15 июн 2011

3.8. Prospects of a decision to the problem.

International public law says: at the moment of destruction of a former ­ state system (which the Soviet Union was) and with the organisation of a new one (the Republic of Abkhazia), when the old power concedes reins to the new government, and if this separation process is finished and confirmed by the national will ­ of the people, with a recognition of independence by other governments de facto, all previous agreements and treaties lose their validity. Actually, the newly appeared sovereign state initially inherits the recognized rights and duties of a subject of international law, and then acquires new ones (clausia rebus sie stantibus).

With the disintegration of the USSR, the status of Abkhazia as a state was changed, and all international treaties were automatically invalidated owing to this,­ or to the special statement that corresponds to item 16 of the Viennese ­ convention on the assignment of  states concerning treaties, from August 23rd, 1978:

“A new independent state is not obliged to keep any treaty in force, or to become its participant, simply because of the fact that at the moment of ­ state assignment this treaty was in force concerning the territory which is the object of the assignment of the states”.

As to the problem of international recognition of the independence of Abkhazia ­ after the disintegration of the USSR and creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), it is necessary to note that by 1990 the statehood of the Transcaucasian ­ republics had not been formed according to the laws concerning the formation of the CIS, though   attention was directed to the question of revival of the updated union and on the possibility of self-determination of each nation. The form of the new states was also not defined. Thus Georgia as a sovereign state should not have received recognition, as any decisions concerning the priorities of one nation affected the interests of others. Various obligations ­ of international documents have legal abilities to form ­one indissoluble whole, and the parts concerning Abkhazia and its sovereignty should not have been separated from other parts of the same treatise. But ­ the world community, pursuing its   aims of the quickest disintegration of the USSR, shut its eyes to this essential infringement of international law and quickly recognised the sovereignty of Georgia.

We should notice that the deadlock which Abkhazia has reached in its attempts to restore its sovereignty was created by an information war. It is clear that this has been planned by the Georgian government, which in every possible way tries to convince the international community about discrimination against the Georgian people making the majority of the population of the country in Abkhazia. Dear reader, think about that twaddle - there are 95 thousand people now representing the Abkhazian ethnos, who have gone through genocide from Georgia throughout almost a century, and been subjected to discrimination by the Georgian part of the population of Abkhazia, which was 250 thousand people.  As well as this, all managerial­ posts in the country belonged to Georgians, and a policy of Georgianisation of the language, culture and consciousness of Abkhazians was followed, controlled by the KGB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Army i.e. the power structures which were under ­ the full control of Georgia. Nothing but gibberish!

It is amazing that the Georgian view is supported by the international community in the name of the United Nations, the CSCE, etc. Even the most simple question - a recognition of the act ­of aggression by Georgia in relation to Abkhazia which was the victim, has not been solved. The Security Council, into whose duties enter official  confirmation of the fact of aggression, cannot and does not do this concerning Abkhazia, and­  simply does not prosecute the aggressor. In the case of a possible ­ consideration of a question on the act of aggression, someone from the members of the Security Council ­can always use a veto, but after all this will not change features of the act of aggression representing intervention of the state in affairs of another with intention to force the other state to operate according to ­ its will.

We wish to show an interesting document clearly characterising double standards in the politics of Georgia and the inconsistency of its claims to Abkhazia. In the left-hand column we provide the full text of “the Statement about restoration ­ of the state independence of Georgia”, in which the Georgian ­ government proves the requirements for a recognition and restoration ­ of the sovereignty of the country, and furnishes convincing proofs in favour of its recognition. In the right-hand column we have placed only some parts of actual and legal ­ proofs stated by us in the present work, and have entered them into the text of the above Statement, but having shown the given ­items  relating to Abkhazia. The Abkhazian government, unfortunately, has not prepared a similar document, therefore we will dare to execute it for them. Simultaneously, in italics we will note discrepancies and distortions, not affecting any validity, which occur in the Georgian original of the Statement.

The statement about restoration of the state                                ­independence of Georgia

 

The statehood of Georgia ­ originating in the heart of centuries (Pure lie! Statehood ­ of "Georgia"  never existed till 1918, and so there was nothing to  restore. ­ Speech can be  only about Kartli-Kakhetia which ­ Russians named Georgia at end of ХVШ  century - authors) was lost by the Georgian people in XIX century, owing to ­ the annexation of Georgia carried out ­ by Russian empire and abolition of its statehood (According to the Georgievsk treaty and the Manifesto of 1801,­  governors of Kartli-Kakhetia ­ asked about inclusion of these ­ princedoms in structure of Russian territory on Caucasus, as was received,­  therefore to speak about annexation  is not truthful.) The Georgian people ­ were never reconciled with loss of freedom­. On the basis of the Statement about independence ­ of May 26th, 1918 ­ the abolished ­ statehood of Georgia was  restored ­ and the Georgian Democratic ­ Republic with its Constitution and representative bodies­ elected on the basis of ­ a multi-party system was formed­­­.

In February - March, 1921 ­  Soviet Russia, roughly having broken the peace treaty concluded between Georgia and Russia on May 7th 1920, by  armed aggression occupied the Georgian state recognised by it, and then  carried out its actual ­ annexation.

 

­ Georgia was included into structure of Soviet Union ­  involuntarily, and its ­ statehood was restored (originated - authors) in 1918, and exists  today. The statement about ­ independence of Georgia and its Constitution   have  validity today as the government ­ of democratic republic did not sign the document about capitulation and continued activity in emigration.

All period of violent stay of Georgia as a part of the USSR is noted by bloody terror and ­ reprisals, last display ­ of that was the tragedy on April 9th, 1989. The latent war against Georgia proceeds  today, its purpose - to prevent aspiration ­ of Georgia to freedom and democracy.

 

The Republic of Georgia Supreme Council, elected on October 28th, 1991 on the basis of multi-party, democratic elections, following the will of the population of Georgia, ­ unanimously expressed by it in ­ a referendum on March 31st, 1991, ­ decides and for the whole world proclaims ­ restoration of the state independence of Georgia on the basis of ­ the Statement about independence of Georgia of May 26th, 1918.

The statement about restoration of the state ­ independence of Abkhazia

 

The statehood of Abkhazia originating in V century  BC, ­ was lost by the Abkhazian people in XIX century, owing to ­ the annexation of Abkhazia carried out ­ by Russian empire and abolition of its statehood­. The Abkhazian people were never reconciled with loss of freedom. On the basis of the Allied treaty of October 20th, 1917 ­ the abolished statehood of Abkhazia was restored­ through its introduction into the Southeast Union of the Cossack army, Mountaineers of Caucasus and the free peoples of Steppes. Congress of the Abkhazian people accepted on November 8th, 1917 the Constitution ­ of Abkhazia and elected the Government - ­ the Abkhazian National Council.

 

 

 

 

 

In May - June, 1918 the Georgian ­ Democratic Republic, roughly having broken the Agreement from February 9th, 1918, by  armed aggression  occupied the Abkhazian state recognised by it, and then carried out its actual ­ annexation.

 

Abkhazia was included into structure of Georgia  involuntarily, and its statehood ­ was restored in 1917, and exists today. The statement about ­ independence of Abkhazia and its Constitution have validity today as the government ­ of democratic republic did not sign the  document about capitulation and continued activity in the conditions of ­ an occupation regime­.

All period of violent ­ stay of Abkhazia as a part of Georgia ­ is noted by bloody terror and reprisals,­  last display of that was the tragedy on August 14th, 1992. The latent war against Abkhazia ­ proceeds  today, its purpose - ­ to prevent aspiration of Abkhazia to freedom and democracy.

 

The Republic of Abkhazia Supreme Council, elected on October 28th, 1991 on the basis of multi-party, ­ democratic elections, following the will of the population of Abkhazia, ­ unanimously expressed by it in a referendum on March 17th, 1991, decides and for the whole world proclaims restoration ­ of the state independence ­ of Abkhazia on the basis of the decision of the first Congress of the Abkhazian people which took place on November 8th, 1917, on which the country Parliament (Abkhazian National Council) was elected and defined its main task as­ work on self-determination ­ of the Abkhazian people, and also, according to ­ decision of Orgburo RCP (b) and Revcom Abkhazia from  March 31st, 1921 which declared Abkhazia as Independent ­ Soviet Socialist ­ Republic.

The territory of sovereign ­ Republic Georgia is uniform and indivisible. In Republic Georgia territory ­ the Constitution and the Republic Georgia power have command only. Any action directed on restriction ­ of leadership of the power ­ of Republic Georgia or infringement of its ­ territorial integrity, will be qualified as intervention ­ in internal affairs of the sovereign ­ state, and aggression as ­ rough infringement of international law.

 

Primacy of international law concerning laws of Republic Georgia and direct action of its norms in territory of Georgia are ­ one of the basic constitutional principles of Republic Georgia.

The republic Georgia, aspiring ­ to take a worthy place in commonwealth of the states of the world, recognises and equally follows­ all fundamental laws provided by international law, and provides freedom of the person, ­ national, ethnic, religious and language groups as demanded by the United Nations Organization charter, the General declaration of human rights, and international pacts and conventions. (Simultaneously being Aggressor, source of violence and ­ genocide, and the cause of the international pressure in Transcaucasia).

The Republic Georgia Supreme Council declares that it will firmly observe the standard principles ­ of political, economic and cultural cooperation with other states.

 

 

Restoration of the state ­ independence of Republic Georgia completely corresponds ­ to the United Nations Organization charter, the Helsinki and Viennese statements recognising and fixing ­ the right of all people independently ­ to define political destiny of the country.

 

The Republic Georgia Supreme Council hopes that the international ­ cooperation of the states does not remain  indifferent to lawful ­ and fair steps of the Georgian ­ people and recognises ­ the revived state independence ­ of Georgia that is one of the firmest guarantees of safety ­ of Republic Georgia.

 

Signed by members of the Supreme Council

and the Republic Georgia government.

Tbilisi,

April 9th, 1991.

12.30 am.

The territory of sovereign ­ Republic Abkhazia is uniform and indivisible. In Republic Abkhazia territory the Constitution and the Republic Abkhazia power have command only. Any action directed on restriction ­ of leadership of the power ­ of Republic Abkhazia or infringement of its territorial integrity, will be qualified as intervention ­ in internal affairs of the sovereign state, and aggression as rough infringement of international law.

 

Primacy of international law concerning laws of Republic Abkhazia ­ and direct action of its norms in territory of Abkhazia are ­ one of the basic constitutional principles of Republic Abkhazia.

The republic Abkhazia, aspiring to take a worthy place in commonwealth ­ of the states of the world, recognises and equally follows­­­­­­ all ­­ fundamental laws provided ­ by international law, ­ and provides freedom of the person, ­ national, ethnic, religious ­ and language groups as demanded by the United Nations Organization charter, the General declaration of human rights, and international pacts ­ and conventions.

 

 

 

The Republic Abkhazia Supreme Council ­ declares that it will firmly observe ­the standard principles of political, economic and cultural cooperation with other ­ states.

 

Restoration of the state independence of Republic Abkhazia completely corresponds ­ to the United Nations Organization charter,­  the Helsinki and Viennese statements recognising and fixing the right ­ of all people independently ­ to define political destiny of the country.

 

The Republic Abkhazia Supreme Council ­ hopes that the international cooperation of the states does not remain ­ indifferent to lawful and fair steps of the Abkhazian ­ people and recognises the revived ­ state independence of Abkhazia ­ that is one of the firmest ­ guarantees of safety ­ of Republic Abkhazia.

  

 

There is a fair question, which is on what basis has Georgia, making ­ all conceivable and inconceivable infringements of the norms of international law, been recognised as a sovereign state? And why cannot Abkhazia, possessing ­ the same if not more powerful arguments in favour of its sovereignty,  find the freedom and rights which it deserves and for which it  has ­ all historical and legislative grounds?

Also, though the obvious does not require proof (manifestum non eget pro-batione), Abkhazia, given the position of the United Nations and the CSCE, will not be able to receive a fair ­ decision from the international community. In our opinion, the only way to reach a positive decision in this matter is to knock on all doors and to prove the truth by means of legally convincing arguments. We hope that the present work will make a contribution towards untying this tightened knot.

The ethnic conflict which took place in Abkhazia throughout XX century was a consequence of the presence of sharp national contradictions resulting from the strong dependence of the Abkhazian people on the ethnically alien Georgian ­ state, and on subjective actions by the persons who were at the head of this ­ state and its forces, and the policy followed by them. Such ­ actions of the state, in relation to the Abkhazian ethnos, as genocide, deportation,­  various sorts of national infringements and restrictions (language, ­ culture, the government) were indefensible­­­. But this is the roughest infringement of international public law, as it appears the hostage of actions by private persons (Jus publicum privatorum'pactis mutari non potest). ­ As an ethnos is a system of interconnected elements, any restriction ­to one of them (and furthermore to several simultaneously) will inevitably demand ­ the restoration of these elements through a system of connections with a different community, and this leads to the ethnos replacement that is called genocide.

We cannot be judges of our own case (пето index in causa sua), therefore we believe that for the definitive decision of this problem it is necessary to transfer the process of its consideration by international organisations into a legal ­ channel and to start to work in a legal field defined by these organisations. The international community provides a complex of legal means ­ for the peaceful solving of international disputes, namely: direct negotiations,­  intermediaries, the resolution of disputes by international organisations. In our opinion, the most effective solution could become the international investigatory procedure (inspection) i.e.  investigation by an international body ­( the international court or  international arbitration­) of the concrete circumstances and the fact sheet underlying the international disagreement. Though the conflict has reached a deadlock phase, it makes sense to again address those who will allow an investigation of its root causes by using legal means available to their organisation’s legal department. In this case there will not be inexpedient use of  a solely historical approach in an estimation of possibilities of confirmation of the sovereignty ­ of Abkhazia. Both parties should present their demonstrative data on the basis of ­ legal documents concerning this question. In the final instance, there should be an international court or other impartial proxy­ body able to make a corresponding decision. Transfer of consideration of the question of sovereignty to a legal environment ­ will outline at once the limits of consideration of the problem and will define the borders ­ of use of legal documents as arguments by the contradictory parties.