The right of nations to self-determination is one of the most sensitive principles in international law. As regards, in fact, practice, history shows that there are simply no universally recognized international norms in terms of implementation - everything is decided depending on the outcome of the political and armed struggle.

"The United States does not benefit from the independence of Crimea"

Speaking about the Ukrainian problem, Russian President Vladimir Putin emphasizes the right of the Crimean people to self-determination: "Only citizens living in a particular territory can determine their future." Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich adds: "The United States does not and cannot have the moral right to preach morality about respecting international norms and respecting the sovereignty of other countries. What about the bombing of the former Yugoslavia or the invasion of Iraq on a falsified occasion?"

Since the Great French Revolution, in the course of wars that have repeatedly redrawn the map of the world, the concept of "self-determination of nations" has been on the agenda of diplomatic discussions. Sovereign states also cry out for the right to self-determination (for example, Libya before the NATO bombings or Syria in the context of attempts by Europe and the Persian Gulf countries to impose their political will on the Syrian people) when they are threatened from outside, but it is also called upon by internal forces striving for autonomy or department. Are Serbs in Bosnia and Rusyns in Transcarpathia (or Albanians in Kosovo, or Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, or Sardinians in Italy, or Scots and Welsh in England) a "national minority"?

Then this principle was debatable, at the Congress of Vienna the victors of Napoleon did not take it seriously, dividing, for example, Germany or Italy between the monarchs at their own discretion. As a matter of fact, for the winners - the multinational Austria-Hungary, rolling the Irish into the pavement, or Great Britain establishing itself in India, or Tsarist Russia, this principle was absolutely unnatural, and until 1848 with its revolutions it was not recognized by anyone, although Texas was captured by the USA from Mexico in 1845 as a result of an uprising and the subsequent "free self-determination" of colonists who had previously moved there from the north.

Later, the unification of Germany and Italy, the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, the rejection of Poland, Finland and the Limitrophes from the USSR proceeded precisely under this principle, supported by US President Wilson. Unleashing conflicts, Hitler often appealed precisely to the right of Germans, Croats, and Slovaks living compactly abroad to determine their fate.

Nowadays people often talk about the contradiction between the self-determination of nations and the principle of the inviolability of frontiers. The second principle is completely speculative - where and when in the world in the entire history of mankind was the inviolability of borders? Borders have changed and will change as long as states exist. The collapse of the colonial system, the collapse of the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the unification of Germany - all this happened before our eyes. The UN Charter speaks of the principle of self-determination of peoples, and not of the right to it, but in 1952 UN Resolution No. 637 "The right of peoples and nations to self-determination" was adopted.

It is important to understand that Western countries consider a number of provisions, for example, the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, regarding the principle of inviolability of borders, not as a legally binding "hard" source of law, but as a political agreement that can be abandoned.

But external invasions, even for humanitarian purposes, violate the democratic right to self-determination, national sovereignty and constitute unacceptable interference in the internal affairs of other states. The experience of the former Czechoslovakia and the former Yugoslavia shows that granting the right to self-determination to national minorities can lead to the disintegration of the country.

It is important to understand that the mood of the population is very changeable - the Georgians elect the ultra-nationalist Gamsakhurdia as the first president by an overwhelming majority with the slogan "Georgia for the Georgians!" At the all-Union referendum, the inhabitants of Azerbaijan and Central Asia almost without exception voted for the unity of the USSR, and at the end of the same year they almost unanimously voted for the independence of their republics.

Kosovo, Eritrea, Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the split of British India into India and Pakistan, and Pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh, Biafra, Singapore, Somalia - only an analysis of real changes in the world can make it possible to understand the real principles of international relations, and not empty concussions words of complacent or rogue theorists of international law.

According to the Mountbatten plan, the British singled out Muslim Pakistan from secular, but with a predominantly Hindu majority of India, which later split into the Urdu-speaking western part and Bengali Bangladesh after Pakistan lost another war with India.

After the departure of General Franco in 1975, Spain transferred administrative functions to the administration of Western Sahara to Morocco and Mauritania and withdrew its troops from the region, and at the same time the Wadi Zahab and Seguiet al-Hamra Liberation Front (POLISARIO) began the struggle for the self-determination of the Western Sahara people, defeating the Mauritanians , but was defeated by Morocco. Most of the local population went to the East in the desert, and the territory where huge reserves of phosphates were found is settled by Moroccan settlers, fenced off by a giant rampart.

In 1966, the UN adopted a resolution calling on Spain to hold a plebiscite in the Spanish Sahara on the question of self-determination of this territory, and in 1975 the International Court of Justice in The Hague adopted an opinion in which it stated that in pre-colonial times this territory was not "no man's land", which may prevent the people of Western Sahara from exercising their right to self-determination. The UN recognized Polisario as "the sole and legitimate representative of the people of Western Sahara".

Failed attempt to achieve independence for the Igbo people in Nigeria. In 1967, the Republic of Biafra was proclaimed, which was destroyed after a three-year civil war, the results of which were to a very large extent predetermined by the change in the positions of oil transnational corporations.

On the other hand, Singapore's (recently proposed free trade zone with a Customs Union) declaration of independence from Malaysia in 1965 was recognized by Britain, China, Europe and Southeast Asia. The long-term struggle of the people of Eritrea for independence from Ethiopia in 1993 ended in success.

After Cyprus gained independence in 1960, the guarantors of the existence of the new state, in accordance with the 1960 Treaty of Guarantees, were Great Britain, Greece and Turkey. In July 1974, with the support of the Greek junta of black colonels, supporters of the annexation of Cyprus to Greece carried out a putsch that removed the president, Archbishop Makarios, from power, and in response to this, in accordance with the Treaty of 1960, Turkish troops were sent to Cyprus, which led to the fall of the Greek junta and the restoration of legitimate authority in the Greek part of the island. But the deed has already been done.

The Turks demanded and continue to demand the creation of a Cypriot federation, but the Greeks do not agree to this, as a measure of pressure, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was proclaimed in 1983, which is not officially recognized, although the residences of the US and British ambassadors are in the Turkish part of Nicosia, and the TRNC is part of the Organization Islamic Conference as observer. In general, this whole story is a bargaining of the Turkish Cypriots for a federation.

With the bloody tragedy of the collapse of Yugoslavia (when the Bundeswehr first tasted the taste of blood), the EU considered the possibility of recognizing the republics that had seceded from the SFRY, only on the condition that it would be the result of an agreement between the warring parties. As early as June 1991, the foreign ministers of the CSCE countries spoke at a conference in favor of maintaining "the unity and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia" and a peaceful settlement of internal Yugoslav problems.

But as events unfolded and European ties were established with the Croatian Ustaše, the EU's position began to change. Austria and Germany started talking about the recognition of states that declared their independence. By the end of the year, “the EU decided to resort to tough economic sanctions, which included the denunciation of the EU trade and cooperation agreement with Yugoslavia, the termination of economic assistance, and so on” when providing financial assistance to those Yugoslav republics that would contribute to the plans of the EU - Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

At the same time, EU members proclaim a course towards the recognition of new states, Germany was the first to declare unilateral recognition of the independence of Slovenia and Croatia. Beginning in January 1992, a streak of recognition of these new states as independent follows. "The UN and the US did not support the European Union, fearing that hasty action and selective recognition could lead to an even greater aggravation of the explosive situation. However, the UN still recognizes a fait accompli, and on May 22, 1992, Slovenia and Croatia become members of this organization."

After that, not peace came, but on the contrary, a war began, in which German pilots began to bomb Belgrade for the fourth time in a century.

In the winter of 2008, Kosovo's parliament unilaterally declared independence. The Serbian constitution does not give such powers to the province's parliament, and Belgrade believes that "Kosovo is still part of Serbia as an autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija."

Occupied Afghanistan and little-recognized Taiwan were the first to recognize Kosovo's independence, then France, England, the USA and Italy joined the opinion of these powers. Spain opposed the recognition of the independence of the region. Now the independence of Kosovo is recognized by 108 states out of 193 UN members, while for admission to the UN, the votes of 2/3 of the UN member states (that is, 129) and the decision of the UN Security Council are needed, while Russia and China do not recognize it.

These examples very clearly show that there are simply no universally recognized international norms regarding the realization of the right of nations to self-determination, and everything is decided depending on the outcome of the political and armed struggle. And this is what the peoples of Crimea and our brotherly Ukraine need to remember.

Read the latest news of the hour about the events and situation in Crimea and Ukraine:

What do you think about the latest news about the situation and events in Ukraine? What do you think about the results of the referendum in Crimea? What will happen to Crimea? What will happen to Ukraine? How real is the threat of a war for Crimea?

(abbreviated)

The principle of self-determination in the UN Charter

In the documents adopted by the United Nations, the idea of ​​self-determination received new support. However, in the course of their adoption, heated discussions repeatedly arose due to the duality of interpretations of certain terms. Thus, during the preparation of the UN Charter at the VI meeting of Committee I of the Commission at the Conference in San Francisco on May 15, 1945, an amendment to paragraph 2 of Article 1 was considered, which referred to the "right of peoples to self-determination." The amendment was rejected because lawyers saw many contradictions and ambiguities in it. For example, the term "peoples" could be interpreted in two ways: it is not clear what was meant - national groups or groups identical with the population of states. The same was true for the term "nation". Some experts feared that the provision on the right of peoples to self-determination, put forward as the basis of friendly relations between nations, could create legal grounds for outside interference. Analyzing the meaning of the proposed principles of "equality" and "self-determination" of peoples, the Commission came to the conclusion that these are elements of one norm; their observance is the basis for all development; "essential element<…>is a free and genuine expression of the will of the people, and not the so-called expression of the people's will, which has taken place in recent years in Germany and Italy to achieve certain goals.

The idea of ​​self-determination was also embodied in other UN documents. At the VII session of the General Assembly on December 16, 1952, resolution 637 (VII) "The right of peoples and nations to self-determination" was adopted, which emphasized that the right of nations to self-determination is a prerequisite for the full enjoyment of human rights; each Member State of the UN must respect and uphold this right in accordance with the UN Charter; the population of non-self-governing and trust territories has the right to self-determination, and the states responsible for the administration of these territories must take practical measures to realize this right. Thus, the status of the idea of ​​self-determination was raised from a "principle" to a "law". At the same session, it was decided to set up an Ad Hoc Committee to study whether the territories had achieved a certain degree of self-government.

Article 2 of resolution 1514 (XV) states that “all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of this right, they freely determine their political status and carry out their economic, social and cultural development”, Article 6 states that “any attempt aimed at partially or completely destroying the national unity and territorial integrity of the country is incompatible with purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”. The world community will inevitably face the question of how to combine the declaration of the idea of ​​self-determination of peoples with the prevention of separatism. An attempt to answer it was made during the development adopted by the UN General Assembly as resolution 2625 (XXV) "Declaration on the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations".

The Declaration summarizes all the main provisions on self-determination set out by 1970 in other documents of the UN General Assembly: on the “right of all peoples to self-determination”, on the need for states to refrain from actions leading to the violation of this right, etc. It clarifies - following resolution 1514 (XV) - possible forms of self-determination: "the creation 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 ways for that people to exercise the right to self-determination." The text implicitly states that the “right to self-determination” applies to colonial situations: “The territory of a colony or other non-self-governing territory shall have, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from that of the territory of the State administering it; such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or non-self-governing territory in question have exercised their right to self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and in particular in accordance with its purposes and principles.” “Nothing in the above paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action that would lead to the dismemberment or partial or total disruption of the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states observing in their actions the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, as this principle is set forth higher, and consequently having governments representing, without distinction of race, creed, or color, all the people living in the territory."

Thus, it is recognized that peoples who are in colonial or foreign dependence have the right to "external" self-determination; it is implicitly recognized that part of the population of an independent country can exercise this right if it is impossible to exercise "internal" self-determination, that is, participation on an equal footing in government.

Latest trends

In the Final Act of the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, "the right to decide one's own destiny" is recognized for all peoples. The same formula was given in later documents of the CSCE. In UN practice, external self-determination is equated with decolonization, however, there is no direct identification of these two concepts in any document. The Helsinki Final Act strengthened the positions of those who believed that "external" self-determination could be legitimate not only in a colonial context.

At the same time, the Helsinki Final Act drew wide attention to the principle of the inviolability of frontiers as a universal binding norm opposed to "external" self-determination. The principle of mutual recognition and the inadmissibility of forcible change of state borders is enshrined in many bilateral treaties and in a number of regional acts: the Charter of the Organization of American States (1948), the Charter of the Organization of African Unity (1963), etc.

Some jurists draw attention to the fact that in the Convention of the International Labor Organization No. 169 “On Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries”, Aboriginal peoples are defined quite broadly, in fact, as ethnic groups that are singled out in a special category and have group rights . Notwithstanding the proviso in Article 1, paragraph 3: "The use of the term 'peoples' in this Convention shall not be regarded as having any meaning in relation to the rights which may be contained in that term under the terms of other international instruments", ILO Convention No. 169 indicates a certain shift in approaches to the allocation of the subject of group rights.

The position set out in UN General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) was confirmed in the final document of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights held under the auspices of the UN - the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, which emphasized the inadmissibility of violating or weakening the territorial integrity of states, but stipulated the right to seek independence for peoples under colonial and other forms of dependence.

The practical completion of the process of decolonization on a global scale, the reunification of Germany and the disintegration of the USSR, the SFRY and Czechoslovakia led to an ever wider spread of the opinion that "external" self-determination should not be linked only to colonial situations. Many experts note the general trend of an ever broader interpretation of the idea of ​​the right of peoples to self-determination by international organizations and the professional community of specialists in the field of international law.

On issues related to the idea of ​​the right of peoples to self-determination (PNS), not only lawyers speak out, but also ethnologists, philosophers, and political scientists. The vagueness of the main definitions, the inconsistency of accumulated experience, the specificity of disciplinary approaches, and political engagement cause a significant difference of opinion on a number of aspects. The focus is on issues related to the determination of the political status of the territories.

Among jurists there is no unanimity in opinion about the status of the idea of ​​self-determination of peoples in modern international law. Some believe that the right of peoples to self-determination is the highest imperative norm of international law jus cogens (R. Tuzmukhamedov, H. Gros Espiell, K. Rupesinghe), others believe that the PNS can be recognized only under certain conditions and in conjunction with other legal norms ( J. Crawford, A. Cassese). It is widely believed that the self-determination of peoples is not a legal, but a political or moral principle. Many believe that the idea of ​​self-determination of peoples not only does not fit into the legal framework due to the uncertainty of the definitions associated with it (primarily such a concept as “people”), but also provokes destructive and uncontrollable processes, such as separatism and ethnic conflicts, thus contradicting the purposes of the UN Charter (J.Verzijl, R.Emerson, N.Glazer, C.Eagleton, A.Etzioni).

Most experts are of the opinion that, in accordance with the provisions of international law (most clearly recorded in UNGA resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970 and the Vienna Declaration of 1993) and established practice, the right to "external self-determination" applies only to peoples located in a colonial or other foreign dependence or under conditions of foreign occupation.

Opinions are expressed that in other cases, “external” self-determination (secession) can be considered legal if the state authorities make “internal” self-determination impossible, that is, they allow massive violations of human rights or systematic discrimination, and if there is no other way to change the current situation. There is a growing opinion that, in terms of practical implementation, the emphasis should be shifted from “external” to “internal” self-determination, that is, the construction of democratic institutions and mechanisms of group representation (federalism, autonomy, etc.) that allow all members of society and all groups to effectively participate in the management and allocation of resources.

Director of the Norwegian Institute of Human Rights A. Eide emphasized that there are international documents, the texts of which allow for a broad and vague interpretation of the idea of ​​self-determination. At the same time, most lawyers have a definite understanding of the PNS: peoples can exercise this right only when they are in colonial dependence or under occupation.

The authors of the Report of the Center for Human and Peoples' Rights at the University of Padua, presented at the second Helsinki Citizens' Assembly, held in Bratislava in 1992, following other experts, for example, A. Rigo Sureda, single out the external and internal nature of self-determination. The first type of self-determination is called when peoples independently, without external interference, determine their political status in the system of international relations: "either create a new state, or join, on a federal or confederal basis, another pre-existing state." Internal self-determination is carried out within the framework of one state entity.

“There is a dilemma in the concepts of sovereignty and law, with the idea of ​​universal human rights on the side of non-binding law. On the other hand, the principle of nations to self-determination oscillates within this dilemma. He is invoked by sovereign states when they are threatened by external forces, but he is invoked by internal forces seeking autonomy or secession, which are threatened by the repression of state authorities. The demand for self-determination on the one hand constantly clashes with corresponding demands on the other. Order considerations, based on the fact that international relations are based on a state system, tend more in favor of sovereignty.

There are differences in the question of how the concept of "people" should be interpreted - as an ethnic or territorial community. Some experts express ideas related to the field of nationalist discourse - that the right to political self-determination should have the so-called "primordial" or "indigenous" ethnic groups inhabiting certain territories or administrative entities. This position is based on the idea of ​​ethnic groups as the basic structural units of humanity, of the “will of the people” as the highest value, and of the need to satisfy all the claims of the “people” for self-determination if they are declared to be separated from the state in which they live, and creation of their own public education.

The extremes (in this case, ethno-nationalism and liberalism) converge. Some political philosophers view the idea of ​​self-determination from a "liberal" perspective. For example, H.Beran believes that if an individual can make a responsible decision, then a group of people like him has the same ability. Therefore, the group is a "collective individual" and the state is a union of individuals and groups, which must be based on consent. If this consent is lost, then any group has every right to establish its own state.

Dmitry GRUSHKIN, Moscow State University

The situations in Crimea and the Ukrainian east are similar to Catalonia only in that now the international community demands that any referenda on self-determination take place within the framework of the laws and with the consent of the mother states. In all other respects, these are different cases. Starting from the fact that the right to self-determination concerns only peoples and only those peoples who do not yet have their own state (and this calls into question any right to self-determination in the occupied territories in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, since there are no separate peoples there, and self-determination of the Russian majority in Crimea, since they already have their own state - the Russian Federation), and ending with the military aggression of the Russian Federation and the absence of violations of human rights in Crimea and in the east by Ukraine.

Law and geopolitics

The situation is more complex and different from Catalonia in Iraqi Kurdistan, which also already has its own autonomy and which also recently declared independence in a referendum. Iraq was unable to initially effectively counter the spread of ISIS on its territory. The lands of Kurdistan were defended by the Kurdish Peshmerga military detachments, they also helped to liberate Iraq itself. It turns out that the mother state could not protect the Kurds from threats, and they have the right to proclaim their own state. But no. Because right is right, and politics is politics. Kurds live in four countries: Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, and none of them intends to recognize the independence of Kurdistan and thereby provoke separatism at home.

Infographic: Russian Air Force Service

Despite progress in such areas as human rights and the fight against global problems, international law in relations between states in many respects remains the law of the strong. The “correct” and “incorrect” self-determination described above was in practice only an ex post facto justification for certain actions.

States are afraid of the disintegration of territories, and this is true for everyone. Adding to the problems is the lack of a definition of what a “people” is and who, accordingly, has the right to self-determination. Separatism in many countries has an economic background. States redistribute taxes between poor and rich regions. In response, the latter often declare injustice and their desire to secede (for example, Catalonia in Spain, the northern provinces of Italy, etc.).

Therefore, any state fears that some kind of self-determination will entail complete disintegration and disintegration of the country - when every region that is dissatisfied with something will declare itself a state. How then to explain that there is a right to self-determination here, but not here?

Other issues include the changing context and interpretation of the principles of international law since they were adopted. Some scientists believe that the self-determination of peoples works only in conditions of maintaining the territorial integrity of the state. Others say that the principle of territorial integrity concerns only protection from external attack, and if the borders change as a result of internal processes, then there is no problem.

Therefore, in conditions of confrontation with each other, states often act according to the formula: for themselves and their friends - territorial integrity, and for enemies - the right of peoples to self-determination. In Kosovo, the West defends self-determination, while the Russian Federation defends territorial integrity. In Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, Transnistria - exactly the opposite. The ability of any peoples (groups of people) to declare independence depends on the willingness of most other countries to recognize it. In fact, it depends on the alignment of forces and the political situation; what is more important for strong countries in this independence - benefits or problems.

Blurring, vagueness of wording and the right of the strong - together make it impossible to effectively regulate the issues of self-determination. Although now Ukraine, given its situation, will take a position against any unilateral secession, we should not forget that we ourselves were once a victim of such an order.

When in the 1920s the governments of the UNR and ZUNR tried to get the League of Nations and individual countries to recognize their sovereignty and independence from Poland and the USSR, but to no avail. We were lucky in many respects that the USSR collapsed from within, and 15 republics agreed with this. Although the treaty on the formation of the USSR provided for the right to withdraw from the union, it lacked a mechanism for exercising this right. Therefore, if we ourselves matured before declaring independence from the USSR, for the international community we would be the same Catalans.

Respect for the right of every nation to freely choose the ways and forms of its development, to self-determination is one of the fundamental foundations of international relations. The emergence of the principle of self-determination of peoples was preceded by the proclamation of the principle of nationality, which assumed self-determination only on the basis of nationality. At the present stage of development of international law, the principle of self-determination of peoples and nations as a mandatory norm was developed after the adoption of the UN Charter. One of the most important goals of the UN is “to develop friendly relations between nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples...” (clause 2, article 1 of the Charter).

The principle of self-determination has repeatedly been confirmed in other UN documents, in particular in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 1960, the Covenants on Human Rights of 1966, the Declaration on the Principles of International Law of 1970. The Declaration of Principles of the Final Act of the CSCE emphasizes the right of peoples to decide their own destiny, however, in connection with the collapse of the colonial system, the issue of self-determination of nations was largely resolved.

In Resolution 1514 (XV) of December 14, 1960, the UN General Assembly explicitly stated that “the continued existence of colonialism impedes the development of international economic cooperation, retards the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and runs counter to the ideal of the United Nations, which consists in universal the world." Other UN documents express the main normative content of the principle of self-determination. Thus, the Declaration on the Principles of International Law of 1970 states: “The creation of a sovereign and independent state, free accession to an independent state or association with it, or the establishment of any other political status freely determined by a people, are forms of the exercise by this people of the right to self-determination” .

The right of national self-determination does not disappear if the nation has formed an independent state or joined a federation of states. The subject of the right to self-determination is not only dependent, but also sovereign nations and peoples. With the achievement of national independence, the right to self-determination only changes its content, which is reflected in the relevant international legal norm. Without strict respect and adherence to the principle of self-determination of peoples, it is impossible to fulfill many of the vital tasks facing the UN, in particular, it is impossible to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of race, sex, language and religion. Without strict observance of this principle, it is also impossible to maintain relations of peaceful coexistence between states. Each state, in accordance with the 1970 Declaration, is obliged to refrain from any violent action that could prevent peoples from exercising their right to self-determination. An important element of the principle is the right of peoples to seek and receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter in the event that they are deprived of the right to self-determination by force.

The principle of self-determination of peoples and nations, as emphasized in the literature, is precisely the right of peoples and nations, and not an obligation, and is closely connected with the freedom of political choice. Self-determined peoples freely choose not only their status as an independent participant in international relations, but also their internal structure and foreign policy course. Inseparable from the principle of exercising the right of peoples to self-determination is the principle of cooperation between states, which is expressed, regardless of differences in their political, economic and social systems, in various spheres of international relations in order to maintain international peace and security and other goals enshrined in the UN Charter.

Simultaneously with the UN Charter, the principle of cooperation was enshrined in the constituent documents (charters) of many international organizations, in international treaties, numerous resolutions and declarations.

With the adoption of the Charter, the principle of cooperation has taken its place among other principles that must be observed under modern international law. Thus, in accordance with the Charter, states are obliged "to carry out international cooperation in resolving international problems of an economic, social, cultural and humanitarian nature", and are also obliged "to maintain international peace and security and to this end take effective collective measures."

The principle of cooperation is also contained in Art. 55 and 56 of the UN Charter. For example, in Art. Article 55 of the Charter establishes the obligations of the UN member states to cooperate with each other and with the Organization in achieving the goals provided for by the Charter.

The obligation of states to cooperate with each other presupposes conscientious observance by states of the norms of international law and the UN Charter. If any state ignores its obligations arising from the universally recognized principles and norms of international law, then this state thereby undermines the basis of cooperation.

The series of programs "Finding Meanings". Issue #108.

Stepan Sulakshin: Good afternoon, dear friends, friends of our site, readers, our comrades-in-arms on campaigns for meaning. Today's category, which we will analyze, in some way synthesizes our two television Internet products, because, in addition to its dictionary, categorical purpose, it also refers to the current political process, current political events in the life of our country, in the life of a neighboring country - Ukraine . This category is “The right of peoples (nations) to self-determination”.

Category, term is very indicative of the semantic complexity of the construction of this term. Today we will deal with this, but I ask you to pay attention to this side of the issue - the methodological side. A very complex construction, demonstrating the classical problems of meaning formation and meaning recognition, and, finally, meaning building.

Because our common goal and the goal of the future interdisciplinary terminological dictionary is precisely to help specialists understand these difficulties, overcome them and be extremely accurate in a professional sense, using certain special terms in order to understand each other, and with that , in order to be understood as much as possible by the audience with which the specialist, the professional using these terms, is dealing. So, "The right of peoples (nations) to self-determination."

Vardan Baghdasaryan: There is a well-known conflict between the right of peoples (nations) to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity, since these principles can contradict and often contradict and clash with each other. And the question arises, from what principle should one proceed in this or that situation: from the right of the people to self-determination or from the principle of territorial integrity? And each time it is a matter of interpretation.

The question then arises, who has the right to interpret? In fact, the one who is stronger has the right to interpret how the modern world order is built today. It means, whose side is stronger in this or that geopolitical alignment, he interprets what, from what principle we proceed - the right of peoples to self-determination or territorial integrity.

If you look at it historically, then in the introduction of this category, its use in current politics, its design character can be traced. There were traditional empires. All these traditional empires had an ethnically heterogeneous character - many peoples. Let's remember the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire.

This concept is emerging – the right of peoples to self-determination, and, in fact, it strikes at all these traditionalist empires that were built in a heterogeneous way.

And now one people stands out, one, another people claims their right, and empires begin to crumble. Actually, this scenario is the same, when, after the first wave of destruction, after the First World War, the colonial empires - French, English - fell down like that.

But here comes another fundamental type of statehood. This other type of statehood can also be called an empire, but it was a different type of empire - the United States of America. A project of a melting pot is put forward there, it removes ethnicity - there are no ethnic groups. And this model, having insured itself against putting forward the thesis of the right of peoples to self-determination, because there are no peoples, but only Americans, it is the United States of America that supports this concept and advocates most actively for the declaration of the rights of peoples to self-determination, and, in general, the process begins crushing.

You can chronologically see how many, how and when states arose, how many states existed in the world. We see that this process is proceeding with accelerated dynamics, and in this respect it is possible to subdivide to infinity. That this was subversive in relation to large civilizational geopolitical spaces can be understood by referring to the 1959 Enslaved Nations Act, which is still in force today. In it, the space of the former Soviet Union was supposed to be detailed, indicating that many peoples and their right to self-determination are not being realized, and, in general, such a trend was set for the fragmentation of this large space.

Globalization is one side of modern geopolitical processes, but there is also another side - glocalization.

Globalization implies a certain unification under certain common standards, in this case the standards are American-centric, glocalization expresses something else. There, the originality of the existence of peoples is affirmed, but through the originality of the existence of peoples, larger geopolitical civilizational spaces turn out to be destructured. This category has firmly entered international law, in fact, from the UN Charter since 1945, but when studying international documents, you come across such a situation.

In Russian discourse, the right of nations to self-determination is traditionally used more often, but you look at the documents and there is no right of nations to self-determination. There is the right of peoples to self-determination.

You can read this provision from the UN Charter, Article 1: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and also to take other appropriate measures to strengthen world peace." And here the question arises. The right to self-determination exists today in the Russian Constitution, it was also in the Soviet Constitution, but in the Russian Constitution it is the right of peoples to self-determination, and in the Soviet Constitution there was the right of nations to self-determination. What is the difference?

In the first Constitutions of 1924, 1936, there was no talk of any self-determination at all, this principle was laid down after the adoption of the relevant international documents only in the Constitution of 1977, but precisely the right of nations. Why? That is, not every ethnic group is capable of national state existence.

The nation presupposes the nation-state. And the emergence of a nation-state, in fact, is blocked by the fact that the corresponding national community, political community has not been formed. It turns out a vicious circle. Surely the Soviet leadership understood this change, introducing the law of nations instead of the law of peoples. In essence, a block was set up for this separation of peoples, a block for a possible scenario of disintegration. We have adopted the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, and this principle is quite threatening. An analysis of the vast majority of the Constitutions of the countries of the world leads to the following. Although we say that this is world international law, in the overwhelming majority there is no talk of any self-determination at all. Only 17% of Constitutions affirm this right.

This is not the case in any geographically comparable country - neither in India, nor in China, nor in Brazil. It is clear that China and India are multi-ethnic countries, and it is clear that the introduction of such a right to self-determination would be a threat to these countries, but this is in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Moreover, in those Constitutions where the right to self-determination is introduced, it is introduced in a specific way.

For example, in Germany they say not "the right of nations", not "the right of peoples", but "the self-determination of Germany". Agree, this is a fundamentally different approach. Self-determination of Germany does not imply the allocation of any territories from Germany. Or the Belarusian Constitution: "The territory of the Republic of Belarus is a natural condition for the existence and spatial limit of self-determination of the people, the basis of their well-being and the sovereignty of the Republic of Belarus." Yes, the right to self-determination is claimed, but it is limited to the territory of the Republic of Belarus. That is, in fact, the right to leave Belarus of any ethnic or other group is blocked.

And, of course, this right of peoples to self-determination cannot but be projected onto the current geopolitical situation - the situation with Crimea, when this right to self-determination was presented, and references to the Kosovo scenario and other scenarios were fair when they said: “Well, how same? Kosovo is possible, why not others?”

This is all correct and fair, but such a problem arises, and why are we not actively supported by either China - it was, as it were, in a neutral position, or India? How can China support Russia's position? If China declares its support for the right of peoples to self-determination, it will itself face the threat of leaving, for example, Tibet, the Xinjiang Uyghur region, and so on.

India is even more prone to such collisions. In fact, all of our natural allies who could be with us in this conflict have taken a judgmental or neutral stance. Why? Because the launch of this mechanism - the right of peoples to self-determination - will affect them too.

Therefore, I believe that the promotion of this approach in the Crimean problem and through this definition an attempt to reveal the topic of the right of peoples to self-determination is not entirely correct, because what kind of people are we talking about? About ethnos, that means about the nation? But a nation is a civil nation, it presupposes a state. About the people? But there the position is different. There are Crimean Tatars, there are Russians, there are Ukrainians - about whom?

I believe there is another category. There is the concept of "identism", there is the concept of "split people", there is the concept of "reunification of the people". Apparently, China also has the problem of a divided people. There is Taiwan, and in the Chinese Constitution it is written about the split and the sacred duty of every Chinese to seek its reunification. There are other countries. The category of a divided people and the right to reunification would be understandable for the Germans, who historically took shape through the restoration of the unity of the German community, and for the Italians, and for many others.

I believe that instead of the right to self-determination, which can be interpreted as the right to self-determination or separatism and so on, it would be more correct, justified and geopolitically correct to use a different approach - the right to reunification, the right to national expression, the political expression of a divided people.

Vladimir Leksin: Everything that Vardan Ernestovich said is very close to me. I would just like to make one small clarification related to the fact that when the great empires that once existed collapsed, peoples claimed their rights and became separate states. It so happened that no people before the advent of the United States, namely the people as such, never claimed such rights. All the collapses of great empires were most often initiated by the activities of small political groups, the so-called elites. Here the people practically passed from one citizenship to another. The history of the great Byzantine civilization, the Byzantine Empire, is probably the most illustrative example, and not only. It was the same with the Ottoman Empire and so on.

That is, the people as the subject of the right to self-determination is a very strange definition. And, perhaps, for the first time in all known, at least to me, history, what happened now in the Crimea was an expression of the will of the people as such.

Most often, I repeat once again, the people usually play the role of a kind of Greek tragedy choir, and the main speakers are the elite or some people who are striving to seize power and stand out from some other state structure. I would like to dwell on the harsh wording of this concept - "self-determination of peoples", now they write "self-determination of peoples (nations)". Vardan Ernestovich is absolutely right, and it is good that he drew attention to the fact that these are, of course, different concepts. But, nevertheless, such formulations exist. I will simply quote from various documents.

One of the most famous and most popular legal commentaries on self-determination and all territorial problems in general states, and I like this definition because it is very broad: state, in the form of intrastate autonomy, in the form of cultural autonomy, or without the allocation of any organizational and legal form.

It is easy to see that the implementation of such a right, especially in the form of the emergence of a new national-state formation in the conditions of the already completely divided entire space of the earth between individual states, is in conflict with the principles of maintaining the integrity of existing states, which has also already been mentioned.

This duality is not only some kind of superficial or all the time creeping into our consciousness when we talk about it, no. In all documents that formulate this principle, and this is a principle, and an international principle - the self-determination of peoples (nations), this duality can be traced.

I am reading the preamble to the UN Declaration, this is the fundamental document here, it is called "On the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation between states in accordance with the UN Charter." But this definition in the definition of peoples has already been declared in the UN Charter, Vardan Ernestovich spoke about this. I'll just go through the text of this Declaration.

What does it say? On the one hand, it is argued: “The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples is an essential contribution to modern international law, and its effective application is of paramount importance for promoting the development of friendly relations between states based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality.” On the other hand, "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total violation of the national unity and territorial integrity of a state or country or their political independence is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter."

A separate section of the same Declaration, I will say again that this is now a document that everyone refers to when discussing the problem of self-determination of Crimea and not only this one, is called the "Principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples." Those who would like to take a closer look at the meaning of this concept can easily find this Declaration on the Internet, and this section probably interests us the most.

It says: “By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, enshrined in the UN Charter, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without outside interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every state is obliged to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the statute. Each state is obliged to promote, through joint and independent actions, the implementation of the principle of equality and self-determination.

And further: "Creation of a sovereign and independent state, free accession to an independent state" - this is me quoting the Declaration again, but I have Crimea in my head, of course. I repeat: "The creation of a sovereign and independent state, the free accession to or association with an independent state, or the establishment of any other political status freely determined by a people, are ways for that people to exercise the right to self-determination."

But after this statement, in the same text, the UN General Assembly, as if recollecting itself, as in the previously quoted Declaration, declares: “Nothing in the above paragraphs should be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action that would lead to dismemberment and to partial or complete violation of the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states - which ones? - acting in compliance with the principle of equality and self-determination of the people”.

This is no coincidence - such a contradiction, such strange constructions are observed in the most important document that now determines the world order, at least formally. The same is in the commentary of our lawyers, the most famous commentary on the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It says the same thing - that this principle is wonderful, but it must be implemented under certain conditions, and these conditions are also formulated there.

Are there any examples in the world of the most clear and successful self-determination of the people, the realization of their rights? Yes, I have. This is the United States of America. This is a country that most clearly fulfilled its mission of self-determination at a time when this word did not exist at all in the political vocabulary.

They did everything they could. They armed themselves out of the British crown, because it was part of Great Britain or part of England. They, roughly speaking, did not give a damn about all the provisions of the English legislation that was in force at that time. They created their own country, realizing this principle of self-determination, and established it with the genocide of the indigenous people, the slavery that was there, the segregation of the people, the birth of the so-called nation, when the Ku Klux Klan asserted the rights of the white man.

They exercised this right, believing that no other country in the world can somehow correct it. And there was only one country that was the first to recognize the right of the United States to self-determination - it was the Russian Empire. This is a historical fact, that's all. Everything related to the self-determination of peoples is a legal structure, very rigidly spelled out in the documents of the United Nations. This legal structure is ambiguous, but it allows at the same time, if one reads correctly what is written there, to determine the only correct path along which self-determination as such can go - this is the self-expression of the will of the people. Not two or three politicians, not those who seized power.

And if this takes place in the form of a nationwide or, say, regional or some kind of referendum, if it all takes place in forms that are now considered civilized, probably such a people has the right to self-determination with all the subsequent actions that I just spoke about .

Stepan Sulakshin: Today's term and category is special, because it decides the fate of peoples, the fate of countries. This category smells of war, it smells of blood, and it has a special relationship.

Usually, and today it has already been said, the right of peoples to self-determination in constitutional, international law is understood as the right of peoples (nations) to determine the form of their state existence as part of another state or as a separate state.

This means that, in addition to secession, there may be a significant number of options for self-determination, from the complete renunciation of any special rights to self-government, autonomy, forms of cultural isolation, confederal relations with the mother core - the state.

Why do I not like this approach and this definition? This definition is vague and outdated. It contains contradictions and generates dangers, and it is, in fact, more destructive than constructive. The reasons are fundamental, and one must understand that they are connected, first of all, with the fact that this category lies on the border, in such a semantic border between the legal and political existence of human communities. Therefore, I will dwell on three important problems in the semantic reconstruction or, conversely, in the construction of a definition, and at the end of the discussion I will give my definition.

The first problem is the problem of definitions, the second is the problem of the relationship between law and politics, and the third problem is a contradiction in international law itself as a special branch of law that differs significantly from domestic, domestic law.

So the first problem is definitions. There is an internal uncertainty and contradiction here: what is a “people”, what is a “nation”? The fact is that nations are emerging today, and there is no particular problem for some social group to gather, declare itself a nation or declare itself a people and claim this legal position. Usually these categories include such defining positions as ethnicity and sociality.

Let's take our country as an example. Russians, Tatars, Buryats, Jews, and so on - no one doubts that they seem to be a people, because this coincides with the concept of ethnicity. And who are the Cossacks, who are the Pomors? And this list is not exhausted.

Ethnicity itself is a dual thing. It contains both biological, genetically embedded signs of community, external signs, some characteristic behavioral signs associated, again, with the genetic code and physiology, but there is a completely obvious social content, because people are not a flock of monkeys or a swarm of bees.

Man is a dual, social being. And it is quite obvious that in the megahistory of humanity, communities, ethnic peoples or nations are increasingly acquiring social content, that is, induced in cooperative being, and, if you like, fixed in the so-called social genetic code, that is, in culture, in behavioral patterns, in traditions, including in traditional legal structures and provisions.

And now, look, an ethnos is evolving from one state, purely biological, to a state of another, purely social. And today we have some kind of combination, in each case different, which gives rise to the very uncertainty. So, the most important thing in this respect is that it is a social group.

Now, what is a "nation"? There are problems of foreign interpretations and translations of the translation. Let's say nation - this can include in English both the entire population of the country and the political entity. Civil nation or civic nation - civil society as a political actor opposing the state, and so on. Most often, a nation, of course, is understood as a nationwide population, but it can be multilingual, multi-confessional, religious, multi-ethnic, and the like. The main thing that characterizes this social group is that statehood corresponds to it - borders, power, apparatus of violence, political, electoral system, and so on. In a minute and a half, I told only about the very tops, and it is already completely clear that, operating with the definition of “the law of peoples or nations”, we still do not define anything. We only generate uncertainty and approach the very edge that I will now talk about.

The second problem is the relationship between law and politics. The existence of humanity, a social group, individuals takes place in different spaces of communication and cooperation, and this law is legalized, and this is a form of being legally contractually formalized by the rules of behavior, the rules of sanctions.

Politics is a less definite thing. It is not so much the legal contract and rules of conduct that work there, but the law of force. Whoever is stronger will impose a decision, he will impose the next way of being on himself and on those who are subjected to political violence in the endless case of political competition - inter-country, inter-regional, intra-country, and so on.

Therefore, if law is the competition of the parties according to the rules, for example, in court, defense and prosecution, international courts, it gives rise to such an opportunity, then at the border and when crossing the border into the political space of being, competition develops into competition, into military competition, and there , who is stronger is right.

Both this boundary and these objective spheres of being must be seen, distinguished and not fall into the error of their confusion and loss of certainty in order to ascertain and to find appropriate solutions. There are no judges in the political space. Well, who's the judge? The judge is the only winner. Winners in World War II, winners in local conflicts.

No United Nations, no Brussels, no Security Council in the event of military conflicts has the right and the ability to decide who is right and who is wrong. They often state the status quo, put up with it and gradually clothe it in a new form of legal orders of being. So revolutions go through the destruction of the previous legal structure and give rise, at best, instead of chaos and the collapse of statehood, a new legal source - legitimacy. This story is very close to today's events in Ukraine.

And the third problem of contradiction in international law itself is special. It differs from domestic law and its legal execution. Today we have already talked about this - about the right of states to sovereignty and territorial integrity, but at the same time about the right of certain peoples (nations) to self-determination up to secession. These precedents have already been spoken about many times.

A few important words about what kind of mine in this regard is laid in the Russian life, in the Russian Constitution. In the preamble of our Constitution, the following is written: “Based on the universally recognized principles of equality and self-determination of peoples,” in the plural, but our Constitution does not define who such a people is. She says that we are a multinational people, which means that a people is something extra-ethnic, or supra-ethnic, or integro-ethnic.

But Article 5, Clause 3 of the Constitution states that the federal structure of Russia is based on its state integrity and self-determination of peoples in the Russian Federation. Many peoples of the Russian Federation - who is this? These are some social groups that I spoke about, either ethnically consolidated or in some other way, but again this is uncertainty. It is not defined who the people are.

Article 68, paragraph 2, establishes even more cheerfully: "Republics - this is a subject of the federation in Russia - have the right to establish their own state languages." Republics - after all, they are generated according to the principle of an ethnic title, they are states within the state of Russia. Paragraph 3 of Article 68: "The Russian Federation guarantees to all its peoples - again the idea of ​​a plurality of peoples - the right to preserve their native language." Thus, Russia is now in a legal and factual political sense, thanks to its liberal Constitution of 1993, is on a mine. And how such mines explode, we see today in the tragic examples of the world and Europe.

The right of nations to self-determination was and in some respects remains progressive, humanistic, when the period of colonialism ended in history, at the time of the destruction of colonial empires. But today in the world the peoples have already created their statehood, they have already self-determined.

In Russia, even the multinational people have self-determined with the Russian statehood, and so on. So the question of definition is incredibly important. Today it is in the field of interpretations, and for international interpretation brackets it is the right of force. Therefore, I propose not only to you and me, but to the whole world, my own definition of what is the right of peoples to self-determination. This is the right to raise the issue of the political and legal status of a social group formed along ethnic and social lines, in accordance with the current constitutional norms of the respective state in which the group is on the rights of citizens.

The right of peoples to self-determination does not include the right of armed rebellion against the host state of the group. What's the Difference? The difference is that here the gradation of law is explicitly proposed as legally contractual rules for the organization of being, then the border - there is politics, where forces of different types compete, there is the next border, beyond which forces of a certain type compete - military force.

And if you look at these realities with open eyes, then there is a chance to go back and live in a legal space, in a peaceful space, in a space of being, in which victims, blood, destruction, damage, conflicts are minimized. This is the pathos and meaning of the definition that I proposed, and which includes, incorporates all the complex details, all the silences and contradictions that were mentioned above today. Thank you for your attention.

And the next term that we will deal with, the term, perhaps not often heard and used for everyone, but it is very important for the special professional language of state administration, state building, ̶ "statism".