Den 12 maj är ett utomordentligt viktigt datum att komma ihåg i Tjetjeniens historia. På denna dag för 11 år sedan slöts "Fredsavtalet mellan Tjetjenska Republiken Ichkeria och den Ryska Federationen" och undertecknades av Aslan Maskhadov och Boris Jeltsin i Mosvka.
På denna dag skulle jag vilja presentera för er en fullständig redogörelse om detta avtal och Tjetjeniens legala status. Länkarna och texten i dess helhet återges nedan. Den har skrivits av en dansk medlem av Chechnya List som har gett mig tillstånd att publicera den här på Chechnya Shortlist. Av vissa skäl vill denna medlem förbli anonym, men jag kan ta emot kommentarer och vidarebefordra dom till honom.
Jag tycker att dylika artiklar är lika viktiga som någonsin och en kopia borde skickas till diverse regeringar och instiutioner i Eurorapa, då de alla lider av både cynisk "amnesi" och en Chamberlainliknande förräderi av det tjetjenska folket.
Thomas Bindesboll Larsen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.geocities.com/ticroi/page1.html
THE INDEPENDENCE OF CHECHNYA
In 1996 Russia and Chechnya signed a peace agreement, which ended the war.
We have been told, that this agreement did not establish the status of Chechnya regarding independence, and that Russia only recognized Chechnya as a republic of The russian Federation with autonomy. The decision regarding constitutional status was postpned until 2001. Also, we have been told, that chechen separatists proclaimed the chechen republic as an independent state. The problem with that story is, that it is far from the truth.
THE PEACE TREATY
12 May 1997 Boris Yeltsin, the former pesident of The Russian Federation, and Aslan Maskhadov, former president of The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, signed a Peace Treaty (1) between the two states. The treaty, often not mentioned by the medias despite its importance, is a proof, that Russia recognized Chechnya as being an independent state.
The text in the treaty is:
"Peace Treaty and Principles of Interrelation between Russian Federation and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, 12 May 1997
The esteemed parties to the agreement, desiring to end their centuries-long antagonism and striving to establish firm, equal and mutually beneficial relations, hereby agree:
To reject forever the use of force or threat of force in resolving all matters of dispute.
To develop their relations on generally recognised principles and norms of international law. In doing so, the sides shall interact on the basis of specific concrete agreements.
This treaty shall serve as the basis for concluding further agreements and accords on the full range of relations.
This treaty is written on two copies and both have equal legal power.
This treaty is active from the day of signing.
Moscow, 12 May 1997.
(Signed)
B.Yeltsin
President of the Russian Federation
A. Maskhadov
President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria"
INTERNATIONAL LAW
Art. 2 in the Peace Treaty says, that the parties agree to "develop their relations on generally recognized principles and norms of international law".
By signing the treaty Russia has committed itself to fulfil it . It is conditioned by the fact, that they expect it to be possible and also expect all the necessary conditions to be fulfilled.
Some commentators have said, that "develop relations on international law" was meant so, that each state should build relationship with all its citizens on the norms of international law. But that is nonsense. It is a fact, that only independent states and their organisations can be subjects to international law. It is not questionable, while it is the fundamental rule of international law. That means, that only independent states can make agreements on international law and "develop relations on international law". Any other unit makes agreements on national law and has nothing to do with international law.
Therefore, it is a condition for fulfilling art. 2 of the treaty, that Chechnya is an independent state at that moment the article comes into force. So, by signing the treaty the russian state has declared, that it considers this condition to be fullfilled.
As no conditions and no moment for the specific article's coming into force
have been mentioned in the treaty, it might be possible to conclude, that it
comes into force immediately and
unconditionally. Which means, that Chechnya was an independent state at the
moment the treaty was signed, and, at the same time, this was considered being
a fact by RF.
When it is impossible to fulfil the treaty without immediately considering Chechnya as being an independent state, the signing of the treaty becomes a immediately de facto recognition of Chechnya as an independent state. A "de facto recognition" has, roughly speaking, to be understood as a recognition shown by acts, while a "de jure recognition" is a declared recognition.
Francis A. Boyle, a professor on international law, also said (2), that "the only way, that article 2 of this treaty can be properly read .... is, that the Russian Federation is treating the CRI as if it were a de facto (though not yet de jure) independent nation state under international law and practice"
It is important to remark, that a "de facto recognition" is valid just as a "de jure recognition" is valid. As it is valid, it is also binding.
THE NAME "CHECHEN REPUBLIC OF ICHKERIA"
The treaty is between the Russian Federation and "The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria".
Art. 65,1 of the constitution of RF shows the names of the units inside RF (3). Today, the name "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" is not mentioned on the list in art. 65,1, and it has never earlier been mentioned on the list.
Art. 137,2 in this constitution (4) says, that "in case changes are made in the name of a Republic ... the new name of the subject of the Russian Federation shall be included in Article 65 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation". Which means, that the names mentioned in art. 65,1 have to be the exact names of the units in RF.
So, it is not possible, that a unit of RF is not mentioned in article 65,1. Since the name "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" is not mentioned on the list, it is possible to exclude, that it is recognized as a name on a unit of RF. This is also confirmed by the fact, that the name "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" has never been used by RF as a name on a unit of RF.
Actually, it is a fact, that the name is the exact name used only by the chechen people and government to name their independent state.
Nevertheless, by signing the treaty RF has recognized the existence of the republic with the exact name "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria". Since it is not part of the RF or any other state, it is an independent state. If not a de jure, at least a de facto independent state. As an independent state, de jure or de facto, it is subject to international law.
This is confirmed by the fact, that Yeltsin's signature also represent RF's recognition of Maskhadov as a valid representative for "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria". The only thing, that made him valid as a representative in 1997 was, that he was elected as a president for the de facto "independent state Chechen Republic of Ichkeria". Later on this was confirmed by RF, when Maskhadov on this ground was removed from power.
It has been said, that the recognizing was against the constitution of RF, because the unit "Chechen Republic" seems to be part of the RF, and therefore the recognizion couldn't be legal.
The "Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties", says, that "a party may not invoke the provision of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty" (5). Since RF has signed this convention, it has committed itself to keep it.
Therefore, unless there are legal reasons for cancelling, a recognizing made by valid statements or treaties on international law are always legally binding, according to international law, even though it might be against the constitution of a participating state. The reason is, that as regards subjects on international law, like a recognition of an independent state, the international law always breaks the national law.
THE TITLE "PEACE TREATY"
The word "treaty" is the normally used word for agreements on international law between independent states. Therefore, it is a basically consideration, that an agreement using the word "treaty" is on international law.
Immediately, it has been said, that this treaty was ment to be on internal law of RF, because of the fact, that RF several times has used the word on internal agreements between the central power and a unit. The use of the word might symbolize some kind of power and self-determination. Anyway, these units of RF are not independent states. Basically because they are not in any ways allowed to act independently from RF's constitution and federal laws.
It is not against the "Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties", that RF use the word "treaty" on internal law.
It is important to notice, that nothing in the treaty shows, that the word is used on internal law. Despite, there are several things showing, the treaty is on international law.
Therefore, it is possible to conclude, that the word in this case is used in the original meaning, which is confirmed and argued by Boyle (6).
A VALID TREATY
It has been questioned, whether the treaty was valid or not. Regarding that, it is important to notice, that the two signatures of the treaty are made by the two presidents of the states making the treaty.
"Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties" says, that "In virtue of their functions and without having to produce full powers, the following are considered as representing their State: ... Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty ..." (7). Also, the convention says, that "The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by the signature of its representative when ... the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect..." (8).
The treaty says, that "the treaty is active from the day of signing". So, the signing of the treaty is a condition for the treaty coming into force. When no other conditions are mentioned, the signing is the only condition. Therefore, the fulfilling of this condition automatically causes the treaty coming into force, which is what is written in the convention. (9) Therefore, the conclusion has to be, that two president's signatures are enough to declare the treaty valid.
Anyway, the state has under any circumstances the right to estimate whether a treaty is valid or not. Declaring a treaty unvalid requires the performing of certain procedures, including the informing of the opposite party. This did not happen. RF at no moment claimed the treaty to be unvalid.
It should be mentioned, that this would not make any change, while the performing of the procedures by tself would be a confirmation of RF's recognition of Chechnya as an independent state. Also, the russian state never at any time expressed, that Yeltsin exceeded his competence as a president by signing the treaty. Since a president automatically by virtue of his function has the right to sign treaties, this would be a rather drastic move.
Therefore, it is possible to conclude, that the russian state considered Boris Yeltsin as being a valid representative, the signing as being in accordance with the policy of the state and the treaty as valid.
----------OOOOOO----------
The conclusion is, that RF by signing the treaty de facto recognized Chechnya as being an independent state. That means, that RF also has committed itself to treat Chechnya as an independent state.
DEADLINE FOR STATUS DETERMINATION
It has been said, that the constitutional status of Chechnya should be decided not later than 31 December 2001.
In the agreement (10) from 31 August 1996, made i Khasavyurt between national security chief, Aleksandr Lebed, and at that time chief commander of the chechen forces, Aslan Maskhadov, is written in point 1, that "an agreement on the basis for mutual relations between the Russian Federation and the Chechen Republic, to be determined in accordance with universally recognised principles and norms of international law, should be achieved by 31 December 2001".
By looking deeper into the text it appears, that four claims have to be fulfilled not later than 31 Dec 2001 in the future agreement:
1) It shall be "basis for mutual relations"
2) The relationerne shall be "between the Russian Federation and the Chechen
Republic"
3) It shall be made "in accordance with ... international law"
4) It has to be achived not later than "31 December 2001"
Nothing in this point says, that Chechnya's constitutional status has to be decided in this future agreement.
By signing the Khasavyurt Agreement RF commit itself to fulfil it. That means, that the state consider it as possible and consider all conditions for fulfilling the agreement to be fulfilled.
In the Khasavyurt Agreement is mentioned, that a future agreement shall be made latest in 5 years. Therefore, by signing the Khasavyurt Agreement RF has committed itself to make this future agreement. Which implies, that RF at the moment of signing the Khasavyurt Agreement in 1996 consider it to be possible and therefore consider all conditions for fulfilling the future agreement to be fulfilled, when the future agreement will be signed.
This future agreement shall be based on international law. As mentioned before, only independent states can make agreements on international law. Therefore, this future agreement, mentioned in the Khasavyurt Agreement, shall be made between two independent states, and the condition is, that Chechnya is an independent state at the moment of the signing of this future agreement.
Therefore, RF's considering Chechnya as being an independent state at the moment of signing the future agreement has to be the condition for signing the Khasavyurt Agreement. By signing the Khasavyurt Agreement the russian state has declared, that it considers Chechnya to be an independent state at this future moment.
So, Chechnya's status is not going to be decided later on as it is already a fact in 1996, that RF has decided to recognize Chechnya as an independent state not later than at the moment of signing the future agreement. This is in accordance with the fact, that nothing is mentioned in the Khasavyurt Agreement about deciding Chechnya's status in a later agreement.
It is worth mentioning, that an immediate recognition of Chechnya as an independent state as early as 1996 is not excluded.
By looking at the Khasavyurt Agreement one more time it appears clearly, that these 4 claims mentioned in subsection 1 actually is fulfilled by the treaty from 1997:
1) The treaty says, that it shall be "basis for further agreements and
accords on the full range of relations"
2) The treaty is about relations "between Russian Federation and Chechen
Republic Ichkeria"
3) The parties agree to "develop relations on ... international law"
4) The treaty is signed "12 May 1997"
This is in accordance with the fact, that this treaty, as mentioned before, was made on international law between two states, recognized by both parties.
"Should be achieved by", followed by a date, is a usual expression used to indicate a deadline for achieving goals of political issues and so on. Therefore it is a logical consideration to understand the expression in this case that way, that the future agreement skould be signed "not later than" 31 December 2001.
Some commentators have claimed, that the expression should be understood that way, that the signing of this future agreement was postponed until 2001. Since "2001" in the Khasavyurt Agreement is only used in the connection "31 December 2001", these commentators might have ment, that the signing was postponed until this specific date. Whether the commentators mean, that the agreement should be signed "not later than" or "not before and not later than" the 31 December 2001, is unclear.
Immediately, nobody, including the two states and the commentators, has ever claimed, that a meeting was agreed between Russia and Chechnya on 31 December 2001, and therefore a planned meeting on this day seems to be quite unlikely. Therefore, the expression "should be achieved by" more likely means, that the future agreement between Russia and Chechnya should be signed "not later than" 31 December 2001
THE MEETING IN NAZRAN
10 June 1996 a meeting was held in Nazran, Ingushetia, between the representatives of the two parties, Russia and Chechnya. In relation to the meeting some documents (11) was drawn up.
The first document is "Protocol of the Meeting of the Commissions on the Negotiations Regarding a Ceasefire and Cessation of Hostilities and on Measures to Settle the Armed Conflict on the Territory of the Chechen Republic", dated by 10 June 1996 in Nazran . The second is "Protocol of Meeting of the Working Groups to Locate Missing Persons and to Free Forcibly Detained Persons (Second Nazran Protocol)", also dated by 10 June 1996.
The first protocol is signed by "V. Mikhailov, chairman of the Negotiations Commission formed by order of the Government of the Russian Federation" and "A. Maskhadov, chairman of the Negotiations Commission formed by order of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria". So, that means, that each governments were responsible for the decisions on the meeting. Specially, they were responsible for the signed text.
The interesting thing is the name "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" used by Chechnya in this document. It is used consistently, and there is no doubt for RF, that Chechnya wants to be represented at the meeting and in these documents by exactly this name. Also, RF is undoubtably aware of that.
As said before, "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" is not part of RF.
By having diplomatic relations with this state and besides by signing the protocol, RF recognize the existence of "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria". As "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" is not part of RF, RF recognize by signing the protocol "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" as being an independent state.
Should anyone question, that CRI is not part of RF, it is important to remark the note found by the name Chechen Republc of Ichkeria in both documents.
The note says, that "The Negotiations Commission formed by order of the government of the Russian Federation states that the "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" is not recognized under the legislation of the Russian Federation". While everything in RF is under the legislation of the state, this note is only understandable in that way, that CRI is considered by RF as not being a part of RF. Which means, that RF considers CRI as being an independent state.
Some might say, that the note is ment so, that "broad autonomy" allows Chechnya to be selv-determinating and therefore not is under the legislation of RF. But the argument is not true, while autonomy only is allowed as far as it is allowed by RF. Which means, that states with autonomy in any case is under the legislation of RF.
Also, some might say, that the note is meant so, that the name is not accepted by Russia. But this is not true either, while RF is having diplomatic relations with Chechnya under the name "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria".
Actually, RF afterward did work for fullfilling the claims mentioned in the agreements from 1996. For example, RF withdrew the military troops, police and the administration from Chechnya. By January 1997 all troops were drawn out. The fact, that RF actally acted in accordance with the agreements must be seen as RF's will to observe the agreements.
----------OOOOOO----------
It has to be mentioned, that T. Guldimann, the representative of OSCE, was present at the meetings in both Nazran and Khasavyurt, where the documents were signed. It is not possible, that he didn't notice the mentioned facts in the documents. Also, OSCE recognized the election in Chechnya in 1997 as "free and fair". The election, where Aslan Maskhadov was elected as the president of "The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria". Despite of this, the OSCE has chosen a very cautious approach avoiding in their documents to comment on the use of the name "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" or the expression "international law".
THE INVASION
RF invaded Chechnya in autumn 1999.
The reason for using military power on Chechnya's territory was the fight against terrorism. RF claimed that terrorists were hiding on the territory. According to RF some of these persons had participated in acts of terrorism or other hostile acts against the russian state. Most important was that some buildings were blown up in RF, killing several hundreds of people, and RF blamed the events on chechens. RF also claimed, that some persons hiding on Chechnya's territory might be able to exercise terrorism against RF in the future. Anyway, there have been different informations about the events in RF. Whether the claims are true or not is another story, which I will not comment on in this text.
The invasion into Chechnya started right after a group of militants made an action in Dagestan. According to RF they were coming from Chechnya, and they went back to Chechnya.
Considering the official story it is clear, that RF in that specific situation did have the right to prevent their territory from being occupied by militants and could choose to use military power, if they found it necessary. The reason is, that events happening inside a state's territory is, according to international law, on the internal law of this state, and the state, not to be confused with the "state power", alone have the right to decide how and when to use power on internal affairs inside the borders of the state.
RF did not carry on the fight against terrorism on the territory of Russia. Instead, they went into Chechnya and forced a full scale war on the state, which cause in the presence of 90.000 solders, which is 1 to 10 compared to the population before the war in Chechnya, air strikes, the huge number of assaults, destruction of the capital and other cities and the removal of the legally elected president and government. As it all happened on another state's territory, the events was on international law.
It is a basical rule in international law, that no state has the right on
its own to exercise state pressure on another state's territory. No state is
allowed to interfere with or without military
power, unless it has the acceptance from the state concerned. The UN Charter
says, that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from
threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." (12) The
UN Charter, build upon international law, by this formulation only confirms,
what is already decided on international law. As the russian state has joined
the charter, it has committed itself to observe it.
Also confirmed by Article 39 in the UN Charter saying, that "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." (13)
Under special circumstances a state can, in accordance with international law, legally interfere into another state's territory. The condition for interfering legally is an ongoing armed attack from the other state, which allow the first state to act as a matter of necessary selfdefence. Anyway, when the attack is prevented there is no longer, according to international law, any legal basis for continuing the actions. The UN Charter, build on international law, says that "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations..." (14)
It is worth mentioning, that RF never in advance of the military campaign
accused the state CRI or the government of breaking the rules on international
law concerning any acts of terrorism or other hostile acts against RF. Only
individuals and groups was mentioned as the perpetrators. Since a state is
not responsible for the acts of its citizens, it is possible to exclude, that
RF considered the state CRI in any ways to be responsible for any hostile actions
against RF. So, it is also possible to exclude, that RF considered their military
action on chechen territory as an action turned against the chechen state.
Therefore, RF could not consider the military action in Chechnya as a matter
of necessary selfdefence on international
law. Instead, it has to be seen the way, that RF was fighting terrorism as
a matter of internal affair, that is to say on internal law, on another state's
territory.
In that case it is important to notice, as said before, that an independent state alone has the right to exercise the state power on the state's own territory. According to international law, any other state has a duty to respect this independence on internal affairs.
If another state is trying with force to exert
an influence on the state's internal business without the acceptance from the
state, it will be considered as interfering in internal affairs, which is not
in accordance with international law. Does it happen with military power, it
is a serious breach of international law. The only way a state legally can
have any influence on another
state's national law without violating international law is by diplomatic contact
with the legal representatives of the state. Therefore, the fight against terrorism
as a matter of national law
can not in any ways be seen as a legal reason, according to international law,
for entering Chechnya with military power.
It is possible to conclude, that the invasion, the removal of a legal elected president, the murdering of civilians, the insertion of a new president in Chechnya and the making of a new constitution in every ways is a violation of Chechnya's territorial integrity and the right of the state independently to manage its internal power. Therefore, RF was an immediate threat, and every state has, according to international law, the right to defend itself.
Therefore, it is legal and understandable, having in mind the huge consequences as a result of the actions, that Chechnya, civilian and governmental, took up arms against the russian troops and in other ways opposed the interfering.
DRAWING BACK A RECOGNITION
RF never in advance of the bombings took contact to Chechnya. Although Maskhadov several times asked RF to bring forward informations about the possible terrorists hiding in Chechnya. With this Maskhadov showed the will to cooperate with RF and to find and sue the possible terrorists. RF didn't respond on the applications. So, there is a reason to believe, that RF allready at that moment was treating Chechnya as it was a part of Rf. Also, there is no doubt, that RF later on openly declared, that Chechnya was a part of RF. It is important to mention, that a de facto independent state is only existing by virtue of itself. As an independent state it has the right alone to decide, whether it is going to exist or not. Therefore, the existence is not dependent on any other state's recognition, which is only a confirming of the existence in fact. According to international law, a de facto independent state is entitled to exist, whether the existence is against some other state's national law or not, because an independent state is subject to international law, and internationa law breaks internal law on subjects concerning international law.
So, the recognition is not necessary for the state's right to exist. But it is important as a political proof for the existence. When a state has recognized another state, it has committed itself to treat it as a state on international law. So, a recognition of a de facto independent state" is valid just as a recognition of a "de jure independent state" is valid.
Therefore, it is not possible to draw back a recognition unless the state doesn't exist anymore. A state, who has recognized another state as de facto or de jure independent, is, according to international law, bound by this recognizing the same way it is bound by any other declaration on international law.
About the existence it is worth mentioning, that while the state is existing
only by virtue of itself, it will also give up the existence by virtue of itself.
Before this will happen, it has to make the decision all by itself. And the
decision has to be prooved in an agreement or some other kind of confirmation.
If a state will be forced by another state to give up its existence,
the change in status will not, according to international law, be legal and
therefore not valid.
Considering the recognition of Chechnya there was no agreement or other confirmation in advance of RF's military campaign prooving, that the state CRI independently had decided to give up the independence. Which means, that it did not do it. So, at the moment of the invasion, Chechnya was still an independent state, and RF was still bound by its commitment to treat it as an independent state. Therefore, the conclusion has to be, that RF was making the military action on the territory of another state.
The statements and treatments of Russia showing, that Chechnya was a part of RF, is not in accordance with international law. Therefore, the military actions and other actions on the territory of Chechnya must be considered to be unlegal, according to international law.
It is worth mentioning, that even though RF might claim the treaty from 1997 to be broken by Chechnya, it does not justified RF to draw back the recognition of Chechnya as being an independent state (15).
PUTIN'S STATEMENTS
When RF began invading Chechnya in 1999, it gradually appeared quite clearly, that RF was treating Chechnya as a part of RF. The state invaded the territory, exercised fighting against terrorism as an russian internal affair in Chechnya, removed the president and government and sat in a new. All actions were followed by several statements from Russia claiming, that Chechnya was part of RF. Therefore, this was undoubtable RF's policy at that moment and has been the policy since then. Also there is no doubt, that Putin, first as the prime minister and later the president in this period, followed and still follows the same political strategy.Nevertheless Putin has several times stated, that Chechnya was recognized as an independent state by RF (16). I will mention some examples:
a) The Larry King Live Show(16a):
"Since 1996, Russia completely and fully fled Chechnya. Russia did not recognize the euro ("de jure", editor's note) ... independence of Chechnya, but de facto they got full state independence. All the structures of governance of Russia were dismantled -- police, the military, procurators offices, courts -- all the offices of administration were destroyed and the president was elected who by law did not comply with the procedures of the Russian Federation.
What happened afterwards? You all know. They didn't get any independence and de facto the territory was occupied by foreign mercenaries and religious fundamentalist, fanaticists from Afghanistan and other circles in the Arab East. This is a fact of life. They started firing squads working on the thoroughfares, beheading people, mass capture, hostage taking in the adjacent territories of the Russian Federation and inside Chechnya. Over this period they took hostage of over 200,000 people. That was a market of slave driving in the contemporary world in Chechnya."
b) The press conferencen June 2001 (16b):
"In 1995 Russia did not legally recognize but effectively agreed to Chechen independence and left the area entirely. It dismantled all of its organs of power and administration there, withdrew the Army, the police, the Prosecutor's Office, and the courts. Absolutely everything was dismantled. I have to tell you that this looked like a national humiliation, but Russia did it in order to achieve reconciliation. Russia had encountered other problems. The international community has never recognized Chechen independence. We believe that it is part and parcel of the Russian Federation."
c) Interview with Financial Times (16c):
"In 1996 Russia withdrew all its military and law enforcement forces from the territory of Chechnya. Thus de facto, if not de jure, we granted independence to Chechnya. So nobody can accuse us of suppressing the desire of the Chechen people for independence. Once already we have given them such an opportunity. And you know what the result was. What happened was that this legal and ideological vacuum was filled immediately with international terrorists and fundamentalists. What we got instead of a new state entity was a quasi-state of a terrorist nature.
Within the framework of the constitution of the Russian Federation, Chechnya can be granted rather broad autonomy. But we cannot afford to make the same error a second time, we cannot repeat what happened in 1996 when an enclave was created which destabilised the whole Russian Federation. We cannot afford this any more."
As it appears in the quotations, Putin has declared, that RF "agreed to chechen independence", that "de facto they got full state independence", and that "thus de facto, if not de jure, we granted independence to Chechnya".
There is no doubt about the meaning of the word "independence", and by using this word, Putin confirmes, that RF recognized Chechnya as an independent state on international law. And not, as claimed, a republic with autonomy. According to international law Putin as the current president of Russia is bound by these statements as a matter of international law. Besides, by this confirmation Putin also recognize Yeltsin's policy. This is in accordance with, as mentioned, the fact, that the russian state at no time declared Yeltsin's policy as being against the national law of RF.
It should be mentioned, that Putin in the above mentioned texts stresses, that this recognition was expressed by withdrawing everything from Chechnya. So, Putin confirmes by this, that the withdrawing by itself becomes a de facto recognition of Chechnya as an independent state. This conclusion is confirmed and argued by Boyle (17).
As mentioned a state exist, until it decide not to any longer. The status of Chechnya had not at any time been changed until 2003, when the new chechen constitution was made. This is in accordance with the fact, that the russian state at no time until at least 2003 claimed, that Chechnya had changed its status. That means, that RF, according to Putin's statements, considered Chechnya as being an independent state until at least 2003. Therefore, Putin has by admitting the recognition confirmed, that RF considered the invasion into Chechnya and the interfering in other ways as being unlegal according to international law.
Nevertheless Putin has never admitted, that the entering into Chechnya with military force was a mistake, according to international law. On the contrary he has said again and again, as mentioned before, that the russian state had the right to take control of the territory. That is also clearly expressed in the three above mentioned quotations.
Since RF, according to the admitment of Putin, could not lay claim to the territory on the basic of international law, it might be possible to say, that RF considered this right to be on the basis of national law. This is stressed by the fact, that nothing in the interview indicates, that this right is grounded on international law.
On the contrary it appears from the statement of Putin, that the grounds for invading, taking controle and changing the opinion about Chechnya's status, was Russia's wish to fight criminality in Chechnya. As mentioned before, fighting criminality is on national law and is therefore not a legal reason, according to international law, for interfering in another state's internal affairs with military power and without this state's acceptance.
The conclusion has to be, that the war and the assumption of power in Chechnya was a result of a neglecting of International Law, while RF's national law became a priority.
As mentioned before a neglecting of international law with the purpose of fulfilling the national law is not legal, according to international law, because international law breaks national law.
THE NEW CONSTITUTION
The constitution (18) introduced in Chechnya 2003 established, that Chechnya was part of Russia. Immediately it seemed to be, what was necessary to get to the point, that a state by its own decision give up its independence. Therefore, several commentators had no more doubt, that Chechnya was a part of RF.
As mentioned before only independent states can decide to give up their independence. That implies, that the state making this decision at the moment of the deciding is able to make independent decisions.
The preparation of the new constitution was made at a moment, when RF had taken controle of power in Chechnya. Maskhadov as the legally elected president was forced from power and instead the pro-russian Kadyrov was sat in. At the same time RF, as an occupying military power, had controle of the civilian life in Chechnya. So, the situation was, that Chechnya, both the civilians and the government, was not able to act as an independent state. That means, that Chechnya at the moment of the preparation of the constitution did not make any independent decision to give up the independence. So, when it did not make any such decision, it did not give up the independence. If the decision concerning giving up the independence is made by another state against the first state's will, the decision is a violation of the state's right to make own decisions and therefore against international law. Therefore such a decision is, according to international law, unlegal, and therefore not valid.
So it is possible to conclude, that Chechnya in relation to the preparation of the constitution did not change the status from being an independent state to being a part of RF. Which means, that RF today is still bound by its recognition of Chechnya as an independent state on international law, and RF is still committed to treat Chechnya as an independent state on international law.
----------OOOOOO----------
There is a tendency to acceptance of a new practice on international law, which implies the possibility to interfere in the internal affairs of other states in a way, which goes beyond, what the princples of international law and the Charter of the UN allow.
The practice is about acts, which can not be regarded as legal acts, according to international law and the Charter of UN, grounded on threats. Instead, they are grounded on the wish to increase the security of the states. So, these acts may be considered as acts based on national interests.
It is quite important to stress, that the consequences of such a practice are, that only some states benefit from it. Some other independent states in reality loose their right to protection under international law and find themselves outlawed regarding international law. Whether they are treated as independent states is dependent on if other states find it desirable to do so regarding their national law. Therefore, such a practice can under no circumstances be in accordance with the basic principles of international law and must be considered as being at variance with them.
NOTES
1 - The Peace Treaty can be seen here. Since there is a tendency to disappearance
of this treaty, I will give three links:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
2 - Boyle's article was brought in "Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs", vol. 18, no. 1, page 177, april 19. 1998, can be seen here or here:
3 - Read here
4 - Read here http://www.constitution.garant.ru/DOC_11113000.htm
5 - It is in art. 27 in the "Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties"
6 - See 2
7 - It is in art. 7,2a in the "Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties"
8 - It is in art. 12,1a in the "Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties"
9 - Art. 12,1a in the conventionen
10 Read here
11 Read here
12 - Can be found in chapter. 1, art. 2, stk. 4 in the UN Charter
13 - Art. 39 in the UN Charter is here:
14 - It is in chapter 7, art. 51 in the UN Charter
15 - Art. 43 in the "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties"
16 - Some examples of Putin's confirming statements:
a) In a "Larry King Live Show" 8 September 2000 stated Putin, that
the republic had "full independence as a state". A transcript can
be read here:
b) 18 June 2001 Putin
stated in a interview with several russian journalists, that Russia "granted
chechen independence".
c) 13 December 2001 Putin stated in a press conference with Financial Times,
that Chechnya had "de jure and de facto independence". The interview
can be read here:
d) Yuri V. Uskakov, extraordinary ambassador for RF in USA, mentions, according
to Boyle, in an article in Fordham International Law Journal, 2000, vol. 23,
page 1159, that Putin in an interview with BBC had stated, that Chechnya had "full
sovereignty as a state since 1996".
17 Read here
18 Read here