Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
determinationiscloselyconnectedwiththeterritory
inhabitedbythepopulation,andsobythesubject
oftheright.
Eveniftherighttoself-determinationhasessential
meaningforthestipulationofthelegalsituation
ofthepopulationofacertainterritory,oneneedstoanalyse
therelationshipofinternationallawtowardsthesecession
ofpartofastate’sterritoryand,consequently,thecreation
ofthenewstate.Inpractice,aquestionconcerning
thelegalityofsecessionthusarises.
Underclassicalinternationallaw,thecreationofastate
wasamatteroffact.22Thisleftitimpossibletocontrolfrom
thestandpointoflegality.However,thisprinciplehas
inessencebeenquestionedforalongtimenow.Spectacular
examplesofpracticearethereactionoftheinternational
communitytotheproclamationofindependence
bySouthernRhodesia(today’sZimbabwe)orthesocalled
BantustansintheRepublicofSouthAfrica,thereservation
expressedtowardsanattemptatsecessionmadebyBiafra
(asaprovinceofNigeria),ortheobjection
totheestablishmentoftheTurkishRepublicofNorthern
Cyprus.
ThetwoConventionsconcerningastate’ssuccession:
inrespectoftreatiesof1978andinrespectofstate
property,archivesanddebtsof1983,indicatethatprovisions
mayapplyexclusivelyinsituationsofsecessionthataccord
withinternationallaw.
Likewise,theworkoftheArbitrationCommission
oftheConferenceonYugoslavia(theBadinterCommittee)
isinteresting.Regardlessofanyverycriticalapproachtaken
towardstheCommission,itishardtoneglecttwoelements.
Firstly,itmadeanattempttoprovethattherecognitionofa
stateisregulatedbycertainlegalrules,andisnotapolitical
element.TheICJ,initsAdvisoryOpiniononKosovo,had
createdtheoppositeimpressionbydisregardingtheissue.
Secondly,thestandpointpresentedbytheCommission
inrelationtothepossibilityofsecessionreflectedthespirit
ofcontemporaryinternationallaw,whereinthefundamental
roleisstillplayedbystates,andnotbyothersubjects.This
istrue,notsomuchofthepossibilityofsecession
byadministrativeentities(theformerYugoslavRepublics),