Principle Of Territorial Integrity Research Articles

The Council of Europe and the Catalan Secessionist Process: The Authoritarian Drift of the Radical Democratic Principle

AbstractThis study shines a light on the problem of Catalan secessionist leaders’ abuse of the term “democracy”, an issue rarely discussed in the academic debate. The Catalan secessionist case has mainly been studied as a problem concerning the principle of territorial integrity and how it relates to the existence (or otherwise) of a right of self-determination for a substate entity. However, it is also a problem of democracy. For the entire secessionist process was based on a democratic principle outside and against the Spanish Constitution: one that defends the supremacy and inviolability of the (regional, in this case) parliamentary majority over the rule of law and respect for minority rights. It thus pitted a radical or identity-based democracy against the democracy protected and promoted by the Council of Europe (in which the rule of law, human rights and democracy are inseparable principles forming a single whole). The Venice Commission, the European Court of Human Rights and a divided Parliamentary Assembly have all witnessed this defence of authoritarianism through the radical democratic principle advocated by the leaders of the Catalan process. In response, the first two have defended constitutional democracy, the common heritage on which European public order is based. In 2021, the PACE took a short-lived position (it has adopted no further resolutions in this sense), buoyed by a weak majority, in favour of the Catalan radical democratic principle. Two years later, however, it, too, would defend constitutional democracy as the “genuine democracy” to which the 1949 Treaty of London refers, albeit again by a slim majority. The study concludes that there is no place for the radical democratic principle in Council of Europe law.

Legal Basis for Unilateral Secession of Somaliland from Somalia

This article explores the legal basis for Somaliland’s unilateral secession from Somalia and whether it violates Somalia’s territorial integrity under international law. The article provides a brief history of Somaliland’s original independence and its subsequent union with Somalia. Following the collapse of the Somali government, Somaliland declared its secession from Somalia in 1991, while the southern region plunged into anarchy. The article examines the criteria for state recognition, with Somaliland fulfilling three of the four requirements. The article delves into the principles of self-determination, sovereignty, and territorial integrity under international law. Although the right to self-determination is fundamental, some experts argue that it does not apply to unilateral secession, as it is in conflict with territorial integrity. Conversely, others argue that self-determination promotes decolonisation and allows individuals to take part in local decision-making, including secession. The article also discusses the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which considers customary law, and the principle of territorial integrity, which only prohibits foreign interference. Besides, this article provides an overview of the concept of recognition in relation to unilateral secession. It discusses the two main perspectives on recognition, constitutive and declaratory. The article examines several cases of state formation, including Eritrea, South Sudan, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union, and emphasises the importance of mutual consent in the creation of new states. In conclusion, the article provides an overview of the legal basis for Somaliland’s unilateral secession and the principles of self-determination, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. It examines the criteria for state recognition and the role of the ICJ, human rights advocates, and the Security Council in interventions. Ultimately, the recognition of a new state depends on political will, which can have a significant impact on the decision-making process.

CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

The tapestry of world affairs in the post-Westphalian era has introduced various multifaceted concepts for the protection and preservation of the territorial integrity of states around the world. Unlike in the medieval ages when the rule of ‘might is right’ was prevalent, the concept of territorial integrity has provided an impeccable locus standi to all the big and small legitimate countries. The protection of the inviolability of their territorial jurisdiction is guaranteed under the auspices of an effective international legal framework. In the following lines, various aspects of the “principle of territorial integrity” have been critically evaluated in considerable detail. The facets about evolution, interpretations, differences with other resembling concepts under the principles and theories of international law have been construed herein below. Moreover, the use of the “principle of territorial integrity” for the resolution of past disputes has also been mentioned at great length. The prospects and recommendations for using this principle for settlement of present international territorial disputes for the collective peace and serenity of the world have also been elaborated in the final part. Keywords: Territorial integrity, international law, UN Charter, ICJ, Unilateral annexation, Threat or use of force, UNSC Resolution, Sanctions.

영토보전원칙과 일방적 분리 독립의 추구 - ICJ 코소보 권고적 의견이 낳은 규범적 혼란에 주목하며 -

본고는 ICJ의 2010년 코소보 권고적 의견이 무엇보다도 두 가지에 점에서 큰 오류를 범했음을 지적한다. 하나는 국제법상의 영토보전원칙의 내용과 범위에 대한 부정확한 이해이고 다른 하나는 권고적 의견을 위해 제기된 질문에 대한 지극히 형식적인 독해이다. 결과적으로 ICJ는 규범적 혼란을 초래했다. ICJ 코소보 권고적 의견과는 달리 본고는 국제법상의 영토보전원칙이 국가 간의 관계에서뿐만 아니라 국가 내부의 관계에서도 적용된다는 점을 강조하였다. 따라서 영토보전원칙을 존중해야 할 의무는 국가 내부의 분리주의를 추구하는 집단에게도 적용된다.BR 2010년 코소보 권고적 의견에서 ICJ는 코소보의 ‘일방적 독립선언’은 국제법을 위반한 것이 아니라고 하였지만 이는 제기된 질문의 본질을 정확히 이해하지 못했거나 아니면 의도적으로 질문의 본질을 회피한 결과로 나온 답변이라고 할 수 있다. ICJ는 ‘일방적 독립선언’이라는 행위 그 자체와 그 행위의 국제법적 효과를 분리하며 이해하는 오류를 범했다. 문제의 일방적 독립선언은 코소보라는 새로운 국가를 만드는 과정에서 나온 행위이기 때문에 양자는 분리할 수 없는 문제이다.BR 보다 근본적으로는 ICJ가 이런 형식적 접근을 취하며 ‘일방적 독립선언’의 핵심 문제인 분리 독립을 통한 ‘정당한’ 외적 자결권 행사 가능성에 대한 심도있는 검토를 하지 않았다는 점이다. 영토보전원칙상 자결권의 행사는 내적 자결권의 행사가 우선적이지만 극단적 인권 침해 상황 등 매우 예외적인 상황에서는 분리 독립 방식의 외적 자결권의 행사가 불가능한 것은 아니기 때문이다.BR ICJ의 ‘일방적 독립선언’에 대한 극히 형식적인 독해는 마치 현행국제법이 국가 내부의 특정지역이 일방적인 독립을 감행하는 것에 대해 순전히 ‘중립적인’ 자세를 취한다는 그릇된 인상을 주었다. 러시아는 2010년 ICJ 코소보 권고적 의견 절차에서 코소보의 일방적인 분리 독립은 자결권 행사로 정당화될 수 없다고 했지만 2014년 러시아의 불법적인 크림반도 병합의 경우는 정반대로 주민의 정당한 자결권 행사라고 주장하였다. 이와 같은 러시아의 국제법에 대한 오용을 전적으로 2010년 ICJ 코소보 권고적 의견의 오류 탓으로 돌릴 수는 없지만 이 권고적 의견이 국제법의 핵심 원칙인 영토보전원칙과 자결권 존중의 원칙에 대한 부정확한 이해로 인해 규범적 혼란을 초래했다는 점은 분명해 보인다.

The conflict in Abkhazia and South Ossetia: lessons we didn’t learn

The article examines the violation of the principles of international law, in particular the principles of territorial integrity and inviolability of state borders, on the example of the conflict in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of practical aspects of these principles. The study established the legal significance of the international legal conflict between Russia and Georgia, as well as its impact on the formation of territorial disputes within the Eurasian continent.
 It is emphasized that the conflict in Abkhazia and South Ossetia cannot be called «humanitarian intervention to help the ethnic population.» The paper confirms that the very fact of the introduction of regular troops into Georgia could already be regarded as an act of aggression. In addition, Russia’s refusal to withdraw peacekeepers from Georgian territory due to violations and thus the impossibility of fulfilling the terms of bilateral agreements can also be interpreted as the occupation of Georgian territory.
 Based on the analysis of regulations in the form of resolutions and bilateral agreements, it was possible to trace the origins and legal basis of this conflict. In fact, the Sochi and Moscow agreements concluded in 1992 and 1994, respectively, legitimized the presence of Russian peacekeeping troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The article also focuses on the use of weapons by Georgia and provides an analysis in the context of Article 51 of the UN Charter. Based on this, the latter should be interpreted as a means of self-defense, which is one of the two legitimate applications of the concept of jus ad bellum in the XXI century.
 The actions, more fair, inaction, of the international community in the process of resolving the conflict in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which as a result influenced the formation of territorial strife and colonialist aspirations on the part of the Russian Federation, are substantiated. It has been suggested that the reluctance of world leaders and international organizations to take decisive action to resolve the Russian-Georgian war has become a catalyst for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and in 2022 as well.

Mapping the Landscape of the Inherent Right to Self-Determination of Peoples within Sovereign States

This essay explores the vexing question of the right to self-determination with particular reference to developments under both general international law and African regional law. It recognises the tension between the right to self-determination and the territorial integrity of states while arguing that the right to self-determination for peoples within sovereign independent states fits into emerging normative developments in international law practice and politics in Africa and beyond. These normative developments are a pointer that state-centric principles of territorial integrity are not inviolable. Meanwhile, they are also indices for identifying the limits of uti possidetis vis-à-vis the fundamental right of self-determination.

On legal gaps in the international law related to the realisation of the right of peoples to self-determination

The article is devoted to the main gaps in international law, impeding the realisation of the right to self-determination. The current stage of development of international relations entails the need to search for new approaches to resolving conflict situations and to improve existing legal mechanisms, including those related to the realisation of the right of peoples to self-determination. The author analyses the categories of subjects of the right in the issue and the forms of its implementation envisaged for each of them. Special attention in this article is paid to the international law concerning the relationship between the principle of territorial integrity and the right of peoples to self-determination. On basis of conducted analysis the author also formulates the thesis under which the principle of territorial integrity cannot be considered applicable to states that pursue a discriminatory policy against certain peoples living on their territory (primacy of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples in cases where discriminatory policy is conducted against them). Further the author identifies related problems of realisation of the right to self-determination and comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to legally define such subjects at the international level through the adoption of a comprehensive international legal act on the right to self-determination.

International legal status of “unrecognized states” as special political and territorial entities

Problems of determining the status of so-called unrecognized states in terms of modern international law are revealed. It is noted that the desire of different territorial entities to secede in recent years increasingly leads to the emergence of “unrecognized states” as special political and territorial entities, whose existence is one of the sources of conflict in modern world politics. Many works by both domestic and foreign scholars are devoted to the problems of determining the international legal status of “unrecognized states” and their domestic political development. However, a significant disadvantage of these scientific works is that their authors do not seek to develop general theoretical methodological approaches to the study of the phenomenon of “unrecognized states” and to determine the criteria of insolvency and non-recognition. It is noted that the study of the international legal status of self-proclaimed “unrecognized states” requires theoretical and methodological understanding, which is possible with a comprehensive scientific approach to this topic. Thus, in the current conditions of development of international relations, scholars in the field of international law, international relations and political science are faced with the task of finding optimal methodological and theoretical approaches to the study of the phenomenon of “unrecognized states”. An integrated approach to its study will help to determine the features of their domestic political development, to identify the relationship between the main trends in their formation and international legal status. The results obtained will determine the prospects for the recognition of such political and territorial entities (“unrecognized states”) with a special status and the development of their capacity. The purpose of the article is to define the term “unrecognized states”, to conduct a scientific and theoretical analysis of its content and consider the existing preconditions for its formulation, as well as to clarify the place of such political and territorial entities (“unrecognized states”) in international law. The objective of the article is to clarify the substantive characteristics of the term “unrecognized states”, the international legal status of such entities and analyze the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity in the context of the emergence and existence of “unrecognized states”. The conflict in modern international law between the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity, which are a prerequisite for geopolitical disputes in the current conditions of international relations is shown. Given the complexity of the practice of recognizing such entities, it was noted the need to develop clear legal norms that would regulate the procedure for the formation of such political and territorial entities (“unrecognized states”) as subjects of international law.

The normative power of the right to selfdetermination under the African Charter and the principle of territorial integrity: competing values of human dignity and system stability

ABSTRACT: This article considers the interaction between the right of selfdetermination and the principle of territorial integrity, two powerful norms seemingly pulling in opposite directions, with reference to relevant texts and decisions of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. It posits that the enjoyment of complete self-determination is constrained by the somewhat skewed interpretation given to the norm by the Commission. The basic argument canvassed is that the right of self-determination is an enabling, ongoing collective human right applicable in colonial and certain post-colonial contexts. The case-law on self-determination shows that while the Commission readily upholds the right of internal self-determination it always declines claims to external self-determination. The dubious reasoning of the Commission is that this variant of self-determination is unavailable in post-colonial Africa because of its incompatibility with the principle of territorial integrity. And yet the right of self-determination is available to other oppressed peoples even in a non-colonial context to assert their humanity, dignity and freedom. The author concludes that while selfdetermination and territorial integrity appear to be pulling in opposite directions, in fact the two norms are not always in conflict. Sometimes they complement each other and are mutually reinforcing. Sometimes also, one norm yields to the other as a matter of law. In circumstances where the law is silent on the question of which norm prevails over the other, it seems meaningful that self-determination should prevail over territorial integrity on account of the fact that it is people who determine the destiny of territory and not the other way round.
  
 TITRE ET RÉSUMÉ EN FRANCAIS: Le pouvoir normatif du droit à l’autodétermination dans la Charte africaine et le principe d’intégrité territoriale: l’opposition entre les valeurs de dignité humaine et de la stabilité du système
 RÉSUMÉ: Cet article examine l’interaction entre le droit à l’autodétermination et le principe d’intégrité territoriale, deux normes fondamentales qui, en référence aux textes et décisions pertinents de la Commission africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples, semblent chacune tirer dans sa direction. Cet article suggère que la jouissance d’une autodétermination complète est limitée par l’interprétation quelque peu biaisée donnée à la norme par la Commission. L’argument principal est que le droit à l’autodétermination est un droit de l’homme collectif applicable dans les contextes coloniaux et dans certains contextes postcoloniaux. La jurisprudence en matière d’autodétermination montre que, si la Commission soutient facilement le droit à l’autodétermination interne, elle refuse toujours les demandes d’autodétermination externe. Le raisonnement douteux de la Commission est que cette variante de l’autodétermination n’est pas disponible dans l’Afrique postcoloniale en raison de son incompatibilité avec le principe de l’intégrité territoriale. Et pourtant, le droit à l’autodétermination est ouvert à d’autres peuples opprimés, même dans un contexte non colonial, pour affirmer leur humanité, leur dignité et leur liberté. L’auteur conclut que, alors que l’autodétermination et l’intégrité territoriale semblent aller dans des directions opposées, en réalité, les deux normes ne sont pas toujours en conflit. Parfois, ils se complètent et se renforcent mutuellement. Parfois aussi, l’une des normes cède la place à l’autre en droit. Dans les cas où la loi reste muette sur la question de savoir quelle norme prévaut sur l’autre, il semble logique que l’autodétermination l’emporte sur l’intégrité territoriale, du fait que ce sont les personnes qui déterminent le destin du territoire et non l’inverse.
  

Territorial Border Disputes in Spain, the Leading State in Western Europe

The purpose of the article - is to study the territorial border disputes in Spain, one of the Western European countries, to study the experience of applying the principle of territorial integrity of this country, to systematically study, analyze and draw generalized conclusions on the impact of these disputes on the other European countries based on important sources.
 It is used the systematic research method, various research methods of systematic research are applied on the basis of an eclectic approach. Sources and literature on the dispute were collected, systematized, commented on, analyzed, and summarized.
 When it comes to the scientific novelty of the article, it can be said that in Spain, which suffers the most from separatism in Europe, attempts have been made to look at territorial border issues through the prism of the modern constitutional acts and the legal problems it raises, along with their historical roots, and the existing ethnopolitical issues in Spain and the mechanisms for their solution have been studied in detail.
 Conclusion. Many Western European countries have territorial units seeking independence, as well as various ethnic, national, religious groups and marginal minorities.
 In today's world, ethnic nationalism has been considered a major factor in the emergence of internal conflicts in many nation-states. Spain is also one of those countries facing the issue of ethnic nationalism. Catalonia, the Basque Country, and other problems not only undermine Spain's territorial integrity but are also seen as a major threat to the European Union as a matter of disintegration. Although the Spanish government has stated that it will never give up the country's integrity, it does not rule out granting additional rights to the region. The article seeks to look at territorial border problems in Spain, which suffers more from separatism in Western Europe than in other countries, through their historical roots, the current constitutional acts, and the legal problems it raises. In particular, a comparative analysis has been made of the extent to which the European Union's position on this issue is compatible with common European values.

TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF STATES ON THE GEOPOLITICAL, INTERNATIONAL AND LEGAL DIMENSIONS

Regardless of the form of state structure, government or political regime, states remain legally equal, having the same rights as subjects of international law relations. Taking into account the analysis that was carried out in the present scientific approach, we emphasize that the state structure adopted by each nation can determine and influence the way of exercising sovereignty. It can determine the surrender of some attributes of sovereignty or it can limit the sovereignty to a degree that it would not affect the interests of the state and the people. The integration of the state in international or regional structures does not cancel its sovereign character. In modern conditions, the notion of the principle of territorial integrity is unquestionable which is true and fixed in the Constitutions of most states.

Political uncertainty of the nation as an objective factor in shaping the life plans of the Kurdish youth (empirical research experience)

The article presents both legal and sociological views on the problems of Nations living in the conditions of another state. The article examines the impact of the contradiction between the right of a nation to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity as an urgent problem for the Kurdish youth. Attention is drawn to the need to humanize international law in relation to Nations in conditions of political uncertainty. It is proposed to use the following means to reduce violence: international law, international supranational organizations, and General humanization of social processes. To ensure that this contradiction does not remain practically insoluble and to reduce the level of violence in existing conflicts, it is necessary to develop certain international rules that would allow Nations fighting for sovereignty to exercise their right to self-determination. Based on the results of a sociological study of the life plans of Kurdish youth living in the Republic of Iraq, it is shown how such an objective factor as political uncertainty affects the formation of life plans of young people and what consequences this leads to. It is proved that the situation of the Kurdish people is not only a political, but also a social problem. A low horizon for planning a life strategy deprives the young generation of the opportunity to be confident in the future, hinders the creation of a family, and forms migration moods. For a person, the inability to plan their life turns into a state of frustration, depressive States, and the need to find a way out of this situation. The need to humanize the processes of self-determination of Nations is caused by the fact that life in a state of uncertainty has a negative impact on the ethnic group as a whole, and on young generations in particular.

State Integrity and Self-Determination in a World of Problematic Sovereignty

This article analyses the phenomenon of states with problematic sovereignty, which has arisen in recent decades, primarily in the former Yugoslavia and the USSR (but not only). The existing model of the world order, in which only UN member countries are recognised as participants in international relations, does not reflect a real picture of the world. At the beginning of the study, the authors examine theoretical approaches (A. Yannis. A. Tsutsiev, A. Sebentsov, V. Kolosov) to typologising entities with problematic sovereignty and territorial principles of national self-determination (i. e. the realisation of the right to self-determination) as well as re-conceptualising sovereignty approaches (J. Agnew and N. Dobronravin). Next, the authors describe how these topics are embedded in the logic of the developing crisis of relations between Russia and the West and lead to a diplomacy of double standards. It is especially emphasised that at different periods and depending on the political state of affairs, both sides in the present-day confrontation supported separatist projects and the preservation of territorial integrity and state unity. This results from contradictions in the system of international law, vague criteria for recognising newly formed independent states, and attempts to use conflicts instrumentally to realise strategic interests. According to the authors, a way out of this impasse could be an agreement between the West and Russia on some general rules of the game, including clearer criteria for the recognition of new states, the legality/illegality of secession, and the preservation of territorial integrity, as well as possible procedures for transition to a new status. However, this is unlikely to happen without reaching a comprehensive compromise or modus vivendi between the main stakeholders. The result of the article is a demonstration on the theoretical and applied levels that in the modern system of international relations, the concept of “territoriality” has become more complicated as a basic characteristic of the state. It now requires new legal and diplomatic approaches to resolve the contradiction between the principles of territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination. These new approaches should be developed by the expert community in the course of an unbiased analysis of the contemporary architecture of international relations.

European union and the georgian-abkhaz conflict

Tensions between various ethnic groups living in Abkhazia, on the Black Sea coast, escalated into violent conflict in 1992-1993. At the heart of the conflict, which broke out along with a number of other conflicts after the collapse of the Soviet Union, lies the contradiction between the principles of territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination. This tension was centered around competing historical claims of Georgians and Abkhazians on the territory of Abkhazia. Abkhaz demands for greater autonomy increased when the Soviet Union collapsed. Nationalism spread, tension grew, and in 1992 a 13-month war began. This article assesses how the warring parties perceive the process of Europeanization of their region, as well as the role of the European Union in the conflict around Abkhazia and its possible outcome in the future. It is noted that the efforts made by the EU to facilitate the settlement of disputes on the Georgian-Abkhaz issue are long-standing and multifaceted. However, there is a dissonance between the EU’s strong interest in resolving these conflicts, its strong commitment and its long-standing involvement in promoting such a settlement, and its actual, ineffective contribution to this goal.

Exploring the Legality of the Constitutional and Independence Referendums in Nagorno-Karabakh under International Law

Abstract As a result of the constitutional referendum held on 20 February 2017 in the unrecognised Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, both the name and administration of the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh changed. According to the new Constitution, adopted with an 87 per cent majority, Nagorno-Karabakh’s name is now the Republic of Artsakh, its Armenian name, and the system is changing from semi-presidential to presidential. This study discusses the legality of the referendum, the third since Nagorno-Karabakh was established in 1991; it evaluates the referendum in the context of the secession and the right to self-determination in international law. Having looked at similar cases, the article challenges the compatibility of all referenda held in the region with the uti possidetis juris principle and principle of territorial integrity under international law.

Territorial integrity, political independence, and consent: the limitations of military assistance on request under the prohibition of force

ABSTRACT This article builds upon previous research by the author into the mechanics and interpretation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which sought to explain the apparent contradiction between the status of the prohibition as a non-derogable norm of jus cogens and its well-recognised ‘exceptions’. Turning to the role of state consent within the prohibition, this article explores the scope and limits of a state’s ability to consent to the use of force within its territory – for example, by requesting military assistance in the context of a civil war – in light of this mechanical interpretation. Ultimately, this article argues that the prohibition of force still applies where a state consents or requests military assistance, because the principles of territorial integrity and political independence, alongside the ‘purposes of the United Nations’, can still prohibit some forms of military force even where consent has been given by the state concerned.

SUPPORT OF THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF AZERBAIJAN BY UKRAINE DURING THE ESCALATION PERIOD IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH

The object of this article is to study historical reasons for the escalation in Nagorno-Karabakh, to identify possible scenarios for the development of the conflict, considering the support of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan by Ukraine. A large-scale war is certainly not beneficial to anyone. It is disadvantageous for Azerbaijan because the country does not lay claim to the territory of Armenia; Azerbaijan only wants its lands to be liberated. The investigation sees into the main positions of Ukraine in regards to the conflict and its support of the integrity of Azerbaijan’s territory. It also outlines the main scenarios for the possible further development of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia and highlights the viewpoints of both parties. Methods that were used in the research are as follows: general scientific method (analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction), method of theoretical research (from abstract to concrete), historical method. It was determined that Ukraine’s stand regarding Azerbaijan is enforced by its consistent support in the Donbas region situation and the annexation of Crimea. The article also identifies the main points of support from Turkey, as well as other countries’ standpoints. The conflict will only be settled if Azerbaijan and Armenia reach a consensus through negotiations, taking into consideration each other’s principles of territorial integrity and perspectives. The resumption of the conflict is bolstered by the aggravated economic situation in the wake of the pandemic.

SEPARATISM IS OUTSIDE THE LAW

The widespread and increasing activity of certain territorial entities in a number of jurisdictions in recent decades, aimed at establishing their absolute independence from the states to which they belong, and the establishment of their own statehood, poses a threat to the stability of the fundamental constitutional principles of the territorial integrity of the state and state sovereignty. The consequences of the territories actions to secede from the state, bypassing constitutional mechanisms and reasonable political dialogue to find consensus and ensure an equally acceptable solution for each of the parties, are the aggravation of social contradictions, the increase in the level of social tension, the violation of human rights and freedoms. Recent events related to the initiative of Catalonia to secede from Spain, particularly clearly demonstrate the possible result of a non-legal way to resolve the contradictions about the status of a territory within the state. The theoretical basis of this study is represented by the researches of European scientists on the realization of the people's right to self-determination. The empirical basis of the research is the opinions of the European Commission for democracy through law (Venice Commission), the decisions of state and supranational bodies. The methodological basis of the study is the formal-logical method, the method of system analysis, structural and functional method. The article presents the author's legal assessment of modern separate activity in the world (on the example of the process of Catalonia's secession from Spain). The study concludes that the people's right to self-determination should be interpreted only within the provisions of national constitutional acts and international legal instruments that do not provide (with rare exceptions) the admissibility of secede from the state territory in cases, where the population of the territory has the legal and actual ability to administrate within such territory. Broad interpretations of the people’s right to self-determination content, allowing the possibility of establishment by the people of the territory their own state, which not caused by the liberation of the population from colonial regime, or gross violations of the rights of such populations, is conflicting to fundamental principles of international law - the principle of territorial integrity and inviolability of state borders. The people’s right to self-determination, which had emerged as a legal means of combating colonialism, could not be used to destroy already established state borders or to undermine state sovereignty. The secession of a territory from the state is permissible only in exceptional cases and only to prevent a gross violation of human rights and freedoms.

Self-Determination and Territorial Integrity: Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroun

African states and institutions believe that the principle of territorial integrity is applicable to sub-state groups and limits their right to self-determination, contrary to international law. The Anglophone Problem in Cameroon has been an ever-present issue of social, political and economic debates in the country, albeit most times in undertones. This changed as the problem metamorphosed into an otherwise preventable devastating armed conflict with external self-determination having become very popular among the Anglophone People. This situation brings to light the drawbacks of irregular decolonisation, third world colonialism and especially the relationship between self-determination and territorial integrity in Africa.

Freedom of Speech under Militant Democracy: The History of Struggle against Separatism and Communism in Ukraine

Abstract The article is devoted to the experience of the application of a concept of militant democracy in modern Ukraine. This concept is relevant due to the prolonged domination of the communist totalitarian regime until 1991, and also in view of the encroachment on the principle of territorial integrity in 2014. It is argued that Ukraine, formally consolidating separate instruments of militant democracy at the level of the Constitution of Ukraine, almost did not apply such instruments until 2014. The active process of decommunization started in 2014, after the Revolution of Dignity; it was realised, in particular, in the declaration of lustration, as well as the banning of the two communist parties, but the most influential Communist Party remains officially not banned up till now. Also, the two parties, accused of infringement on territorial integrity, were banned in 2014. The issue of differentiation between aggressive words and aggressive actions of parties is analysed. It is argued that representatives of the parties, who during the twenty years of Ukrainian independence openly denied one of the key values of the constitutional order of Ukraine, its territorial integrity, became active participants of the temporary occupation.