scholarly journals History of self-determination of the people of Donbass. experience of the Soviet Republic of Donetsk and Krivoy Rog

Author(s):  
Vladislav V. Gruzdev ◽  
Dmitriy A. Babichev ◽  
Natal'ya A. Babicheva

The article is devoted to the burning problem that arose in 2014 in the Ukraine, in the regions of Lugansk and Donetsk, and that concerns the right of the people of Donbass to self-determination. This problem is not only of a local territorial nature, but it is also one of the most complex debatable problems of international law. Since the right to self-determination contradicts the principle of territorial integrity of the state, the consideration and solution of this issue is the most burning for the whole population living on the territory of the self-proclaimed people's republics of Lugansk and Donetsk. In the article, the authors analyse the concept of "self-determination of the people" and give a generalised characteristic of it, approving that it is the right of every nation to solve the issues of state structure, political status, economic, social and cultural development independently and at its own discretion. The author also examines the historical past of the people of Donbass, where, in terms of the Republic of Donetsk and Krivoy Rog and various documentary historical and legal materials, we come to the conclusion that the population of Donbass has the right to social, economic, cultural, spiritual and other development just as all the recognised countries of the world.

1999 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-416 ◽  
Author(s):  

AbstractThe Versailles Treaty sought to protect minorities by giving them their own state. This practice, labelled 'self-determination' has changed guise considerably post World War II. Paramount to the emancipation of colonies, it came to be the concept that legitimated the 'rule of the people' over that of their colonial masters. However post-colonial 'self-determined' states are often manufactured entities forced into the strait-jacket of Westphalian statehood; and unlike the states that emanated from the Westphalian Treaty, were given no time to evolve by themselves. As a result these states often house disparate sets of minorities that go unrepresented within the Statist discourse. Further, these states have attempted to suppress their minorities through the various policies associated with nation-building. Today, with secession an increasingly attainable form of self-determination, the question arises as to whether these minorities have a right to form a separate state. The international law of self-determination suggests that this is a right of all peoples. It however leaves the parameters of this 'peoplehood' undefined. This paper seeks to examine the discourse of minority rights within that of the international right to self determination. It seeks to trace the history of minority rights protection, and to examine the way in which minority rights are protected within current international law. In addition, it examines the parameters of peoplehood and concludes by looking at two cases where disaffected minorities in a post-colonial state sought to form their own state.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Klymenko Kyrylo ◽  

The article provides an analysis of the possibility of separatist formations in Ukraine to refer to the principle of self-determination of peoples as a justification for their activities. The minimum necessary criteria of legal bases for self-determination are considered, among which: the existence of effective connection of the subject of self-determination with a certain territory; the existence of the subject itself, i.e., the people (ethnic group), which claims self-determination; and the recognition by the international community of such a potential entity as the bearer of the right to self-determination. Regarding the connection with the territory, the doctrine of international law and practice recognizes the right to cultural and national self-determination in a particular territory for any ethnic group. This right is limited to the common interests of all the people of the state, which consists in the unconditional preservation of the inviolability and integrity of its territory. As for the existence of the subject of self-determination, the people is recognized as the historical community of people formed in a certain area and have stable features of the language, culture, and mental composition (mentality), as well as aware of their unity and difference from others through conscious self-name. At the same time, diasporas and migrants must be subject to the laws of the country of residence under the right of citizenship or the right of permanent residence. As for the recognition of the subject of self-determination by the international community, it may recognize as the people those who are under colonial rule, occupation by a foreign state, or against whom a policy of racism is pursued. Thus, international law does not protect separatist movements aimed at secession if they do not meet these criteria. This means that separatist formations in Ukraine do not have the right to secession but are terrorist organizations in terms of their methods of activity. Keywords: people, international recognition, right to self-determination, secession, territory


1997 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-197 ◽  
Author(s):  

AbstractDuring the 20th century self-determination has become one of the most important principles of international law and one of the most prominent rights on the basis of which (all) peoples can decide freely on their political status and their economic, social and cultural development (Article 1 common to the 1966 ICCPR and ICESCR).Whereas the idea of self-determination is envisaged as an advanced concept aimed at the liberation of peoples under foreign domination in the process of de-colonisation, today's situation and reality call for its reconsideration and adequate clarification with respect to the issues of who is entitled to the right of self-determination and in which forms and to which extent it can be exercised if seen from the aspect of the impact which its exercise might have on the integrity of states. This call is strengthened by the fact that all contemporary states have certain complexity with respect to their national/ethnic/religious/linguistic or racial composition. One of the basic problems in the application of the right of self-determination is created by the fact that there are no definitions in international law on the concepts of various groups. There is no clear answer on what are peoples who are entitled to the right of self-determination, nor is there an accepted definition for other groups which are politically relevant, like indigenous peoples and/or minorities. This may cause serious difficulties since such a lack of clarity provides conditions for persistent claims on the part of groups other than peoples on the right of self-determination, which sometimes threatens territorial integrity of states.


2019 ◽  
Vol Special Issue ◽  
pp. 7-14
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Andrzejczak-Świątek

This article aims to show the problem of self-determination of the people in the light of contemporary standards of international law, as well as to compare them with the factual and legal basis of regaining independence by Poland in 1918. The principle of the right of people to self-determination as one of the basic rules of international law was proclaimed only after World War II, however, concepts conferring on the population living in a given territory to decide about themselves appeared before the French Revolution. The issue of the right to self-determination of people is extremely complex — after World War II, there was in this respect the development of treaty guarantees concluded with international agreements for the system of human rights protection, which sanctioned this right as the only subjective collective right. On the other hand, the practice of contemporary states on this issue is not uniform and largely depends on the acceptance of the facts by the international community. From the point of view of developing the right to self-determination of people, and thus the right to independence, the case of Poland is extremely interesting not only because of the historical and political background, but also because it can be treated as a precedent in international law in the context of recognition and acceptance of independence by the state.


Author(s):  
Muhamad Sayuti Hassan ◽  
Rohaida Nordin

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.


Author(s):  
Mai Taha

In Gillo Pontecorvo’s evocative film The Battle of Algiers (1966), viewers reach the conclusion that the fight against colonialism would not be fought at the UN General Assembly. Decolonization would take place through the organized resistance of colonized people. Still, the 1945 United Nations Charter and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights provided some legal basis, albeit tenuous, for self-determination. When Third World leaders assembled in the 1955 Bandung Conference, it became clear that the UN needed to shift gears on the question of decolonization. By 1960, and through a show of Asian and African votes at the General Assembly, the Declaration for the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples was adopted, effectively outlawing colonialism and affirming the right of all peoples to self-determination. Afro-Asian solidarity took a different form in the 1966 Tricontinental Conference in Havana, which founded the Organization of Solidarity with the People of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The conference gathered leftist activists and leaders from across the Third World, who would later inspire radical movements and scholarship on decolonization and anticolonial socialism. This would also influence the adoption of the 1974 Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order and later lead to UNESCO’s series that starts with Mohammed Bedjaoui’s famous overture, Towards a New International Economic Order (1979; cited as Bedjaoui 1979 under the Decolonization “Moment”). This article situates this history within important international-law scholarship on decolonization. First, it introduces different approaches to decolonization and international law; namely, postcolonial, Marxist, feminist, and Indigenous approaches. Second, it highlights seminal texts on international law and the colonial encounter. Third, it focuses on scholarship that captures the spirit of the “decolonization moment” as a political and temporal rupture, but also as a continuity, addressing, fourth, decolonization and neocolonial practices. Finally, this article ends with some of the most important works on international law and settler colonialism in the 21st century.


1985 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kwaw Nyameke Blay

In the history of modern Africa the issue of self-determination has always been of special significance. For a better part of a century and in some cases more, almost the entire continent was subject to colonisation by various European powers. The end of the Second World War and the subsequent adoption of the United Nations Charter, incorporating the principle of self-determination, heralded a new phase for the African colonies in international relations. Defined in its simplest terms, self-determination is the principle by virtue of which a people freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Selfdetermination is in essence the right of self-government. A territory exercises the right by either opting to establish itself as an independent state, associating with an existing state or by accepting to be integrated into an existing state. Self-determination so defined was thus used as the basis for decolonisation in Africa and provided the foundations for equal statehood for the former colonies of Africa in international relations.After decolonisation, the issue of self-determination still persists in Africa attracting sentiments and implications well exemplified by the conflicts Over Biafra and Katanga in the 1960s and currently in Eritrea, the Tigray province of Ethiopia and the Southern Sudan. The very successful propagation of self-determination as the right of every people to self-government by African nationalists during the colonial days seems to have left behind a legacy of a question for post-independence Africa—is the ideal of self-determination


2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauro Barelli

AbstractThe right of peoples to self-determination represents one of the most controversial norms of international law. In particular, two questions connected with the meaning and scope of this right have been traditionally contentious: first, who constitutes a ‘people’ for the purposes of self-determination, and, secondly, what does the right of self-determination actually imply for its legitimate holders. Against this unsettled background, the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) affirmed, in a straightforward manner, that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. In light of the uncertainties that were mentioned above, it becomes necessary to clarify the actual implications of this important recognition. This article will seek to do so by discussing the drafting history of the provision on self-determination contained in the UNDRIP and positioning it within the broader normative framework of the instrument.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 285-302
Author(s):  
Ja’far Mohammad Khair Al Sabbagh

States’ boundaries have changed to a large extent over the course of time, in fact, the world has not always been the same as nowadays. In place of archaic forms of social organisation, the universal order has appeared where determinate and inviolable borders play a crucial role in ensuring the stability of states and resisting separatist movements. At the same time, secessionist movements throughout the world continually aim to gain independence from the ‘parent’ state invoking the right to self-determination. In this paper, the researcher will examine whether a part of the population of a state or a sub-unit of that state has a right to secede and create a new state and/or integrate into another. The article consists of a strong theoretical part dealing with statehood, self-determination and secession with a view of the dynamic development of these notions since the rapid birth of many new states as a result of decolonization. Thereafter, the validity of the gathered results will be verified by a comparative analysis of the cases of Kosovo, Crimea and Catalonia with regard to the historical background of these secessionist entities.


The second part of the article considers the issue of the contradiction of the realization of the right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity of Serbia and Ukraine on the example of Kosovo and Crimea. It presents an analysis of the legitimacy of the will expression of Kosovars and Crimeans and its compliance with the norms of international law. The preconditions and factors of the ethnopolitical conflict are examined and the main problematic issues that caused controversies between the central and local authorities in Kosovo and Crimea are identified. The article emphasizes that the result of the plebiscites in Kosovo (1998) and Crimea (2014) was the declaration of independence, denied by central authorities of Serbia and Ukraine and met with mixed reactions by the international community. The self-proclaimed republics have only external features of statehood and are subject to external administration of other countries. A latent opposition of geopolitical opponents in the international arena is noted, which is to some extent traced through the position on the recognition / non-recognition of Kosovo and Crimea. The article draws attention to the fact that inconsistent interpretations of certain principles of international law promote secession movements in countries where conflicts periodically arise between central and local authorities. The emphasis is placed on the necessity of a clearer definition of the aforementioned international legal norms and obligations undertaken by subjects of international law. The article holds that in order to avoid such situations as in Kosovo or Crimea, to eliminate conflicts related to the possibility of an ambiguous interpretation and application of the principles of international law, an internationally recognized system of more stringent and comprehensive measures should be introduced to cease and prevent threats to the territorial integrity of countries. A strong position of the international community on the abovementioned principles with the history of the liberation movements of these peoples taken into account should become the measure precluding the aggravation of conflict situations related to the aspiration of peoples for self-determination.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document