The right of peoples to self-determination means. Lenin V.I
R.M. Timoshev
THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND MODERN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS
The right to self-determination is one of the most important universally recognized principles of international law. Its essence, as is known, is the right of peoples (nations) to determine the form of their state existence as part of another state or as a separate state. It is often believed that this principle was recognized in the process of the collapse of the colonial system, which, in fact, was reflected in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted by the XV General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1960, in subsequent international pacts and UN declarations1 . However, in reality, the idea of this right was born in the XVI-XIX centuries. during the period of national liberation movements in Europe and the American colonies. It was believed that the basic principle of self-determination is the right to create under any circumstances their own state: "One nation
One state" (P. Mancini, N.Ya. Danilevsky, A.D. Gradovsky). Moreover, this principle applied only to "civilized peoples", thus suggesting the existence of colonial possessions and colonial forms of oppression of peoples. An active discussion of the foundations of this principle began at the end of the century before last, on the eve of World War I and at the very "height" of the colonial policy of the leading countries of the world. For example, in the decisions of the London International Congress of the II International in 1896, the foundations of this principle were formulated as a regulator of interethnic
1 The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of December 19, 1966 (Article 1) state: “All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of this right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development ... All States Parties to the present Pact ... must, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, promote the exercise of the right to self-determination and respect this right.
The Declaration on the Principles of International Law (October 24, 1970) states: “By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, enshrined in the UN Charter, all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status without outside interference and to carry out their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has an obligation to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”
The same Declaration states that the means of exercising the right to self-determination can be "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."
relations. But, despite this, until the outbreak of war in the ranks, first of all, of the Social Democracy, there was a fierce discussion on the problems of its essence, social origins and the expediency of using it in solving the national question. It took the collapse of all European empires in the course of an unprecedented war and a series of revolutions before the principle of national self-determination was proclaimed by Soviet Russia and later by US President Woodrow Wilson, who declared this right at the Versailles Peace Conference. However, another world war had to break out and several more decades would have to elapse before the right of nations to self-determination became a universally recognized principle of international law.
However, both earlier and now this principle is still being questioned from the point of view of the effectiveness of its application in international practice, its essence and content are being clarified, the idea of the subjects of relations regulated by it is changing, etc. This happens whenever new interethnic and interstate conflicts reveal contradictions that are different in nature and intensity, highlight new aspects of the process of self-determination of nations. An example is the period of disintegration of a number of former socialist states, such as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union, when the world witnessed new interethnic conflicts in conditions of seemingly unshakable post-war borders. The complexity and inconsistency of these conflicts made it necessary to turn again to the phenomenon of national self-determination as the most important regulator of international relations, on the one hand, and as one of the likely sources of interethnic conflicts, on the other.
As already noted, the right of nations to self-determination is historical. Interesting in the sense of the proposed historical periodization, although not indisputable in its conclusions, is the book of the American jurist Hirst Hannum "Autonomy, Sovereignty and Self-Determination". In it, the author argues that views on the right of nations to self-determination have changed dramatically at least three times over the past century, thus forming peculiar stages of this process.
The first period began at the end of the 19th century and ended around 1945. Then for the first time in the system of the considered principle such concepts as "nation", "language", "culture" - on the one hand, and "state-
2 See: Hurst Hannum, Autonomy, Sovereignity, and Self-Determination: The Accomodation of Conflicting Rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1994.
ness" - on the other. During this period, the principle of national self-determination was purely political - for the most part, nationalists demanded not separation from large states, but some form of autonomy.
The second period began in 1945 - after the formation of the United Nations. The UN initially considered the right to self-determination to be the right of states, but not of peoples, and, moreover, did not consider it absolute and inalienable. Thus, in 1960, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to the Colonial Peoples. According to this document, the principle of national self-determination actually became synonymous with the concept of “decolonization”: not minorities within the new states received the right to independence, but only colonies that had the right to be states independent of the mother countries. The borders of the newly formed states were established along the borders of the former colonial possessions, which initially did not take into account ethnic and religious factors. As a result, these states began to be shaken by internal inter-ethnic conflicts.
The third period began in the late 1970s and continues to the present. It, according to the author, is characterized by attempts to prove that absolutely all peoples have the right to their own state. However, this idea was not reflected in the fundamental documents of international law and was not accepted by any existing state in the world. Apparently, therefore, there are no specific and clear criteria on the basis of which a new state can be recognized or not recognized by the international community, and the existing system de facto cannot guarantee either the national integrity of states or the right of nations to self-determination. In fact, depending on political interests, either the principle of territorial integrity or the right of nations to self-determination is a priority.
For example, the first reaction of the international community to the ongoing process of the collapse of the USSR was the confirmation of the inviolability of state borders: many feared that the collapse of the USSR would lead to destabilization of the situation in the region and around the world. This position was clearly expressed by Bush Sr. in early August 1991 during his visit to Kyiv. He stated that the US would support freedom in Ukraine, but not Ukraine's independence from the USSR. However, just three weeks after that, Ukraine declared its independence, and the views of the international community were urgently adjusted to the changed
realities: the right of nations to self-determination was again put at the forefront3. So, is this principle just a means for solving momentary political interests? Does he have any objective reason?
The problem is that most often, when considering the right of nations to self-determination, a well-known one-sided approach is used: law is interpreted only in the political-ethnic aspect, in isolation from its socio-economic basis. In reality, the basis of national movements and the processes of formation of nation states is precisely the material, economic life of people, primarily market relations, which require uniform economic and legal rules, a single monetary circulation within certain boundaries and, accordingly, a single state, which is formed primarily in the process of identifying the population by language and culture. The process of the formation of a nation, thus, becomes the process of the formation of a nation state, and the issues of national development are in one way or another connected with the issues of the development of the nation state. These are also historical examples: the formation of nations in the 16th-17th centuries historically coincided with the formation of market relations and the formation of national centralized states.
Russia did not escape this process either, although, as is known, unlike Europe, the formation of a centralized Russian state took place not only and not so much for economic reasons, but for foreign policy reasons, due primarily to the need to protect against external aggression. Not to a small extent, it was precisely this circumstance that contributed to the fact that the Russian centralized state was originally born and developed as a multinational state, uniting many peoples, either subjugated during numerous wars, or voluntarily joining it, seeing in this step the only possible way of self-preservation .
Thus, in the words of the classic, “the formation of nation-states that most satisfy ... the requirements of modern capitalism is therefore the tendency (aspiration) of any national movement”, and the self-determination of nations, in fact, is a process of folding nation-states. From here, he emphasized, two rather forgotten historical tendencies follow: the first is centrifugal, manifested in
3 See: Principles of self-determination in the modern world / http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/
the awakening of national life and national movements, the struggle against national oppression, the desire for isolation, the creation of national states; the second is unifying, associated with the development and increase in all kinds of relations between nations, the breaking of national barriers, the creation of an international unity of the market, economic life, politics, science, the desire, ultimately, for the integration of already established national states, etc.4 The first trend , as a rule, is accompanied by interethnic tensions and conflicts, including armed ones. It was the desire to prevent the latter, to ensure the free formation and development of the numerous nations and nationalities of the country, that once drove the Bolsheviks in their efforts for the national-administrative arrangement of the state and the formation of the USSR on the principles of the national policy of the socialist state, proclaimed in the first documents of the Soviet government - the right of peoples and nations self-determination, equality and sovereignty, the abolition of all national privileges and restrictions, the free development of national minorities, a socialist federation. Moreover, the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination and the upholding of the principles of voluntary association of nations into the Union of States reflected in their essence both the first and second historical trends. And it was relatively easy for the builders of the USSR to put these ideas into practice because of the established economic and social homogeneity in the territories of victorious socialism. They, as it were, went beyond the boundaries of the initial field of action of the right of nations to self-determination - from real market relations, which is why even the well-known carelessness with which they often treated the drawing of national-administrative borders without taking into account the ethnic factor did not cause any noticeable political conflicts: multinational the population was equal in rights and provided with all the rights and freedoms common throughout the territory of the formed Union.
Under these conditions, for the entire period of the existence of the Soviet state, the proclaimed right of nations to self-determination turned out to be applicable only once, in the first years of the existence of the new republic, when the Soviet government recognized the independence of Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Soviet republics of Transcaucasia, Belarus, Ukraine, which were part of recently became part of the Russian Empire. Later, during the formation of the Union
4 See: Lenin V.I. Complete Op. 5th ed. T. 24. S. 124.
of the Soviet states, the procedure for exercising the right to secession of one or another nation of the Union was specified, which should have been realized only on the basis of expediency, from the point of view of "the interests of the entire social development, the interests of the struggle for universal peace and socialism." At the same time, in fact, a limited application of this right was established: not for all national
state formations, but only for those who could really use it, being on the borders of the Union, and which therefore received the status of a "union republic". Despite the fact that all peoples were guaranteed state self-government and the protection of their national interests (national culture, language, school, national customs, religion, etc.), not every nation or nationality could form a union republic (officially - for reasons of small numbers, not forming a majority in the territory it occupies, etc.). For most of them, the principle of autonomy was applied: nations and nationalities united into autonomous republics, regions or national districts, including within the union republics.
In 1991, with the signing of the Belovezhskaya Agreement, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus left the USSR. This act, in continuation of the declarations on secession from the USSR adopted in 1990-1991 by the Supreme Soviets of the ESSR, Lithuanian SSR and LatSSR, finally destroyed the Union and marked the "parade of independence" of the other union republics, becoming, unfortunately, the initial circumstance for the beginning of interethnic conflicts on the territory of the former USSR .
All the newly formed states in the post-Soviet space, to varying degrees of openness and effectiveness, were oriented towards market relations. This, in fact, was the essence of the transformations that took place, which led to the disappearance of the Soviet superpower. Consequently, those economic mechanisms began to work which, in a number of cases, under the influence of a composing national market, again brought to life the same historical trend in the national question: the desire for free self-determination of nations that are part of already separated states. As a rule, this happened with their border ethnic groups or national state formations. Moreover, the interethnic contradictions that arose in this case were most acute, up to armed confrontation, manifested themselves where special political and ethnic conditions developed. They, in fact, constitute a distinctive feature of modern interethnic conflicts.
First, these conflicts most likely arose where national-administrative formations were defined along borders that did not take into account the peculiarities of the historically established areas of ethnic groups.
The division of ethnic groups and the inclusion of their more or less significant groups in other national-state formations as an ethnic minority is a serious prerequisite for the emergence of interethnic conflicts.
Often this division was the result of a deliberate policy, as in most cases of the formation of new states in Asia and Africa during the collapse of the colonial system, the boundaries of which reproduced the boundaries of the former colonial possessions, without regard to ethnic factors. This approach was based on the belief that by such action it is possible to minimize the risk of new conflicts. Thus, the right to self-determination could be used not by peoples, but by former colonial territories. Paradoxically, the dwarf states of Europe are permanent members of the UN, while, for example, the 30 million Kurdish people who do not have their own state are not.
At the same time, such a demarcation of borders also took place due to the difficulty of taking into account the ethnic characteristics of the territories due to the historically mixed residence of opposite ethnic groups, and as a result of the historically developing political situation and even natural conditions. As a result, for example, the former republics of Yugoslavia - Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia - were recognized within the existing borders without regard to the ethnic factor. Thanks to this, a significant Serb “minority” was formed in Croatia, and representatives of many peoples were forced to coexist in Bosnia.
Special historical conditions predetermined the concentration of the Russian-speaking population in Transnistria: in 1924, on the initiative of G. I. Kotovsky, P. D. Tkachenko and others, the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was created here as part of the Ukrainian SSR with the capital (a Ukrainian city, transferred to the MASSR along with neighboring regions to increase its territory), then from 1929 - Tiraspol, which retained these functions until 1940. It was to the MASSR in 1940 that part of the returned Bessarabia was annexed, the unification of which marked the proclamation of the union Moldavian SSR. After the creation of the MSSR in Pridnestro-
Numerous settlers from Russia and Ukraine went to Rovia to assist in the creation of local industry, since the economy of the rest of Moldova (Bessarabia) during the Romanian occupation of 1918-1940 was mainly agrarian in nature and was the most backward of all the provinces of Romania. Transnistria becomes predominantly Russian-speaking. It was these circumstances that became the basis for the II Extraordinary Congress of Deputies of all levels of Pridnestrovie (on the eve of the declaration of independence of Moldova, focused on reunification with Romania), to proclaim the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic on September 2, 1990 based on the results of a national referendum.
Another example is Nagorno-Karabakh. Initially - in December 1920
Both Soviet Russia and the Workers' and Peasants' Government of Azerbaijan unconditionally recognized Nagorno-Karabakh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan as "an integral part of the Armenian Socialist Republic". This position was explained by the fact that the attitude of the local population to the issue of self-determination was expressed as early as 1918. Until the Sovietization in 1920, the Armenian population successfully repelled all attempts by the Musavatists and the Turkish army to establish control over these territories. However, in July 1921, after the ultimatum of the Council of People's Commissars of the Azerbaijan SSR, which threatened the resignation of the government, the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), with the participation of Stalin, decided to include Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhichevan in the Azerbaijan SSR - while completely ignoring the opinion of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhichevan. The Bolsheviks in 1921, again, could consider this decision unprincipled in the light of the world revolution. But the world observed the consequences of this decision already in the late 80s - early 90s. 20th century
Ossetians during the Mongol rule were forced out of their historical habitats south of the Don River in modern Russia, and part of them further to the Caucasus, to Georgia, where they formed three separate sub-ethnoses. The Digors in the west came under the influence of neighboring Kabardians, from whom they converted to Islam. The Irons in the north became what North Ossetia is now.
tia, which became part of the Russian Empire in 1767. Tualagi in the south is the current South Ossetia, as part of the former Georgian principalities, where the Ossetians found refuge from the Mongol invaders. At one time, Academician N.F. Dubrovin wrote: “Lack of land was the reason that part of the Ossetians moved to the southern slope of the Main Range and voluntarily gave themselves into the bondage of Georgian landlords. Having occupied the gorges of the Big and Small Liakhvi, Rekhula, Ksani and its tributaries, the Ossetians became serfs of the princes Eristavov and Machabelov. These migrants make up the population of the so-called South Ossetians.”5. Thus, the partly historically natural division of the territory of the traditional residence of Ossetians also led to the historical division of a single people into northern and southern, into North Caucasian and Transcaucasian Ossetia. But the political need to prepare conditions for the inclusion of Transcaucasia as a single state entity in the future USSR predetermined the creation on April 20, 1922 by decree of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of Georgia of the South Ossetian Autonomous Region within Georgia.
Secondly, most persistently, as a rule, they strive for the realization of the right to self-determination, and the most irreconcilable in achieving this, are those minority ethnic groups that either have their own statehood in the person of sovereign neighboring states (Serbia - among the Croatian and Bosnian Serbs, Albania - Kosovo Albanians, Russia - Russian-speaking Transnistria, North Ossetia as part of Russia - South Ossetians, Armenia - Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan - Azerbaijanis in Nakhichevan, etc.), or who do not have any statehood at all (Palestinians , Jews before the formation of Israel, Kurds, etc.).
In all these cases, the declaration of independence, that is, the realization of the right to self-determination of one or another union state, immediately caused the desire of the national state-autonomous entities included in it to unite with their historical ethnos, all the more so with their statehood recognized by the community, which, first of all, expressed in the desire for their own state self-determination. The political implications of this are well known. The stages of the development of an interethnic conflict are approximately the same.
5 Dubrovin N. History of war and domination of Russians in the Caucasus. SPb., 1871. T. 1. S. 187.
one). The unwillingness to remain part of the state of another ethnic group led to the desire of ethnic minorities to exercise their right to self-determination, and above all in the form of the formation of their own independent ethnic state. This happened both when there was no such state (as in the case of the proclamation of the Serbian Krajina, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, etc.), and when this state existed in one form or another of autonomy (the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, created from Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region as part of the Azerbaijan SSR, the Republic of South Ossetia - from the South Ossetian Autonomous Region as part of the Georgian SSR, etc.).
2). Based on the principle of territorial integrity, even when this integrity was legitimate only within the framework of already non-existent states (for example, the SFRY and the USSR), the new central government takes all possible measures either to prevent the formation of new independent state entities on the territory of the country, or to prevent exit of the former autonomies from the state. In fact, self-determined states demonstrated non-recognition of the right to self-determination and free development of their ethnic minorities. Moreover, in almost all the territories mentioned above, the measures applied by the new central government, one way or another, reached the extreme, that is, to the use of armed means. So, immediately after the declaration of independence by Azerbaijan on August 28, 1991, at the beginning of September, at the Joint session of the Nagorno-Karabakh regional and Shaumyan district Councils of People's Deputies, the formation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) within the borders of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAR) and the inhabited Armenians of the adjoining Shahumyan region of the Azerbaijan SSR. But already on September 25, a 120-day shelling of Stepanakert with Alazan anti-hail installations begins, an escalation of hostilities unfolds almost throughout the entire territory of the NKR, and on November 23, Azerbaijan cancels the autonomous status of Nagorno-Karabakh.
The events in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict unfolded according to the same scenario. November 10, 1989 The Council of People's Deputies of the South Ossetian Autonomous Region of the Georgian SSR decides to transform it into an autonomous republic. The Supreme Soviet of the Georgian SSR immediately recognizes this decision as unconstitutional. At the end of November, with the direct assistance of
More than 15,000 Georgians are trying to arrive in Tskhinvali in order to hold a rally there. In skirmishes between protesters, Ossetians and police on the way to the city, at least six people were killed, 27 received gunshot wounds and 140 were hospitalized.
September 20, 1990 The Council of People's Deputies of the South Ossetian Autonomous Region proclaims the South Ossetian Soviet Democratic Republic, and the Declaration of National Sovereignty is adopted. In November, an emergency session of the Council of People's Deputies declared that South Ossetia should become an independent subject of the signing of the Union Treaty. December 9, 1990 elections to the Supreme Soviet of the South Ossetian Republic are held. But already on December 10, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia decides to abolish the Ossetian autonomy. On December 11, 1990, three people die in an inter-ethnic clash. Georgia introduces a state of emergency in Tskhinvali and the Java region, and on the night of January 5-6, 1991, police units and the Georgian National Guard enter Tskhinvali. Open armed clashes begin. Similar events took place in Croatia, and in Bosnia, and in Kosovo, and in Moldova in a conflict with the Russian-speaking Transnistria.
3). In the current conditions, in a number of cases, fraternal peoples stand up to protect self-proclaimed states, and states are drawn into the internal conflict, the ethnic majority of which are representatives of a self-determined ethnic group, or interested states-allies of certain conflicting parties. The internal conflict, thus, develops into an interstate, international one: Western countries are actively involved in the armed conflict in Croatia and Bosnia, NATO planes are bombing Belgrade; on the territory of the former USSR, for the first time in more than 70 years of history, a bloody war breaks out between newly independent Armenia and Azerbaijan; units of the 14th army of Russia take part in armed clashes in Transnistria; Volunteers from North Ossetia and Cossacks are fighting in South Ossetia.
Thirdly, not every self-determination of nations produces extreme political consequences. As a rule, this happens in those cases when ethnic minorities, even having their own statehood as part of another state, experience hidden or obvious, actual or expected future inequality on the part of the dominant ethnic group and its statehood.
noah machine. In this case, the need for the free development of the nation in the new economic conditions pushes minorities to exercise their right to self-determination, as a means of removing obstacles to this development.
Such an action was typical for almost all of the above national movements, but was especially clearly manifested in the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, in which the Abkhaz side, which has no other external statehood except for an autonomous republic within the Georgian SSR, not divided into ethnic parts by state borders, actively advocated independence . The reason is the intensification in the late 1980s of calls by Georgian nationalist groups for independence from the USSR and a revision of the status of Georgian autonomies. The Abkhaz leadership, especially after mass demonstrations took place in Tbilisi in 1989, during which demands were made for the liquidation of the Abkhaz autonomy, announced its intention to remain part of the USSR. Fearing a new wave of "Georgianization", the Abkhazian authorities began to consider secession from Georgia as the most preferable option, although at the same time, at that time, the Abkhazians constituted a national minority in the republic.
On July 16, 1989, armed riots broke out in Sukhumi, caused by a scandal over violations of the rules for admitting students to the local university (ASU). There were dead and wounded. Troops are used to stop the unrest. And soon, with the collapse of the USSR, political conflicts in Georgia turn into a phase of open armed confrontation both between Georgia and the autonomies (Abkhazia, South Ossetia), and within Georgia as such. On February 21, 1992, the ruling Military Council of Georgia announces the abolition of the Soviet constitution and the restoration of the constitution of the Georgian Democratic Republic of 1921, essentially canceling the autonomous status of Abkhazia. In response, on July 23, 1992, the Supreme Council of the Republic reinstated the Constitution of the Abkhaz SSR, according to which Abkhazia is a sovereign state. A decision is being made in Tbilisi to send troops into the autonomy. The armed conflict of 1992-1993 begins, in which the Armed Forces of Abkhazia won a military victory. The Republic becomes a de facto independent state, but de jure remains part of Georgia. This was a manifestation of the contradiction between the two principles of international relations that guided the conflicting parties: the right of the nation to self-determination, which
the Abkhazian side, and the principle of the territorial integrity of the state, on which Georgia insisted.
The last principle means that the territory of a state cannot be changed without its consent. The inability of the parties to find a peaceful solution to such a contradiction leads to the aggravation of national conflicts, their development into a military confrontation. At the same time, in defense of their position, representatives of the central government usually cite a statement about the priority of the principle of territorial integrity in relation to the right to national self-determination.
Meanwhile, it is impossible not to see that the principle of territorial integrity is aimed solely at protecting the state from external aggression. It is with this that its wording in paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter: "All Members of the UN shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." Moreover, the application of the principle of territorial integrity is actually subordinated to the exercise of the right to self-determination. Thus, according to the Declaration on Principles of International Law, in the actions of states “nothing should be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging any action that would lead to the dismemberment or partial or complete violation of the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states that observe in their actions the principle equality and self-determination of peoples”6. In other words, the principle of territorial integrity is not applicable to states that do not ensure the equality of the peoples living in it and do not allow their free self-determination.
This understanding is especially relevant after the tragic events of August 2008 in South Ossetia. The territorial integrity of Georgia within the borders of the former Georgian SSR is a perfectly acceptable requirement, but on condition that it respects equality and ensures the free development of its non-Georgian
6 See: Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" (adopted on October 24, 1970 by Resolution 2625 (XXV) at the 1883rd plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly)
ethnic minorities7. Unfortunately, and historical experience testifies to this, it is impossible to convince a nation that has experienced a war of extermination that it is capable of flourishing as part of a state that has organized the genocide of its people.
Fourthly, the self-determination of nations consists not only in the separation of ethnic groups from the central government and the formation of sovereign nation-states, but also in the right to voluntarily join other states, unite with them, create unions of states, etc., that is, independently decide their own destiny . Therefore, one of the features of modern national movements is, in fact, the simultaneous actualization of two trends in the national question: the desire for isolation and the desire for unification. Peoples striving for independence or newly formed nation-states, as a rule, initially gravitate towards one or another stronger in political, economic, military, etc. relations between states that are either ethnically related, or ethnically or historically close. There are at least three reasons for this.
one). As already noted, many states that have declared independence link their prosperity with unification with their ethnic brethren, who have either their own sovereign state or a state within a particular federation. Hence - the indestructible, persistent desire of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, Nakhichevan - to Azerbaijan, South Ossetians - to the north as part of the Russian Federation, Transnistria - to Russia, etc.
2). Small, newly formed states, especially during periods of their international non-recognition, objectively need the protection of their independence by states that are stronger and more independent in economic, political and military terms.
3). Newly formed states for free and sovereign development need not only the declaration of independence, but also its international recognition. Otherwise, the encroachments of the former central authorities on the independence of their minorities, attempts to “fasten” them to their former statehood at any cost will be permanent. And to achieve this, nation-states need a strong mediator and alliance.
7 By the way, Western politicians adhered to a similar point of view in solving the problem of Kosovo's sovereignty.
nickname, who would actively contribute to the recognition of the new independence in the international community, including by his own example.
Of course, the recognition of new states means a revision of the boundaries established in the region and the world. It is clear that the adoption of such a decision is a decisive step, often held back by certain political considerations. To heed, for example, Russia's insistent requests from Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be admitted to the Russian Federation means immediately extremely complicating its already difficult relations with the West (suffice it to recall the West's reaction to the Statement of the President of the Russian Federation recognizing their independence). But at the same time, this step is consistent with the objective historical trend towards unification, without which it is impossible to resolve the national issue in the region, it is impossible to prevent attempts at an armed solution to the problem by the “great power” leadership of Georgia. At the same time, this step would demonstrate Russia's adherence to the universally recognized principles of international law, its firmness in pursuing a consistent national policy, and its legitimate support for small peoples in their aspirations for self-determination, to satisfy their legitimate right to free, equal development.
Fifth, in connection with the foregoing, it is necessary to dwell on one more aspect of modern interethnic relations: Russia's position on the issues of the independence of Kosovo and Chechnya. According to the already ingrained practice of unscrupulous Western politicians “blame it on a healthy head”, the Russian Federation is often accused of a policy of “double standards”: in supporting the self-determination of the peoples that were part of Georgia under the USSR, and the non-recognition of such a right by the Kosovo Albanians and Chechnya.
As for the independence of Kosovo, the position of the Russian leadership at one time was openly and unambiguously brought to the attention of the world community: the recognition of the independence of Kosovo is a precedent for resolving our own problems.
In the absence of assistance in this matter, an attempt is made to compensate for the non-recognition of self-proclaimed states by the international community by mutual recognition of these states, as happened in mid-2001 in Stepanakert, when the Commonwealth of Unrecognized States (CIS-2) was formed - an informal association created for consultations, mutual assistance, coordination and joint actions by unrecognized self-proclaimed state entities on the post-Soviet territory - Abkhazia, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic and South Ossetia.
other unrecognized state formations, which, in fact, was confirmed by the events in the Caucasus.
About Chechnya. It is necessary to distinguish between the right of nations to self-determination and outright separatism, in which separation from the state is required not by an ethnic group, which is given all the rights and conditions for equal, free development, but by a certain militarized minority of the population under the slogans of Wahhabism - one of the most radical and terrorism-oriented religious groups. political movement in Islam. The fact that this is so is evidenced by the essentially feudal order that was established by this minority throughout Chechnya after the first Chechen war, and the inability of the exalted leadership to establish a peaceful life in the republic, the complete ruin of the ordinary population, and, as a way out of crisis
Criminal "economy", banditry elevated to the rank of state policy, widespread hostage-taking, robbery and ruin of the population, terrorist attacks on the territory of Russia, an attempt to transfer separatism to Dagestan - a neighboring subject of the Russian Federation, etc. Such a policy had nothing in common with the right of the nation to self-determination and, thus, to create conditions for its free development, and could not have.
Thus, the right to self-determination is the inalienable right of a nation to independently decide its own destiny for the purpose of free and equal development with other nations and peoples. The need for its application objectively matures in the depths of the social coexistence of ethnic groups united by this or that statehood, and, having matured, it urgently requires its implementation. This is especially necessary to take into account in the implementation of the domestic and foreign policy strategy of a multinational state. An unhistorical approach, a short-sighted national policy towards minority ethnic groups, the desire of the authorities, contrary to objective laws, to prevent the free expression of the will of peoples, is always fraught with serious interethnic conflicts, bloody armed consequences, and often outright genocide of a small people, which is recognized by the UN as an international crime.
(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 above, 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 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 fact, 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 only 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 action, 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 not accidental - 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 it must be understood 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, again associated 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 have only talked about the very tops, and it is already quite 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".
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, or Tsarist Russia, establishing itself in India, 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, in terms of 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 that 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 an 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 introduced into 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 Europeans established links 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?
The right of nations and peoples to self-determination is enshrined in the UN Charter, the International Covenants on Human Rights, the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the RSFSR of June 12, 1990, and the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It must be emphasized that both international legal acts and Russian legislation secure the right to self-determination not directly for nations, nationalities, but for peoples. However, the term "peoples" in the context of international legal practice also implies national communities.
The right to self-determination is understood as the right by virtue of which all peoples freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, national and cultural development. The Russian Constitution does not disclose the content of the right to self-determination, however, in Art. Article 4 of the Declaration on State Sovereignty of the RSFSR refers to ensuring every people the right to self-determination in their chosen national-state and national-cultural forms (Article 4). Thus, the sphere of realization of the right to self-determination is outlined extremely broadly and covers all areas of social activity.
At the same time, one should not lose sight of the fact that the right to self-determination does not fully apply to national, religious, and linguistic minorities. Self-determined activity of minorities is provided for by Art. 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states: In those countries where ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities may be denied the right, in common with other members of the same group, to enjoy their culture, to use their religion and practice its rites, as well as use their native language". Since self-determination activity is interpreted through the formation of the obligation of the state not to impede the cultural self-determination of minorities on its territory, which implies assistance to them from the state, it seems correct to define the right enshrined in Article 27 of the Covenant as the rights of minorities to protection.By the way, the Russian Constitution also speaks of the protection of the rights of national minorities (paragraph "c" of Article 71, paragraph "6" of Article 72).
The right of minorities to protection is limited to the sphere of cultural identity, in contrast to the right to self-determination, which provides nations, peoples with the opportunity to freely establish their relations with other peoples, with states of residence, freely choose the forms of their own political self-organization, of course, within the framework of international and national legislation. The right to self-determination is a legal expression of national sovereignty, or the actual supremacy of nations, peoples in solving their own problems and their independence in relations with other peoples. This right and other legal means streamline the implementation of national sovereignty, make it predictable, truly free. However, if states impede the sovereign self-determination of peoples, sovereignty is exercised as a direct social claim, outside of legal forms. For example, in the face of opposition from the states of residence, the Kurds and Palestinian Arabs are trying to solve the problem of territorial self-determination in the places of their traditional settlement.
Does the right of peoples to self-determination mean their right to the unilateral creation of their own states? Yes, but only in two cases.
First, the trustee peoples of dependent territories have this right. It is the responsibility of the states responsible for the administration of dependent territories to ensure the possibility of self-determination for the peoples of these territories.
One of the stereotyped mistakes in the interpretation and method of regulating national problems in the former USSR was the mixing of several different types of national movements. As the analysis of the functioning of the post-Soviet republics shows, different
The direction of the national movements affects today.
National movements can have different colors. In the history of the XX century. One of the most striking examples of the effective solution of multinational problems is the activity of Kemal Atatürk, who managed to create a modern Turkish state and nation. The essence of his approach was to effectively modernize the mentality of the Turkish people within the framework of a single national movement, fundamentally different from the archaic imperial consciousness as a legacy of the Ottoman Empire. Anti-modernist in spirit and in the means of chosen actions, the type of national movement is based on the conservation of certain traditional forms of both cultural and social life. The stereotyped appraisal of national movements and their analysis only from the point of view of their opposition to the allied center were in themselves erroneous. The democratization of Soviet society, which took place under the slogan of perestroika, was marked by an unprecedented growth of national movements. At the same time, at the first stage of perestroika, national and democratic slogans and tasks merged into a single whole. The most intense and organized national movement was in the Baltic countries. From the very beginning, its radical wing had in mind the restoration of the independence of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia on the basis of secession from the USSR, that is, a return to the status that was formed in the so-called interwar period. This task was subordinated to the activities of the popular fronts of the republics, which coordinated their actions. They were opposed not only by the center, but also by the ruling structures and, above all, the party and state bodies of these republics. The error of the center consisted in not understanding that the growing demands in favor of independence and sovereignty could not be eliminated.
In Moldova, the events took on a slightly different character, which was due to the formation of the Transnistrian and Gagaue republics and the transformation of Transnistria into a zone of armed conflict. In addition, Moldova did not advocate the collapse of the USSR, its political leaders counted on the support of the center in solving a range of internal problems that acquired the character of a status conflict: recognition or non-recognition of Transnistria as a state entity.
National movements in Transcaucasia were more dramatic. The conflict over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh gradually degenerated into an interethnic war. It was in connection with these events that a kind of position of the center was formed - a principled non-intervention in the conflict. Both conflicting sides saw this as support by the center of the opposite side, which resulted in the formation of anti-imperial slogans by them.
The Central Asian region of the former USSR, together with Kazakhstan, demonstrated new variants of national movements and national-ethnic conflicts. The results of the referendum on March 17, 1991 on the preservation of the USSR showed that the population of all the Central Asian republics was even more pro-Union than the population of Russia. As a matter of fact, these republics were faced with the necessity of organizing themselves in quality; sovereign states under pressure from the Russian-Ukrainian-Belarusian alliance.
Events in Georgia developed approximately according to the Baltic version. A significant difference was made by the tragic incident in Tbilisi on January 9, 1989 - the first experience of using troops against a mass rally held under the slogans of national democracy.
In Tajikistan, the civil war, which broke out on class and ideological grounds, acquired the most violent forms and claimed thousands of lives. The warring factions have demonstrated extreme forms of cruelty and inhumanity.
In recent decades, regional parties have emerged in many countries of the world. In Italy it is the League of the North, in Spain it is the Basque Nationalist Party, in the UK it is the Scottish Nationalist Party, in France it is the Breton Nationalist Party, in Canada it is the Quebec Party. The French National Front, the British National Party, the Hungarian Way, the Confederation of Independent Poland, the Latvian National Independence Movement, and the Estonian National Independence Party declared themselves from purely nationalist positions. There are also parties that represent the interests of national minorities - the Swedish People's Party in Finland, the Danish Union in Germany, the Party of Hungarian Romanians in Romania, the Kurdish Party in Turkey.
4. Interethnic contradictions, conflicts
and ways to resolve them
Historical experience shows that relations between nations have often been tense and tragic. So, the Russian lands experienced the blows of the Mongol nomads, German knights, Polish invaders. Tamerlane's troops swept through Central Asia and Transcaucasia like a fiery shaft. The discovery of America by Columbus was accompanied by the robbery and destruction of the Indians. The tribes and peoples of Africa were captured by colonialists. During the world wars of the XX century. certain nations and nationalities were ruthlessly destroyed or subjected to the most severe oppression. The historical enmity could not but affect the national consciousness. There are still national prejudices and hostility in it, the roots of which go back to the distant and not very distant past. Today it has become obvious that the previous options for solving national problems have exhausted themselves, that national strife, national enmity, national distrust are, as a rule, the result of errors and blunders in national policy that have accumulated over the years.
Heightened national self-consciousness, intolerance for the slightest violation of national equality permeate the spiritual atmosphere of our time. It is no coincidence that in the second half of the XX century. the national question emerged where it seemed to have already been resolved (Quebec in Canada, Scotland and Wales in Great Britain, Corsica in France, etc.). National conflict - a type of social conflict, a feature of which is the interweaving of socio-ethnic and ethno-social factors and contradictions.
The immediate cause of the emergence of interethnic conflicts is the divergence and clash of interests of the subjects of interethnic relations (nation-state formations, nations, nationalities, national groups). The conflict arises when the resolution of such contradictions is inconsistent and untimely. A powerful catalyst for the development of the conflict is the politicization of national interests, the intersection of the national and the state. Provoked by the interweaving of political interests into national ones, the conflict reaches the highest stage of aggravation, turns into national antagonism.
At the heart of national conflicts on the territory of the former USSR are the following national-territorial problems.
1. Unresolved problems in relations between sovereign states - the former Soviet republics. The contradictions between some of them develop into armed clashes, for example between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
2. Intra-republican problems. The absolutization of sovereignty usually gives rise to separatist aspirations of national minorities within the sovereign states themselves. Examples of this are the Gagauz conflict in Moldova, the Abkhazian and South Ossetian conflicts in Georgia, and other similar conflicts involving great sacrifices. There was a movement of territories (territories, regions) of the Russian Federation for their equal legal status with the republics within the Russian Federation. Equalization of the legal status of the subjects of the Federation has become one of the key problems, the solution of which depends on the regional development of the country. (Similar processes are observed in other parts of the world. African states, for example, lost much more killed in interethnic wars than in the struggle for their independence.)
National isolation usually leads to the fact that the population is divided into "indigenous" and "non-indigenous", and this only exacerbates ethnic conflicts.
3.Problems of divided peoples. Historically, both the boundaries between national-state formations and the political and administrative boundaries in the country have repeatedly shifted. The result was the separation of many peoples of two kinds: the state border of the former USSR (for example, Tajiks in Tajikistan and Afghanistan, Azerbaijanis in Azerbaijan and Iran) and the intra-republican borders of new sovereign states (in Transcaucasia, Central Asia, the Russian Federation).
4. Violations of human rights defined by the Declaration of Rights
human rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights; problems caused by the forced eviction of a number of peoples from their places of permanent residence (deportation). The state-legal rehabilitation of such persons turned out to be a rather complicated and contradictory process. Here the principle of restoring justice collided with the principle of the irreversibility of historical change. The interests of the rehabilitated peoples (Germans, Crimean Tatars, Meskhetian Turks, etc.) came into conflict with the interests of the peoples who settled in the places of their former residence.
As a result of the collapse of the USSR, more than 60 million people found themselves "abroad", of which 34 million were Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians living in other republics. A surge of nationalism in the newly independent states, a policy of discrimination against the Russian-speaking population, and massive violations of their rights led to active migration of people.
5. Lack of a program for solving the national question, analysis of the problems of interethnic relations and ways to resolve them.
6. Personal and domestic conflicts that result in conflicts between indigenous and non-indigenous populations. The most important element of ethnicity is the historically established national psychology, which reflects the individual characteristics of any people, those of its properties that distinguish it from other peoples. National psychology is a certain style of thinking and behavior of an ethnic group. Ignoring the peculiarities of national psychology in interpersonal relations can cause various kinds of prejudice, national prejudice and, as a result, lead to interethnic conflicts.
7. The struggle of criminal mafia structures for the redistribution of power.
Since the collapse of the USSR, more than 164 armed conflicts, territorial disputes and claims have been recorded, the largest of which are Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Uzbekistan, Transnistria, Tajikistan, and Chechnya. Conflicts have led to the death of many thousands of people, to huge material and spiritual losses.
Unfortunately, armed conflicts in Russia are still developing according to the same pattern. Although their occurrence is usually predicted, the reaction to them is delayed. One of the main conditions for ending the conflict is not fulfilled: the public does not receive an answer to the question of who is to blame for it. The notion of "aggressor" has disappeared from the diplomatic and political lexicon. However, the analysis of the conflict must begin with the definition of this "actor". "Smearing over" the figure of the aggressor, dissolving it in a mass of abstract factors and forces actually stimulates him to active actions and makes his victim even more defenseless.
All the possibilities of both vertical (government - army - local authorities - internal affairs bodies - individual citizens) and horizontal (government - government; army - army; public movements - public movements; directly conflicting persons) blocking of armed conflicts are not used.
A serious obstacle to conflict resolution is the fear of ruling circles and social movements to fall into the category of "undemocratic", "uncivilized", "imperial", "hegemonic", "totalitarian", "putschist", etc., which usually leads them to pre-arranged information-psychological trap of the aggressor.
In an interconnected and interdependent world, armed conflicts do not go unnoticed. Through a system of economic, political, ethnic and geopolitical ties, they "spread" to many states and peoples. Thus, the disruption or rupture of economic and trade ties during conflicts in one country has a negative impact on the economic life of countries far from the conflict. Discredit, violation of human rights, persecution and genocide create such a migration wave that can shake the social foundations of other states, exacerbate their social situation and cause new conflicts.
An analysis of the results of armed conflicts allows us to draw the following, perhaps indisputable conclusions:
1) most of the armed conflicts on the territory of the former USSR (Karabakh, Abkhaz, South Ossetian, Transnistrian, etc.) arose over disputes over the status of national-territorial formations and the fairness of the borders separating ethnic groups. The subjects of ethnopolitical conflicts were ethnically consolidated groups of the population, organized and led by national movements;
2) the use of armed forces in conflicts must be politically and legally justified, be of an exceptional nature, it is important to outline the limits of their use by law;
3) Armed conflicts, like wars, must be fought long before they break out. This requires the publication of an extensive system of blocking conflicts, mechanisms for their prevention and termination.
Before you start looking for specific options for resolving the conflict, you should try to reduce the level of tension between the warring parties, for example, to agree on a cessation of hostilities. Then the channels of communication are established and finally the dialogue begins. Attempts by the parties to the conflict to immediately resolve the problem through negotiations usually lead to their failure.
The principle of gradualness is based on the premise that the other participant will respond in kind. The main problem here - the presence of trust between the parties to the conflict.
The main condition for preventing any conflicts, including armed ones, is the harmonization of national relations in the country. This requires the following:
existence of a democratic constitutional state. There are two main guarantees of public peace, harmoniously influencing each other - a strong state based on just laws, and a reasonable organization of society in which everyone has the means of a decent existence;
ensuring the unity of the country, the refusal of regions and national minorities from separatism, the recognition of the supreme power of all powers in the defense of the country, the conduct of foreign affairs, the fight against organized crime;
granting broad autonomy to densely populated minorities and the right to manage their own affairs, including local taxes, at the regional and local levels;
recognition of the cultural autonomy of territorially dispersed national minorities, funding from the central budget for teaching and broadcasting in their language and other cultural events;
the maximum shift of the center of gravity of making power decisions to the local, local level;
pursuing a policy of preventing the escalation of contradictions into bloody conflicts. Recently, to normalize the situation in zones of local and regional conflicts, the policy of national reconciliation has been used, which has justified itself, for example, in Nicaragua and El Salvador;
democratization of interstate relations, refusal or-arbitrary interpretation of generally recognized norms of international law;
coordination (compromise) of national interests as; a prerequisite for their implementation, which is the essence of national policy. Its guiding principle should be the management of interests and through the interests of nationalities;
equality of all nations, satisfaction of their national-cultural, linguistic, religious and other needs, internationalism and patriotism, strengthening of democracy and centralism.
| "Avoidance" | "Delay" | Negotiation | Arbitration | Reconciliation |
| Ignoring the enemy, lack of reaction to the actions of the enemy | Avoiding confrontation in the hope that circumstances will change and more favorable conditions will arise for resolving the conflict | The parties themselves choose the preferred procedure; the number of participants in the negotiations is not necessarily equal to the number of parties involved in the conflict | Voluntary transfer of a dispute for consideration to a third party, the decision of which is binding on the conflicting parties | Rapprochement of the positions and interests of the warring parties through an intermediary (conciliation commission) |
| Departure (voluntary or due to circumstances) from the political arena of one or another national leader | Commissions of Inquiry: establish and examine the facts causing the conflict | |||
| Emigration of representatives of certain ethnic groups | Conciliation commissions: develop specific recommendations to the parties to overcome emerging contradictions |