What does international law say about separatism? Numerous multi-party agreements, conventions and, it goes without saying, national laws, never tire of asserting the principle of the territorial integrity of the state. In basic international documents, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination is asserted. The first principle, territorial integrity, relates to the protection of the interests of the state, the second, self-determination, relates to the protection of the rights of its citizens. If we proceed from the belief that the rights of the state are higher than the rights of individuals, then we uphold the principle of territorial integrity. If we proceed from the belief that the rights of the individual are higher than the rights of state, then the principle of the right to the self-determination is valid.

Since the relationship of these principles in international law is not regulated, states, depending on the political situation, utilize both principles. They juggle these principles perfectly. The state always refers to the principle of territorial integrity if a part of the country wants to be separated from it, and to the right of peoples to self-determination, if separatism in another country can prove advantageous.

Thus, from the point of view of today's Russia, Chechen separatism is an attempt against the territorial integrity of Russia, while separatism in Pridnestrovie or South-Ossetia is the realization of right to self-determination. Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov, at a press conference on September 18 in Lisbon, answered questions about the referendum in Pridnestrovie very benevolently: "The referendum itself, as I understand it, occurred with the observance of all procedures – democratically and openly. Hundreds of observers were present from the CIS and Europe, and from non-governmental organizations. So I think they could see with their own eyes the desire of the people of Pridnestrovie ".

Most likely, the desire of the people of Pridnestrovie is precisely as he indicated. However, the referendum questions were formulated slyly: Do want you to lose independence and live in Moldova or be independent and live in Russia?
Who would want to lose independence? Although actually, Pridnestrovie loses its independence both in Moldova, and in Russia. It is understandable that the formal withdrawal of Pridnestrovie from Moldova to Russia would be very bad for Moldova as a country which considers its main value state integrity.

The principle of territorial integrity is ancient. Russian princes themselves resisted the association of the country; lords of extensive empires attempted to hold conquered earth, referring to the territorial integrity of empire. And do not forget about contemporary regimes. Tyrannies developed the principle of "nonintervention in internal affairs" and use it (yes even now) to go unpunished for the suppression of civil liberties in their countries.

The right of peoples to self-determination is an achievement of the second half of the twentieth century. The majority of states relate to this right with hostility, assuming a threat to political and economic prosperity. The worse things are for democracy and rights in a country, the more categorically its authorities reject human rights in general and self-determination in particular.

In the contemporary world, at least in the democratic part, the understanding that the state exists for man, not man for the state has gradually strengthened, as has the idea that the rights of the person are higher than the rights of state. In the final analysis, this allows for the possibility of avoiding civil conflicts and bloody internal wars.

The majority of civil wars probably began as a result of the suppression of separatism - from the attempt of South Carolina in 1860 to leave the US, to the recent wars in the Balkans and in Chechnya. Every area where separatism was artificially suppressed by politicians and sincerely supported by the majority of the local population is in trouble today in the post-Soviet space: Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, Chechnya in Russia, the Crimea and eastern regions in the Ukraine, highland Karabakh in Azerbaijan, and Pridnestrovie in Moldova. Each case is complex, the reason for separatism different, and the political background not always visible to the naked eye.

It is regrettable that Russian Democrats and the democratic countries of the West disregarded the right of the people of Pridnestrovie to self-determination. After the frightening specter of separatism, they backed away from a civilized resolution of the question, a decision which led up to war in 1992, and allowed local Communists, remainders of the Soviet regime and Riga OMON, to represent the interests of people who did not wish to live in Moldova. Now this has created difficultly for the European- oriented Moldovan government. In any case, there is almost no real chance for the connection of Pridnestrovie to Russia. Not least because Pridnestrovie does not have any borders with Russia, and will depend either on Moldova or Ukraine for everything.

Nevertheless, the people of any territory must have the right to leave their communal quarters, if they find them uncomfortable. States which respect their citizens must recognize this right.


Also published also in the "Novaya Gazeta" 09.25.2006.