| Abstract |
Background. The problem of lawful and unlawful self-determination of peoples and ethnic minorities in a complex state is very delicate. Meanwhile our contemporary world confronts with a few new cases of the desire for self-determination. Crimea, Catalonia, Scotland… How to define the significance and consequences of these and other events, their legality and desirability from different angles?
Materials and methods. The author suggests that some criteria are necessary to put forward to estimate the concrete desire for self-determination. Our hypothesis states that it is necessary to take into account a historical background of selfdetermination, social and economic conditions, international factors, the balance of political forces in a country, the degree of consolidation of public opinion in a region, legal clarity of a situation.
Results. We have analyzed three attempts of self-determination. In the case of Crimea there was a concurrence of many favorable factors for self-determination and integration with Russia. First of all the high degree of public support for secession from Ukraine at the level of 95–96 % was the guarantee of success. In the cases of Catalonia and Scotland there were much more unfavorable factors and rather limited public support. In particular, the balance of political forces and external factors (the negative position of the European Union) were unfavorable.
Conclusions. The examples of Crimea, Catalonia and Scotland need to be reviewed in the context of contemporary development under post-modernization and globalization. Limited application of the possibility for self-determination only for colonial peoples is long gone. The world public opinion must be more flexible towards the application of self-determination guided by the expertise of legal and political researchers and common sense. It’s necessary to keep in mind that the possibility for self-determination is provided not only by the international law which in reality is often ignored, but also by a group of the above mentioned factors. As a rule a path to self-determination is rather long and difficult, but every ethnic minority has a chance.
|
| References |
1. Baburin S. N. Mir imperiy: Territoriya gosudarstva i mirovoy poryadok [World of empires: territory of the state and world order]. Saint-Petersburg, 2005, 770 p.
2. Semenenko I. S., Lapkin V. V., Pantin V. I. POLIS. 2016, no. 6, pp. 69–94. 3. Tokarev A. A. POLIS. 2017, no. 4, pp. 106–117.
4. Goydenko V. Postsovetskiy materik [Post-Soviet continent]. Moscow, 2017, no. 1 (13), pp. 94–106.
5. Kartashkin V. A. Obozrevatel' – Observer. Nauchno-politicheskiy zhurnal [Observer. Science-policy journal]. 2015, October, pp. 109–116.
6. Khenkin S. M. Regiony i tsentr: kak stroit' otnosheniya? Ispanskiy variant: materialy nauchnoy konferentsii (Institut Evropy RAN, 23 aprelya 2008 g.). Doklady Instituta Evropy [Regions and center: how to build relationships? Spanish variant: materials of scientific conference (The Institute of Europe of RAS, 23rd of April, 2008). Reports of the Institute of Europe]. Moscow, 2008, no. 216, pp. 9–18.
7. Ispaniya. Anfas i profil' [Spain. Views from all perspectives]. Ed. by V. L. Vernikov. Moscow: Ves' mir, 2007, 480 p.
8. Anderson P. Rodoslovnaya absolyutistskogo gosudarstva [Lineage of the absolutist state]. Moscow, 2010, 512 p.
9. Kirsanova N. V. Regiony i tsentr: kak stroit' otnosheniya? Ispanskiy variant: materialy nauchnoy konferentsii (Institut Evropy RAN, 23 aprelya 2008 g.). Doklady Instituta Evropy [Regions and center: how to build relationships? Spanish variant: materials of scientific conference (The Institute of Europe of RAS, 23rd of April, 2008). Reports of
the Institute of Europe]. Moscow, 2008, no. 216.
10. Orlov A. Obozrevatel' – Observer. Nauchno-politicheskiy zhurnal [Observer. Sciencepolicy journal]. 2015, January, pp. 67–80.
11. Vernikov V. L. Sovremennaya Evropa [Modern Europe]. 2015, no. 2, pp. 61–71.
12. Kodaneva S. I. Britanskiy regionalizm (konstitutsionnaya reforma) [British regionalism (constitutional reform)]. Moscow, 2004, 140p.
13. Ostapenko G. S., Prokopov A. Yu. Noveyshaya istoriya Velikobritanii. XX – nachalo XXI veka [The recent history of Great Britain, XX – early XXI centuries]. Moscow, 2012, 472 p.
14. Velikobritaniya. Epokha reform [Great Britain. The era of reforms]. Ed. by Al. A. Gromyko. Moscow, 2007.
15. Gromyko Al. A. Modernizatsiya partiynoy sistemy Velikobritanii [Modernization of the party system of Great Britain]. Moscow, 2007, 344 p.
16. Dilemmy Britanii. Poisk putey razvitiya [The dilemmas of Great Britain. The search of development path]. Eds. Al. A. Gromyko, E. V. Anan'eva. Moscow, 2014, 480 p.
17. Vasil'ev V. A. Svobodnaya mysl' [Free thought]. 2014, no. 5, pp. 135–148.
18. Smorgunov L. V. V poiskakh upravlyaemosti: kontseptsii i transformatsii gosudarstvennogo upravleniya v XXI veke [In search of controllability: conception and transformation of public administration in XX century]. Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo Sankt-Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2012, 362 p.
19. Baranovskiy V. G. POLIS. 2017, no. 3, pp. 72–92.
20. Zadokhin A. G. Obozrevatel' – Observer. Nauchno-politicheskiy zhurnal [Observer. Science-policy journal]. 2011, no. 5, pp. 13–24.
21. Timofeev E. V. Moskovskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow journal of international law]. 1993, no. 4, pp. 100–113.
22. Wellman C. H. Theory of Secession. The Case for Political Self-Determination. Cambridge, 2005.
23. Eremina N. V. Svobodnaya mysl' [Free thought]. 2010, no. 12, pp. 21–34.
|
