- In the case of the Russian population of Donbass, all the criteria for secession were more than met, and the conditions for secession were met with the establishment of the Lugansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic
- And if anyone were to ask why the Russian Federation intervenes outside the territories of the LPR and the DPR if they defend their territorial integrity against Ukrainian aggression, they could be answered with a counter – question-why the Red Army in 1945. the year came to Berlin and why did the U.S. Army come to Elba? When war comes, then war logic applies, and the main element of that logic is to fight in order to win.
- Any possible objection that remedial secession could be dangerous as a possible basis for justifying the violation of the territorial integrity of Serbia – the secession of Kosovo and Metohija, has no basis in facts and international law. Because the Albanian minority in Kosovo and Metohija was not denied the right to "internal self-determination", given the existence of a constitutionally defined autonomy that guaranteed its culture, religion, language and other features of identity.
- NATO's attack on the Fry did not have the character of helping a state in its self-defense, so it was not an act of collective self-defense that allows Article 51. The UN Charter was already an act of aggression against a sovereign state.
Serbian top legal experts have made a detailed and scientifically argued analysis on whether international law protects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states at the cost of mass terror against parts of their population, and why in the case of Ukraine international law is on the side of Russia.
Although neglected in the media, the terror against Russians in Ukraine by pro-Western-oriented elites was carried out continuously, systematically and planned, in a slightly milder form in the period 2004-2010. years, and escalating after the "Maidan" coup of 2014. years.
Ukrainian political elites believe that the principle of territorial integrity, guaranteed by international law, gives them the opportunity to do whatever they want on the territory of their state.
Ideological followers of Nazism
However, modern international law, whose central document is the Charter of the United Nations, was just built with the idea of preventing some ideological successors of Adolf Hitler from being able to continue the work of their ideological predecessor. And that the ideological followers of Nazism are in power in Ukraine, these followers themselves do not hide: all over Ukraine there are monuments to Nazi collaborators from World War II Stepan Bandera, the important position in the government is held by members of neo-Nazi organizations such as the Right Sector, etc., and the striking fist of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is made up of neo-Nazi armed formations (such as the infamous Azov unit) that wear hooded crosses and similar Nazi symbols.
But the matter does not rest on symbols: everything that is Russian in Ukraine is suppressed, from the language to all other elements of Russian identity, and in parts of the country where there is a greater concentration of Russian population, the refusal of citizens to comply with such authority is punished by armed attacks of the Ukrainian army, most often on the civilian population, in which the main and the most violent role is played by the aforementioned declared neo-Nazis.
It is estimated that about 15,000 people, primarily civilians, were killed in these attacks. Attempts to peacefully resolve the status of the eastern parts of Ukraine within the Ukrainian state, whose population self-organized into the Donetsk and Lugansk People's republics, have not borne fruit, due to the persistent refusal of the Ukrainian authorities to implement the 2014 Minsk Agreements. and 2015. years.
Finally, when the offensive of Ukrainian neo-Nazis against Russian regions in the East began to escalate, the Russian Federation came to the aid of its compatriots, which until then had persistently but in vain supported the implementation of the Minsk agreements. It recognized the two newly created republics and provided them with armed assistance, as a last resort, when no other acted.
After these events, the leading Great Powers of the West suddenly remembered the principle of respecting the territorial integrity of states, and a significant number of countries in the world, including Serbia, followed them in and out of GSUN.
What does international law say?
What does international law really say? Does it protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states even at the cost of persistent, drastic and massive terror against parts of their populations? TJ. has this not gone any further than the international law of the 1930s?
Of course not!
The fact is that modern international law protects territorial integrity in inter-state relations, i.e. it prohibits states from violating the territorial integrity of other states.
Article 2. point 4. The UN Charter states that " all members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat of force or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
And the final act of the Helsinki KEBS of 1. August 1975. the act, with great authority but without binding effect, proclaims the principle of territorial integrity of states and calls on participating states to respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating states.
This principle is confirmed by a number of other acts.
However, the principle of territorial integrity is applied in a systematic manner, along with other valid principles of international law, including the principle of self-determination of peoples. This principle, which began to gain its special affirmation at the time of the First World War, both in the USSR and in the USA (serving as the basis for the exit of the South Slavic peoples from the Austro-Hungarian framework and for their unification with the Kingdom of Serbia), is proclaimed by Article 1. paragraph 2. The UN Charter states that one of the goals of the UN is "the development among nations of friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equality and self-determination of peoples.".
This principle, TJ. the right of the people to self-determination, speeches and articles 55. and 56. The UN Charter, as well as a number of other acts (including the 1966 International Human Rights pacts). years, as well as again the final act of the Helsinki KEBS, etc.).
An interpretation of the content of this principle, as well as other principles of international law under the UN Charter, is provided in the Declaration on principles of international law on friendly relations and cooperation of states in accordance with the United Nations Charter under Resolution 2625 (XXV) of the UN General Assembly of 24. October 1970. years. According to this act, the right to self-determination includes above all internal self-determination, which means the right of peoples to "freely, without foreign interference, determine their political position and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development", i.e. as a kind of "right to democracy". But the self-determination of a people can also be External, which means the right to "establish a sovereign and independent state, to freely associate or integrate with an independent state, or to establish any other political position freely determined by a people".
Declaration of 1970.
Of course, as this right conflicts with the principle of preserving the territorial integrity of states, it must also be interpreted restrictively under the 1970 declaration. it is limited to only three cases. The first is liberation from occupation. The second is decolonization. The third case, which is of interest to us here, is stated by the statement that the principle of self-determination of peoples must not be understood "as approving or encouraging any activity that would violate or endanger, in whole or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of any sovereign and independent state that respects the principle of equality and self-determination.a nation which therefore has a government representing the whole population of its territory without distinction in terms of race, religion or colour."
The word "race" (a term that has been largely superseded in modern science) should be understood here as defined by the 1965 International Convention for the Prevention of all forms of racial discrimination. year, which is prohibited. by racial discrimination it means) distinction based on"race, color, ancestry, national or ethnic origin".
Thus, a people denied the right to internal self-determination, according to the 1970 declaration. he has the right to external self-determination, i.e. to secession. As this is the last remedy available to the people who found themselves in such a situation, this type of secession was called "remedial secession".
Almost identical to that of the 1970 declaration. the Year is contained in the Vienna Declaration of the 25th World Conference on human rights. June 1993. 24 and in the declaration of resolution 50/6 of the UN General Assembly. October 1995. on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the UN.
The only difference is that in the two later documents listed, the words "without distinction as to race, creed or color of skin" are replaced by the words "without distinction of any kind".
The secession of Quebec
The Supreme Court of Canada is in a decision of 20. August 1998. year, on the issue of secession of Quebec (by drawing the situation of Quebec through the test of fulfillment of conditions for the application of external self-determination, i.e. secession from Canada, because of the denial of the right to internal self-determination and finding that these conditions in the case of Quebec were not met), stated in the following condensed way in international law the envisaged situations in which" external "self-determination is allowed:" in short, the right to self-determination in international law implies the right to external self-determination only in the case of former colonies; in the case of oppressed peoples, such as peoples under foreign military occupation; or in the case where a particular group is denied effective access to power for the purpose of achieving its political, economic, social and cultural development. In these three situations, the people in question enjoy the right to external self-determination because they are denied the opportunity to enjoy the right of internal self-determination.”
The case of Bangladesh and similarities with Donbass
In the professional literature there is a statement that the independence of Bangladesh, then East Pakistan, from Pakistan, in 1971. years, is an example of successful remedial secession.
The similarities of this case with the case of the republics of Donbass are great: similar to the dispute of formation (2004).) or survival (2014) authorities based on the expressed will of the citizens in Ukraine, and in Pakistan were prevented from keeping Mujibur Rahman's Popular Alliance in line with the huge success in the elections of 7. December 1970. years of taking part in the government and for Mujibur Rahman himself to be prime minister; the insurgency in East Pakistan over disrespect for the will of the people is being crushed by a bloody intervention that reaches such a level that the term "Bangladesh Genocide" is used to refer to it, as the Armed Forces of India come to the aid of the people of East Pakistan .
The UN admitted Bangladesh into membership in 1972. it was previously recognized by Pakistan.
In addition to the case of Bangladesh, and the separation of South Sudan from the Republic of Sudan in 2011. the year (the same year he became a member of the UN) is also considered an example of successful implementation of remedial external self-determination.
In the case of the secession of Kosovo, the International Court of justice, despite the insistence of some of the judges and some of the states that expressed their position during the proceedings, in its advisory opinion avoided applying the remedial theory, which would have drawn it into proving the incorrect claim that the Albanians in Kosovo were denied internal self-determination (see below), has already resorted to a simpler a formula under which international law does not prohibit secession from within (which would otherwise apply to the Donbass, where a part of the population of Ukraine has achieved secession from within, while in the case of Kim, secession was carried out with the active cooperation of foreign states, including aggression, and then by violating the status established by Resolution 1244 SBUN).
Right to external self-determination
Although all three declarations listed are acts that have no binding legal force, the 1970 Declaration is nonetheless. years ago (1995). the "Interpretative Declaration". it contains an interpretation and elaboration of the principles of the UN Charter, as a binding act with the highest legal force, and therefore its content draws legal force from the act it interprets.
Also, all three documents were adopted unanimously (by consensus and acclamation) by all participating states (in the case of declarations from the 1990s there were over 180 states). Finally, in practice, at least once there has been an application of this interpreted principle of self-determination with explicit reference to it (by the Supreme Court of Canada, because the application of the test of fulfillment of conditions is the application of rules), and at least two more cases of successful realization of external self-determination correspond to the model of remedial secession (Bangladesh and Southern Sudan).
All this, despite certain doubts expressed both in theory and practice, points to the fact that in international law the right to external self-determination (secession) is given to groups that in the state in which they currently live are denied real access to power in order to achieve their political, economic, social and cultural development and that this is a rule that has acquired a binding character.
Secession as a means of restoring fundamental rights
Since it represents an exception to the principle of respect for territorial integrity, such secession must of course be an exception and a last resort, a last resort, when all other means of ensuring the respect of a given group's right to internal self-determination have been exhausted (that is why such secession is called remedial). Violations of the law must be drastic.
In a report entitled "The application of the right to self-determination as a contribution to conflict prevention" from the International Conference of experts organized by UNESCO in Barcelona in November 1998. "in the broader context of self-determination, separation or secession from a state of a people which constitutes a part of it should be treated as a right of last resort. If, therefore, a state and the changing authorities in it continuously oppressed a people for a long period, violated the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its members, excluded its representatives from the decision-making process, especially on issues affecting the well-being and security of that people, suppressed its culture, religion, language and other features of identity of importance to its people. members, and if other means of achieving a sufficient degree of self-government have been tried and clearly failed, then the issue of secession may appear as a means of restoring fundamental rights and freedoms and promoting the well-being of that people. This right can be seen as analogous to the right to revolt as a last resort against tyranny and oppression referred to in the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of human rights.“
In the case of Donbass, the criteria are met
It is more than clear that in the case of the Russian population from Donbass, all the above criteria were more than met, and that the conditions for secession were met with the establishment of the Lugansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic.
In particular, the seven-year refusal of the Ukrainian authorities to implement the Minsk agreements, such as the agreed modus vivendi, which would settle the demand for the preservation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the demand for the respect of the most basic existential rights of the people of Donbass.
After years of support for the Minsk Agreements and at the moment when the escalation of the attacks by Ukrainian neo-Nazis on the Russian population in Dombas began, the Russian Federation recognized the Lugansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic, whose population had resorted to secession as the last means of protecting their existential rights.
The attack by Ukrainian extremists on the two mentioned states, which, as we have described, were created in a legal way, using the right of the local population to external self-determination, constituted an international conflict, i.e. violation of the Prohibition of "threat of force or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." under Article 2 of the convention. point 4. Order the UN.
In such a case, the attacked states have the right to self-defense, guaranteed by Article 51. Order the UN.
Self-defense can be individual, if the attacked state defends itself, or it can be collective, if some other states come to its aid. This assistance, i.e. collective self-defense, may be ad hoc, or may be provided for by a previously concluded contract (such is, for example, the North Atlantic Treaty, which provides 4. April 1949. years of NATO.
The intervention of the Russian Federation has its foothold in international law
Therefore, the intervention of the Russian Federation in question has its foothold in international law, more precisely in the Charter of the United Nations. Unfortunately, all this was ignored by the majority of UN members who condemned this intervention in the General Assembly.
And if anyone were to ask why the Russian Federation intervenes outside the territories of the LPR and the DPR if they defend their territorial integrity against Ukrainian aggression, they could be answered with a counter – question-why the Red Army in 1945. the year came to Berlin and why did the U.S. Army come to Elba?
When war comes, then war logic applies, and the main element of that logic is to fight in order to win.
It should be added that with this intervention, the Russian Federation eliminates from itself the more than obvious danger posed to its security by the expansion of NATO to the East and, in particular, the arming of the hostile Ukrainian army with weapons that can threaten the Russian Federation itself. In such situations, the concepts of preventive and preemptive war (they differ in the degree of imminent danger) are applicable, to which the US referred, for example. the attack on Iraq in 2003. years ago, using lies about Iraq's alleged possession of"weapons of mass destruction". Interestingly, the US (as the creators of this theoretical concept) and NATO consider the right to a preventive and preemptive strike to be their exclusive right, while challenging it to others.
Comparison with whom has no foothold in the facts
Finally, any objection that remedial secession could be dangerous as a possible basis for justifying the violation of the territorial integrity of Serbia – the secession of Kosovo and Metohija, has no basis in facts and international law. Because the Albanian minority in Kosovo and Metohija was not denied the right to" internal self-determination", given the existence of a constitutionally defined autonomy that guaranteed its culture, religion, language and other features of identity. The Albanian secessionists organized a boycott of the institutions of the Republic of Serbia and the fry, refusing all calls of the authorities to return to them and attempts to reach an agreement in that direction, and then went into armed violence to which the state was forced to oppose.
It is exactly the opposite of the situation in Ukraine, where the authorities of that state have persistently refused to implement the Minsk Agreements and where the armed formations of that state, led by neo-Nazis as a coup song, have for years carried out violence against the population of Russian nationality. Thus, unlike the creation of the Lugansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic, the secession of Kim has no foothold in international law. And the NATO attack on the Fry did not have the character of helping a state in its self-defense, so it was not an act of collective self-defense that allows Article 51. The UN Charter was already an act of aggression against a sovereign state.
Prof. Branko M. Rakić, PhD, full professor and head of the Department of international law and International Relations, Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade
Prof. Dr Aleksandar Jakšić, full professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade
Prof. Dr Slobodan Panov, full professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade
Mihajlo Vučić, PhD, senior research associate of the Institute for international politics and economy
Goran Petronijevic, lawyer, president of the Center for the restoration of international law
Prof. Dr. Dejan Mirović, associate professor of the Faculty of Law of the University of Pristina with temporary seat in Kosovska Mitrovica
Prof. Dr. Bojan Bojanić, associate professor of the Faculty of Law, University of Pristina with temporary seat in Kosovska Mitrovica
Prof. Dr. Ognjen Vujović, associate professor of the Faculty of Law of the University of Pristina with temporary seat in Kosovska Mitrovica
Professor Dimitrije Ceranic, PhD, associate professor at the Faculty of Law, University of East Sarajevo
Dr Milos Jovanovic, assistant professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade
Dr Duško Čelić, assistant professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Pristina with temporary seat in Kosovska Mitrovica
25. May 2022.
Српски језик 
English 
Русский 
العربية 
Español 
Português 
Deutsch 
Français 
Italiano 
简体中文