“The Permiak question”: Bolshevik central authorities, Russian and non-Russian provincial elites negotiating over autonomy in the early 1920s

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Indrek Jääts
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Cultural And Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Low Level ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right

This is an article on Bolshevik nationalities policy and ethnic engineering, asking who, in fact, decided which populations belonged together as ethnic groups (narodnost') and thus had the right of national self-determination, and how the level of autonomy was determined for each ethnic unit. Scholars have dealt with Russian and Soviet nationalities issues for decades already, but they have turned their attention mainly to the larger nationalities (at the level of SSR, and to a lesser degree the levels of ASSR and autonomousoblast). I argue that the lower levels of national territorial autonomy in the Soviet Union (nationalokrug, raion, volost', andselsovet) are worthy of greater academic attention, at least from the ethnological point of view. Having this kind of low-level territorial autonomy has often been a question of to be or not to be for the small ethnic groups concerned, and hence the subject is connected with the question of preservation of cultural and linguistic diversity in Russia.

POST-SOVIET DRAMA OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (IN CONNECTION WITH THE 99TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FORMATION OF THE USSR AND THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF ITS ABOLISHMENT)

2021 ◽  
pp. 62-75
Author(s):  
Aleksandr В. Lyubinin
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
30Th Anniversary ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Real Process ◽  
Single State ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

The article was prepared in connection with the 99th anniversary of the formation of the USSR and the 30th anniversary of the termination of its existence. The article reveals the relationship between the norms of the Constitution of the USSR of 1924 (and subsequent versions of the document) on the self-determination of nations and their right to secede from the Union with the real process of destruction of a single state. It is shown that the disintegration of the Union was carried out not in connection with the constitutional right of the union republics to self-determination, not with the observance of the appropriate procedures for leaving the single state, but, on the contrary, on an anti-constitutional basis. The author reveals the artificial and politically motivated nature of the arguments regarding the «mines» laid down in their time by the Bolsheviks under the national state structure of the USSR. This device turned out to be productive both for repelling military aggression and for peaceful construction, because it was formed taking into account the totality of the binding circumstances of its time, on the principles of equality and voluntary self-determination. It has been proven that the absence of the right to secede from parts of a single state does not provide any guarantees against the collapse of this state, an example of which is the European monarchies that ended their journey at the beginning of the 20th century, as well as the events in the USSR and around the Chechen Republic. The fundamental difference between constitutional multinational formations, one of which was the Soviet Union, and formations built on a contractual basis following the example of the Gorbachev SSG, the Belovezhskaya agreement on the creation of the CIS and the Union State of Russia and Belarus, is revealed.

scholarly journals A Look at the Evolution of the Right to Self-determination in International Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 117-132
Author(s):  
Paweł von Chamier Cieminski ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Political Events ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The article takes stock of the historical development of the notion of the right of a people to self-determination in international law. It provides a coherent review of the main international treaties, customary rules, and legal rulings that shaped the evolution of the term over the course of the twentieth century. In doing so, it focuses on the main historical and political events, which had an impact on that process as well as the preconditions that have to be met in order for a people to have the legal capacity to execute the right to self-determination. Three main processes, which it focuses on are: decolonization, the establishment of a number of new countries following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the recent developments following ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo. It also delineates the subject of the legal definition of a “people” as opposed to a “minority”, describes the legal tension between the right to self-determination and the principle of territorial continuity in international law, and discusses potential further development of the term.

The Soviet Doctrine on the Right to Self-Determination Revisited

2021 ◽  
pp. 14-56
Author(s):  
Johannes Socher
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Political Principle ◽  
History Of ◽  
Sphere Of Influence ◽  
The Right ◽  
Second World

This chapter provides a critical rereading of the history of self-determination by revisiting the Soviet Union’s contribution to its evolution from a political principle to an international legal right. It argues that the history of the right to self-determination as a concept of international law starts with the Russian Revolution and not with Wilson’s famous Fourteen Points. Moreover, it highlights that the Soviet Union was the decisive force behind the codification of the right to self-determination in international legal instruments following the Second World War, while at the same time it modified or even perverted its meaning and content in its sphere of influence, most notoriously through the later so-called Brezhnev Doctrine. A discussion on how self-determination was theorized and debated in Soviet international law scholarship up until the collapse of the Soviet Union completes the picture.

The Cry of National Liberation: Recent Soviet Attitudes Toward National Self-Determination

1960 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-106
Author(s):  
Elliot R. Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Nation Building ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
National Liberation ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Western Idea ◽  
National Question ◽  
East And West ◽  
The Right

“You know,” Khrushchev characteristically proclaimed in a message to the African People's Conference meeting in Accra in December 1958, “that on the national question the Soviet Union is invariably guided by the principle of the right of nations to self-determination, and that it has always supported and still supports the struggle of peoples to obtain or strengthen their national independence and freedom.” The idea of national self-determination, fathered by political theorists like Mazzini and Wilson, is, of course, Western in origin. But in an age of nation-building in the Afro-Asian world, skillful Soviet use of this concept presents Western diplomacy with a formidable and continuing challenge in the East. The purpose of the present inquiry is to examine briefly how Soviet spokesmen have attempted to manipulate this Western idea, particularly in the great assembly halls of the UN where representatives of East and West constantly intermingle.

scholarly journals The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia from the Historical Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 415-439
Author(s):  
Kaan DİYARBAKIRLIOĞLU
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Industrial Revolution ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
The Caucasus ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Strategic Plans ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Christian Population

The Nagorno-Karabakh problem had continued for years. The problem had grown thanks to the policies of Russia in the region. The Russians first had carried out expansionist policies. After the industrial revolution, oil in the Caucasus had gained importance in the region. Therefore, the Russian Armenians immigrated to these regions. Strategic plans have been developed to increase the Christian population in the region and to make the region a region without Turks. Armenia and Azerbaijan had gained independence after the Soviet Union collapsed after the Cold War. After the Soviet Union, Russia had given the region the right to self-determination, and the population in the Nagorno-Karabakh region began to be Armenian. Azerbaijani Turks were immigrated from this region. Negotiating groups have been included for the solution of the problem in this region and a ceasefire has been signed between the two countries. Violations had occurred over the years after the ceasefire signed between the two countries. Russia had not wanted the presence of international actors in this region. For this reason, Russia continues to be on the Armenian side. Today, Russia has a voice in the region with a balanced policy. Nagorno-Karabakh region is legally connected to Azerbaijan and has not been recognized as de-facto.

scholarly journals Wpływ wydarzeń 1968 roku na Ostpolitik i jej recepcję w Polsce

2010 ◽  
pp. 59-76
Author(s):  
Wanda Jarząbek
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
East Europe ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The People ◽  
Political Approach ◽  
Tangible Evidence ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The impact of the 1968 events on the FRG’s Ostpolitik and its reception in Poland may be considered in the short and the long term. What the article takes into consideration are the short-term effects of this political approach, observed in the years 1968–1969.Writing about the events of 1968, the author dwells on March 1968 in Poland, or more precisely, on those of its aspects which were related to the formation and implementation of the state’s policy, namely, the turbulence in ruling circles, the replacing of the people who occupied the high-ranking posts and the staffing changes in Poland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the creators of Germany’s Eastern politics, what was fundamental was the intervention of the Warsaw Treaty armies in Czechoslovakia. The rebellion among the youth was of lesser importance to the current politics at the time. Its consequences were felt mostly in the succeeding years and were related, i.a., to public opinion in the FRG and its attitude toward the forms and extent of normalising relations with the countries of East Europe, including Poland.After 1968, in the case of the FRG, the mode of implementation of its Eastern politics was modified. It was concluded that it is the Soviet Union which must be the main partner in any talks (though it was the most important interlocutor anyway, albeit attempts were also made to hold autonomous talks with the satellite countries) and that attention must be paid to avoiding the impression that for Bonn, Ostpolitik is just an instrument to help loosen intra-block dependencies.For Poland, the events of 1968 implied a reduced field of manoeuvre, not so much because not only in Bonn, but also in other Western capitals, it was formally acknowledged that the priority lies with Moscow, but also because of diplomatic practice. Warsaw did not, however, intend to give up the right to pursue its interests, tangible evidence of which was provided by the diplomatic activity of 1969, manifest both by a turn in its policy toward Germany, and by undertaking efforts to sell its own vision of the European Conference. 

Sources of the Brezhnev Doctrine of Limited Sovereignty and Intervention

1970 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 527-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leon Romaniecki
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Foreign Minister ◽  
The Other ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Special Role ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Military

1. Claim to the Right of Intervention in the Defence of Socialism: The Brezhnev Doctrine asserts the Soviet Union's right to intervene in the internal affairs of the states comprising the Socialist Bloc. The source of this Doctrine is Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko's declaration at the June 27, 1968, session of the Supreme Soviet, when he announced that the Socialist commonwealth would not tolerate the withdrawal of any of its constituent parts, should it be attempted.This statement formed the basis of what is called the “Brezhnev Doctrine”, as formulated in an article appearing in Pravda on September 26, 1968. The Doctrine is designed to affirm the “limited sovereignty” of every Socialist State and to justify the military intervention of members of the Warsaw Pact in Czechoslovakia.The Pravda article asserted that Czechoslovakia's self-determination impaired the essential interests of the Socialist commonwealth and required the “Soviet Union and the other Socialist countries…to take actions…in the fulfillment of their international obligations towards the Czechoslovak nation and in the defence of their Socialist achievements”.The Soviet Union's special role within the Socialist commonwealth and its right to intervene in its name was justified as follows:

Democracy and Dynamite: The Peoples' Right to Self-Determination

1996 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 746-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Freeman
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Theoretical Work ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Political Concept ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Cold War

The right to self-determination is a potent and paradoxical political concept. It is associated with democracy, xenophobia and anarchy. Its explosive potential was more or less held in check during the Cold War by an international consensus that restricted it to the context of decolonization. The unravelling of the Soviet Union and the break-up of Yugoslavia have demonstrated the inadequacy of the available theory and practice. Various recent approaches to self-determination are reviewed. These may be roughly classified as realist, liberal and communitarian. Although no approach is wholly satisfactory, the key issues can now be more clearly stated, an emerging consensus identified, and the agenda for further theoretical work proposed.

Contemporary Ethnicity: The Moral Dimension in Comparative Perspective

1990 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Moral Dimension ◽  
American Catholicism ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Majority Culture ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Ideal

The surge of national assertion in the USSR, generally unanticipated by American decision-makers, focusses attention on ethnic issues worldwide. But the moral dimension of ethnicity has rarely been examined in a comparative context, especially from the religious point of view. Issues now critical in the Soviet Union, such as justification for educational and occupational quotas for disadvantaged minorities, and the right of vulnerable ethnic collectivities to preserve their cultures by limiting immigration, have major implications for Third World and European countries, which are briefly surveyed. In the United States, concern for producing a united national culture based on the ideal of equal opportunities for individuals has usually precluded attention to preservation of ethnic collectivities distinct from the majority culture. Since most of these collectivities have been traditionally Catholic, their preservation has been especially sensitive to changes in American Catholicism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document