On Thursday, March 6, the Supreme Council of Crimea, with 78 votes in favor (there are 100 deputies in the legislative assembly of the autonomous republic), decided to submit two issues to a nationwide referendum, and not one, as previously planned. To the already existing question, “Are you for state independence of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea within Ukraine on the basis of treaties and agreements?”, which implied a return to the 1992 Constitution of Crimea, another one was added: “Are you for the entry of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as a subject into the Russian Federation?” Residents of the peninsula will have to choose one of these options on March 16 - it was on this date that parliament postponed the vote, which was previously scheduled for the end of the month.

In Simferopol, which at the end of February refused to recognize the new Ukrainian government that was established in the country after mass unrest and the flight of President Viktor Yanukovych to Russia, they are trying to force events. The result of the referendum is not yet known, but deputies of the local parliament have already addressed the Russian leadership with a proposal “to begin the procedure for joining the Russian Federation as a subject of the Russian Federation.” The Crimean deputies addressed their appeal to President Vladimir Putin, as well as to the State Duma.

Russia

Russian parliamentarians responded to the call of their Crimean colleagues immediately. As the leader of A Just Russia, Sergei Mironov, said, as early as next week the Legislative Assembly may consider the appeal of the Crimean deputies. In turn, Anatoly Lyskov, a member of the Committee on Constitutional Legislation in the Federation Council, said that the decision on Crimea’s entry into Russia could be made “within a very short time - three to five days.” However, current Russian legislation contradicts all these plans. Therefore, to begin with, deputies will need to consider the bill that Mironov introduced to the Duma last week.

According to the current Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 65, Part 2), “admission to the Russian Federation and the formation of a new subject within it are carried out in the manner established by federal constitutional law.” The relevant law, meanwhile, states that the admission of a “foreign state or part thereof” to the Russian Federation as a new subject is carried out exclusively by mutual consent of Russia itself and another interested state, which in our case is Ukraine. And in Kyiv, which refuses to consider all the latest decisions of the Crimean parliament and the new executive branch of the autonomy headed by Sergei Aksenov as legitimate, it is clear that they do not want to hear about any “mutual agreement”.

Moreover, as stated in the same federal constitutional law, the very initiative to admit into Russia a new federal subject formed on the territory of a “foreign state” must come from this state itself, and not at all from its breakaway part, which is represented by Crimea.

How the provisions of this law operate can be judged by the events of 2004. Then in June, South Ossetia appealed to the State Duma and the Federation Council with a request to join Russia, but the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in response to the deputies’ appeal, clarified that such issues should be resolved exclusively through Georgia, since the self-proclaimed republic at that time was de jure part of its territory (recognition of Tskhinvali’s independence by Moscow took place only in 2008, after an armed conflict with Tbilisi).

“The law allows for the admission of a foreign state or part of it to the Russian Federation as a new subject, but the agreement is not concluded with a part of the foreign state, but directly with this state,” the Constitutional Court stated in its conclusion. The court emphasized that issues related to the admission of South Ossetia to the Russian Federation “must be resolved with Georgia, and at the initiative of the latter.”

Participant of a pro-Russian rally on the central square of Yevpatoria

Amendments to the current legislation, introduced by Mironov to the State Duma on February 28, radically change the entire procedure for admitting new entities to the Russian Federation. They assume, in particular, that if in a particular foreign state, that is, in Ukraine, there is no “effective sovereign” power and the current leadership of this country is not able to protect the rights of its citizens, then part of the territory of this state can be annexed to the Russian Federation “based on the results of a referendum held in accordance with the legislation of a foreign state on the territory of a given part of a foreign state,” or “at the request of public authorities of a given part of a foreign state.” Let us remind you that the appeal has already been made, and the results of the referendum do not have long to wait.

Mironov also proposes to change the norm according to which Crimea can be transferred to the Russian Federation only on the initiative of Kyiv. The new version of the law says: “The initiators of the proposal to admit a part of a foreign state into the Russian Federation as a new subject... are the state authorities of a part of a foreign state.” That is, in our case, the Crimean government or parliament of the autonomy.

However, contrary to the statement of Senator Lyskov and the efficiency of Deputy Mironov, Crimea will not become part of Russian territory as early as next week. According to the head of the Duma Committee on CIS Affairs Leonid Slutsky, the lower house of parliament will consider the issue of a simplified procedure for annexing new territories to Russia only after a referendum on the status of Crimea is held in Ukraine, and also not before it makes its decision on this issue Kremlin.

Ukraine

The opposition, which came to power in Kyiv at the end of February, one of its first decisions renewed the 2004 constitution. This document , in particular, assumes that issues of changing the territory of the country are resolved exclusively at an all-Ukrainian referendum (Article 73), and regional plebiscites on this matter are not provided for. Accordingly, all issues regarding the organization and procedure of elections and referendums are determined only by the laws of Ukraine, which, according to the constitution, is a unitary state.

Since Kiev believes that the actions of the Crimean parliament contradict Ukrainian legislation, the Verkhovna Rada, in accordance with the provisions of the same constitution, could simply terminate the powers of the legislative assembly of the autonomy. But for this it is necessary to obtain an opinion from the Constitutional Court, which, however, is currently in an uncertain status. By decision of the Rada, five judges of the Constitutional Court, appointed under the parliamentary quota, were dismissed. In addition, the Rada proposed that Acting President Alexander Turchynov remove his representatives in this body from their positions.

“Those who hastened to join the approving chorus of those citing the example of Scotland and Quebec forget that the issue of changing the status of a territory is decided not just by a referendum, but on the basis of general state law,” one of the authors of the Russian Constitution, a former State Duma deputy Viktor Sheinis. “The UK allows referendums on the independence of its territorial entities; Canada has also developed certain legal conditions under which such an expression of will is possible... This is not and cannot be in the Ukrainian constitution.”

Supporters of the new government of Ukraine near the building of the Crimean parliament in Simferopol, February 26, 2014

In defending its territory, Ukraine will undoubtedly turn to the support of the international community. Kyiv will be able, for example, to appeal to the declaration “On the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation between States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,” which was signed in 1970. This document repeatedly mentions the importance of compliance by participating countries with the principle of the integrity of sovereign states. “Nothing in the above paragraphs,” the document says, “shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action that would lead to the dismemberment or partial or total violation of the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States, observing in their actions the principle of equality of rights and self-determination of peoples, as this principle is set forth above, and, in consequence, having governments representing, without distinction of race, creed or color, all the people inhabiting the territory.”

“The admission of Crimea to the Russian Federation, if the amendments proposed (by Sergei Mironov - Lenta.ru note ) are adopted, will indeed not violate the norms of Russian law,” Sheinis believes. “But since this problem is not of an internal Russian nature, [such a step] would be a serious violation of international law, which is not required by either the Russian state or Russian society.”

Crimea

If the legislation of Ukraine directly prohibits Crimeans from voting on the issue of the status of the peninsula, then in the autonomy itself today there are no regulations at all that would imply such a vote. The current 1998 constitution made Crimea directly dependent on Ukrainian laws, depriving Simferopol of the right to legislative initiative, and the 1992 constitution, according to which the peninsula can independently enter into relations with other states, has only yet been submitted to a referendum. But in Crimea this doesn’t seem to bother anyone particularly. No one is embarrassed by the short time frame during which the authorities of the autonomy will have to prepare everything necessary for voting, and this, even on the scale of Crimea, where about half a million voters live, seems to be a very labor-intensive task.

Last Sunday, the speaker of the Crimean parliament, Vladimir Konstantinov, refused to answer questions from the press about what legislation would be used to hold a referendum in Crimea and whether the Supreme Council of the Autonomy would recognize the constitution of Ukraine. Konstantinov said that he will have an answer only when order comes to Kyiv itself.

Speaker of the Crimean Parliament Vladimir Konstantinov

Earlier, in an interview with Lenta.ru, Konstantinov made it clear that he would be satisfied with “a good, European autonomy of Crimea within Ukraine,” however, in this direction, the Crimean authorities seem to have already overcome the point of no return. Crimea, according to the speaker, cannot be independent. “First of all, there is no historical memory of the state, and no one in Crimea has such ambitions,” reasoned Konstantinov. — It’s one thing when the union republics, which had some kind of historical memory, some kind of historical experience, and another thing is Crimea, which has always been part of the Russian Empire. Therefore it is impossible.”

And finally, the main question remains: how will the Crimeans vote if the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopts all the necessary laws to accept the peninsula into the Russian Federation, and Simferopol ignores the opinion of Kyiv and the position of the international community? According to a poll conducted by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology from February 8 to 18, that is, even before the change of power in Ukraine, 41 percent of Crimean residents were in favor of joining Russia. of local voters supported the same prospect A year and a half ago , 38 percent . It is obvious that the dynamics of pro-Russian sentiment on the peninsula were affected by the latest events in Kyiv, as well as the coming to power of Western-oriented politicians. In turn, last year 56 percent of residents of the Russian Federation, according to a survey by VITsOM, called Crimea Russian land. But no one will ask the opinions of Russians if the Kremlin nevertheless decides to acquire a new subject of the federation. This is not provided for by law.

Lenta.ru: Former USSR: Ukraine: Deepening the fairway