Occupation of Crimea and Putin's anti-law state - ForumDaily
The article has been automatically translated into English by Google Translate from Russian and has not been edited.
Переклад цього матеріалу українською мовою з російської було автоматично здійснено сервісом Google Translate, без подальшого редагування тексту.
Bu məqalə Google Translate servisi vasitəsi ilə avtomatik olaraq rus dilindən azərbaycan dilinə tərcümə olunmuşdur. Bundan sonra mətn redaktə edilməmişdir.

The occupation of the Crimea and the anti-legal state of Putin

 

The annexation of Crimea by Russia has dealt a crushing blow not only to the international legal order, but also to constitutionalism and the idea of ​​the rule of law in Russia itself, securing there, in fact, an anti-rule state, in which the central place belongs not to the right, but to the will of the country's leader.

In short, in the science of law, a rule-of-law state means such a state in which there is a rule of law in relation to politics. It can be said otherwise: in a legal state laws are governed, and not the arbitrariness of individuals; the anti-law state, on the contrary, is based on the arbitrariness of the ruler, and the justice system does not follow the prescriptions of the law, but the instructions of the ruler.

The fact that modern Russia is ruled not by laws, but by President Putin’s decision is testified, in particular, by the notorious decision of the Russian court at the time regarding the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was essentially the victim of Putin’s personal revenge against the law and just common sense.

The recent decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to verify the constitutionality of the “international treaty” between Russia and the Crimea, through which the Putin regime tried to give the appearance of legality of unlawful aggression against Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, was also a clear manifestation of the anti-legal state in Russia. In this decision, the Constitutional Court declared this “contract” consistent with the Constitution of Russia, despite the fact that it flagrantly contradicts the basic principles of international law and the international legal obligations of Russia, stemming from international treaties concluded between Russia and Ukraine.

Recall that in accordance with Article 15 of the Constitution of Russia: “The generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation are an integral part of its legal system. If an international treaty of the Russian Federation establishes other rules than those provided by law, then the rules of the international treaty shall apply. ”

Already on the basis of this article of the Constitution of Russia, its Constitutional Court should have recognized the “treaty” between Russia and the Crimea inconsistent with international law and unconstitutional.

At the same time, in the practice of the Constitutional Court of Russia it is possible to find such decisions, which, objectively speaking, are aimed at confirming the thesis that Russia annexed Crimea, thus grossly violated such a basic principle of modern international law as the principle of the territorial integrity of the state.

This is a decision of the Constitutional Court of Russia 1995 of the year regarding the verification of the constitutionality of a number of presidential decrees concerning the situation in Chechnya and the use of armed force there. It is worth paying attention to some of the provisions of this decision, in which Russia's attitude to the principle of territorial integrity, as well as to the attitude of this principle to the right of peoples to self-determination, is clearly traced.

So, in this decision, the Constitutional Court, in particular, stated: “The Constitution of the Russian Federation, like the previous Constitution of 1978, does not provide for the possibility of unilateral resolution of the issue of changing the status of a subject of the Russian Federation and its withdrawal from the Russian Federation. According to article 66 (part 5) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the status of a subject of the Russian Federation may be changed by mutual consent of the Russian Federation and a subject of the Russian Federation in accordance with federal constitutional law. ”

This means that the constitutional law of Russia does not allow for the separation of any part of its territory; and if so, then, by virtue of the principles of good faith and consistency, Russia is obliged to respect Ukraine’s right to preserve its territorial integrity.

In the same decision, the Constitutional Court of Russia declared the state integrity "one of the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation." According to the Court, “state integrity is an important condition for the equal legal status of all citizens regardless of their place of residence, one of the guarantees of their constitutional rights and freedoms”.

Also of great importance is the following thesis of the Constitutional Court of Russia, which addresses the issue of the relationship between the territorial integrity of the state and the right of peoples to self-determination: “The constitutional goal of preserving the integrity of the Russian state is consistent with generally accepted international norms on the right of people to self-determination. From the October 24 Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States in accordance with the United Nations Charter, it follows that the exercise of the right to self-determination “should not be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging any action that would lead to dismemberment or complete violation of the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states acting with respect for the principle of equality and self-determination eniya peoples "."

In other words, the Constitutional Court of Russia stated unequivocally that the people's right to self-determination should not violate the territorial integrity of the state, from which, logically, it follows that Russia is obliged to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which, just as for Russia , has priority over the right of peoples to self-determination.

The Constitutional Court also reaffirmed the principle that the Russian state and its bodies are obliged to conscientiously observe the principles and norms of international law, in the following words: “In accordance with the principles of the rule of law state enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the authorities in their activities are connected both internally and international law. Generally accepted principles and norms of international law and international treaties are, according to article 15 (part 4) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, an integral part of its legal system and must be faithfully observed, including by taking them into account by domestic law. ”

Unfortunately, the authorities of the Russian Federation, having carried out the annexation of Crimea, thus clearly violated not only the principles of international law, including such principles as the principle of the territorial integrity of states, the principle of the sovereign equality of states, the principle of the inviolability of state borders, the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a state, the principle of non-use of force in international relations and the principle of faithful observance of international legal obligations, but also the requirements of its Constitution.

It is also interesting that in its decision the Constitutional Court of Russia recognized the right of states to use armed force in order to protect their territorial integrity and national unity. In this regard, the Constitutional Court, in particular, stated: “From the possibility of using the Armed Forces to protect the national unity and territorial integrity of the state also proceed international treaties in which the Russian Federation participates and which, in accordance with Article 15 (part 4) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, part of its legal system. "

Comparing the main points of this decision of the Constitutional Court of Russia with its shameful decision on the constitutionality of the “treaty” of Crimea joining Russia, as well as with the arguments of Russian lawyers aimed at justifying the annexation of Crimea, one is amazed not only by their cynical ability to give black as white, but also full the lack of these people of elementary professional honesty, and just human conscience. At the same time, you begin to understand that the court in Russia, including the Constitutional Court, is not an independent body of justice, but a mere obedient tool in the hands of Putin.

What conclusion follows from the above? One can say this: in Russia, instead of the rule of law, Putin’s efforts have established an authoritarian political regime, within which the main source of power and law is not the people, but the will of Putin himself.

This also means that the first step towards the establishment of a genuine rule of law and democracy in Russia should be the elimination of Putin, whose regime is simply incompatible with the principle of the rule of law and an independent judiciary.

Author: Alexander Merezhko, Doctor of Law, Professor, Head of the Department of Law of the Kiev National Linguistic University, Professor of the Krakow Academy named after Andrzej Modzewski.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin annexation of the Crimea At home Israel
Subscribe to ForumDaily on Google News


 
1055 requests in 1,083 seconds.