Cfrgtkky

Since you ask for a framework for thinking about it, I'll suggest that an action on your part that disadvantages the author, perhaps already a victim, won't bring justice. Probably better to ignore that detail and focus on what the author says, and honestly give the usual feedback.

If you want to try to deal with the unfairness of the annexation, there are other places that would be more appropriate and effective.

But your review is independent of any concept of "legitimization". You are giving a service to an author and a journal, not the occupying country.

This is a special case of a question about boycotts, but I see nothing in it that is unique to the situation of an academic reviewer as opposed to any other person needing to make a decision about whether to participate in a boycott of some group of people (other perhaps than the fact that a decision to participate will come at zero cost to you in this case). So, if you are looking for a framework for thinking about the situation, this is it.

Now, one thing you should expect people to tell you (I see it already in some of the answers here) is that your boycott could hurt an innocent person who may actually be a supporter of the same political cause you are trying to support with your boycott. That may be true, but is mostly beside the point - all boycotts have this feature, but many are still logical and useful means to peacefully achieve a political end with minimal harm to all parties involved.

Anyway, the decision of what to review is a personal one - I couldn’t even tell you what I personally would do without knowing the identities of X, Y and Z. As for whether to state the reason, if you do that then you effectively become a publicly outspoken political activist. Perhaps you are the kind of person who wants to play such a role - if so, go ahead, but know that this would incur risks to your reputation; there might well be people refusing to review your own papers down the road...

I offer this framework:

The international community of academics

Openly published research is a global undertaking, producing results of use to the entire world, and needless to say many academics live and work in countries controlled by political forces they don't support. The assumption when reviewing work which will be published for all to read is that the author is proposing a good-faith contribution to a global human effort, that their published work speaks for itself, and that their physical location shouldn't be relevant in the review process.

These assumptions might be re-examined if you believe that a particular researcher is acting in bad faith or is a vocal supporter or direct beneficiary of political causes that you consider sufficiently unethical.

A sticky point is to what extent you consider, say, receiving a salary at a university to be support for the political forces that control a region at the time. Crucial is how intellectually independent you believe the academy in general, and this researcher in particular, to be. Also related are your views on the ethics of inaction under various political circumstances.

Without further specifics I'd personally suggest to do your due diligence to ensure that this particular author isn't a vocal supporter of the political forces you'd like to boycott, and then proceed with the review as usual, assuming good faith and recognizing the value of the international community.

Unless the content of the paper is political in nature, I don't see any reason to refuse to review it. The fact that the author works in disputed territory doesn't seem relevant to the worth of the work. Unless there's any extra context, the author's choice - if it is a choice - of how to give their location, seems to me that it could be from either or no political view.

Of course, you are free to refuse to review a paper, but unless you're deliberately boycotting all interaction with academics in a given country or region, this feels like an odd reason to me.

You don't have to do anything that makes you uncomfortable. If you find you don't want to review this paper because of your strong political views on the annexation, by all means decline. It's your personal views after all, and people will generally accept that your politics might differ from theirs.

However, regardless of whether you agree or decline to review, you should alert the editor about this. It's possible the editor is unaware about this, and the editor will almost certainly want to know if his journal is about to publish this kind of political content. If you decline, you can point this out in the "reason for declining" box; if you accept, you can use the "confidential comments to editor" box.

No it's not a valid reason.

You don't know why the author wrote it like that, and nothing says their reason is political. Maybe the person just felt it was more clear like this, maybe some local authorities would give them problems if they wrote otherwise, there could be many reasons.

You are making it political while it is not. Stick to the paper reviewing, this is not the place to take a political stand. Would you feel legitimate to decline if the author was in a religion you don't approve of? No because that's not the place. Your interest should be in the paper's content only.

You asked about how the community here views things, but you also asked a number of more important things we can't answer. You're answerable to yourself first of all. How much to weigh any of the moral factors you list is really up to you; you have to decide what you, personally, can live with. (It's also doubtful the journal has a specific policy about this.)

Second, any action you take, now that the question has been put to you, is political. The claim that to consider this question is political, and that the integrity of Research supercedes all political considerations, is itself a political statement. A claim you are (implicitly, wrongly) "being political" usually just means the speaker has differently weighted priorities.

Third, the opinions about potential harm to the author seem somewhat overstated. If you feel uncomfortable reviewing this paper, it's certain someone else will do it. You're professionally obligated to referee some papers, not this one specifically.

Finally, as Dan Romik says, what you're considering is de facto a form of boycott and it's easy to find a lot to read about the ethics of boycott tactics. But more particularly, and possibly more usefully, if other people have thought about this particular target, there is quite possibly an organized boycott effort, and one of those tends to come with a statement of principles and a precisely articulated set of criteria delineating what and whom should and shouldn't be boycotted. If you find you agree with the principles, then you might find some guidance that way, and acting as part of a coordinated effort with well-defined procedural guidelines might take off some of the pressure of structureless you seem to be feeling.