This article demonstrates how Crimean Tatars use memories of past displacements in their narratives of contemporary emigration and coping strategies in occupied Crimea. First, I present the significance of the first annexation of Crimea in 1783 by the Russian Empire and the 1944 deportation in the collective memory of Crimean Tatars. Second, I discuss the main motives for the displacement of internally displaced persons of Crimean Tatar origin in 2014 based on interviews conducted in L’viv. Drawing from interviews and focus groups that were conducted in Crimea between 2017 and 2019, I describe the influence of the memory of forced displacements on contemporary discourse and how it has evolved since Russia’s full-scale attack on Ukraine. Finally, I focus on how Crimean Solidarity activists employ memories of the first annexation and deportation to legitimize their resistance against Russia’s repressive policy in occupied Crimea. I argue that the 2014 annexation of Crimea was a retraumatizing event for many Crimean Tatars and that it has become an integral part of the grand narrative of their forced displacement from the late eighteenth century to the present.

In the former districts of Eupen and Malmedy, present-day East-Belgians, in particular academic and socio-political elites, draw their collective identity, amongst others, from the historical injustices inflicted upon them ever since the adoption of the Treaty of Versailles. The transfer of sovereignty from Germany to Belgium was then the subject of a popular consultation organised by the transitional Belgian authorities in those territories. Favouring national over popular sovereignty, those authorities de facto undermined the freedom of choice and imposed their annexation to Belgium which the League of Nations, despite criticisms, consecutively endorsed. Much has been said about this petite farce belge yet not from a legal point of view. Thus, this article sheds a different light on the historical accounts of those events which are instrumentalised to construct the contemporary collective identity of the German-speaking Community of Belgium.

From the early years of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, observers predicted that their de facto annexation might occur. Fifty-seven years later, it has happened. Although governed differently than other zones within the Israeli state, neither territory can be separated from Israel. Yet, the territories’ official status is that they are not part of the state. We offer four reinforcing analyses—legal, historical, discursive, and political—of this sustained discrepancy between what is and what is officially said to be. By analyzing Israel’s juridical techniques for regularizing the incorporation of territories occupied beginning in 1948, we show that de facto annexation has been Israel’s predominant form of territorial expansion. This helps account for the failure to implement de jure annexation, the intensity of conflict over attempts to overhaul the Israeli judiciary, and debates over the future of postwar Gaza.

The ‘constitutional reform’ planned by the government that assumed power in Israel in December 2022 is not an end in itself. Its aim is to provide the basis for planned policies and actions of the government that are incompatible with Israel's present constitutional order, and that are unlikely to stand up to judicial review before the present judges of the Supreme Court. This article discusses the connection between various parts of the reform and the plans to make a radical change in Israel's policies in the occupied West Bank. It examines the coalition agreement between PM Netanyahu's Likud party and the Religious Zionist Party, and exposes the connection between the commitment in that agreement to the policies regarding the occupation and the planned ‘reform’.

Since 1967, despite international legal restrictions, Israel has sought to annex Eastern Jerusalem. Fifty-one years later, it publicly declared in its Nation State Law: “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.” In the West Bank, Israel initiated on the ground changes that furthered annexation without formally declaring any part of it as annexed. For decades, Al-Haq has documented the gradual encroachment of occupation by successive Israeli administrations. And yet the Palestinian leadership failed to successfully utilize the law to support its case. Nor could the 190 states, parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, be convinced to enforce the provision in the Convention which bids the High Contracting Parties to “ensure respect for the present convention in all circumstances.” During the Oslo negotiations, Israel succeeded in leaving Jerusalem and the Jewish settlements outside of the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority. Given these patterns across nearly a half-century of history, it seems likely that Israel will declare the full annexation of the West Bank in part or in its entirety precisely because it has succeeded in accomplishing this in the case of Jerusalem.

Thomas D Grant's Aggression Against Ukraine: Territory, Responsibility and International Law (Palgrave Macmillan 2015) is the first book which offers a careful, meticulous examination of all aspects of Russia's involvement in Crimea in 2014 in terms of international law, as well as of both Russian and Ukrainian municipal legal orders. It covers probably the widest possible spectrum of legal issues connected with Russia's involvement in Crimea and provides a comprehensive, analytical overview of relevant modern rules of international law in the field of territorial integrity, self-determination and use of force.

Recognition of Acts of Foreign Governments — Nationalization Decree — Enforceability in Territorial Waters of Foreign State.

Recognition — Of Annexation — Effects of Non-recognition — Non-recognition by United States of Annexation of Lithuania by Soviet Russia.

Annexation — Non-recognition of — Effects of — Non-recognition by United States of Annexation of Lithuania by Soviet Russia.

Jurisdiction — Personal — Property of Nationals Abroad — Nationalization Decree — Effect of — Enforceability in Territorial Waters of Foreign State — Recognition of Incorporation of a State in Territory of Foreign State — Recognition of Lithuanian Government — The Law of the United States of America.

Annexation — Effect on Nationality of Inhabitants of Annexed Territory — Annexation of Czechoslovakia by Germany “Ethnic Germans” in Czechoslovakia — Compulsory Grant of German Nationality — Whether German Nationality Subsists after Recovery of Territory by Czechoslovakia.

Nationality — Acquisition of — Compulsory Grant of — Annexation of Foreign Territory Accompanied by Compulsory Grant of Nationality — Annexation of Czechoslovakia and Grant of German Nationality to “Ethnic Germans” — Whether such Persons Retained German Nationality after Recovery of Territory by Czechoslovakia.

Annexation — Annexation of Austria by German Reich — Compulsory Acquisition of German Nationality by Austrian Nationals — Subsequent Entry of Austrian National into Service of Reich — Loss of Austrian Nationality by Entry into Service of “Foreigh State” by virtue of Austrian Law — Whether Entry into Service of Reich Results in Loss of Austrian Nationality.

Nationality — Loss of — By Entry into Service of Foreign State — Entry of Austrian National into Service of German Reich While Austria Part of Germany — Whether such Entry results in Loss of Austrian Nationality.

Annexation — Effect on Treaties — Treaty Concluded by Annexed State — Annexation of Austria by German Reich — Whether Treaty between Austria and France Affected by Subsequent Outbreak of War between France and Germany.

War — Effect on Treaties — Treaty between Annexed State and Third State — Outbreak of War between Third State and Annexing State — Whether Such War Affects Operation of the Treaty.

Treaties — Operation of — Effect of Annexation — Treaty Concluded by Annexed State — Outbreak of War Between Other Contracting Party and Annexing State — Whether Outbreak of War Affects Operation of Treaty

Annexation — Recognition of — Effect of Non-recognition — Non-recognition of Annexation of Estonia by Soviet Russia.

States — Recognition of — Whether Recognition Imports that Recognized Government is in Effective Control of Territory — Effect of Lack of Such Control Upon Powers of a Consul of Recognized State — Continued Recognition of Estonia by the United States of America.