This paper explores the scope and validity of international law through the Crimean crisis in the light of two
theories of jurisprudence. One is the theory Hans Kelsen and the other if of H.L.A. Hart. Hans Kelsen was a
monist and believed that the national and international law are part of the same legal framework. But Hans
Kelsen’s theory gives us a conflicted view of the Crimean crisis in terms of the positive law and the principle of
effectiveness. Hence Kelsen has given a new direction to jurisprudence of international law but in present scenario the modification of international has been much beyond the scope of his theory. I have relied on the theory of H.L.A hart to critique Kelsen’s point of view because his view on international on law is based on rule of recognition .He recognises the actual practice of international law unlike Kelsen whose whole theory is based upon presumption of the grundnorm. According his theory Kelsen’s monist approach is erroneous. If we reflect upon the Crimean situation keeping in mind Kelsen’s theory, Russia’s annexation of Crimea should be considered valid but it is in conflict with the positive law and the view of the international community itself. While taking in view Hart’s philosophy I want to bring to light the flaws in Kelsen’s theory and also in what light Crimean crisis can be looked upon through rule of recognition.