@ARTICLE{Grant_Thomas_D._The_2014, author={Grant, Thomas D.}, number={No XXXIV}, journal={Polish Yearbook of International Law}, howpublished={online}, year={2014}, publisher={Institute of Law Studies PAS}, publisher={Committee on Legal Sciences PAS}, abstract={Ukraine, upon giving up the nuclear arsenal left on its territory by the USSR, entered in 1994 into a Memorandum on Security Assurances with the United Kingdom, United States and Russian Federation (Budapest Memorandum). Since the crisis began between the Russian Federation and Ukraine in February 2014, a number of States have invoked the Budapest Memorandum. Unclear, however, is whether this instrument constituted legal obligations among its Parties or, instead, is a political declaration having no legal effect. The distinction between political instruments and legal instruments is a recurring question in inter-State relations and claims practice. The present article considers the Budapest Memorandum in light of the question of general legal interest – namely, how do we distinguish between the legal and the political instrument?}, type={Artykuły / Articles}, title={The Budapest Memorandum of 5 December 1994: Political Engagementor Legal Obligation?}, URL={http://journals.pan.pl/Content/106612/PDF-MASTER/5.%20Thomas%20D.%20Grant_%20The%20Budapest%20Memorandum%20of%205%20December%201994%2089-114.pdf}, doi={10.7420/pyil2014e}, keywords={treaties, legal obligations, political commitments, use of force, international security, non-proliferation and disarmament, general rule of interpretation, supplementary means of interpretation, subsequent practice, treaty text, treaty context, object and purpose, Budapest Memorandum, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United States, United Kingdom}, }