On March 16, a Crimean referendum was held in Crimea. Polling stations opened at 8 a.m., as in all previous elections, and closed at 8 p.m. Voting for Crimeans was ensured by 1,024 precinct commissions, as well as 27 regional commissions.
Questions at the referendum in Crimea
According to official data, 1.5 million ballots were printed for the referendum, in which it was proposed in three languages to answer positively to one of two questions. The first option involved the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject Russian Federation, and on the second point it was proposed to restore the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea, adopted in 1992, and maintain the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine. 
While the entire peninsula was asked two questions in the referendum, for Sevastopol, as a city with a special status, one question was proposed - the first one, which had to be answered yes or no. Accordingly, by answering “yes,” the voter cast a vote for Crimea’s entry into the Russian Federation; by answering “no,” he voted for the autonomy of Crimea within Ukraine.
Forecasts for the referendum in Crimea
Around this event, various information appeared in the information field, both inviting and agitating, and frightening citizens. Western politicians even doubted that the referendum would take place at all. For example, the Crimean Tatar Mejlis announced in advance that this referendum was illegal, and also that the Tatars would not take part in it. However, in the process it turned out that, although not en masse, Crimean Tatars still went to the polling stations and voted. As the Crimean authorities noted, the result of the referendum will be considered invalid if the voter turnout is less than 50%. At the same time, the Crimean government predicted in advance a high turnout, as well as high voting results for the first point, according to which Crimea should become part of the Russian Federation. At the exit from the polling stations, voters were met by representatives of sociologists. Permission to conduct an exit poll in Crimea was granted only to the Republican Institute of Sociological and Political Research. The Crimean authorities also announced that all journalists who express a desire and register will be able to work at the referendum.
In total, more than 600 journalists representing almost 200 media outlets, as well as 135 observers from 23 states, arrived and were accredited to cover the events. Deputies of parliaments of the countries of Eastern and Eastern Europe were also present as observers. Western Europe and European parliamentarians. The Russian State Duma also sent 20 of its observers. At the press conference, observers expressed surprise at such a high level of activity among voters who came to the polling stations. Thus, in an interview, a member of the Spanish Parliament said that he visited three polling stations where there were many people wanting to vote, and, nevertheless, the process itself went quite normally. The progress of the voting in Yalta was monitored by Member of the European Parliament Johan Evalstadner, who emphasized that there was no pressure on the voters, as the Western media are talking about. In his opinion, whenever this referendum was held, there would still be a large turnout with high results, since people themselves wanted to express their opinion.
The highest turnout traditionally occurred in the morning. Almost a third of citizens voted in the first two to three hours after the opening. At some sites there were queues even before they opened. As the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Crimea notes, no violations or provocations were identified during the voting. Crimean police officers are always ready to ensure law and order during and after the referendum and promise not to allow violations in the future. Similar statements were made by the Crimean authorities, who noted that they had taken various actions in order to prevent disruption of voting or provocations.
Crimean Prime Minister Sergei Aksenov made his forecast for the referendum in Crimea, suggesting that the turnout will be 80%. The fact that the majority of Crimeans would support the first point was immediately obvious, since pro-Russian sentiments are very strong in Crimea. And from the very morning, people rushed to their polling stations to express their long-standing desire to join Russia.
Legality of the referendum in Crimea
Despite this, Western states, as well as the new Ukrainian government, refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the referendum held in Crimea. In particular, in Kyiv they said that the result of this referendum had long been written in Moscow. In addition, Kyiv politicians note that, despite the referendum, Crimea will remain a territory of Ukraine, which is under occupation, and refer to the support of this opinion from the international community. Thus, Deputy Prime Minister Vitaly Yarema noted that the current situation in Crimea may last for some time, since Russian troops arrived in large numbers and took up positions, but after some time the peninsula will again return to Ukraine. Western countries also continue to put pressure on Moscow. The calls are becoming tougher, for example, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said that as early as Monday the heads of foreign affairs departments of the EU countries are ready to give a decisive response.
Legitimacy of the referendum
Let us recall that even before the referendum, a draft resolution was proposed for voting in the UN Security Council, declaring the Crimean referendum illegitimate and calling on other states not to recognize its results. This document was put to a vote by the United States, and 13 countries included in the Security Council voted for it. China abstained from voting, and Russia vetoed.
What will happen after the referendum in Crimea
According to the exit poll on the evening of March 16, it is already known that more than 82% of voters voted, of which 93% were in favor of Crimea joining Russia. In total, more than 1 million 250 thousand people took part in the referendum.
As of 8 a.m. on March 17, according to Mikhail Malyshev, chairman of the commission for organizing and holding the Crimean referendum, 75% of the ballots had been processed. 95.7% of voters voted for the annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation.
It should be noted that in case the clause on joining Russia is adopted at the referendum, the Crimean parliament has already made a corresponding request to the Russian Federation. Speaker of the Crimean parliament Vladimir Konstantinov clarified that if this option is approved in a referendum, the issue will be submitted to the State Duma, whose decision must be approved by the Federation Council and signed by the president. Crimean authorities expect this entire process to take two weeks.
While in Ukraine they assume that the peninsula will soon return back to it, in Crimea itself they hope for full inclusion in Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation. The preliminary results of the referendum indicate precisely this. However, the final decision is up to the Russian Federation.
West: Kosovo had the right to self-determination, Crimea did not
.
.
.
.
Barack Obama caught distorting history
“Kosovo separated from Serbia after a referendum organized within the framework of international law in close cooperation with the UN with the participation of neighboring countries,” Barack Obama said.
The Russian Foreign Ministry responded to these statements by the US leader by posting a response on the department’s website.
“Moscow noticed that President Obama, justifying the independence of Kosovo proclaimed in circumvention of the UN Security Council resolution, mentioned some kind of referendum on this issue,” the Foreign Ministry said. “This statement by the US President is surprising, since there is no plebiscite, Moreover, there was no agreement with the international community. The decision to secede from Serbia was made by the so-called parliament in Pristina in 2008 in unilaterally. At the same time, we agree that fateful decisions should be made through a referendum, as was the case in Crimea."
..
In the previous note
.
International law: Was the Crimean referendum legal?
.a selection of opinions of Western experts on international law on the Crimean referendum was given (see also the links indicated there) and some theoretical justifications for unilateral extra-constitutional secession.
.
Now I want to offer you several articles by Russian international lawyer Alexander Mezyaev on this issue.
.
.
Alexander MEZYAEV
14.03.2014
On March 16, a referendum will be held in Crimea, which will determine the future fate of this republic.
.
The decision to hold a referendum caused the most nervous reaction in the West. US President Barack Obama said that this referendum violates international law, but did not support his statement with any legal arguments. (1) In the same way, all other statements about the alleged international illegality of the Crimean referendum are devoid of any serious legal arguments.
.
The International Court of Justice explicitly stated in a 2010 advisory opinion that unilateral declarations of independence do not violate international law. (2) A decision on independence taken in a referendum falls precisely within the definition of a “unilateral declaration of independence”. At the same time, when making its decision on this issue, the International Court considered a situation where the decision on unilateral secession was announced by the illegal authorities of Kosovo and Metohija. In the case of Crimea, we are dealing with a legal and democratically elected government body. So the referendum itself cannot violate any norms of international law - there simply are no such norms.
.
Now statements Western states began to receive one or another “legal” support from some lawyers. However, their hastily prepared argumentation cannot prove anything.
.
It is often argued, for example, that the referendum violates the principle of Ukraine's territorial integrity. At first glance it sounds significant, but it is legally untenable.
.
To determine what the "principle of territorial integrity" means, reference should be made to the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. This declaration was adopted by resolution 2625 (XXV) of the UN General Assembly on October 24, 1970. In fact, the principle of territorial integrity is “dissolved” in the principle of prohibition of the use of force or its threat. The full principle we are considering is called as follows: “The principle that states refrain from international relations from the threat or use of force, either against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other way incompatible with the purposes of the UN.” And the content of this principle is as follows: “Every state is obliged to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force.” "whether used against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such threat or use of force is a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations; they should never be used as a means of settling international problems." (3)
.
As we can see, territorial integrity is mentioned in the context of outside intervention. Domestic policy This principle does not affect states. Western analysts are trying to present the matter as if there is a certain principle of territorial integrity, which consists in the fact that the territory of a state cannot be changed. As we see, this is not the case.
.
If Western lawyers refer to the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, their selective approach to it is noteworthy. After all, this same document contains the principle of prohibiting interference in the internal affairs of states. This principle (officially called the “Principle relating to the duty under the Charter not to interfere in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any other State”) means: “No State or group of States has the right to interfere, directly or indirectly, in any "was caused in the internal and external affairs of any other state. As a result, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or any threats directed against the legal personality of a state or against its political, economic and cultural foundations are a violation of international law."
.
The Declaration clearly states that interference is prohibited for “any” reasons, no matter how important they may seem to one or another external forces. In addition, “any” forms of interference and “any” threats are prohibited. However, this is exactly what Western countries are doing - interference and threats. This includes interference in the affairs of Crimea with obsessive statements about the “illegitimacy” of the referendum, and threats of sanctions against Russia.
.
Finally, the same Declaration of 1970 contains the principle of self-determination of peoples. This principle states that “all peoples have the right to freely determine, without outside interference, their political status and to realize their economic, social and cultural development, and every state is obliged to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter." Again - "without interference", while the West constantly interferes in the affairs of Crimea.
.
Why such selectivity in citing legal documents?
.
It should be especially noted that Russia’s actions cannot in any way be put on a par with the actions of the West - after all, Russia acts at the invitation of the legitimate government of Ukraine. Here, Western politicians again have inconsistencies with the law: they understand perfectly well that the government that invited Russia is legal, so the discussion is skillfully reduced to the rails of “legitimacy,” which in itself is not legal, but scientific concept. As for interference in the exercise of the right to self-determination, again, Russia was invited by the legitimate government, but who invited the West to Crimea?
.
So, perhaps, Western colleagues who claim that the Crimean referendum “violates international law” mean something else, but for some reason are not able to formulate this “other”? Let's try to help them.
.
Perhaps they mean that it is not the referendum itself, but the issues put forward to it that could violate international law (if the majority votes in favor)? Maybe they are afraid that the population of Crimea will speak out in favor of joining Russia? However, even in this case, everything will comply with international law. The Declaration of Principles of International Law, so beloved by the West, states: “The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, free accession to or association with an independent State, or the establishment of any other political status freely determined by a people, are forms of the exercise by that people of the right to self-determination.”
.
Then, perhaps, our Western colleagues mean that international law is violated by the fact that the referendum is being held only in Crimea, and not throughout Ukraine? But even in this case, the question will arise: what international legal norm is violated by a referendum held only in Crimea?
.
Perhaps, Western colleagues, having this argument in mind, are embarrassed to bring it up because they have not yet figured out how to explain to them why they were the first to recognize the independence of South Sudan, which separated from the Republic of Sudan after a referendum held only in the south? Moreover, the referendum was held under the auspices of the UN. And the same applies to the referendum held by the UN in Eritrea, which separated from Ethiopia and is also recognized by all. And it will also be necessary to explain why the West did not declare the upcoming referendum in Scotland in September 2014, which does not include voting in other regions of the UK, to be contrary to international law?
.
The last shot of Western lawyers appears to be a reference to the decision Supreme Court Canada 1998, in which the Court ruled that the secession of Quebec is impossible only by the results of a referendum in Quebec itself, but only by the results of an all-Canadian vote. The argument is, of course, wonderful, but with one clarification: Canada does not yet rule the world, and its decisions do not form part of international law.
.
So what do Western governments and the lawyers supporting them really mean when they claim that the Crimean referendum “violates international law”? It seems that their glaring lack of clear formulations and any serious legal arguments means that they have an excellent understanding of the fact that the referendum in Crimea not only does not violate absolutely any norms of current international law, but, on the contrary, is the implementation of international law by the people of Crimea.
(3) For the full content of the principle, see: Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
.NOTE:
The Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 did not consider it possible to prohibit a referendum on self-determination (secession) of Quebec, but determined that its positive result did not lead to immediate independence.
.
.
Alexander MEZYAEV
29.03.2014
On March 27, the UN General Assembly adopted a new resolution No. 262 “Territorial integrity of Ukraine”.
.
Formally, the resolution was sponsored by Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine. The voting results were as follows: one hundred countries voted “for”, 11 - “against” (2), 58 countries abstained from voting. (2)
.
What does the new UN General Assembly resolution prescribe? Among its main provisions, three main ones can be distinguished: confirmation of the sovereignty, political independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within the framework of internationally recognized borders; a call to recognize the Crimean referendum as invalid; a call to all states and international organizations not to recognize the change in the status of Crimea. (3)
.
Here it is immediately necessary to pay attention to two points: firstly, despite the prohibition contained in the UN Charter on consideration in the UN General Assembly of issues under consideration by the Security Council and within its exclusive competence, the situation in Ukraine was transferred to the General Assembly. Secondly, according to the provisions of the UN Charter, resolutions of the General Assembly have no legal force.
.
Do those states that supported the draft resolution have convincing arguments? Can these hundred states be considered as a single whole and as a single legal and political position? The answer to both questions is no!
.
Despite the fact that enough time has passed since the start of the anti-Russian campaign regarding Crimea, it was not enough for the promoters of the resolution to come up with convincing arguments to justify resolution 262.
.
Thus, the thesis that the referendum in Crimea “violates international law” has not found any justification at all. Although, for example, representatives of Moldova, Japan and other countries argued that the referendum “violates international law,” not one of them remembered which specific article of a particular international legal act it violated. This “forgetfulness” is understandable: there is nothing to say. There are no rules in international law that would prohibit referendums. On the contrary, there is a decision of the International Court of Justice that the unilateral declaration of independence does not violate international law.
.
However, neither the sponsors of the resolution nor the Western majority in the GA particularly sought to justify their position. Their task is political propaganda. Representatives of these countries deliberately distort the factual and legal side situation in Ukraine. Thus, the term “annexation” of Crimea is constantly used, while there is a voluntary decision of the population of the autonomous republic to secede from Ukraine and join another state.
.
Separately, it should be said about the provision of resolution 262 regarding the violation of the principle of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. We have already said earlier that this principle is mentioned in the 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law only in the context of external intervention. For an internal referendum of the population, which has the right to decide its own fate, this principle is not applicable. International law directly provides for the possibility of separating part of the territory of a state, and the creation of a new state, and its annexation to another state. This, for example, is recorded in the Vienna Conventions on the succession of states in relation to contracts, property, etc.
.
What about the large group of states that supported resolution 262? Firstly, there are indications that many of them were put under pressure and even blackmailed. (4) Secondly, many states do not understand the essence of the situation in Ukraine and therefore their vote turned out to be falsely motivated. Misunderstanding of the situation in a particular country is not a rare phenomenon. To verify this, it is enough to look at the transcripts of meetings of the UN General Assembly on certain regional conflicts and the official positions of states located at a considerable distance from these regions.
.
Among the states that voted for the resolution, there are those who, not understanding the situation in Ukraine, took Washington’s propaganda statements on faith. For example, Nigeria's delegate said in voting for the resolution that he did so "solely for the purpose of defending the principles of international law and the UN Charter." The Nigerian delegate did not want to understand that there was no trace of any violation of principles. Even among those who voted for the resolution, there were those who tried to justify themselves and declared the inadmissibility of imposing sanctions against Russia (the delegation of Chile).
.
However, there are other examples where small states still find the strength to understand the situation and resist blackmail. For example, the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines noted that the proposed draft resolution was motivated more by “principles” than by “principles” and expressed regret that the Assembly refused to take into account the historical facts and the essence of the new regime in Ukraine.
.
Assessing resolution 262, Russia's representative to the UN said that it "is trying to cast doubt on the significance of the referendum held in Crimea, which has already played its historical role." At the same time, V. Churkin noted that “the draft also contains some correct provisions, for example, a call to refrain from unilateral actions and inflammatory rhetoric that could lead to increased tension,” however, “in order to heed this call, no resolutions need to be adopted - It is simply necessary to be guided by the interests of the Ukrainian people, the interests of the normal course of international relations."
.
However, the main conclusion from the analysis of votes cast on resolution 262 is the following. The real balance of power between those who voted for the anti-Russian resolution and those who did not support it cannot be represented as 100 to 11. And even as 100 to 69. The real balance of power under this resolution is expressed by the ratio of 100 to 93.
.
The fact is that the members of the UN are not 169 states (as you might think, adding up the voting results: 100+11+58), but 193. Thus, it turns out that in addition to the 58 abstentions, there are 24 more UN member states that are not at all voted. If these non-voting states cannot be taken into account when counting those who supported a particular resolution, then when counting those who did NOT support, they should be taken into account.
.
In general, we can say that the results of the vote on this resolution were a major failure of Western diplomacy. One hundred states confirmed the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but 93 states did NOT do this. One hundred countries of the world called not to recognize new status Crimea, but 93 states did NOT support this call. Along with the legally non-binding nature of the adopted resolution, this is the main result of the demarche of Western countries at the UN.
.
(1) Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
(2) Among those who abstained was the Republic of South Africa, which is especially noted by the author writing this article from this country.
(3) Text of the draft resolution: see UN Document A/68/L.39.
(4) See Commentary by the Department of Information and Press of the Russian Foreign Ministry in connection with the vote in the UN General Assembly on the draft resolution “Territorial Integrity of Ukraine” // Official website of the Russian Foreign Ministry on the Internet.
.NOTE:
A detailed Western argument on this issue can be found in an article from the European Journal of International Law blog
.
.
What is being called into question is not the right to hold a referendum on March 16, but the reasons for it and the conditions for its holding, which, according to the author, were not observed. The article also notes that the existing ban on holding a referendum in the Constitution of Ukraine from the point of view of international law has no significance for the recognition of its results.
.
.
.
International Court of Justice and Kosovo: amputation of international law
Alexander MEZYAEV
29.07.2010
.
On July 22, 2010, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on the legality of the unilateral declaration of independence by the “Kosovo authorities.” The court ruled that this statement was “not inconsistent” with international law. However, does the decision of the International Court itself “not contradict international law”?
.
The method for finding an answer to the question posed to the Court could only be as follows. Firstly, it was necessary to establish on the basis of what norms of international law this independence was proclaimed, and, secondly, to establish the conformity of the declaration of independence with the norms of international law. However, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) took a different approach.
“Here is the precise wording of the answer” given by the Court (para. 122): “The Court therefore holds that the adoption of the declaration of independence ... does not violate any applicable rules of international law” (1).
.
Now let us remember the exact wording of the question: “Does the unilateral declaration of independence by the provisional authorities of Kosovo self-government comply with the norms of international law?”
.
As we can see, the UN MS reformulated the question proposed to it, and did it twice. Firstly, the Court's answer does not speak of a declaration of independence, but of the adoption of a declaration of independence, which, of course, are completely different things. Secondly, in its response, the International Court of Justice added the word “applicable” to the words “rules of international law”. The very process of selecting applicable norms from non-applicable ones is the critical moment at which the key question is resolved: exclude just one act from the applicable norms, and as a result, instead of the answer “violates,” we get the answer “does not violate.” It is these manipulations with the separation of the declaration of independence from the declaration of independence “applicability” that is the central link in the technology of deceiving the public by the main judicial body of the UN.
.
By cutting off “inapplicable” norms of international law, the ICJ excluded almost all the fundamental norms of the modern international legal system: the UN Charter (prohibition of the use of force to undermine the territorial integrity of states), the Declaration of Principles of International Law (the principle of territorial integrity), the Final Helsinki Act (the principle inviolability of borders). For what reason? But because, they say, these principles apply only to states. This logic means that only states are prohibited from undermining territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders, and this does not apply to private individuals or, say, the Kosovo authorities. In such an obscene way, excluding everything current standards international law from the category “applicable to the present case”, the International Court concluded that “there are no rules in international law prohibiting the unilateral declaration of independence”. The work is, of course, clumsy. However, this once again emphasizes the increasingly declining level of decisions of the UN ICJ.
.
It is interesting to note that even after the amputation of international law, the court had to resort to one more manipulation. The court equated its conclusion that “there are no rules in international law prohibiting a unilateral declaration of independence” with the conclusion that such a declaration by the Kosovo separatists “does not contradict international law.” But are these conclusions identical? At the very least, this is the problem of choosing the legal concepts “everything that is not prohibited is permitted” and “everything that is not permitted is prohibited.” Why did the Court choose the first, and why did it reject the second? Why did he not, for example, make the following conclusion: “Having established that there are no rules in international law allowing unilateral declarations of independence, the Court concluded that such a declaration does not comply with international law”?
.
The Court's decision also contains a number of other completely unfounded allegations. For example, that UNSCR 1244 established “a special legal regime that ... takes precedence over the Serbian legal regime", or the recognition of UNMIK acts as having the force of international law, etc.
.
It should be noted that the decision of the ICJ was not adopted unanimously. Five judges - Vice-President of the Court Tomka (Slovakia), Judges Koroma (Sierra Leone), Keith ( New Zealand), Bennunna (Morocco) and Russian judge L.A. Skotnikov - voted against the decision of the majority to give the advisory opinion itself. The fact is that the ICJ is not obliged to give a response to an advisory request, and, in the opinion of these five judges, this was precisely the case when the ICJ should have refused to respond at all due to the consideration of the Kosovo problem in the UN Security Council, which has priority in consideration issues of ensuring international peace and security.
As for the decision on the main issue - compliance with international law of the declaration of independence, the decision was made by a majority of 10 to 4 (the same 5 judges, but without the New Zealand judge). At the same time, a number of judges voted in an unexpected way. Everything is clear with the judges of NATO countries and their open allies: they all voted as expected. And here are a number of judges from countries Latin America and Africa were surprised. Thus, judges from Mexico and Brazil voted FOR the decision, although their countries officially opposed it. The judge from Sierra Leone, on the contrary, spoke AGAINST the decision of the majority, despite his country’s recognition of the independence of Kosovo. The judge from Somalia, A. Yusuf, was especially “pleased”. Its long-defunct state recognized Kosovo just two months ago. (2)
.
However, it should be noted that there is inconsistency in the position of the delegation of the Russian Federation, on the one hand, and the Russian judge, on the other. At the UN General Assembly, Russia voted to transfer the case to the International Court of Justice, while Russian judge L. Skotnikov advocated that the ICJ should not give an answer at all.
.
One cannot help but pay attention to one more fact. Three days before the announcement of the ICJ decision, another international court, the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, decided to conduct a “new trial” against the leaders of the separatist Kosovo Liberation Army Haradinaj, Balaj and Brahimaj, who had previously been acquitted. This is certainly not a mere coincidence. Serbia was given a pathetic sop in the form of bringing to justice one of the main criminals of the Kosovo massacre of the 90s. It must be said that the idea of a “new trial” of Haradinaj is not without a certain, albeit perverted, elegance. Firstly, “international justice” portrayed a semblance of independence: what a fair court of appeal! (Although in fact, this micron coordination of the decisions of two “independent” international courts is a clear indicator of their real independence!) Secondly, this decision, according to the plans of the owners of the ICTY-ICJ, will help smooth out the first shock to Serbia from the decision of the International Court of Justice. However, in reality, the ICTY decision means little compared to the ICJ decision. The fact is that " new process“over Haradinaj does not mean holding a new full-fledged trial, but only the opportunity to hear two additional witnesses. And nothing will prevent the new trial chamber from acquitting Haradinaj again. The idea is wonderful: the repeated acquittal of Haradinaj will become an additional basis for the “legitimation” of Kosovo’s independence.
.
The position of many states on the issue of recognition of Kosovo and other international legal issues is directly related to the problem of the illegality of a unilateral declaration of independence. The amputation of international law committed by the International Court of Justice will lead to a new flourishing of separatism and the collapse of states. The bet on the disintegration (collapse) of states is the favorite policy of the countries whose judges constitute the majority in the International Court. And the fact that the main judicial body of the UN was drawn into this dirty work speaks of its further discredit. It seems that soon no one will need the International Court of Justice at all - neither the representatives of the majority in the current composition of the Court, nor those who naively counted on the integrity of the highest UN court.
""(1) Full text for the decision of the International Court of Justice, see [http://www.icj-cij.org http://www.icj-cij.org] (2) One cannot read without emotion the text of the statement by the Somali government, which states that it highly values “ the enormous contribution of the Republic of Kosovo to ensuring stability and peaceful coexistence in the Balkans"!"
..
========================================
.
The Oxford University Press
DEBATE MAP: UKRAINE/CRIMEA
Debate Map: Ukraine Use of Force
The Oxford University Press continues with the debate maps, this time on Ukraine/Crimea. The reader is also referred to the last section on the (ir)relevance of international law for a timely debate on how the situation in Ukraine is affecting our attitudes towards international law. The current discourse allows us to re-examine and apply old practices/views to a new set of facts including State responses to Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence, its legality, the views of the ICJ and similarities (or not) with Crimea. We compare Crimea with Turkey’s action in North Cyprus. Or those of Russia in Georgia. Or the US intervention in Grenada and Panama. The discussion at the State level is highly polarized and one gets a feeling that the applicable international law is that which is politically expedient (but at the same time, those who say international law is irrelevant would notice that both Obama and Putin justifies their views and actions on international law). The Crimean context highlights and exposes contentious and developing areas of international law and as seen in the map below, offers scholars the opportunity to dissect each of these areas.
The following index maps scholarly commentary on the legal arguments regarding the public international law (and some domestic constitutional law) aspects of the use of force in Ukraine, published in English language legal blogs and newspapers, and free content from OUP’s online services.
.
Somaliland awaits recognition
.On March 16, 2014, a referendum was held in Crimea and Sevastopol, according to the results of which about 96.77% of voters in the republic and 95.6% of voters in the city voted for the reunification of the peninsula with Russia. The turnout was 83.01% and 89.5%, respectively.
Based on the results of the referendum and the declaration of independence adopted on March 11, on the 17th the Crimean parliament proclaimed the independence of the republic. Simferopol appeals to Moscow with a request to include the peninsula into Russia as a new entity. Vladimir Putin signs a decree recognizing the independence of the Republic of Crimea, and then approves a draft agreement on the reunification of Crimea with Russia.
Further, on March 18, in the St. George Hall of the Kremlin, an agreement was signed on the reunification of Crimea with Russia, according to which new entities appear within the Russian Federation - the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol. The document is signed by the President of Russia Vladimir Putin, Chairman of the State Council of Crimea Vladimir Konstantinov, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Crimea Sergey Aksyonov and the head of Sevastopol Alexey Chaly.
20th of March The State Duma The Russian Federation passes a law on the reunification of Crimea with Russia; on March 21, the president signs this document and approves the ratification of the relevant treaty. Putin also signs a decree on the creation of the Crimean Federal District.
It is worth recalling the background to the plebiscite. The authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, against the backdrop of a systemic political crisis and mass unrest in Ukraine, decided on February 27, 2014 to hold a referendum, scheduling it for May 25, 2014. By the way, the original referendum question did not include a decision to secede from Ukraine, but only proposed a return to the provisions of the 1992 Constitution, which provided Crimea and its population with broader rights. The basis for this decision was the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the new government, as well as reasonable fears for the fate of the population of the peninsula.
The further deepening of the crisis and threats from Kyiv led to the fact that in early March the date of the referendum was postponed to March 30, and on March 6 this date was again postponed to the 16th. On the same day and on the same date, a similar referendum was scheduled in Sevastopol.
Now the question was different. Residents of the two regions were asked to make a choice: either become part of Russia, or return to the 1992 Constitution and remain part of Ukraine. Later, the European Union, the United States and other states refused to consider the decision of the authorities of Crimea and Sevastopol legal. The OSCE also refused to send its observers to monitor the referendum, citing the fact that such a request had not been received from the official authorities of Ukraine. In fact, this predetermined the fact that the West still does not de jure recognize the peninsula as part of the Russian Federation.
Especially for Crimea.Realities
The Kremlin, while organizing the “annexation” of Crimea, outdid itself in terms of the legal formalization of the annexation. Moscow constantly refers to the decision of the “people of Crimea,” but the Crimeans did not vote for independence. The new authorities in Russia may use this legal incident to revise the results of the 2014 “referendum”.
Russian TV presenter Ksenia Sobchak, intending to run for the post of President of Russia, entered into an absentee skirmish with the Russian authorities of Crimea. She called the 2014 “referendum” a fake. “It was a fake vote. A real vote cannot be with one question. Do you drink cognac in the morning? This is not a referendum question. An international real referendum with observers should be held in Crimea. And Crimeans must decide for themselves where to be,” Ksenia Sobchak. In her opinion, it is necessary to hold another “referendum”, but with three questions: to be part of Russia, Ukraine, or even declare one’s own independence.
The current leadership of Crimea and a number of Russian politicians and officials reacted to Sobchak’s statements. Head of the “public chamber” of Crimea Grigory Ioffe reproached the TV presenter for not understanding the essence of what happened. “There were two questions: do you want to reunite with Russia? Do you want to remain part of Ukraine? Therefore, it puts people who do not understand this in a false position. The hosts of the show, where Sobchak spoke out, also played a negative role. They themselves do not know the history of the “Crimean spring” and were unable to counter its statements. It turned out that simple people in prime time on the main channel of the country they heard false information,” Ioffe was indignant.
A fake “independent republic” was created in Crimea only on the basis of a decision of the parliament, which had no such powers at all
Indeed, there were two questions at the “voting”. First: “Are you for the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?” Second: “Are you for restoring the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Crimea and for the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?” A detailed analysis reveals that Moscow political strategists missed important detail– Crimea, as it were, became part of Russia, without formally leaving Ukraine. If we accept the Kremlin version that a certain “people of Crimea” exercised the right to self-determination, then the questions on the ballots contradict the meaning that the Kremlin put into the “referendum.” If we start from legal theory, then the people must first vote for independence and only after that determine their future. This was the case, for example, in Catalonia, where an illegal referendum on independence was held. The Catalan referendum was illegal, but at least it was real. In Crimea, they created a fake “independent republic” only on the basis of a decision of the parliament, which had no such powers at all. Crimeans, electing in 2010 new line-up The Verkhovna Rada of Crimea did not grant deputies the right to declare “independence”.
Ukrainian law enforcement officers place between the adviser to the Russian president Sergei Glazyev and the current Russian head of the peninsula Sergei Aksenov. In March 2014, the parties discussed issues submitted to the “referendum”. “It seems to me that the questions on the referendum were formulated poorly. This is not just my opinion. Here we think about how to put them so that they are clearly understandable to people. Because many simply will not vote for the words “as part of Ukraine,” Glazyev said. Judging by Aksenov’s reaction, he was surprised by this formulation of the question. He answered Glazyev that the Russians were organizing the “referendum”, and the result was already predetermined - there would be no voters for Ukraine.
The Kremlin made such a mistake with the “referendum” due to haste. The Russian authorities sought to carry out the “annexation” procedure as quickly as possible, until Western countries had time to understand the situation and a new system authorities. The fact of the rush and the fact that it was Moscow that organized the “referendum” was confirmed by the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry Sergey Lavrov in an interview last February. “The referendum probably could have been prepared longer and more observers could have been brought there. They ask why We it was carried out in one week. We answer that there was a direct military threat: bandits were rushing on trains with weapons in their hands with the intention of uprooting the Russians from there. Now you can cling to some legal, technical aspects about what happened, although the results of the referendum are difficult to deny,” the minister.
The organizers of the “referendum” laid a political time bomb underneath it. And it can detonate at any moment
The organizers of the “referendum” laid a political time bomb underneath it. And it can detonate at any moment, as soon as the regime in Russia begins to waver. The Kremlin understands this, so they are trying to tighten the screws “quietly”, fearing a repetition of the mass protests of 2011-2012. Even the presidential campaign Vladimir Putin started out rather lackluster: on industrial enterprise, “at the request of the workers,” without fanfare, and the imperial gloss that the Kremlin has been trumping over the last four years.
Moreover, this mistake of the organizers of the “referendum” is also realized by the current authorities of Crimea, who decided to participate in the Kremlin adventure only with the expectation of the imminent collapse of Ukraine. What does this mean for Crimeans? The answer is simple: the new government in Russia will be forced to negotiate on Crimea in order to lift sanctions and return to a civilized society. The new authorities will instantly forget that Crimea is “originally Russian” and cannot be described as a “sandwich.” Imperial arrogance will recede into the background against the backdrop of growing socio-economic problems: a protracted crisis in heavy industry, a lag in the sphere of high technology, “African” level of AIDS incidence and the like. Last years The Kremlin deliberately suppressed these problems with jingoistic rhetoric, Crimea, and the war against Ukraine and the West. The next leadership of the country will no longer have such resources.
In such a situation, statements by Russian oppositionists (no matter whether they are now associated with the Kremlin or not) regarding a “fair referendum” take on a new meaning. Most likely, the new authorities in Russia will press on the fact that the “referendum” was illegal; The issues put to the “vote” did not reflect legal and political realities. Therefore, everything needs to be “replayed”. And here a wide window of opportunity will open for Kiev and the West to restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Sergey Stelmakh, Crimean political observer (the author's first and last name have been changed for security reasons)
The views expressed in the “Opinion” column convey the point of view of the authors themselves and do not always reflect the position of the editors
A referendum is being held in Crimea on Sunday, March 16. Residents of the self-proclaimed republic five days earlier are called upon to decide whether they want to become a subject of the Russian Federation or remain part of Ukraine. DW has selected the five most controversial facts related to the voting.
1. Issues submitted to referendum
In the ballot, residents of Crimea need to mark “with any sign in the square the answer option” for which they vote. However, the questions put to vote are not the same. The first is formulated very clearly: “Are you for the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?”
The second question sounds different: “Are you for restoring the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Crimea and for the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?” Under the 1992 constitution, the peninsula received broad autonomy rights. However, in the period preceding the voting, no explanatory campaign on this issue, formulated rather intricately, was carried out in Crimea.
2. Preparation for the referendum
The new Crimean authorities gave themselves 10 days to prepare for the vote. The final decision on the date of its holding was made on March 6. For such short term it is impossible to conduct a real election campaign. Not only German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke about this, but also the Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars, Refat Chubarov, in an interview with DW.
The new government in Kyiv refused to provide Simferopol with voter information. Organizers of the referendum in Crimea claim that they have preserved data from the latest elections on the peninsula. If you mean parliamentary elections in Ukraine in 2012, then during this time many people changed their place of residence, died or reached the age of 18.
Residents of Crimea could report the changes to local election commissions. However, independent observers were unable to control this process.
3. Observers at the referendum in Crimea
International observers, and according to the referendum organizers, there are 135 of them in Crimea from 23 countries, could only conduct short-term monitoring. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the world's most recognized election monitoring organization, did not send its experts to Crimea. The OSCE could only accept an invitation from the leadership of Ukraine, but not from the leaders of the self-proclaimed republic.
It is noteworthy that many members of the European Parliament or European countries who received an invitation to the referendum in Crimea are representatives of radical and nationalist parties. For example, European parliamentarian from Hungary Bela Kovacs, who took part in a press conference in Simferopol on the eve of the vote.
He is a representative of the Jobbik party. Its members are known for their anti-Semitic and xenophobic statements. According to Austrian media, the invitation to the referendum was accepted by two members of the Austrian Freedom Party, created at one time by the far-right politician Jörg Haider.
4. Military intervention
"Where do you see the barrel of the gun under which the referendum is being held?" - the current Prime Minister of Crimea, Sergei Aksenov, told reporters in Simferopol. According to him, armed people without identification marks guard only important strategic objects on the peninsula.
However, the very decision of the current Crimean authorities, who began the process of separating the peninsula from Kyiv, was made after the military occupied the building of the Supreme Council of the Autonomy and almost secretly. Armored personnel carriers and other military equipment with armed people in full combat readiness, camouflage uniforms and masks on their heads appeared on the eve of the vote and on the streets of Simferopol.
5. Legitimacy of the referendum in Crimea
