Crimea's self-determination: additional aspects
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 story 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 to be the ultimate truth, all possible reasonable objections and / or suggestions can be sent to: [email protected].
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 story 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 to be the ultimate truth, all possible reasonable objections and / or suggestions can be sent to: [email protected].
Information