Primarily, he said that Moscow would observe the fundamental principles of international law. Meanwhile, the recent events connected with the recognitions of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have again revealed contradictions in international law that give strong countries an excuse for almost any action against weaker ones.
The 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law includes two mutually exclusive provisions - on the right of nations to self-determination, and on the inviolability of national borders. Naturally enough, the sides of conflicts around these issues simply choose the principle that suits them better. Needless to say, discrepancies in international law should not be used to justify the disintegration of one country because of the political interests of another, as was the case in Kosovo, or the preservation of territorial integrity despite having committed genocide against part of its population, like in Georgia.
These and other provisions of international law serve only as excuses to implement the political or economic interests of a state. But the absence of an excuse for actions against the sovereignty of a country limits the probability of such actions.
Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov, an expert on international law, believes that in modern conditions, a state cannot live a full-bodied life without communicating with other subjects of international law and integration into international institutions. In the meantime, unmotivated aggression gives many more reasons than a motivated one for expelling the country guilty of it from various political and economic associations.
Thus, although international law is often used to cover up the anarchic cynicism of governments, it still plays a major role in curbing the ambitions of the geopolitical giants, primarily the United States. On several occasions, Washington has ignored it, and each time has substantially damaged its reputation in the world, which in turn can do a country considerable material damage.
In the case of Kosovo, international law has not played its positive role because of this very contradiction - between the right of nations to self-determination, on the one hand, and territorial integrity, on the other.
Dr. Anatoly Kapustin, a legal expert, maintains that NATO violated a whole number of principles of international law when it separated Kosovo from Serbia. NATO had no right to bring its troops to the former Yugoslavia, and then to separate Kosovo. "Serbia's partition is not legitimate in any event because under international law any decision must be based on consensus. So, as long as Serbia and some other countries do not agree to this, the state of Kosovo does not exist. It actually has no right to take part in international contacts," he said.
The United States and its allies emphasized the right to self-determination. They claimed that this was a special case, not like, for example, Wales in the United Kingdom. Tuzmukhamedov said that this argument was based on what was called the completion of Yugoslavia's disintegration. Reference to a special case, he said, is itself an absurdity because international law is universal by nature, and special cases are very subjective.
However, the expert believes that a special case as such does not contradict international law. He said: "International law, as any law, is largely reactive. It reacts to the emerging situations. A huge oil tanker had to run onto a reef and spill a lot of oil for states to draft conventions against pollution of the seas. Chernobyl had to take place for states to adopt contractual measures. A common vital interest is urging states to pass different norms of international law. Will they agree on it in the formation of new states when some forces support the central government, while others back entities which are striving for independence? The answer is not clear."
Tuzmukhamedov believes that recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was a natural consequence of the Kosovo precedent. He explained: "Russia has warned that Kosovo cannot be viewed as an isolated case, that this creates a precedent. Meanwhile, Abkhazia and South Ossetia declared their wish for independent status during the break up of the Soviet Union. They have been de facto independent for more than ten years. Now they have features of statehood. However, partial recognition will not allow them to take a real part in international contacts, and, hence, be fully sovereign."
To sum up, a concrete discrepancy has prevented international law from resolving the problems of Kosovo, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Can the two extremes be reconciled?
Kapustin believes that priority should be given to territorial integrity, although a clear-cut position of a nation should be taken into account. "It is not possible to ignore the opinion of a whole nation," he said.
Tuzmukhamedov expressed the following opinion: "A professor of international law will persuade his students that all of its principles should be viewed as a single whole; this is a correct but academic approach, which is not always applicable in real life." He thinks that "self-determination is a complicated and sometimes contradictory process, in which secession and the formation of one's own state is the extreme manifestation. In some cases, when everything else has been tried, secession is the only option, and helps prevent a worst-case scenario."
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
