These days, the international issue, hovering the newspapers, is
the issue of referendum in Crimea. In this post, I will post about the meaning,
legality and implications of legality in Crimea.
A referendum (also known as plebiscite, or a vote on
a ballot question) is the process of democracy, wherein a
direct vote is cast by electorates on the issue of either accepting or rejecting a particular proposal. This process can be used for
adoption of a new constitution,
a constitutional amendment, or
a law. It is a right reserved
to the people to "approve or reject" an act of the legislature, or
legislation that has been referred to them by the legislature.
Legality of Referendum in Crimea.
The question for referendum is the whether the people of
Crimea (majority of whom are ethnically Russian), want to part themselves off
from Ukraine and embrace the arms of the Russian Federation[1]. Both the Crimean
parliament and the city council
of Sevastopol consider the referendum legitimate as they consider the ousting
of the former President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, as an illegal act, arguing that it did not follow
due process. Because of this, the bodies argue that they must inquire of its
people what they want of their future.
As far as the legality of referendum in Crimea is concerned,
Russia and America are don’t see it in same sense. Vladimir Putin
insists that "the steps taken by the legitimate leadership
of Crimea are based on the norms of international law". Barack
Obama, on the other hand, rejects the referendum as he says that
"we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over
the heads of democratic leaders."
Violation of Ukrainian law.
From Ukraine's stand point, Article 73 of
the Ukrainian Constitution is plain in terms of the issue of
present referendum. It says: "Alterations to the territory of
Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the All-Ukrainian referendum." But
opposite to this, Crimea is not allowing the rest of Ukraine's 44m people to
weigh in on the fate of the peninsula. Hence, the upcoming referendum is bound
to violate Ukrainian law.
However, it is worth noting that secession movements, in majority
of historical incidents, have proceeded without the permission of the mother
country. Example being, America's fight for independence was an illegal war of
secession against Britain. The most recent one is that of Kosovo (formed in
2008, under the modern international legal regime), whose split from Serbia did
not have the backing of the government in Belgrade, nor that of dozens of other
states. Yet it was recognised by a large majority of UN member countries.
Situation of Crimea is also similar to that of Kosovo.
ICJ Verdict favors right of self determination.
For the clear picture in the legal perspective, we should look
into the judgment of the International Court of Justice delivered in 2010,
regarding the declaration of independence by Kosovo in 2008[2],
wherein Judge Hisashi Owada, president of
the ICJ held that:
"The court considers that general
international law contains no applicable prohibition of declaration of
independence."
No comments:
Post a Comment