The issue of toponyms is widely reflected in international law. For example, after the attempted annexation of the Crimean peninsula, a number of UN General Assembly resolutions obliged United Nations agencies to refer to Crimea exclusively as the “Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol”.
In general, the right of a sovereign state to name a particular territory, settlement or geographical location as it determines is considered an inalienable right, provided that the sovereignty of that state over the territory concerned is integral, indivisible and undisputed, and that the relevant international standards on human rights, local self-government, minorities and indigenous peoples are respected.
If we are not talking about large geographical sites, cities or regions with millions of inhabitants, the political and legal aspects are almost leveled and the relevant naming and renaming procedures are regulated by the relevant international standards on human rights, local self-government and indigenous peoples.
At the same time, neither the UN standards, including the specialized activities of the UN Conferences on Human Settlements, nor the acts of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe have led to the formation of a separate vision of standards for naming and renaming settlements, other geographical sites and toponyms.
In addition, the apparent absence of local and regional self-government bodies both in the occupied Crimea and for a long period after its de-occupation raises a big question about the relevance of the relevant standards to the specific situation of the peninsula.
The relevant ethnic rights are more clearly defined, both for national minorities and indigenous peoples.However, the provisions of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities only provide minorities with the right to duplicate topographic names in the respective language, but not to name or rename place names.
At the same time, the provisions of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are more specified. Among other things, the issue of place names should be resolved taking into account the requirements regarding the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination, autonomy or self-government, special institutions and the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or influence with the aim of destroying culture. Even more specific are the provisions of Article 13 of the Declaration, according to which indigenous peoples have the right to give and retain their own names and names for communities, places and persons, and states must take effective measures to ensure the protection of this right. The Declaration’s provisions on the right of indigenous peoples to participate in decision-making on matters affecting their rights, as well as to free, prior and informed consent regarding measures that may affect their rights, are also important.
Thus, it is the rights of indigenous peoples to participate in the procedures for naming and renaming toponyms related to them are most clearly reflected in modern international law.