Post-Soviet Russian Scholarship on Self-Determination

2021 ◽  
pp. 177-205
Author(s):  
Johannes Socher
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Epistemic Community ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Invisible College ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
Consensus View ◽  
The Right ◽  
Academic Debate ◽  
The Invisible

Chapter 5 covers the post-Soviet Russian scholarship on self-determination and shows how it forms a separate epistemic community, with peculiar features and doctrinal positions having existed already prior to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and the willingness to adjust these positions to official assessments of the Russian government, if necessary. Even before the annexation of Crimea, the discourse on self-determination in Russian scholarship showed some distinctive features, of which most can be explained by a lasting legacy of the former Soviet doctrine of international law, in particular the position that the right to self-determination may in principle also confer a right of secession. In sum, these features stayed however more or less inside the canon of the ‘invisible college of international lawyers’, as Oscar Schachter once famously called it. Only with ‘Crimea’, the company arguably parted again, and once Russia’s actions on the peninsula made it impossible for Russian scholarship to stay within the consensus view without criticizing the Russian government, former consensus was partly replaced by historical-irredentist claims, creative re-readings of self-determination, and attempts in revitalizing the concept of consolidation of historical titles. Moreover, the assessment of ‘Crimea’ in Russian international law scholarship clearly shows that the views expressed in the academic debate by and large correlated with the official positions purported by the Russian government (although criticism was not completely absent, and in particular scholars from the younger generation in Russia were not all ready to accept the official interpretation of the events).

Sovereignty, Self-Determination, and Natural Resources

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérémie Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resources ◽  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Food Sovereignty ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Ambivalent Relationship ◽  
The Right

The issue of sovereignty over natural resources has been a key element in the development of international law, notably leading to the emergence of the principle of States’ permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. However, concomitant to this focus on States’ sovereignty, international human rights law proclaims the right of peoples to self-determination over their natural resources. This has led to a complex and ambivalent relationship between the principle of States’ sovereignty over natural resources and peoples’ rights to natural resources. This chapter analyses this conflicting relationship and examines the emergence of the right of peoples to freely dispose of their natural resources and evaluates its potential role in contemporary advocacy. It notably explores how indigenous peoples have called for the revival of their right to sovereignty over natural resources, and how the global peasants’ movement has pushed for the recognition of the concept of food sovereignty.

Russland und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker im postsowjetischen Raum

2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-26
Author(s):  
Johannes Socher
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Legal Rhetoric ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
Regional Comparison ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Soviet Space ◽  
The Right ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law ◽  
Post Soviet Space

As a concept of international law, the right to self-determination is widely renowned for its unclarity. Broadly speaking, one can differentiate between a liberal and a nationalist tradition. In modern international law, the balance between these two opposing traditions is sought in an attempt to contain or ‘domesticate’ the nationalist conception by limiting it to ‘abnormal’ situations, i.e. to colonialism in the sense of ‘alien subjugation, domination and exploitation’. Essentially, this distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ situations has since been the heart of the matter in the legal discourse on the right to self-determination, with the important qualification regarding the need to preserve existing borders. This study situates Russia’s approach to the right to self- determination in that discourse by way of a regional comparison vis-à-vis a ‘western’ or European perspective, and a temporal comparison with the former Soviet doctrine of international law. Against the background of the Soviet Union’s role in the evolution of the right to self-determination, the bulk of the study analyses Russia’s relevant state practice in the post-Soviet space through the prisms of sovereignty, secession, and annexation. Complemented by a review of the Russian scholarship on the topic, it is suggested that Russia’s approach to the right to self-determination may be best understood not only in terms of power politics disguised as legal rhetoric, but can be seen as evidence of traits of a regional (re-)fragmentation of international law.

scholarly journals Crimean conflict – from the perspectives of Russia, Ukraine, and public international law

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-45
Author(s):  
Milena Ingelevič-Citak
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Russian Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Crimean Crisis ◽  
Secessionist Movement

Abstract The article presents the Crimean conflict from Russian and Ukrainian standpoints, confronting them with international law analysis. It is worth to mention, that Crimean crisis is still extremely controversial, since both parties are justifying their actions with norms of international law. This article starts with brief introduction of historical background of the Crimean crisis. Second chapter assesses the Crimean secessionist movement claiming the right of self-determination, and its compliance with Ukrainian law. Third chapter examines Russia’s position and its actions on the basis of Russian law. Fourth chapter presents the international law analysis of events in Crimea and its current legal status. Results of the analysis are presented in a conclusion.

Constitutional Protection of the Right to Self-Determination

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Marishet Mohammed Hamza
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Constitutional Protection ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Right

Abstract The right to self-determination is an essential international law principle that holds an erga omnes character. Also, the right is often enshrined under domestic legislation, including constitutions. The 1995 Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Constitution (fdre Constitution) is one such constitution and, uniquely, it explicitly recognizes the right to self-determination including the right of secession as an unconditional right of the nations, nationalities, and peoples in Ethiopia. This paper selects the fdre Constitution and analyses whether such constitutional law frameworks better address some of the contentious matters concerning the right to self-determination under international law. In a comparative perspective (with international law), the article analyses, inter alia, how the fdre Constitution approach the questions of who the subjects of the right to self-determination are, and the substantive guarantees for exercising internal and external aspects of the right to self-determination with particular emphasis on secession as a legal right.

Political Participation of Aboriginal People (Orang Asli) in Peninsular Malaysia: Examining the Compatibility of the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 with Undrip Standards

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Muhamad Sayuti Hassan ◽  
Rohaida Nordin
Keyword(s):  
Political Participation ◽  
International Law ◽  
Aboriginal People ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Peninsular Malaysia ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Aboriginal Peoples ◽  
Orang Asli ◽  
The Right

The main objective of this article is to critically evaluate the compatibility of the ‘right to political participation’ of the Orang Asli by looking at international law standards. The present study utilises a qualitative socio-legal approach, which analyses the political participation of the Orang Asli under Malaysian law and determines whether the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 (apa) can provide for the protection, well-being, and the advancement of the Orang Asli. Arguably, the existing provisions of the apa are not in conformity with the recognition in undrip and in no way guarantee the Orang Asli’s right to self-determination as recognised by international law. Thus, the current study recommends an amendment to the apa and introduces guidelines to empower political participation of the Orang Asli by incorporating the principles of undrip. The amendment is necessary to ensure that the protection of the right to self-determination of the Orang Asli is compatible with international law standards.

Can Armed Non-state Actors Exercise Jurisdiction and Thus Become Human Rights Duty-bearers?

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-305
Author(s):  
Amrei Müller
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
State Actors ◽  
The Right ◽  
Political Understanding ◽  
Normative Logic

Abstract Recent literature and United Nations documents advocate that most armed non-state actors (ANSAs) should be bound by human rights law. This article takes a more critical stance on this issue. It argues that only a limited number of ANSAs should potentially become human rights duty-bearers: those that exercise de facto (human rights) jurisdiction and thus have considerable institutional and military capacities, as well as particular normative characteristics. It specifies these capacities and characteristics with an analysis of ANSAs’ practice that tentatively indicates that some of these entities may indeed exercise de facto jurisdiction. The argument is justified by highlighting the broader consequences that recognising ANSAs as human rights duty-bearers will entail. It will also endow them with privileges that will legitimise their authority over time. This is grounded in the normative logic of human rights law that emphasises the interrelationship between human rights, equality and democracy that also permeates the notion of jurisdiction and is further supported by a political understanding of the right to self-determination. The article closes with a brief sketch of two complementary ways to develop international law binding ANSAs to be further explored in future research: the so-called ‘responsibilities for human rights’ and an adapted law of occupation.

Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Johannes Socher
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Academic Discipline ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Raw Material ◽  
Legal Argumentation ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Detailed Assessment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Open Question

The book provides a detailed assessment of Russia’s state practice in the post-Soviet space with the aim to ascertain a distinct Russian approach to the right of peoples to self-determination, illustrated by seven case studies on the secessionist conflicts over Abkhazia, Chechnya, Crimea, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Tatarstan, and Transnistria. As such, it may serve as a detailed documentation of the raw material necessary to form and identify rules of customary international law, produced by one particular state. Beyond that, it seeks to test the accuracy of and give substance to Lauri Mälksoo’s general assessment in Russian Approaches to International Law that the ‘evolution of Moscow’s legal argumentation and views in these complex cases … has not followed some overarching legal principle but reflected changing power politics. Until 2014, Russia claimed that sovereignty trumped self-determination but in 2014 partly destroyed its own earlier argumentation by its own actions in Ukraine.’ Finally, this book is a contribution to what Mälksoo calls the ‘debatable nexus’ between legal scholarship and state practice of international law in Russia, that is the open question of to what extent international law as an academic discipline continues to be subjugated to the raison d’état in Russia.

The Uncomfortable Balance between a Minority and a People: The Global/Local Disconnect

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-272
Author(s):  
Parvathi Menon
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Personal Characteristic ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Minority Protection ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Minority Identity ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

The legitimacy of secessionist movements has emerged as an important debate, while the protection of minorities within a democracy has become merely of peripheral interest to international law. My project suggests that the advent of universalized (minority) rights re-conceptualized the majority-minority relationship and its balance, reducing the possibilities of political processes to balance the relationship. What was construed as a redress for dichotomous relationships between the oppressor and the oppressed through (the right to) self-determination, became a discourse between minority (identity) rights and a democratic entitlement, post-colonially. These norms universalized a demand to rethink minority protection, no longer from the perspective of advantaged and disadvantaged; rather, to introduce perspectives of individuals polarized around a personal characteristic in their identity thus establishing/reinforcing the inferiority of their identity within the hierarchy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document