انفصال یک جانبه کریمه از اوکراین از منظر حقوق بین‌الملل

محورهای موضوعی : روابط بین الملل

دیدخت صادقی حقیقی ¹

1 - عضو هیأت علمی گروه علوم سیاسی، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران

تاریخ دریافت : 1398/09/07 تاریخ پذیرش : 1398/12/19 تاریخ انتشار : 1398/12/01

کلید واژه: حق تعیین سرنوشت, انفصال چاره‌ساز, مداخله نظامی, انفصال یک جانبه, همه‌پرسی,

چکیده مقاله :

در 16 مارس 2014 طی یک رفراندوم که با حمایت و مداخله نظامی روسیه برگزار شد، کریمه اعلام استقلال نمود و بطور یک جانبه از اوکراین جدا شد و بلافاصله مورد شناسایی روسیه قرار گرفت. سپس پارلمان کریمه خواهان الحاق به روسیه گردید و در زمانی کوتاه قرارداد الحاق را با روسیه منعد نمود و عملاً به روسیله پیوست. مقامات روسیه و کریمه برای توجیه اقدامات خود به اصول حقوق بین‌الملل، از جمله حق تعیین سرنوشت مردم کریمه و بطور ضمنی به تئوری انفصال چاره‌ساز استناد نمودند تا یک پایه حقوقی برای مداخله نظامی روسیه و کریمه و یک حق انفصال برای مردم این منطقه لحاظ نماید. لیکن مقارن شدن این جدایی با تحولات سیاسی در اوکراین و تسلط غرب‌گرایان بر حکومت کیف شائبه سیاسی بودن این جدایی را بشدت تقویت می‌نماید. این پژوهش مشروعیت انفصال یک جانبه کریمه از اوکراین را در چارچوب نظریات مطرح در حقوق بین‌الملل بررسی می‌نماید. هم‌چنین مداخله نظامی روسیه و توسل به زور این کشور در تحولات کریمه را مورد ارزیابی قرار می‌دهد. یافته این تحقیق حاکی از آن است که جدایی کریمه از اوکراین در چارچوب موازین حقوق بین‌الملل فاقد وجاهت قانونی بوده و اعمال انجام شده توسط روسیه در فرآیند جدایی و برگزاری همه‌پرسی برای اعلام استقلال یک جانبه کریمه، به لحاظ نقض قواعد آمرة عدم ”توسل به زور“ و ”عدم مداخله“، تخطی از حقوق بین‌الملل بوده و به این اعتبار اعلامیه استقلال کریمه در چارچوب موازین تثبیت شده حقوق بین‌الملل توجیه‌پذیر نمی‌باشد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

On 16th of March 2014 following a referendum held under support and military intervention of Russia, Crimea declared its independence and unilaterally separated from Ukraine which was instantly recognized by Russia. Then after The Parliament of Crimea called for the accession to Russia and in a short time the accession treaty with Russia was signed and practically Crimea became part of Russia. The authorities of Crimea and Russia in Justifying their actions referred to the principles of International law including self-determination of the people of Crimea and implicitly referred to the theory of remedial secession in other to build a legal base for the military intervention of Russia in Crimea and consider a right to secession for the people of this region. Coincidence of this secession with political developments in Ukraine and dominance westerners over the government of Kiev strongly enhances the political nature of this secession. This research examines the legitimacy of unilateral secession of Crimea from Ukraine within the framework of the international law Theories. Also the military intervention of Russia and the use of force in Crimea’s crises will be reviewed. the findings of this study indicate that Crimea’s secession from Ukraine does not possess any legal base and the Russia’s actions in the process of secession and holding the referendum for the independence, due to violation of the principles of Jus-Cogens Like “non intervention” and “non use of force” is considered to be a violation of international law and consequently The “Crimean Declaration of Independence” Can not be Justified in The Context of established international law.

منابع و مأخذ:

• Anderson, Glean, (2013), “Secession and International law and relation: what are we talking about? “Loyola of Los Angeles international Law and Comparative law Review, vol. 35, ISS. 3.


• Anderson, Glean, (2015), “Unilateral non-colonial secession and the criteria for statehood in International Law”, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, vol. 41, ISS, 1.


• An agenda for peace, Report of secretory 1992, U.N. Doc. 227. 5/241/1. available from: http://www.unrol/org/files/A_47_277. [accessed 7 November 2019]


• Aland Island Question (1920). “The Report by Commission of Raporteurs”, heague of Nations Council document 21/68/106.


• Agreement on the accession of The Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation, Signed 18 March 2014. available from: httP://eng.Kremline.ru/news/6890. [accessed 8 November 2019]


• Bayefsky, Anne. F (2000), “Self-Determination in International Law”: Quebec and Lesson Learned. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.


• Bossty, M.J (1987). “Guide to the travaux preparation of the international Law, covenant on civil and political Rights”. Dordech: Martinus Nijhoff publisher.


• Buchanan, Alean (2004). Justice, Legitmacy and self-Determination moral foundation for International Law. London: Oxford University Press.


• Cassese, Antonio (1995). “Self-Determination of People – A legal reappraisal”, Cambridge University Press.


• Constitution of Ukraine text Provided by The Ukrainian authorities, 13 March. 2014. available from: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/document/?pdf=cdi_REF(2014)0126e. [accessed 7 November 2019.


• Crawford, yames. R (1999), “State Practice and International Law in relation to secession”, The British year book of International law, vol. 96, ISS. 1, Oxford Academic, PP: 58-117.


• Crawford, James.R (2006), “The Creation of State International Law” ed Oxford clarendon Press.


• Declaration on The Rights Indigenous People. U.N.G.A/61/295/2007. Res. 47/1


• Dugard, John and David, raic, (2006). “The Role of recognation in the law and practice of secession”, In: International Law prespective, ed. M.G. Kohen. Cambridge University Press.


• Espinosa, Juan Francisco Escudero, (2018), “Self-Determination and Humanitarian secession in International Law of Globalized world”, Kosovo v. Crimea, Spain: Springer.


• Framework Convection for the protection of National minorities and Explanatory Report, 1995, 34ILM, 351. available from: http://rm.coe.int/16800cb5eb. [accessed 8 November 2019]


• A. Res. Res. 1541 (XV). 1960


• A. Res. Res. 1514 (XV). 1960


• A. Res. Res. 747 (XXVI). 1962


• A. Res. Res. 2021 (XX). 1965


• A. Res. Res. 2625 (XXV). 1970


• A. Res. Res. 2793 (XXVI). 1971


• A. Res. Res. 67/4. 2012.


• A. Res. Res. 68/262. 2014


• Thomas. D. (2015), “Current development Annexation of Crimea”, American Journal International Law, Vol.119. No. 1.


• C.J. Rep. advisory opinion of south Africa in Namibia (South west Africa), 1971.


• C.J. Rep. advisory opinion of western sahara, 1975.


• C.J. Rep. Dispute Burkina Faso v. Mali. 1986.


• C.J. Rep. East timor, (Portugal v. Australia), 1995.


• C.J. Rep. advisory opinion of the unilateral declaration of Kosovo, 2010


• C.J. Rep. Statement of the Russian Federation, 16 April, 2009.


• Ioannidis, N.A (2015). “Constitutional Prohibition of Secession under the prism of International law: The cases of Kosovo, Crimea and Cyprus”, Edinburgh student law Review, No. 2. PP: 169-180.


• T. (2011), “A Case for Kosovo? Self-Determination and secession in the 21st century”. International Journal human Rights, vol. 15.


• Jurka, Beatrice. Onica (2010), “Several Reflection on The Significance of The I.C.J advisory on accordance with International law of the unilateral declaration in respect of Kosovo”. Text scientist International Journal, Vol. 2, No. XVII.


• Kohen, Marcelo. G. (2006), “Secession: International Law Perspective”, Cambridge University Press.


• Krueger, Heiko, (2009), “Implicatino of Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ostia for international law: The Conduct of the Community of State in Current secession confliets”, Caucasian Review of International Law, vol. 3, ISS. 2.


• Musgrave, T.D. (2000), “Self-Determination and National minorities”, Oxford: Oxford University Press.


• Oter, s. (2012), “Secession, Territorial Integrity and the Role of the Security Council in Kosovo and international law: The I.C.J advisory opinion of 22 July 2010”, ed: P. Milpold, Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.


• C.I.J. Report, series A. No. 10 (1927). SS louts (France v. Turkey), available from: http://www.cij.org/files/permanent_court_of_International_Justice/series_A/A_10/30_Lotus_arret. [accessed 8 November 2019]


• Raic, D. (2002), “Statehood and the law of Self-Determination”, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. The Right of Self-Determination: Historic development on the basis of United Nations in struments. 1981. U.N.Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.


• Report on Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, U.N. Doc. A/MCR/27/25. 2014. available from: http://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/ENACRREGINO/Pages/uAIndex.aspx [accessed 7 November 2019]


• Report on Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, of 15 May 2014. available from: http://www.ohchr.org [accessed 7 November 2019]


• Ryngaret et.c. (2009), “Jurisdiction in International Law”, Oxford University Press.


• Ryngaert, C. and C. Griffioen, (2009), “The Relevance of The Right to self-Determination in The Kosovo Matter: In Partial Response to the Agora Papers”, Chinese Journal International Law, Vol. 8, PP: 573-587.


• C. Res. 217. 1965


• C. Res. 276. 1970


• C. Res. 322. 1972


• C. Res. 284. 1975


• C. Res. 541. 1983


• C. Res.1166. 1986


• C. Res. 262. 1995


• C. Res. 1199. 1998


• C. Res. 1202. 1998


• C. Res. 1239. 1999


• C. Res. 1244. 1999


• Simpson, Gerry. J. (1996), “Diffusion of Sovereignty: Self-Determination in the post colonal age”. The Stanford Journal International Law, Vol. 32, PP: 255-286.


• Speech by the president of the Russian Federation, 18 March 2014. available from: http://.kremline.ru/news/6889 [accessed 7 November 2019]


• Supreme court of Canada, 1998. Reference resecession of Quebec, S.C.R. 217. 2. S. C. R.


• Van den driest. simon F. (2015), “Crimea’s Separation from Ukraine: An analysis of the Right to self-Determination and (Remedial) secession in international law”, Netherland International law Review, vol. 62. ISS. 3.


• Vidmar, J. (2012), “Conceptualilzing declaration of Independence in international, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1.


• Ukraine Crisis Time Line. available from: http://www.bbc.news_middle_east_26248275. [accessed 7 November 2019]


• C. (2006), “Secession and self-Determination”: in secession International law perspectives, ed: M. Kohen, Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.


• Theodor, Meron (2006), “The humanization of International Law”, Leiden/ Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publisher.


• C (2006). “Secession and Self-Determination”: in secession International law perspectives, ed: M. Kohen, Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.


• C (2012). “Postscript Self-Determination, secession and the Crimean Crisis 2014”. In: Self-Determination and secession in International Law, Eds: walter.c. van ungern strenberg, A. Abushark. Oxford University Press.


• R.C.A (1981). “Self-Determination: Time for a re-assessment”, Netherlands International law Review, vol. 28, ISS, 2.


• Wilson, G (2009). “Self-Determination Recognation and the problem of Kosovo”, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 56, ISS. 3.


• Yuval, Shany (2014). “Does International Law gran the people of Crimea Donetsk a right to second? Revisiting Self-Determination in Light of the 2014 events in Ukraine”, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Vol. XXI, ISS, 1.