The General Assembly adopted resolution 68/262, titled “Territorial integrity of Ukraine.” It states that the referendum held in Crimea on 16 March 2014 “having no validity, cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status” of Crimea or Sevastopol, and calls on states not to recognize any altered status.

Resolution 68/262 says the referendum in Crimea was not authorized by Ukraine, affirms Ukraine’s territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, and calls on all states to refrain from recognizing any alteration of Crimea’s status on the basis of that referendum.

In resolution 68/262, "Territorial integrity of Ukraine", the General Assembly "affirms its commitment to the sovereignty, political independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders" and "underscores that the referendum held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol on 16 March 2014... cannot have any validity". The resolution "calls upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol" and recalls that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal" (a standard formula used for annexation situations).

The resolution states that the referendum held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol on 16 March 2014 had no validity and cannot form the basis for any alteration of their status. It also calls on states not to recognize any such altered status.

"Crimea is an example of how annexation of a territory that is militarily occupied (directly or through de facto authorities) is illegal. Russia’s actions in Crimea demonstrate that the territory of a State can be annexed through military occupation as understood under Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, common Article 2 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and Article 1 of Additional Protocol I. Such annexation does not signify the end of military occupation... In contemporary international law, annexing territory that is militarily occupied (directly or through de facto authorities) is illegal."

The statement says that the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 68/262, and that in these resolutions the General Assembly condemned the temporary occupation of Crimea and urged the Russian Federation, as the occupying power, to uphold its obligations. It also says Russia’s attempts to legitimize the attempted annexation of Crimea “are not, and will not be recognized.”

The EU states that it does not and will not recognise the illegal annexation of Ukraine’s Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol by the Russian Federation. It adds that resolution 68/262 had no legal validity for the referendum and cannot form a basis for altering Crimea’s status.

"Crimea’s annexation by Russia in 2014 marks a serious crisis of contemporary international law and of the world security system. In fact, the annexation has violated not only generally recognized principles of international law as expressed in the UN Charter, but also bilateral treaties concluded between Russia and Ukraine. Accordingly, this principle, as applied to Crimea’s annexation, signifies that Russia, having committed a serious international crime by annexing Crimea, cannot claim any legal rights to Crimea."

"Five years ago, Russia used force against Ukraine to illegally and illegitimately annex Crimea. This violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity is a serious breach of international law… We strongly condemn this act, which we do not and will not recognise. Crimea is the territory of Ukraine."

In resolution 68/262 of 27 March 2014, the United Nations General Assembly "underscor[ed] the invalidity of the 16 March 2014 referendum held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol" and called upon States "not to recognize any alteration of the status" of Crimea and Sevastopol and "to refrain from any action or dealing that might be interpreted as recognizing any such altered status." The resolution refers to the situation as a "temporary occupation" of part of the territory of Ukraine and reaffirms Ukraine’s sovereignty, political independence, unity and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders.

"On 17 March 2014 the Crimean Parliament declared independence and voted in favour of accession to Russia. On the same day, Russia recognized Crimea as ‘an independent and sovereign country’. On 18 March 2014 Russia and Crimea signed a treaty that absorbed Crimea into Russia. The General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring that the accession constituted a violation of international law… While the resolution did not expressly use the term annexation, it followed earlier practice such as resolution 662 (1990) which declared the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq ‘null and void’ and called upon all states not to recognise the annexation."

A commentary on CoESPU notes that "On March 27, 2014, the United Nations General Assembly approved a declaration establishing the invalidity of the Russian annexation of Crimea," affirming commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The piece explains that critics "deem this act illegitimate because it is based on a military occupation" and is contrary to the UN Charter’s principle that members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. It contrasts this with Moscow’s narrative of protecting Russians in Crimea and enabling self‑determination via referendum.

"There is a general consensus both among states and international lawyers that the acts of the Russian Federation constitute an illegal use of force and should be qualified as aggression. The incorporation of Crimea into Russia is illegal in terms of international law and cannot be interpreted as the case of realization of the right of peoples to self-determination. Therefore, the annexation was widely identified as a major challenge to the contemporary international legal order."

"March 18 marks the sixth anniversary of Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea… Even if Crimea’s return appears implausible in the near term, the United States and Europe should continue to support Kyiv’s position, maintain Crimea-related sanctions on Russia, and hold to the policy of non-recognition of Crimea’s annexation." The analysis consistently refers to "illegal annexation", indicating that "annexation" is the standard term in Western policy discourse, and not replaced by more neutral phrases such as "Crimea became part of Russia".

In his 18 March 2014 address, President Vladimir Putin described the events as "the reunification of Crimea with Russia" and framed it as the "restoration of historical justice." He argued that in 1954 Crimea had been "handed over" to Ukraine in violation of legal norms, and he referred to the 2014 referendum as an expression of the will of the people of Crimea to "return to Russia." Throughout the speech, Putin avoids the term "annexation" and instead repeatedly uses terms like "reunification" and "return" to characterize Crimea becoming part of Russia.

The UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 68/262 in response to the Russian annexation of Crimea, under the title “Territorial integrity of Ukraine.” The page describes the resolution as a response to the Russian annexation of Crimea.

"The international community generally considers the annexation of Crimea by Russia as in violation of the jus cogens prohibition of the use of force, and therefore illegal. Although it has been suggested by certain scholars that Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties should be read broadly to encompass illegally annexed territories, the majority view today is that the rule applies only in respect of lawfully annexed territory. As indicated above, this does not appear to be the position of international law today, where State succession to treaties in principle concerns situations of de jure, rather than de facto annexations of territories."

"With regard to the Russian invocation of the self-determination principle and, more specifically, the remedial secession theory on behalf of the Crimean population, it can be said that no legal ground in the current regime on self-determination can be found for the Russian position for multiple reasons. Russia violated the jus cogens rule on the prohibition of the use of force, thus rendering unlawful and without any legal effect the declaration of independence and the subsequent incorporation of Crimea to Russia. Publicly, states and international organizations declared the invasion and annexation of Crimea to be illegal under international law."

"On 27 March 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling upon states not to recognize changes in status quo of Crimea region. The resolution affirms the territorial integrity of Ukraine and declares invalid the referendum that Russia used to justify Crimea’s incorporation. The Russian Federation, however, speaks of the ‘reunification’ of Crimea with Russia and contests the characterization of its actions as ‘annexation’, arguing they reflect the exercise of self-determination."

"The resolution reaffirmed in the preamble that ‘no acquisition of territory resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognised as legal’; it declared that the referendum could ‘not have legal validity’ and could ‘not form the basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea’; and it ‘call[ed] upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of Crimea on the basis of this referendum’. This formula is the standard expression of the duty of non-recognition in cases of annexation or other unlawful territorial acquisition under international law."

A RAND report on Russian operations finds that "Russia's operation to annex Crimea represented a decisive and competent use of military force in pursuit of political ends." It describes how Russian forces rapidly seized key facilities and how a subsequent referendum and treaty were used to formalize Crimea’s incorporation into Russia. The report adopts the term "annex" and "annexation" throughout its analysis, reflecting its assessment that Crimea was taken and incorporated through a Russian military operation rather than through a consensual territorial change.

The article says that Resolution 68/262 was adopted in response to the temporary Russian occupation of Crimea and that the document recorded the non-recognition of any attempts to alter Crimea’s status outside international law. It says the resolution became the foundation for international policy of non-recognition of the attempted illegal annexation of Crimea.

"The Russian annexation of the Crimea: questions relating to the use of force" (article title). The piece examines the events explicitly as "annexation" and analyzes them in the framework of the UN Charter’s prohibition of the use of force, treating "annexation" as the precise legal term for Russia’s acquisition of Crimea rather than a neutral description like "Crimea became part of Russia."

"Ukraine and many other countries condemned the annexation and consider it to be a violation of international law and Russian agreements safeguarding the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The United Nations General Assembly also rejected the referendum and annexation, adopting a resolution affirming the ‘territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders’, and referring to the Russian action as a ‘temporary occupation’. The Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol became the 84th and 85th federal subjects of Russia according to Russian law, but this change of status is not widely recognized internationally."

The note says that the first anniversary of Crimea’s “annexation” / “reunification” by Russia was discussed in the context of Resolution 68/262, which the note describes as a legal basis for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and non-recognition of Crimea’s altered status.

The article studies Russian bureaucratic attitudes toward the war in Ukraine compared to prior events and repeatedly uses the phrase "Crimea's annexation" as the standard descriptive term: "It is argued that there is less normative support for the ongoing war of aggression in Russia's bureaucracy than in the case of Crimea's annexation." This reflects common academic usage of "annexation" as the baseline term, rather than more neutral wording like "Crimea became part of Russia."

In international legal and diplomatic usage, the verb "annex" denotes the unilateral incorporation of territory by a state, especially when that acquisition is contested or considered unlawful. It does not, by itself, specify the legality of the act, but in post‑1945 practice "annexation" is most often used for acquisitions regarded as contrary to the UN Charter norm that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal". By contrast, formulations such as "Crimea became part of Russia" or "Crimea joined Russia" tend to be used by the Russian government and sympathetic commentators to avoid the negative legal connotations associated with "annexation".

A chapter in a Springer volume on the Ukraine conflict refers to the "Russian annexation of Crimea" and examines the roles of Russia, Crimean separatists, the Ukrainian government, the far right, and Western actors. It treats annexation as the standard term in political science literature, framing the events as a case of "territorial annexation" following military intervention and a disputed referendum. The chapter situates the terminology within international relations theory, where annexation indicates the forcible acquisition and incorporation of territory by a state.

The page includes the full text of Resolution 68/262 and records that the referendum in Crimea had no validity and cannot form the basis for any alteration of Crimea’s status. It is a reproduced text rather than an official UN source.