case for Responsibility to Protect. The study investigates how the international community reacts to and determines a case of Responsibility to protect. By analyzing the humanitarian intervention of Kosovo and the prior Responsibility to Protect cases of Côte d'Ivoire (2010), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011), three criteria are established to determine if use of Responsibility to Protect is appropriate. The case of Kosovo is analyzed since the Russian Federation used this to further justify its intervention in Crimea. Classification as Responsibility to Protect requires the following: (1) the case must have confirmed human rights violations; (2) the state must demonstrate that the human rights violations are more important than the state's right to rule over its own population; and, (3) the state must use the multilateral system in the United Nations Security Council. The Russian Federation's intervention in Crimea constitutes a case for Responsibility to Protect to a minimal extent only since its case did not have confirmed human rights violations and did not intervene multilaterally through the United Nations Security Council."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Arts"],"dc:format.medium":["ETD"],"dc:identifier.other":["vt_gsexam:26227"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/98537"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:subject":["Responsibility to Protect","Unilateral Intervention","Crimea","Russian Federation"],"dc:title":["Russian Intervention in Crimea and the Question of Responsibility to Protect"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Political Science"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Arts"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:56:05Z"}