mgimolawМосковский журнал международного праваMoscow Journal of International Law0869-00492619-0893Moscow State Institute of International Relations10.24833/0869-0049-2017-4-141-150mgimolaw-233Research ArticleМЕЖДУНАРОДНО-ПРАВОВЫЕ ВОПРОСЫ ТЕРРИТОРИИINTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES OF TERRITORYК ВОПРОСУ О ТЕОРИИ РЕМЕДИАЛЬНОЙ СЕЦЕССИИ В СОВРЕМЕННОМ МЕЖДУНАРОДНОМ ПРАВЕON THEORY OF REMEDIAL SECESSION IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAWhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3972-5629АлексанянС. Р.AleksanianS. R.

Сатеник Рубиковна Алексанян – юрист.

Москва, 119136, Москва, 1-й Сетуньский проезд, 10-5

Satenik R. Aleksanian, lawyer.

10-5, 1-i Setun’skii proezd, Moscow, 119136

satvr@yandex.ruОбщество с ограниченной ответственностью «ВЕЛ»РоссияLimited Liability Company “VEL”Russian Federation20170604201804141150Copyright © Алексанян С.Р., 20182018Алексанян С.Р.Aleksanian S.R.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.mjil.ru/jour/article/view/233Введение

Введение.  Сецессия как способ реализации права народов на самоопределение является достаточно спорной в настоящее время. В науке международного права выделяют несколько теорий сецессии. Особый интерес представляет теория ремедиальной сецессии, в основе которой лежит право выхода из состава государства при наличии определенных обстоятельств. Настоящая статья дает заинтересованным читателям возможность получить представление о теории ремедиальной сецессии в современном международном праве.

Материалы и методы

Материалы и методы.  Материалом для исследования послужили работы западных и российских ученых в области теории международного права, а также современная международно-правовая практика применения принципа равноправия и самоопределения народов. Вместе с тем при подготовке данной статьи по мере возможности было уделено внимание трудам, в которых отражены проблемы сецессии и выделены ее теории. Методологическую основу исследования составили общенаучные и частнонаучные методы познания (диалектический метод, методы анализа и синтеза, дедукции и индукции, сравнительно-правовой и историко-правовой методы).

Результаты исследования

Результаты исследования.  В качестве оснований для применения теории ремедиальной сецессии следует рассматривать не только геноцид (положенный в основу признания провозглашения независимости Косово), но и совершение широкомасштабных военных преступлений, политику принудительной ассимиляции, насильственного стирания национальной идентичности со стороны титульной нации, целью которой, как правило, является отказ во внутреннем самоопределении (как это имело и имеет место в Украине). Новое государство должно создаваться исключительно на основе соблюдения требований норм jus cogens международного права, а в отдельных случаях (Западная Сахара), и норм, регулирующих процесс деколонизации.

Introduction

Introduction. Secession as a way of realization of the right of peoples to self-determination is disputed in contemporary international law, which distinguishes several secession theories. Of particular interest is the theory of remedial secession, which is based on the right to secede from a state under certain circumstances. It is argued that application of the theory of remedial secession is justified in cases of systematic, gross and massive violations of human rights, which endangers the existence of a national minority or a people, as well as when the policy of genocide, apartheid or ethnic cleansing is carried out.

Materials and methods

Materials and methods.  The material for the study is the works of western and Russian scholars in the field of the theory of international law, as well as the current international legal practice of implementation of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. At the same time attention has been paid to works in which the problems and theories of secession are highlighted. The methodological basis of the research includes scientific methods of cognition (dialectics, analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, comparative legal and historical methods).

Research results

Research results. As the foundations for applying the theory of the remedial secession, it is necessary to consider not only the genocide (which is the basis for the recognition of independence of Kosovo), but also the commission of large-scale war crimes, the policy of forced assimilation, the forced erasing of nation-al identity by the titular nation, whose goal is, as a rule, refusal in internal self-determination (as it was and is the case in Ukraine). The new state should be created exclusively on the basis of requirements of jus cogens norms of international law, and in some cases (Western Sahara), the rules governing the process of decolonization.

Discussion and conclusions.  In this article, the author draws attention to the fact that the correlation of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and the principle of the territorial integrity of states should be considered today within the framework of the theory of the remedial secession. Secession is one of the ways of realization of the right of peoples to selfdetermination in contemporary international law. Secession from a state and the creation of an independent state must always be considered as an extreme measure and implemented only in exceptional cases.

принцип равноправия и самоопределения народовсецессияремедиальная сецессияпринципы международного праваправо на самоопределениеthe principle of equal rights and selfdetermination of peoplesthe secessionthe remedial secessionthe principles of international lawthe right to self-determinationReferencesБьюкенен А. 2001. Сецессия. Право на отделение, права человека и территориальная целостность государства. М.: Рудомино. 240 с. 2. Молчаков Н.Ю. 2017a. Контуры теории регионалистcкого государства: европейский опыт. – Евразийский юридический журнал. №9 (112). С. 67–71.Ben Saul [et al.]. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Commentary, Cases and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2014. 1360 p.Молчаков Н.Ю. 2017b. Регионалисткие государства в Европе: к вопросу о новой форме территориально-политического устройства. – Актуальные проблемы современного сравнительного, зарубежного и российсского конституционного права: сборник научных трудов. Под ред. И.А. Ракитской. М.: МГИМОУниверситет. С. 82–113.Buchanan A. Democracy and Secession. – National SelfDetermination and Secession. Ed. by Moore M. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998. P. 14–33.Нарышкин С.Е. 2015. Ответы Председателя Государственной Думы Федерального Собрания Российской Федерации С.Е. Нарышкина на вопросы главного редактора Московского журнала международного права. – Московский журнал международного права. №1 (97). С. 5–10.Buchanan А. Secession: the Legitimacy of Self-Determination. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1978. 288 p.Пушкина Д., Федорова А. 2011. Невыносимая легкость международного права? – Неприкосновенный запас. Дебаты о политике и культуре. № 5 (79). С. 16–20.Buchanan А. Setsessiya. Pravo na otdelenie, prava cheloveka i territorial’naya tselostnost’ gosudarstva [Secession. The right to secession, human rights and the territorial integrity of the state]. Moscow: Rudomino Publ. 2011. 240 p. (In Russ.)Ben Saul [et al.]. 2014. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Commentary, Cases and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1360 p.Cassese A. Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1995. 375 p.Buchanan A. 1998. Democracy and Secession. – National Self-Determination and Secession. Ed. by Moore M. New York: Oxford University Press. P. 14–33.Del Mar K. The myth of remedial secession. – Statehood and self-determination: Reconciling tradition and modernity in international law. Ed. by. D. French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013. P. 79–108.Buchanan А. 1978. Secession: the Legitimacy of Self-Determination. New Haven: Yale University Press. 288 p.Dietrich F. The status of Kosovo – reflections on the legitimacy of secession. – Ethics and Global Politics. 2010. No. 3 (2). P. 123–142.Cassese A. 1995. Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 375 p.Dugard J., Raic D. The role of recognition in the law and practice of secession. – Secession, International Law Perspectives. Ed. by M.G. Kohen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006. P. 94–137.Del Mar K. 2013. The myth of remedial secession. – Statehood and self-determination: Reconciling tradition and modernity in international law. Ed. by. D. French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 79–108.Kingsbury S. Claims by non-state groups in international law. – Cornell International Law Journal. 1992. Vol. 25. Issue 3. P. 481–513.Dietrich F. 2010. The status of Kosovo – reflections on the legitimacy of secession – Ethics and Global Politics. No. 3 (2). P. 123–142.Kirgis F.L. The degrees of self-determination in the United Nations era. – American Journal of International Law. 1994. Vol. 88. Issue 304. P. 304–310.Dugard J., Raic D. 2006. The role of recognition in the law and practice of secession. – Secession, International Law Perspectives. Ed. by M.G. Kohen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 94–137.Kohen M.G. Secession: International Law Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2015. 548 p.Kingsbury S. 1992. Claims by non-state groups in international law. – Cornell International Law Journal. Vol. 25. Issue 3. P. 481–513.Mccorquordale R. Self-determination: a Human Rights Approach. – International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 1994. Vol. 43. Issue 4. P. 857–885. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/43.4.857Kirgis F.L. 1994. The degrees of self-determination in the United Nations era. – American Journal of International Law. Vol. 88. Issue 304. P. 304–310.Molchakov N.Yu. 2017a. Kontury teorii regionalistkogo gosudarstva: evropeiskii opyt [Contours of the Theory of a Regionalized State: European experience]. – Evraziiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal. 2017a. No. 9 (112). P. 67–71. (In Russ.)Kohen M.G. 2015. Secession: International Law Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 548 p.Molchakov N.Yu. Regionalistkie gosudarstva v Evrope: k voprosu o novoi forme territorial’no-politicheskogo ustroistva [ Regionalized States in Europe: on the elaboration of a new of territorial constitution]. – Aktual’nye problemy sovremennogo sravnitel’nogo, zarubezhnogo i rossiiskogo konstitutsionnogo prava: sbornik nauchnykh trudov. Pod red. I.A. Rakitskoi [Actual Problems of Comparative, Foreign and Russian Constitutional Law. Ed. by I.A. Rakitskaya]. Moscow: MGIMO-Universitet Publ. 2017b. P. 82–113. (In Russ.)Mccorquordale R. 1994. Self-determination: a Human Rights Approach. – International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Vol. 43. Issue 4. P. 857–885. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/43.4.857Naryshkin S.E. Otvety Predsedatelya Gosudarstvennoi Dumy Federal’nogo Sobraniya Rossiiskoi Federatsii S.E. Naryshkina na voprosy glavnogo redaktora Moskovskogo zhurnala mezhdunarodnogo prava [Answers of the Chairman of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation S.E. Naryshkin to the Questions of the Editor-in-chief of the Moscow Journal of International Law]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2015. No. 1 (97). P. 5–10. (In Russ.)National Self-Determination and Secession. Ed by Moore M. 1998. New York: Oxford University Press. 296 p.National Self-Determination and Secession. Ed. by Moore M. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998. 296 p.Novak M. 2005. UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Commentary. 2nd ed. Kehl am Rhein, Germany; Arlington, VA: N.P. Engel Publishers. 1277 p.Novak M. UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Commentary. 2nd ed. Kehl am Rhein, Germany; Arlington, VA: N.P. Engel Publishers. 2005. 1277 p.Okafor O. 2002. Entitlement, Process, and Legitimacy in Emergent International Law of Secession. – International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. No. 9. P. 41–70.Okafor O. Entitlement, Process, and Legitimacy in Emergent International Law of Secession. – International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. 2002. No. 9. P. 41–70.Raic D. 2002. Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination. Leiden: Kluwer Law International. 495 p.Pushkina D., Fedorova A. Nevynosimaya legkost’ mezhdunarodnogo prava? [Intolerable ease of international law?]. – Neprikosnovennyi zapas. Debaty o politike i kul’ture. 2011. No. 5 (79). P. 16–20. (In Russ.)Self-Determination and Secession in International Law. Ed. by C. Walter, A. von Ungern-Sternberg, K. Abushov. 2014. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 334 p.Raic D. Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination. Leiden: Kluwer Law International. 2002. 495 p.Statehood and Self-determination. Reconciling Tradition and Modernity in International Law. Ed. by D. French. 2013. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 586 p.Self-Determination and Secession in International Law. Ed. by C. Walter, A. von Ungern-Sternberg, K. Abushov. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2014. 334 p.Summers J. 2014. Peoples and International Law: How Nationalism and Self-determination Shape a Contemporary Law of Nations. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. 630 p.Statehood and Self-determination. Reconciling Tradition and Modernity in International Law. Ed. by D. French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013. 586 p.Tolstykh V. 2015. Three Ideas of Self-Determination in International Law and the Reunification of Crimea with Russia. – Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht. No. 1. P. 119–140.Summers J. Peoples and International Law: How Nationalism and Self-determination Shape a Contemporary Law of Nations. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. 2014. 630 p.Tomuschat C. 2006. Secession and self-determination. – Secession, International Law Perspectives. Ed. by M.G. Kohen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 23–45.Tolstykh V. Three Ideas of Self-Determination in International Law and the Reunification of Crimea with Russia. – Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht. 2015. No. 1. P. 119–140.Umozurike O. 1972. Self-determination in International Law. Hamden: Archon Books. 324 p.Tomuschat C. Secession and self-determination. – Secession, International Law Perspectives. Ed. by M.G. Kohen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006. P. 23–45.Vidmar J. 2009. International Legal Responses to Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence. – Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. Vol. 42. P. 808–817.Umozurike O. Self-determination in International Law. Hamden: Archon Books. 1972. 324 p.Vidmar J. 2013. Democratic Statehood in International Law: The Emergence of New States in Post-Cold War Practice. Portland: Hart Publishing. 281 p.Vidmar J. Democratic Statehood in International Law: The Emergence of New States in Post-Cold War Practice. Portland: Hart Publishing. 2013. 281 p.Vidmar J. International Legal Responses to Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence. – Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. 2009. Vol. 42. P. 808–817.Vidmar J. International Legal Responses to Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence. – Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. 2009. Vol. 42. P. 808–817.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.