نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 کارشناسی ارشد روابط بینالملل دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه گیلان
2 دانشیار علوم سیاسی دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه گیلان
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The two motifs of self-fate determination and sovereignty are of the most important basic motifs ruling over global system which have been claimed through variety ways including charter of the united nations, human rights convention 1966 of organization and opinion of the international court. The contradiction between the two above motifs has been more than the past by passing the time and emergence of developments at international scopes. It is a controversial issue if a group of people have the separation right of the other country residents due to linguistic, racial or ethnic differentiations. The study of Ukraine developments shows that issuance of unilateral independence and joining to Russia at crimea region, clearly contradicts with Ukraine national governance. The study question is: what’s the status of Ukraine’s developments and crimea separation from international law and civil rights?. At this article, the investigation and explicity of crimea separation have been studied using examining the nation’s procedure specially granted bills to international court in the case of Kosovo advisory opinion in 2009, with regard to the three approaches of absolute prohibition of unilateral separation, lack of prohibition mandate of unilateral separation at international law and the doctrine of remedial separation and attempts has been done to analysis the contradiction between the two motifs of self-fate determination and nation governance right in
کلیدواژهها [English]
الف) فارسی
ب) خارجی
11. Antonio Cassese (1995). “Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal, Cambridge University Press, p.112.
12. Christian Tomuschat," Self-Determination in a Post-Colonial World", in Modern Law of Self-Determination, Edited by Tomuschat, Dordrecht and Boston,1993, p.11.
13. Georges Abi-Saab, " Conclusion", in Secession: International Law Perspective, p.474 (Marcelo Kohen, sv+c-2006); WC United Kingdom, para.43
14. James Crawford (2006). Creation of states in International Law, Oxford, second edition.
15. James Crawford, Creation of states in International Law, Oxford, second edition, 2006, p.119; Antonio Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal, Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp.27-33.
16. John Chipman (1993). “Managing the Politics of Parochialism”, Survival, 35(1), p: 151.
17. Report by Alain Pelle: p.108, para.43.
18. Report by Thomas M. Franck: “ Opinion Directed at Question 2 of the Refernce, in Bayefsky F. Anne, Self-Determination in International Law: Quebec and Lessons Learned, p.77, para.5.2.
19. Rosalyn Higgins, " Self-Determination and Secession" in Secession and International Law, edited by J. Dahlitz, United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2003, p.36.
20. Thomas D. Musgrave, Self Determination and National Minorities, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Clarendon Press: Oxford,1997, p.181, noted in WC Albania, para.46; WC United Kingdom, para.39.
21. WC Bolivia, para.28; WS Iran, para.2.2 footnote 7.
22. WS Argentina, para.69.
23. WS Brazil, p.2; WS Venezuela, p.1; WS Libya,p.2; WS Bolivia,p.1; WS Russian Federation,para.76-78.
24. WS China, p.2.
25. WS China, p.8.
26. WS China,pp.3-4; WS Egypt, para.72.
27. WS Czech, p.7.
28. WS Egypt, para.28; WS Azerbaijan,para.23; WS Spain, paras.25-27.
29. WS Egypt, para.58; WS Spain, para.26; WS Iran, para.2.2 footnote 7.
30. WS Egypt, para.67.
31. WS France, para.4.2.
32. WS Islamic Republic of Iran, para.1.2; WS Russia, para.78
33. WS Spain, para.26; WS Iran, para.2.2 footnote ۷
34. Advisory Opinion, para.79-80
35. Cassese Antonio, "self – determination of people", PP. 27-33.
36. Crawford James, The Creation of States in International Law, Clarendon Press Oxford, 2006,p.390
37. Declaration on principles of international law concerning friendly relation and cooperation among states in accordance with the charter of the united nation GA. Resolution 2625 (xxv), 24 october 1970.
38. Dissenting Opinion of Judge koroma.para7. Opinion of Judge Bennouna,para.۵۳;Tomka, paras.28-35;Skotniko,paras.9-17.
39. Lauterpacht Hersh, Recognisation inInternational Law,1948, p.409.
40. Oppenheim, International Law (1992). Ninth edition, vol. 1, pp:161-62.
41. Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How we use it, 1994, p.125.
42. Separate Opinion ofJudge Trindade, paras.175-176.
43. WS Argentina, para.70; WS Romania, para.97.
)