بررسي مشروعيت جدايي يكجانبه كريمه از اوكراين: تحليل رويه و عملكرد دولت‌ها

The Survey of Legitimacy of Unilateral Secession of Crimea from Ukraine: Analysis of State Practice

جامعه بين‌المللي درخصوص جدايي كريمه از اوكراين و الحاق اين منطقه به روسيه، موضعي منسجم و يكپارچه نداشت. هرچند مخالفان اين جدايي بيش‌تر بودند. همين اختلاف و تشتت در قضيه جدايي كوزوو از صربستان نيز وجود داشت و در لوايح تقديمي دولت‌ها به ديوان منعكس شد. موضعگيري دولت‌هاي درگير در قضيه جدايي كريمه از اوكراين و الحاق اين منطقه به روسيه،و مواضع مختلف كشورها از جمله آراي موافق، مخالف و ممتنع آن‌ها به قطعنامه مجمع عمومي سازمان ملل متحد در اين ارتباط، نشان از اين واقعيت دارد كه در موضوع جدايي يكجانبه قسمتي از سرزمين يك كشور در وضعيت غيراستعماري، رويه دولت‌ها همچنان مشتتت و غيرمنسجم است، به نحوي كه حتي برخي دولت‌ها در قضيه كريمه، عملاً مواضعي را اتخاذ كرده‌اند كه منطبق با ادعاي رسمي آن‌ها در لوايح ارايه شده در قضيه مشورتي كوزوو نبود. لذا كماكان مي‌توان مدعي بود كه قاعده مسلمي در اين ارتباط، در نظام حقوق بين‌الملل معاصر پديد نيامده است.

There is no on uniform and consistent practice in the international community on the secession of Crimea from Ukraine and it`s integration into Russia. Although the number of dissenting countries are greater and the state attitudes are contradictory in comparison to former positions. The western states and the U.S.A are of the opinion that – in their written statements in Accordance with the international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo case- the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between the states. Therefore non-state groups have noobligation to respect this rule. Russia, on the other hand, is of the opinion that one of the essential elements of the principle of territorial integrity is to provide guarantee against dismemberment of the state`s territory. In the opinion of Russia, unilateral secession is allowed only on the Remedial Secession Theory. Russia is of the view that there must be certain condition, such as outright armed attack by the parent state, threatening the very existences of the people in question, and all efforts should be taken to consideration in order to settle the tension between the parent state and the ethnic community concerned whiting the framework of exciting states. This situation dose not exist in Crimea in the time of holding referendum. Different positions of states in this case including the debated in the General Assembly have shown that there is still contradictory state practice. Therefore, it seems that there is no well-established rule in this matter in the international law.