Guilty Pleasures

Cyprus v. Turkey, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC]

Titian, The Rape of Europa (1560-1562)

Welcome to another dive into the world of international courts, where laws clash, and fairness is sometimes left behind. Today, we’re putting Russian courts in Crimea head-to-head with Turkish courts in Northern Cyprus. Spoiler: The courts in Crimea are in serious trouble when compared to their Turkish counterparts, and it’s not just because they swapped out the furniture without asking. Let’s break it down.

Russia’s Courtroom Chaos in Crimea

Ever since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, they’ve made it their mission to replace everything Ukrainian—including the legal system. Russian courts popped up everywhere, and it seemed like the whole Ukrainian legal setup was thrown out overnight. The problem? Under international law, you can’t just sweep out the old laws and bring in a new set without a good reason. The rules here aren’t just bureaucratic fluff—they’re key to making sure everything runs fairly in territories under foreign control.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) didn’t hold back in its ruling on Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea). They pointed out that Russia failed to follow international humanitarian law, which requires the occupying power to stick with the old laws unless absolutely necessary. In other words, Russia’s legal overhaul wasn’t justified under the rules laid out in the Hague Regulations (Article 43) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 64).

When Russia swapped out Ukraine’s legal system, they didn’t explain why it was “necessary” for security or public order—two of the only reasons you’re allowed to mess with the legal status quo in an occupied territory. The ECtHR concluded that these Russian courts couldn’t be considered “established by law” under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and as a result, they weren’t legitimate. For Crimean residents, this casts a huge shadow over any trial they face in these courts. Fair trial? Not likely.

Turkey’s Legal Tightrope in Northern Cyprus

Meanwhile, in Northern Cyprus, Turkey has played the long game since taking control in 1974. They set up the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), which no one but Turkey recognizes, but here’s the key difference: They didn’t throw out the old legal system. Instead, they kept the Cypriot legal traditions intact. The TRNC courts operate under this framework, and the ECtHR ruled that these courts do meet the “established by law” requirement under Article 6 of the ECHR.

In the Cyprus v. Turkey case, the Court recognized the TRNC’s courts as legitimate—even if the international community doesn’t recognize the TRNC itself. The continuity of the Cypriot legal system, plus Turkey’s adherence to the laws already in place, meant that residents had access to courts that could offer fair trials.

The ECtHR’s Take: Why Crimea’s Courts Fail

The ECtHR has made it clear in these cases that the legitimacy of courts in occupied territories hinges on whether they follow international law. In Crimea, Russia didn’t play by the rules. They ignored the legal framework they were supposed to respect, which means the courts they established don’t get the same stamp of approval as the Turkish courts in Northern Cyprus.

In the case of Crimea, if you’re dragged into one of these Russian courts, you’re not getting a fair trial—at least not one that’s recognized internationally. The ECtHR’s ruling is a huge win for Ukrainian sovereignty, as it essentially says: “Russia, you don’t have the right to overhaul the legal system here, and your courts are out of line.”

For the residents of Crimea, this means you can skip the local courts and take your case straight to the ECtHR. You don’t need to exhaust your options in an unfair system before seeking justice internationally.

The Bottom Line

So, why do Russian courts in Crimea get a bad rap while Turkish courts in Northern Cyprus get a pass? It’s all about whether the occupying power respects international law and maintains a fair, existing legal system. Russia’s sweeping changes to Crimea’s legal setup didn’t follow the rules, making their courts illegitimate. Turkey, on the other hand, kept things mostly by the book, which is why the TRNC courts are still considered fair—even if the TRNC itself isn’t recognized.

In short: If you’re looking for justice in Crimea, you’ll have better luck heading straight to the ECtHR. But in Northern Cyprus, the courts still offer a fair shot, even in the midst of political disputes.