remedial secession under international law: analysis of ... · pdf filecollection remedial...
TRANSCRIPT
CE
UeT
DC
olle
ctio
n
Remedial Secession under International law:
Analysis of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia
by Sopio Asatiani
LL.M. Human Rights Thesis
SUPERVISOR: Charlotte Steinorth
Central European University
1051 Budapest, Nador utca 9.
Hungary
Central European University November 28, 2013
CE
UeT
DC
olle
ctio
n
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On 17 February, 2008 Kosovo declared its independence followed by the recognition from
the UN member states. Even though the text of the declaration referred to a special case, the
case renewed discussions on the principle of the remedial secession. The concept entailing belief
that the oppressed people have right to resort to secession as the remedy of last resort. Within
months after the Kosovos declaration of independence, the Russian federation recognized
independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia using the similar reasoning to that used in case of
Kosovo.
The thesis intends to provide systematic analysis of the existent sources of the International
law to deduct and assess the nature and legal value of the remedial secession as it stands
nowadays. The answer to major research question is based on the outcome of theoretical and
case-law analysis. Firstly, the remedial secession is deducted from the law on self-determination.
Later on, the treaty law ground is explored for detection of the traced of remedial secession.
Lastly, the state practice and opinion juris analysis is engaged to assess the existence of
customary remedial secession.
The case studies of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia suggested that despite the major
advancement of the status of remedial secession, Kosovo still does not serve viable legal
precedent capable of altering customary international law on territorial integrity with allowing
remedial secession. Nevertheless case studies of Abkhazia and South Ossetia indicate towards
the need for change in the existent legal uncertainty surrounding the remedial secession.
Overall, in relation with the primary research question the thesis will argue that the remedial
secession is not yet established as principle of public international law.
CE
UeT
DC
olle
ctio
n
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Charlotte Steinorth for her kind
cooperation and guidance throughout the writing process. The comments and expertise of
Professor Steinorth were very valuable for my work.
I would also like to thank CEU Legal Studies department for granting me an opportunity to
conduct the comprehensive research for my thesis at the Peace Palace Library.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their continuous support and for the
motivation I aspire from them to study and work more and aspire my goals.
CE
UeT
DC
olle
ctio
n
1
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter I. Right to self-determination .......................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Colonial Context of Self-determination ............................................................................................ 6
2. Modern Developments in the law of self-determination ................................................................. 10
2.1 Development of Self-determination as a Universal right ........................................................ 11
2.2 Internal Self-determination ..................................................................................................... 14
4. Territorial Integrity and Self-determination .................................................................................... 18
5. Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................................................... 22
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 24
1. Remedial Secession and treaty law ................................................................................................. 25
2.2 Declaration on Friendly Relations and opinion juris .............................................................. 38
Chapter III. Remedial Secession and case of Kosovo................................................................................. 42
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 42
1. Historical Background of the conflict in Kosovo ........................................................................... 43
1.1 NATO involvement in Kosovo ............................................................................................... 46
1.2 International Administration in Kosovo.................................................................................. 47
2. ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo ................................................................................................... 49
2.1 Separate Opinion of Judge Canado Trinidade ....................................................................... 51
2.2 Separate Opinion of Judge Yusuf ........................................................................................... 52
2.3 Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma ..................................................................................... 53
3. ICJ State Submissions on Kosovo .................................................................................................. 54
3.1 Submissions Supporting the Remedial Secession ................................................................... 54
3.2 Submissions opposing remedial secession .............................................................................. 59
Chapter IV. Influence of Kosovo on Abkhazia and South Ossetia ............................................................. 65
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 65
1. Historical Context of Abkhazia....................................................................................................... 66
1.1 International response to the conflict ...................................................................................... 68
1.2 Russian Role in Abkhazia ....................................................................................................... 71
CE
UeT
DC
olle
ctio
n
2
2. Conflict in 2008 and Current Situation in Abkhazia ....................................................................... 73
3. Historical Context of the Conflict in South Ossetia ........................................................................ 75
3.1 Rose Revolution and effects on conflict ................................................................................. 78
3.2 War in August 2008 ................................................................................................................ 79
4. Current Situation in South Ossetia .................................................................................................. 82
5. Legal Appraisal of the Conflict and Parallels ................................................................................. 83
CE
UeT
DC
olle
ctio
n
3
Introduction
The principle of territorial integrity and the sovereignty of states form foundations of the
entire international legal system. However, the latest developments or the human rights
approach towards the public international law does not and cannot simply leave it up to the states
to entirely define fate f its inhabitants. What happens when state abuses, commits gross human
rights violations targeting specific people within its territory? How could the people respond
to ongoing oppression and denial of representation? The answer to these questions seems to lie in
the concept of the remedial secession.1
While the idea of the secession as the means of last resort seems to be moral and ethical
corresponding to the needs of oppressed people the legal value of it remains controversial. The
rule is derived from the law on self-determination, which by itself is subject to a dispute. The
self-determination is no longer considered within limited colonial context but has attained the
permanent character fulfilled through peoples internal exercise of political, economic, social
and cultural rights.2 Nevertheless, the the external aspect or the self-determination, implying
the attainment of separation from the parent state, through remedial secession causes
disagreement. Even though, approach seems to accommodate the ultimate need of oppressed
people to remedy their condition, the notion unavoidably un