Was the 2014 Ukrainian revolution legal?
<p>In Russian state propaganda (especially right after the event), the so-called Revolution of Dignity was often described as an illegal coup. There were several federal elections in Ukraine after that the results of which are universally accepted, so I'm not questioning the legality of the current government. Instead, I wonder: how are the events that took place nearly six years ago assessed from the standpoint of domestic and international law?</p>

<p>The international law matters little to nothing on the matters. The domestic law is what's important.</p>
<p>According to Ukrainian constitution, president can be removed from the office during impeachment proceedings by the vote of 3/4 of the parliament (at least 338 deputies out of 450). On February 22, when 328 deputies voted to remove Yanukovich from the office (with 116 absent and 6 abstaining), the normal impeachment procedures weren't followed. That is, Yanukovich was not formally charged with a crime and the charge was not reviewed by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Instead, the legal basis for the vote to dismiss Yanukovich and to appoint early election was claimed to be the fact that Yanukovich &quot;withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner&quot; - in other words, his whereabouts were unknown, and it was later reported that he fled the country bypassing normal clearance procedures.</p>
<p>I don't have the precise timeline, but on the same February 22 as the vote to dismiss Yanukovich (presumably, before the vote happened), the Euromaidan activists arrived at the president's Mezhyhirya Residence and found Yanukovich gone, with plenty documentation and other evidence of multiple crimes left behind. In other words, there was plenty evidence to impeach Yanukovich and remove him from his position, but the proper procedures were not followed because by that time the president's whereabouts were unknown - something that Ukraine's constitution did not foresee a possibility of.</p>
<p>IANAL, so I'm not going to make a judgement on whether the above is a good enough legal basis, but I will postulate that the reason the normal procedures were not followed is those would take a very long time in a situation where the president and his government thoroughly undermined their own legitimacy by violating multiple times granted to the Ukrainian people by their constitution rights, up to and including killing unarmed civilians, and then used the chaotic situation to just run away, effectively leaving the country without its executive branch.</p>
<p>Unlike what <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Removal_of_Yanukovych" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia article</a> states, the actual article 112 of <a href="https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80#Text" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the constitution of Ukraine</a> states that the head of the parliament should become acting president in case the actual president's powers are suspended, so from then on I believe everything was done according to the proper legal procedures, with Oleksandr Turchynov taking up the role.</p>

international state-power