International Law: Ukraine, Crimea, Russia - annexation or secession? Prof. Dr. iur. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider The self-determination of the citizens of Crimea can not be abolished by international treaties or the Constitution of Ukraine. had the Crimea and has as an autonomous republic every right to their own way to go, and to separate them from the Ukraine. The assistance of Russia in secession process Crimea was proportionate and not a violation of international law. chris helweg

1. International Law: Ukraine, Crimea, Russia - annexation or
secession?
Prof. Dr. iur. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider
Short version:
The self-determination of the citizens of Crimea can not be abolished by international treaties or
the Constitution of Ukraine. had the Crimea and has as an autonomous republic every right to
their own way to go, and to separate them from the Ukraine. The assistance of Russia in
secession process Crimea was proportionate and not a violation of international law.
Share via Youtube: youtu.be/Y8OJ07D7gPI
share on
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WissensManufaktur.net/videos/898641876864230
sharing to Google+ plus.google.com/+wissensmanufaktur/posts/e6THtj7Xoq6
Sovereignty and self-determination of peoples
International law distinguishes the "sovereign equality" of States under Art. 2 no. 1 of the Charter
of the United Nations and the "equal rights and self-determination of peoples" under Art. 1 No. 2
of the Charter.. The common-law status of the self-determination of peoples is recognized. Both
principles, sovereignty and self-determination are the freedom of citizens whose contractual
autonomy. The citizens exercise their sovereignty in common as citizens, as a people, by means
of their state, both internally and externally. They determined it himself in accordance with the
political form of universal and equal freedom, republic whose political will is democratic
written. That's self-determination written as a state's population and thus sovereignty of the state
in the bourgeois sense. The self-determination of peoples is likewise exercise of sovereignty than
the freedom of people from a lot of people who want to form a nation, or form. The self-
determination are the people that are not written as states, the right to political self-determination
and thus to form a state in which they live the right.
This right is also directed against states and, in particular, where these people are citizens of a
larger nation. But people who live state across, have the right to form their own state. thus they
exercise their political freedom, especially has the right to content to live in a self-determined,
sovereign state. The difference between the two principles makes the popular term. The
sovereignty of the state has the state people as the citizens of the respective state. The self-
determination of a people has, as always is realized. This self-determination conflicts with the
grandfathering that most states have enshrined in their constitutional systems, Germany in Art.
21 para. 2 sentence 1 GG. After that parties are unconstitutional which, by reason,
The people's concept of self-determination of peoples is disputed and contentious. He has
significant political impact as just again (2014) of the war-mongering accusations against the
Russian Federation that it had annexed the Crimea from Ukraine proves. I have taken this
several times in Pour Erika position. However, the separation of Crimea, more of the people of
Crimea, the Ukraine was a secession, a case of self-determination of a people. The people of the
Crimea has been taken by the Russian Federation after the secession of Ukraine. Ukraine has
supported the United States of America and the European Union, the secession of the Crimea
tried to prevent by force. In contrast, the Russian Federation has protected the Crimea, enabling
the secession referendum. Then the United States and the European Union have imposed
sensitive personal and economic sanctions against the Russian Federation. The mutual damage
is considerable. The tensions have revived the Cold War and are adjacent to a

2. war. Corresponding secession referendums in southeastern Ukraine, in the regions of Donetsk
and Lugansk, have led to formation of Republic. The two new republics of Dombas have
federated to New Russia. The fights Ukraine militarily. The civil war is likely to be a proxy war
between the great powers and their allies between Russia and NATO, at the same
time. Triggered the secession has to integrate the European Union and the United States of
America, Ukraine policy in the European Union and, later, into NATO. This is an existential
process that justifies secession even after the restrictive dogma of the ruling doctrine. The
Association Agreement of Ukraine with the European Union was a violent change of political
leadership headed after the former president was not ready to sign the Association
Agreement. The overthrow allowed supported by forces of the West, if not brought about, a, dirty
'intervention.
A people can be ethnic, religious, cultural, historical, linguistic determined. The national character
is always concretely determine. A general physical concept of the people does not exist and can
not exist. There are formal criteria that make up a nation. Decisive is the will who want to live
together in a state of the people, to be a people. For this, a special reason is not necessary, and
certainly not a reason to be widely recognized. It is to talk to Rousseau, the contract social, which
forms a nation. Kant the people defined as "a lot of people or a lot of people, standing in the
mutual influence against each other, the legal status require under them uniting will, a
constitution (constitutio) to what is rightful to partake "(metaphysical of manners, ed. Weischedel,
1968, Vol. 7, p 429). This is as substantial as fundamental in the liberal sense of
republicanism. It's about the common life of people in freedom and in righteousness. What is
needed is the territorial unity of sufficient size of the area in which people live, the Post has
become a state because otherwise no peace is possible. Kant speaks accordingly, as already
quoted from a "real law of nature, a law on civil constitution" (MdS pp. 366, 374). But it can
always form new nations greater by state building, even states, and smaller by separations of
folk parts to new states. Decisive is the "self-identification" a lot of people as a
people. Weischedel, 1968, Vol. 7, p 429). This is as substantial as fundamental in the liberal
sense of republicanism. It's about the common life of people in freedom and in
righteousness. What is needed is the territorial unity of sufficient size of the area in which people
live, the Post has become a state because otherwise no peace is possible. Kant speaks
accordingly, as already quoted from a "real law of nature, a law on civil constitution" (MdS pp.
366, 374). But it can always form new nations greater by state building, even states, and smaller
by separations of folk parts to new states. Decisive is the "self-identification" a lot of people as a
people. Weischedel, 1968, Vol. 7, p 429). This is as substantial as fundamental in the liberal
sense of republicanism. It's about the common life of people in freedom and in
righteousness. What is needed is the territorial unity of sufficient size of the area in which people
live, the Post has become a state because otherwise no peace is possible. Kant speaks
accordingly, as already quoted from a "real law of nature, a law on civil constitution" (MdS pp.
366, 374). But it can always form new nations greater by state building, even states, and smaller
by separations of folk parts to new states. Decisive is the "self-identification" a lot of people as a
people. This is as substantial as fundamental in the liberal sense of republicanism. It's about the
common life of people in freedom and in righteousness. What is needed is the territorial unity of
sufficient size of the area in which people live, the Post has become a state because otherwise
no peace is possible. Kant speaks accordingly, as already quoted from a "real law of nature, a
law on civil constitution" (MdS pp. 366, 374). But it can always form new nations greater by state
building, even states, and smaller by separations of folk parts to new states. Decisive is the "self-
identification" a lot of people as a people. This is as substantial as fundamental in the liberal
sense of republicanism. It's about the common life of people in freedom and in
righteousness. What is needed is the territorial unity of sufficient size of the area in which people
live, the Post has become a state because otherwise no peace is possible. Kant speaks
accordingly, as already quoted from a "real law of nature, a law on civil constitution" (MdS pp.
366, 374). But it can always form new nations greater by state building, even states, and smaller
by separations of folk parts to new states. Decisive is the "self-identification" a lot of people as a
people. What is needed is the territorial unity of sufficient size of the area in which people live,
the Post has become a state because otherwise no peace is possible. Kant speaks accordingly,
as already quoted from a "real law of nature, a law on civil constitution" (MdS pp. 366, 374). But it
can always form new nations greater by state building, even states, and smaller by separations

3. of folk parts to new states. Decisive is the "self-identification" a lot of people as a people. What is
needed is the territorial unity of sufficient size of the area in which people live, the Post has
become a state because otherwise no peace is possible. Kant speaks accordingly, as already
quoted from a "real law of nature, a law on civil constitution" (MdS pp. 366, 374). But it can
always form new nations greater by state building, even states, and smaller by separations of
folk parts to new states. Decisive is the "self-identification" a lot of people as a people. S. 366,
374). But it can always form new nations greater by state building, even states, and smaller by
separations of folk parts to new states. Decisive is the "self-identification" a lot of people as a
people. S. 366, 374). But it can always form new nations greater by state building, even states,
and smaller by separations of folk parts to new states. Decisive is the "self-identification" a lot of
people as a people.
The will of the people living together to form a people a state must be manifested. The will
realized freedom in practical reason. The act of will require a vote among all people of the new
nation or the people part of a state that wants to form a new state. The referendum requires a
clear majority to prevent rape silent majorities by active minorities. is required on an adequate
procedure which guarantees the freedom of voting. This process should, if a nation wants to part,
separate from the State in which he lives, to set up the old state.
The old State is not entitled to prevent the secession of a popular part by force. It would violate
the self-determination of the new people and the political freedom of its citizens. The basic
expression of this freedom is to want to live in this new state. This act of will is revisable. If only
individual citizens to leave the country in which they live, they have the right of free train
available. This is an incontrovertible human right. In any case, the secession must protect
minority whose ius emigrandi, guarantee, but also to remain in the home. The continuance of the
state can not hold their own against the international law of self-determination. First, the results
of the primacy of international law, it follows from the reverse monism, namely the freedom of the
people, the recognized international law and thus made to its own law. The self-determination of
the people thus displaces the continuance of the state. Its protection in the constitutional law, the
limit of self-determination has to put up with it. Art. 25 GG, the general rules of international law
overriding federal law in Germany This puts the continuance of the Federal Republic of
Germany, which is used as a basis in Art. 21 para. 2 GG, as counter-rotating constitutional
law. Existence of the Federal Republic of Germany is not the identity, which would be
unalterable. Second, the self-determination based on the humanity of the people on the freedom
of man as his dignity. But which is the supreme law principle of humanity. The self-determination
of the people thus displaces the continuance of the state. Its protection in the constitutional law,
the limit of self-determination has to put up with it. Art. 25 GG, the general rules of international
law overriding federal law in Germany This puts the continuance of the Federal Republic of
Germany, which is used as a basis in Art. 21 para. 2 GG, as counter-rotating constitutional
law. Existence of the Federal Republic of Germany is not the identity, which would be
unalterable. Second, the self-determination based on the humanity of the people on the freedom
of man as his dignity. But which is the supreme law principle of humanity. The self-determination
of the people thus displaces the continuance of the state. Its protection in the constitutional law,
the limit of self-determination has to put up with it. Art. 25 GG, the general rules of international
law overriding federal law in Germany This puts the continuance of the Federal Republic of
Germany, which is used as a basis in Art. 21 para. 2 GG, as counter-rotating constitutional
law. Existence of the Federal Republic of Germany is not the identity, which would be
unalterable. Second, the self-determination based on the humanity of the people on the freedom
of man as his dignity. But which is the supreme law principle of humanity. Its protection in the
constitutional law, the limit of self-determination has to put up with it. Art. 25 GG, the general
rules of international law overriding federal law in Germany This puts the continuance of the
Federal Republic of Germany, which is used as a basis in Art. 21 para. 2 GG, as counter-rotating
constitutional law. Existence of the Federal Republic of Germany is not the identity, which would
be unalterable. Second, the self-determination based on the humanity of the people on the
freedom of man as his dignity. But which is the supreme law principle of humanity. Its protection
in the constitutional law, the limit of self-determination has to put up with it. Art. 25 GG, the
general rules of international law overriding federal law in Germany This puts the continuance of
the Federal Republic of Germany, which is used as a basis in Art. 21 para. 2 GG, as counter-
rotating constitutional law. Existence of the Federal Republic of Germany is not the identity,

4. which would be unalterable. Second, the self-determination based on the humanity of the people
on the freedom of man as his dignity. But which is the supreme law principle of humanity. 21
para. 2 of the Basic Law is based on, as a counter-rotating constitutional law. Existence of the
Federal Republic of Germany is not the identity, which would be unalterable. Second, the self-
determination based on the humanity of the people on the freedom of man as his dignity. But
which is the supreme law principle of humanity. 21 para. 2 of the Basic Law is based on, as a
counter-rotating constitutional law. Existence of the Federal Republic of Germany is not the
identity, which would be unalterable. Second, the self-determination based on the humanity of
the people on the freedom of man as his dignity. But which is the supreme law principle of
humanity.
Accordingly has the declaration of the UN General Assembly no. 2625 of 24 October 1970 on
Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in
accordance with the United Nations (Friendly Declaration) of the Charter, despite all the
protection of the sovereignty of states and their holdings recognized the right of secession,
violence against secession prohibited and all States entitled to protect secession. The
declaration is opposed to the support of secession from the outside and does not create any right
to secession, but does not change the right of secession from the self-determination from
within. It forbids equally clearly the prevention of secession by force. She treats such violence as
a violent intervention in a state. The state produced is treated as an existing. The Declaration has
so far not recognized as customary international law, especially since it is constantly violate
them, and especially the United States of America does not accept secession since the Civil
War. The legal situation is not common belief, they say. Secession takes political freedom to
complete. Political freedom is the sovereignty of the people whose dignity. The right to counsel is
the right to emergency assistance against injustice. This right is ancient universal human rights. It
stands above the continuance of the state. The state is only because the people who have united
in this to achieve the common good, want him. You can change this will in whole or in
part. States come and go. They have no independent existence. There is no state sovereignty
(more), but only civil sovereignty as freedom of man.
It is for peace among the people and for peace in the states and among the states of existential
importance that sovereignty is distinguished from the self-determination precisely. Both are
grounded in the freedom of the people in whose contractual autonomy and both are the basic
principles of the international community and international law. Who confused intentionally or
unintentionally, creates the danger of wars, civil wars and wars States. Who abused sins against
humanity of man.
At Christmas we should reflect on the freedom of people, but also try to understand them. Its
principle is love among people. but realized in the all-round rectitude. but this is based on the
truth and the truth or just on the morality.
Merry Christmas!
Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, Berlin, December 17, 2014
Der Kampf um die Crimea as Problem of Constitutional Right und Völker

5. Pdf Download comp: Crimean Zeitfragen.pdf
Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider , Berlin
1. In the battle for the Crimea, the West Russia and its President Wladimir Putin accuses the
deployment of soldiers, overtly or covertly, have violated international law. Russia had annexed
the Crimea, even said the Chancellor. The unconvinced. It is ill-advised. The accusations seem
sanctions, if not the "indirect" aggression of Western alliances, NATO and the European Union
(EU), against the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), in particular against the Russian
Federation, justify, or at least to have to legitimize. The facts known to the public only
distorted. Also, I am dependent on the publicly available information. But who commented on the
conflict must try the facts from propaganda, which spread the most in any case the German
media about the events in Ukraine to distinguish. The assessment of the interests and
knowledge of the legal help.
NATO, led by the United States of America (USA) wants to expand to the east to the border of
Russia. This is an essential purpose of the steady expansion of the EU, the economic and
political basis of the European part of NATO. The EU can as a union of states, if not the state,
dominated by a few leaders, lighter than many states of the USA and its services are committed
to a common policy. Does not change anything that does not belong to all EU member states of
NATO, in particular because of their fragile, if not obsolete neutrality not Austria, Sweden and
Finland. If Ukraine to NATO heard that have targeted the US and probably continue to strive to, it
will be site directed against Russia and the CIS weapons may be anyway. With the revolution in
Ukraine has already managed, these break out from the CIS. That goes against the security
interests of the Russian Federation and the CIS. Russia has admitted after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the expansion of NATO to the east, even membership of a united Germany in
NATO. That was a change in the global political situation. The course is not contractually
guaranteed commitment not to expand NATO eastward, the West has not been respected. If an
alliance, especially a military alliance like NATO, is too powerful, it becomes a threat to other
states and loses its liberal justification. That goes against the security interests of the Russian
Federation and the CIS. Russia has admitted after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
expansion of NATO to the east, even membership of a united Germany in NATO. That was a
change in the global political situation. The course is not contractually guaranteed commitment
not to expand NATO eastward, the West has not been respected. If an alliance, especially a
military alliance like NATO, is too powerful, it becomes a threat to other states and loses its
liberal justification. That goes against the security interests of the Russian Federation and the
CIS. Russia has admitted after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the expansion of NATO to the
east, even membership of a united Germany in NATO. That was a change in the global political
situation. The course is not contractually guaranteed commitment not to expand NATO eastward,
the West has not been respected. If an alliance, especially a military alliance like NATO, is too
powerful, it becomes a threat to other states and loses its liberal justification. That was a change
in the global political situation. The course is not contractually guaranteed commitment not to

6. expand NATO eastward, the West has not been respected. If an alliance, especially a military
alliance like NATO, is too powerful, it becomes a threat to other states and loses its liberal
justification. That was a change in the global political situation. The course is not contractually
guaranteed commitment not to expand NATO eastward, the West has not been respected. If an
alliance, especially a military alliance like NATO, is too powerful, it becomes a threat to other
states and loses its liberal justification.
Ukraine was part of Russia and the Soviet Union. They also included as a member of the CIS
further to the sphere of influence of Russia, but more and more the West has turned to, and must
and will be as soon as possible an EU member. The Crimea is in a special situation. They voted
overwhelmingly for secession from Ukraine and for inclusion in the Russian Federation. This has
included. Russia could not and can not do without the Crimea from historical and even more so
for geostrategic and military reasons. For Crimea the incumbent port of the Russian Black Sea
Fleet, Sevastopol belongs. The Black Sea is the access of Russia through the Bosporus to the
Mediterranean. Everyone knows that Russia can not relinquish the Crimea and will, if it wants to
be a great power and remain so. That is why Russia had to secure its rights to use that port for
decades by contract attempts apparently a little sound basis of the existential interests of
Russia. The West Ukraine does not accept these interests and the situation created by the
inclusion of Crimea to the Russian Federation reality. but this does not have the ability to change
the new situation. The criticism of the West does not question the outcome of the referendum in
question. A military intervention would not only be contrary to international law, but the end of
world peace and the risk of loss of large parts of Europe. The West wants to strengthen the
further development of sake with his criticism and its sanctions pinpricks mentioned positions.
The West has promoted the coup in Ukraine, if not operated. These were serious violations of
internal and external sovereignty of Ukraine. That the "Maidan" is not much came of their own
accord and its own power of citizens of Ukraine, is obvious. The West has the "best" method of
the revolution, the supposed somehow colored "revolution", used a method which have similar
use other powers and use, especially as the Soviet Union. The ethnic differences between
Russians and Ukrainians, as well as the apparently corrupt government system were beneficial
to the revolution. There is little doubt that the West "subversive" how international law calls it,
intervened to have an agreeable government, which is willing to to lead Ukraine into the EU and
eventually in NATO. The failed mission of the Foreign Ministers of France, Poland and Germany,
which should lead to a peaceful overthrow of the elected president of Ukraine, the election of a
new president and return to the 2004 Constitution, was certainly difficult with the existing
Constitution of Ukraine and the country's sovereignty compatible, and certainly not the breaking
of the agreement of February 21, 2014 by the insurgent forces and their violent takeover of
power. The separation of the country was accepted, even by Western mediators. should lead to
the election of a new president and return to the 2004 Constitution, was in any case with the
existing Constitution of Ukraine and the sovereignty of the country difficult to reconcile, and
certainly not the breaking of the agreement of February 21, 2014 by the insurgent forces and
their violent takeover power. The separation of the country was accepted, even by Western
mediators. should lead to the election of a new president and return to the 2004 Constitution,
was in any case with the existing Constitution of Ukraine and the sovereignty of the country
difficult to reconcile, and certainly not the breaking of the agreement of February 21, 2014 by the
insurgent forces and their violent takeover power. The separation of the country was accepted,
even by Western mediators.
Ukraine-Western policy despite all the sovereignty of Ukraine a threat to Russia. The West has
not respected the sovereignty of Ukraine. The actions of Russia to protect its lawful naval base
were required by his existential interests against the increasingly aggressive West. They are
proportionate and served and serve the defense of the Russian Federation, as well as a Russian
citizen and ethnically Russian Ukrainians. A violation of the international law they are not, and
certainly not an annexation of the Crimea. They are justified by the right to self-defense, which in
any case includes the preventive self-defense if it is made with mild means is desired by the
inhabitants of the protected area because it is recognizable to the state, supports their secession
want to connect. It is the cry of the chosen, though ousted president of Ukraine and explained
and supported by the vast majority of the population secession will of the Crimea from
international law considerable weight. Of even greater importance that the transitional
government of Ukraine, whose office leadership has no legality for itself, supported by the

7. subversive Parliament of Ukraine and the West, the secession referendum in Crimea has
declared illegal, wanted to stop, if necessary by force (mobilization) and does not recognize. This
strengthens the legality of Russian conservation efforts for undisturbed voting. albeit deposed
President of Ukraine and explained and supported by the vast majority of the population
secession will of the Crimea from international law considerable weight. Of even greater
importance that the transitional government of Ukraine, whose office leadership has no legality
for itself, supported by the subversive Parliament of Ukraine and the West, the secession
referendum in Crimea has declared illegal, wanted to stop, if necessary by force (mobilization)
and does not recognize. This strengthens the legality of Russian conservation efforts for
undisturbed voting. albeit deposed President of Ukraine and explained and supported by the vast
majority of the population secession will of the Crimea from international law considerable
weight. Of even greater importance that the transitional government of Ukraine, whose office
leadership has no legality for itself, supported by the subversive Parliament of Ukraine and the
West, the secession referendum in Crimea has declared illegal, wanted to stop, if necessary by
force (mobilization) and does not recognize. This strengthens the legality of Russian
conservation efforts for undisturbed voting. wanted to stop supported by the subversive
Parliament of Ukraine and the West, the secession referendum in Crimea has declared illegal, if
necessary by force (mobilization) and does not recognize. This strengthens the legality of
Russian conservation efforts for undisturbed voting. wanted to stop supported by the subversive
Parliament of Ukraine and the West, the secession referendum in Crimea has declared illegal, if
necessary by force (mobilization) and does not recognize. This strengthens the legality of
Russian conservation efforts for undisturbed voting.
According to the predominant view of international law, States are entitled to protect their
nationals, if necessary by force with a limited intervention against threats to life and limb. This
right is constantly practiced and is still recognized by customary law within the limits of
proportionality. A vulnerable threat to the Russians in the Crimea, and all the inhabitants of the
Crimea, who wanted to be Russians, so to speak again through the referendum, the forces were
beyond doubt who had carried out the coup in Ukraine, but also the perpetrators of violence,
which killed on the Maidan had. The President of the Russian Federation, Wladimir Putin, has
relied on that duty of protection. It is constantly practiced by Western countries, often faked.
The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 in which, inter alia, the Ukraine to respect the United
States, Russia and Great Britain in return for nuclear weapons renunciation of sovereignty and
existing borders and their political and economic independence and in the case of a nuclear
attack on the country immediate action of the Security Council United Nations have pledged to
cause, is not affected by the secession of the Crimea and its inclusion in the Russian Federation,
not to hurt. The self-determination of the citizens of Crimea is not canceled by this
memorandum. It can not be canceled by international treaties, because it is the freedom of
citizens. This is not negotiable politics. She was born with man.
In the categories of a major space policy of world powers Russia has averted with mild means
engagement of the US in its traditional sphere of influence, even limited, namely the inclusion of
Crimea into the EU and NATO later. The reckless expansion policy of the EU and closely gave
geostrategy of the United States have provoked a threat of war. The United States is in the
acceptance of the military superiority and without regard to the risk from a nuclear power, the
central and western part of Europe, especially Germany. The EU applies himself to not get to
grips with naivety of its political class Atlantic dominion. One thinks of the Cuban missile crisis in
1962, the John F. Kennedy with a military blockade the stationing of Soviet missiles has
prevented Cuba. No one in the West has criticized the blockade as a violation of international
law. Germany in any case should be tried to the best possible relations with Russia for
geostrategic, economic and above all for historical reasons.
2. core of Western criticism of the policies of the Crimea, to make from the Ukraine independent
and to become a member of the Russian Federation, is the doctrine that the secession of a state
part of a State was "illegal". Above all, it is concluded that it is contrary to international law, that
Russia has supported the Crimean independence policy.
The prohibition of secession is overwhelming opinion in any case the freedom forgotten German
constitutional theory that German politics make it his own. This teaching is wrong. You doktriniert
the state as untouchable political entity, which may be obtained by any means of the state and

8. must, even by the intervention of other states. Just the history of states to the developments in
contemporary contradicts this state doctrine.
Not the states are sovereign, as taught and practiced the German constitutional positivism of the
19th century, and as will be represented today mostly with disastrous consequences, but the
people as citizens. The states are organizations of the citizenry, looking to realize this their
wicked good means of which. The central figures of the policy are the people whose fundamental
right is their political freedom, the core of their dignity. This raises the self-determination. It is to
talk to Rousseau, the contract social, which forms a nation. It can form new races again and
again, more by state building, even states, and smaller by separations of folk parts to new
states. This is part of self-determination, the core of the United Nations Charter. This law protects
the freedom of the people, not specifically the existence of states.
Not even a constitutional law, such as the Ukraine, which wrote a unitary state and not assigns a
secession or even provides, can prohibit secession of a part of the people. The founding of the
state is an act of freedom and the sovereignty of the people who live together. Not states are
sovereign, but people. States will contribute to the freedom, both internally and externally. There
are no eternal States and there is no right of states and even less from state organs to maintain
their existence against the people and citizens of the right, even by force of arms. Rather, it is a
duty of the people to live together in law and legality by an organization to secure a state, the
natural right to a civil constitution, liberty and property guaranteed. Also, the Free State of
Bavaria is entitled to divorce by the Federal Republic of Germany, at least in existential situation,
and live either as a single state and to connect as with the Confederation and Austria into a
federal state.
The constitutional positivism has dogmatized the State as a legal person as a human being, if not
deified with Hegel. Its stock was considered untouchable. With the law, confirmed by Art. 1 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was born with the people, which is difficult to
reconcile. More than an organization of persons and citizens, by means of this their common
good, and this is above all the right to realize he is not. People have to create the organization,
called State, which best suits their welfare if it only other people does not hurt that can best
realize the right to the freedom. But you live with other people, many people. That's why
everyone must join in shaping the life together with the people who belong together in a special
way. The territorial unity must be the basic principle. For them, the peace must be secured. Non
violence can States provide lawful and received, but only the morals of the people whose
practical reason. However, is mandatory. Because consensus of all can not be expected, the
majority rule will prevail. The liberal logic is self-determination not of the particular people of a
state, but the the wish to live in an area and living together of people. Peoples can always make
new consequently; because they are communities of citizens, citizenry. The territorial unity must
be the basic principle. For them, the peace must be secured. Non violence can States provide
lawful and received, but only the morals of the people whose practical reason. However, is
mandatory. Because consensus of all can not be expected, the majority rule will prevail. The
liberal logic is self-determination not of the particular people of a state, but the the wish to live in
an area and living together of people. Peoples can always make new consequently; because
they are communities of citizens, citizenry. The territorial unity must be the basic principle. For
them, the peace must be secured. Non violence can States provide lawful and received, but only
the morals of the people whose practical reason. However, is mandatory. Because consensus of
all can not be expected, the majority rule will prevail. The liberal logic is self-determination not of
the particular people of a state, but the the wish to live in an area and living together of
people. Peoples can always make new consequently; because they are communities of citizens,
citizenry. Because consensus of all can not be expected, the majority rule will prevail. The liberal
logic is self-determination not of the particular people of a state, but the the wish to live in an area
and living together of people. Peoples can always make new consequently; because they are
communities of citizens, citizenry. Because consensus of all can not be expected, the majority
rule will prevail. The liberal logic is self-determination not of the particular people of a state, but
the the wish to live in an area and living together of people. Peoples can always make new
consequently; because they are communities of citizens, citizenry.
Such policies must of course comply with the legal principle. This dictates that a peaceful and
freedom coexistence of people is ensured inside and outside. Such a special contiguous area
must operate the secession because no two states can exert competitive state authority in a

9. field. The peculiarity may result from the respective reasons, including religious, ethnic, historical,
linguistic, economic. It must agree a substantial majority of the separating area for secession,
lest one not sufficiently relevant part of concerned citizens can force the other to an unwanted
law. Conversely, there is no right of the minority to force the majority in a country where the
majority does not want or no longer live. This is a question of self-determination, freedom. The
dissenting minority must have the right either to stay or to leave this separated state, the ius
emigrandi to live together more with the citizens that remain in the rest of the state. The old State
is required because of the self-determination of peoples, to make the secession process
peacefully. He should not try to stop this, not by force of arms. A referendum of the citizens of the
state affected part is essential. The old State is required because of the self-determination of
peoples, to make the secession process peacefully. He should not try to stop this, not by force of
arms. A referendum of the citizens of the state affected part is essential. The old State is required
because of the self-determination of peoples, to make the secession process peacefully. He
should not try to stop this, not by force of arms. A referendum of the citizens of the state affected
part is essential.
It is understood that such a far-reaching process leads to tensions and disagreements, especially
when existential great political, as geopolitical, interests and third countries is linked.
had the Crimea and has inhabited mainly as an autonomous republic of ethnic Russians
centuries Russian, every right to their own way to go, and to separate them from the
Ukraine. The Ukrainian Nikita Khrushchev Crimea 1954 Ukraine allocated on the assumption that
the Soviet Union would be forever. In 1993, the Russian parliament Sevastopol has declared a
Russian city on foreign territory, as a kind of enclave. The contracts between Russia and Ukraine
in 1997 and 2010 have changed the status, not in order to reduce the influence of Russia. Only
the new policy of Ukraine under Western influence has tried to make Sevastopol on territory of
Ukraine in full Ukrainian sovereignty.
The referendum is the right procedure to determine the status of Crimea. It must be guaranteed a
free will of the citizens of the Crimea. There is no doubt far. From the observation of the OSCE,
so befriedend it were, the legality of the referendum will depend in any way.
The secession of the Crimea ensure peace in the region if Ukraine turns to the West and seeking
membership in the EU. This is almost thrust upon her. one of its contract procedures known to
the common security and defense policy, regardless of NATO membership. Each EU member
state is involved in this defense community, he called himself neutral or not.
3. Economic sanctions against the Russian Federation would not only be unjustified, because the
support of Russia in the secession process Crimea was not illegal, they would be
unproductive. They would harm not only Russia but the EU and especially Germany. In
particular, it would damage the hard-won after the Cold War mutual trust. It is ridiculous when
Germany warns the Russian bear and even threatens him, the upgraded nuclear power. The
protection of the United States, Germany should not leave when it is existential. The road to a
good cooperation with Russia would be the inclusion of this European country into the European
integration. That would change the EU fundamentally, as corresponding to the Basic Law. The
united Europe could be an association of sovereign states that upholds the freedom of citizens to
democracy and rule of law, a L'Europe budget. A Crimean War would be virtually impossible.
Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, Berlin, April 2014