Zrada! EU lawyers justified Russian ownership of Crimea
Christian D. de Folois, Chairman of the Association of Accredited Lawyers for Relations with Government Authorities of the European Union, published an article on the legal status of Crimea.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news on Telegram , Facebook , Odnoklassniki , or VKontakte
Senator Konstantin Kosachev wrote about this in his blog on the official website of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation.
“The author presents a number of more than weighty arguments with references to sections of the Constitutions of Ukraine and Crimea, on the basis of which one can really call what happened in March 2014 “reunification with Russia” and not “annexation”, as our Western colleagues and the media persistently do.” , writes Kosachev.
The senator cites some of the arguments of the European lawyer:
1. According to section 10 of the Constitution of Ukraine of 1996, the territory of Crimea is under an autonomous legal status, which is legally based on the rights of peoples.
2. In accordance with Section 10 of Article 138.2, the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea includes “the organization and conduct of local referendums,” and the possible topic of such referendums is not limited to the “Crimean” section of the Constitution.
3. According to Article 48 of the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea “Guarantees and ensuring the status and powers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea”, it is assumed that these guarantees will be provided by democratic institutions of society, including holding a referendum on any issue that is significant for citizens.
4. The Constitution of Ukraine guarantees the expression of the will of the people through a referendum in accordance with Article 69, and a referendum is defined as an expression of one of the forms of direct democracy.
5. There is a violation by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine of the requirements of Part 4 of Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine on the prohibition of the use of the country’s armed forces to restrict the rights and freedoms of citizens.
6. The legality of the presence of Russian armed forces during the referendum in Crimea on bilateral agreements between Russia and Ukraine is confirmed.
7. The legality of the procedure for voluntary secession from the country is noted - declaration of independence, referendum, statement of desire to join Russia.
8. It is pointed out that there was no thorough preliminary legal analysis when adopting the UN General Assembly resolution on the “territorial integrity” of Ukraine.
9. The decision of the International Court of Justice of July 22, 2010 is cited, confirming that “the unilateral declaration of independence by a part of a state does not violate any norms of international law... General international law does not contain any applicable prohibition on the declaration of independence.”
“In my opinion, it is very valuable that authoritative lawyers began to seriously address the problem, since the central point of accusations against Russia and the Crimeans themselves are constant references to violations of international and national law during the self-determination of Crimea,” Kosachev concludes.
Betrayal ! EU lawyers substantiate Crimea's Russian ownership.