Military Review

Crimea's self-determination: additional aspects

29
The Venetian parliament announced its intention to consider the legality of the accession of Crimea to Russia. Regardless of the legitimacy of the Venetian parliament, this suggests that, despite the unprecedented brainwashing, there are people who consider it necessary to objectively understand this issue.


Considering that not all aspects of this process were covered, it seems necessary to consider the issues of Crimea joining Russia from a formal legal position, i.e. applying the regulations, not how you want, but how they were spelled out.

Assuming that the generally accepted norms of international law do not contain provisions according to which “everything that the global financial oligarchy does not like (the main representative is the United States) is illegal”, the general “squeal” is not considered (well, except perhaps as a source of possible specific objections: incompatibility with the legislation of Ukraine, violation of territorial integrity, a referendum at gunpoint, etc.).

The annexation of Crimea to Russia was carried out in accordance with the people's right to self-determination, which is enshrined in the UN Charter and a number of other international documents. The documents that established this right have been adopted by the international community and are generally binding, therefore the right of the people of Crimea to act in accordance with this principle is not disputed. Given the importance of a precise understanding of the principle of self-determination, I allow myself to bring it fully under the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”:

“1. All nations have the right to self-determination. By virtue of this right, they freely establish their political status and freely ensure their economic, social and cultural development.

2. To achieve their goals, all nations can freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising from international economic cooperation based on the principle of mutual benefit and from international law. In no case can a nation be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. All States participating in this Covenant, including those responsible for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, should, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, promote the exercise of the right to self-determination and respect this right. ”

The specified right of self-determination, i.e. FREE to establish, ensure, dispose means that the implementation of actions related to the exercise of this right does not depend on other persons, their consent or disagreement, recognition or non-recognition of actions of self-determination.

“No people, in any case, can not be deprived of their means of subsistence,” and this means that the territory follows a FREE self-determined people, without the consent or disagreement of third others.

The duty of all states that have joined the said Covenant to “promote the exercise of the right to self-determination and respect this right” in practice means that the people who have decided to go the way of self-determination should receive the necessary assistance, or at least should not interfere with it. In practice, Russia alone helped, among other things, in order to eliminate forceful opposition to the process of self-determination, while the rest of the state ignored their obligations for the sake of the financial oligarchy.

Thus, no clear violations of the current regulatory documents have been identified.

Consider the main objections.

1. The territorial integrity of Ukraine has been violated. This statement does not comply with the norms of law, since, according to international regulatory documents, the principle that the territory of a state is inviolable (territorial integrity or territorial inviolability), it is assumed that the integrity must be invariable from the encroachment of other states by the use of military force or the threat of strength When literally reading the documents defining this principle of international law, it becomes obvious that when changing the territory of a state, when a part of the state’s residents exercised the right to self-determination of peoples, there is no violation of the principle of territorial integrity, because there is no use of force or the threat of its use by another state, especially if the state has joined the relevant international regulatory documents and is obliged to promote and respect the right to self-determination.

2. The annexation of Crimea to Russia is contrary to the legislation of Ukraine. This statement is insignificant, since Ukraine itself has recognized that actions in accordance with the right of peoples to self-determination, enshrined including in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, are legal on the territory of Ukraine and do not contradict Constitution of Ukraine. This follows from the fact that Ukraine ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and acceded to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights without changing the Constitution of Ukraine. Acquaintance with art. 9 of the Constitution of Ukraine (“Conclusion of international treaties contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine, is possible only after making appropriate amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine”) and the facts of accession, ratification of international pacts that reinforce the principle of self-determination, unequivocally prove that the referendum in Crimea and the further accession of Crimea to Russia does not contradict the Constitution of Ukraine. It is especially important that the absence of contradiction between the processes of the annexation of the Crimea to Russia and the legislation of Ukraine was established by the state of Ukraine.

Not reading and making statements from the words of people who do not respect the laws, it is necessary to pay attention that Art. 38 Constitution of Ukraine determines the right to participate in local referendums, and Art. 73 of the Constitution of Ukraine in this case is not applicable, since the referendum in Crimea was about self-determination, and not about changing the territory of Ukraine. Perhaps if the wording of art. 73 would be like this: “All questions that may result in a change in the territory of Ukraine as a result of resolution are submitted only and exclusively to the all-Ukrainian referendum,” perhaps it would be possible to talk about any violations, but in the current constitution the wording is different. Besides история and the law does not tolerate a subjunctive approach, in which case the accession and ratification of international legal acts would be unacceptable (a conflict of law would be created: the ALL-Ukrainian referendum on the issue, which is decided INDEPENDENTLY and FREE).

3. The referendum was held “at the point of the machine gun”, and its results do not correspond to the actual will of the people. It is impossible to argue that in principle it is impossible, it is inappropriate to provide a justification for the fact that it was not in the Crimea, because of these justifications some zealous heads can understand how to actually vote "at gunpoint", and this is very dangerous, especially in Ukraine . Let us dwell on the issue of the correspondence of the results of the referendum in Crimea with the actual will of the people. Site wikipedia.org cites data from surveys conducted during the annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation. "A telephone survey conducted by 12-14 in March of 2014 by GfK Ukraine showed that 71% of Crimea residents intended to vote at the referendum for joining Russia, 11% for restoring the Constitution of Crimea 1992 of the year." And according to surveys conducted after the annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation: “According to a survey conducted by the American sociological center of the Pew Research Center in April 2014, the majority of Crimean residents believe that the referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government of Ukraine must recognize his results (88%). Similar results were obtained from a survey conducted in Crimea by the Gallup Institute 21 — 27 April 2014. According to him, 82,8% of the population of Crimea believes that the referendum results adequately reflect the views of the majority of the Crimean people, and 6,7% believe that they do not. 73,9% of respondents expect that joining Crimea to Russia will improve their lives and the lives of their families, only 5,5% adheres to the opposite opinion. From 16 to 22 in January, 2015 in GfK Ukraine commissioned by Berta Communications with the support of Canada Fund for Local Initiatives for the Free Crimea information center, called to “help create the foundation for the return of Crimea to Ukraine”, conducted a study of the social and political attitudes of residents Crimea. According to the results of a telephone survey, 82% of Crimeans fully support the annexation of Crimea to Russia, 11% support more likely, 2% rather do not support, 2% do not fully support, 3% did not define its relationship. ”

(Surveys of potentially interested Russian and Ukrainian companies are excluded.)

From the polls it is obvious: the results of the referendum correspond to the will of the people of Crimea.

Thus, at present, i.e. taking into account the voiced objections, statements about the illegality of the entry of Crimea into Russia are insignificant, as well as statements about the illegal actions of Russia in this period.

Since the author does not claim the ultimate truth, all possible substantiated objections and / or suggestions can be sent to the address: [email protected]
Author:
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Spartanez300
    Spartanez300 19 May 2016 09: 17
    +4
    I am glad that smart heads still flourish in Europe.
    1. vovanpain
      vovanpain 19 May 2016 09: 27
      +23
      to contribute to the creation of the foundation for the return of Crimea to Ukraine, ”conducted a study of the socio-political sentiments of the inhabitants of Crimea.

      Yes, to hell with you, not the Crimea, even if they don’t even dream.
      1. avt
        avt 19 May 2016 09: 31
        +7
        Quote: vovanpain
        Yes, to hell with you, not the Crimea, even if they don’t even dream.

        The picture is not that, well, like Ssynukovich and weapons No. , and the inscription .... Here he would look naked with the inscription - "I need your fur hat." wassat
      2. 33 Watcher
        33 Watcher 19 May 2016 09: 32
        +12
        Japanese-Hakomadu, Ukrainians-Yanukovych ... laughing
        1. v.yegorov
          v.yegorov 19 May 2016 11: 18
          +2
          Who else would the economic block of our government
          shake off.
      3. WKS
        WKS 19 May 2016 09: 56
        +4
        By the way, it seems that if a plebiscite is held in Ukraine on the issue of Yanukovych’s return, then the result is not difficult to predict.
    2. Diana Ilyina
      Diana Ilyina 19 May 2016 09: 31
      +17
      Quote: Spartanez300
      I am glad that smart heads still flourish in Europe.


      I would say not so much smart as pragmatic, meaning the Venetian parliament. Venice itself wants to separate itself from Italy and get out of the "embrace" of the EU. Hence the desire to make the Crimean referendum legitimate in the eyes of Europeans, in order to be able to refer to the Crimean precedent. So there is only selfish interest in Venice itself and nothing more, do not flatter yourself.
      1. 33 Watcher
        33 Watcher 19 May 2016 09: 39
        +3
        Quote: Diana Ilyina
        nothing more, do not flatter yourself.

        Yes, no one is deceived, well, at least I am. I'm just curious...
        I look forward to the reaction of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry laughing Well, something this time, they are in no hurry to please me. I don’t see yet ...
        Interestingly, did they catch the shock, or did they finally learn to weigh and ponder? Or third, immunity to hauls developed ..? laughing
      2. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 19 May 2016 09: 48
        +8
        Quote: avt
        "I need your fur hat."
        Yanukovych is a retired politician. Even not a lame wounded duck, but even worse. crying Interesting% of Ukrainians that follow him into the fire and water ... And he himself was far from the chieftain.
      3. Amurets
        Amurets 19 May 2016 11: 04
        +1
        Quote: Diana Ilyina
        Hence the desire to make the Crimean referendum legitimate in the eyes of Europeans, in order to be able to refer to the Crimean precedent. So there is only the selfish interest of Venice itself and nothing more, do not flatter yourself.

        Well, let's say not only Crimea. Venetian deputies referred to the illegality of the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, the illegality of the transfer of Crimea in 1956. And look at other branches about the referendum in Venice. If Venice's secession or autonomy is recognized, then the "domino effect" may begin. Tuscany, Sardinia a number of other Italian territories may require withdrawal or the granting of autonomy from the central government of the Italian Republic.
    3. Vend
      Vend 19 May 2016 09: 37
      +1
      Quote: Spartanez300
      I am glad that smart heads still flourish in Europe.
      Truth is truth, and double standards no longer fool anyone. Unless they are stubborn in their heads.
      generally accepted norms of international law do not contain provisions according to which "everything that the global financial oligarchy (the main representative is the United States) does not like is illegal"
      I especially liked this
  2. seregatara1969
    seregatara1969 19 May 2016 09: 28
    +2
    well, they can’t immediately suffer from dementia, it’s not a flu or a cold
  3. 33 Watcher
    33 Watcher 19 May 2016 09: 28
    +4
    So, in general, not a single serious institution of a legal nature, legal assessment, and, has not given, until now. Everything is on the level, "I do not recognize", because I do not like it. And what, you don't like it, why don't you like it ..? I do not like that either, you are sanctioned.
    Something like this...
  4. Abbra
    Abbra 19 May 2016 09: 29
    +9
    Europe is a complex systemic mechanism. And the conclusion of the Veneto parliament is far from a grain of sand in the basket of Russian interests and the formation of truth. Always respected the Venetians ... By the way - the Vineto region is not so small ...
  5. ALABAY45
    ALABAY45 19 May 2016 09: 29
    +3
    "... the Venice Parliament ..."
    That sounds proud! soldier Roughly like the "pyt-yakh senate" and "the parliament of the village of Kyshik". Decisions, all the same, are made in the "CENTER" .. Here, but where is this "CENTER", really in Rome ?! belay Come on...
  6. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 19 May 2016 09: 30
    +5
    It will not work to prove to the West the legal legitimacy of the annexation of Crimea. The decision was made in the United States and its major allies in Europe at the highest political level. That means, if we are right at least 1000 times, they will always find an excuse if it is beneficial for them to conflict with and put pressure on us. And they will always sell this line of their own if any small member rebels. I’m talking about small countries of the world supporting sanctions, not local parliaments and socio-political organizations. They certainly have federalism there, but they are engaged in foreign policy in the capital uncles from ruling parties and coalitions.
  7. siberalt
    siberalt 19 May 2016 09: 32
    +7
    Russia does not need international recognition of any part of its territory, as well as any other sovereign state. Whatever decision is made in a particular Italian city, in fact, it is insignificant. For it does not give rise to any legal rights or obligations, especially in international law. International law is the right of force. Let's be strong and chhat to us on the opinions of the oligarchs in the neighborhood. Crimea is ours and ... "all tanks in the village." Try to take it away! laughing
  8. triglav
    triglav 19 May 2016 09: 53
    +2
    Everything is correct. Law is law. Neither Crimea nor Russia violated it.
  9. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 19 May 2016 10: 01
    +9
    it looks like the check is somewhere in Venice ...
  10. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 19 May 2016 10: 06
    +1
    Quote: siberalt
    Russia does not need international recognition of any part of its territory,

    Of course! For Russia is a single subject of International Law. (If one still exists!)
  11. Basil50
    Basil50 19 May 2016 10: 20
    +1
    Insolence is unprecedented, some kind of * pi ... pi ... pi ... * will * consider * the legality of the will of the people for thousands of kilometers in another country. It is counter to consider the legitimacy of the existence of Venice itself. Robbers and pirates who supported the slave trade in the Mediterranean for many hundreds of years whether they have the right to exist, hold hearings in the Simferopol court and make a decision.
  12. iliya87
    iliya87 19 May 2016 10: 47
    +3
    Of course now I'll catch the minuses, but still. If we look from the position of the author and approach the issue of world law and UN definitions, then excuse me, but ... "the use of military force or the threat of the use of force" there was definitely a threat of the use of force by Russia, and any lawyer, even a troeshnik could prove it on site of the UN, if an investigation was conducted. I will give a trivial example: 1) The massive transfer of forces was 2) A number of key administrative and military objects were taken under "protection" 3) At the same time, Russia ignored such requests (requirements) for requests to remove the military from the streets of Crimea
    Taking only these obvious facts, one can easily classify them as "The threat of the use of force"
    Yes - it was necessary, but! On the legal side, Ukraine would have won the case.
    Another question is that for a hundred years now they have not been playing with us according to the rules and the Europeans themselves are writing them and violating them, considering the problem in this vein and the need for steps taken, there are no complaints against the Russian leadership, especially against the military.
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 19 May 2016 11: 23
      +1
      Quote: iliya87
      Yes - it was necessary, but! On the legal side, Ukraine would have won the case.

      laughing So you can prove the opposite. Lawyers are swindlers who either turn the law from head to foot or give such an opinion that no one really understands. They seem to be specially trained to interpret the laws so that no one else understands (from personal experience in dealing with a variety of lawyers).
      Arguments?
      Was there a use of force in Kiev? It was.
      Natsik going to the Crimea? - gathered and there were slogans and appeals, maybe they didn’t reach a bit - but this is not their wish, it became easy to sycotic.
      Was there a threat of use of force to our military and their families? Maybe.
      Was there a threat of the seizure of the military base by radicals and Natsiks? Maybe.
      Then the proliferation of weapons from our bases, including air defense systems, etc. - also indisputable.
  13. 31rus2
    31rus2 19 May 2016 11: 25
    +1
    Dear, Crimea, this is Russia and stop and enough "to play this card", first of all to ourselves, namely, emphasizing and pointing out "the Republic of Crimea, returned home, etc.", Crimea is the same subject of Russia as the rest, but now at the forefront, but that the Kuriles or Vladivostok are not at the forefront, development is underway, funding is underway, life is going on, so everything is in order
  14. mamont5
    mamont5 19 May 2016 12: 02
    +1
    "Proceeding from the fact that the generally recognized norms of international law do not contain provisions according to which" everything that does not like the global financial oligarchy (the main representative is the United States) is illegal ", the general" screeching "is not considered"

    This is the right approach. First of all, the countries of the world need to stop looking at the United States and look into their mouths.
  15. sinoptic
    sinoptic 19 May 2016 14: 00
    0
    I don’t know everything or not, but I think many people understand that all this talk about the referendum is an excuse.

    It seems to me from a moral point of view, if you look here and now, this affiliation is not a very good thing, BUT ...
    from a historical point of view - Crimea has always been and will be ours.
    Putin, for this, will be praised and thanked for centuries.
    To do this, you need, after all, to really have "steel eggs". :)

    The Ukrainians did absolutely nothing to get the Crimea, therefore they gave it away easily.
    By the way, this is all childish pranks, compared with how the USA comrades behave, breaking down entire countries.
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 19 May 2016 14: 49
      0
      Quote: sinoptic
      I don’t know everything or not, but I think many people understand that all this talk about the referendum is an excuse.

      A little bit wrong, a referendum is not an excuse, it is a legalized method. You think why the Europeans are so outraged, it would seem what they care about the Crimea, this is a stupidly Amerian Wishlist. This is the case, and all because many years ago they themselves set a precedent with Yugoslavia.
      VVP is trying to play by some, but the rules. Americans have forgotten about all these rules, they are used to driving everywhere with their own "samovar", their own laws and regulations. They once used their right to self-determination to their advantage, now we poked them with our noses in their joint.
      The EU, on the other hand, is a racket for they have dozens of such indefinite ones, but friendship never existed between themselves.
  16. noct
    noct 19 May 2016 19: 42
    0
    I am offended that, for example, South Ossetia was not brought into the Russian Federation, although there was a referendum. Even two. Southeast Ukraine also held a referendum, and there were also for it. Transnistria, similarly. But they are not part of the Russian Federation. But I understand why this was done. For example s.v. Ukraine was not accepted simply because it is the basis for restoring the course of ALL of Ukraine when they become ill after cookies. Whether or not the traders want it or not is inevitable and it is too late to happen. Our task is simply not to destroy them. Transnistria is also understandable in terms of logistics, it is simply impossible to provide them all. Especially since we have a Kaliningrad enclave in isolation from the country. But I don’t understand with South Ossetia ... Moreover, the common borders are the North Ossetia. or hope to return Georgia into orbit? Unlikely and in the foreseeable future is impossible
    P.S. message for errors from the phone is not convenient.
  17. leon1204id
    leon1204id 28 January 2018 15: 03
    0
    The right of peoples to self-determination, expressed in such an interpretation, is very favorable to the United States. Forgive them, they send the national guard to themselves. But to weak and unstable states they have a simple answer, intervention is carried out through the UN, if not, then Russia and China are to blame. And they bomb themselves . So to say, distance learning democracy. And who is funded by the UN? He orders the interpretation of the laws. Trump himself simply expressed the unambiguous conditions of submission or disobedience to ONE.