Principles of territorial integrity and rights of nations indisputable by themselves

PanARMENIAN.Net - The parties to ethnic-political conflicts, damped but not settled, stubbornly appeal to an international legal principle that is most beneficial for them. One side invokes the territorial integrity of the states, the other calls for the right of peoples to self-determination," says the article titled "Political atlas of conflicts and two Helsinki principles" by OSCE MG Russian Co-chair in 1994-1996, Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov.



"Should references to the 'favorite' principles be frequent and loud-voiced, it's not a weighty argument. The necessity of deep and, first of all, legal development of these two principles of the Helsinki Final Act aroused long ago. The topic is delicate and needs all-sided and detailed development. It's axiomatic that both principles are equal and should be taken up together with the 'whole dozen' of the Helsinki principles. These two principles are said not to conflict with each other but there are plenty of examples when one dominates over the other," Kazimirov writes.



According to the Russian diplomat, both principles are indisputable and untouchable by themselves. It's time to make out how efficient is each of these principles, not in abstraction but in exact historical-geographical situation, and uncover the inner logic and regularities. It will help to alleviate tension and the parties' stake on automatic domination of the principles beneficial for them. A conception commensurable with the efficiency of both principles with an exact composition of criteria is needed. It should be a multiplex but not a precedent approach. Precedent is convenient in tactical aspect but here we need a more thorough development of the topic. First, any principle- moreover jointly with the others - is not a dogma. So, if the international community will come to make some of the Helsinki principles an absolute, it's most likely to choose non-use of force and peaceful settlement of disputes. A principles is an abstraction, it does not exist beyond circumstances.



Second, history and connection with the epoch is important. These are not the principles that originated from the Christmas and it would be ridiculous to apply them to crusades and Napoleon's wars. Even the UN regulations mentions of them vaguely. The Helsinki principles are born by their epoch: the outcomes of the World War II in Europe, the existence of two systems and opposition camps + nuclear weapons. "It's nearly an "armistice" between antagonists to avoid a third world war. 10 principles drew a balance of two power interests; they became the "rules of the game" for interstate relations during that epoch. But the epoch is gone now. The connection between the principles and their epoch does not mean they are mortal and historically "fleeting" without having any future. The core of each of them is an important contribution to the settlement of relations between states and even to the world civilization. An epoch, region, situation, that is to say historical, geographical and other circumstances, carry utmost importance for appliance of these principles. There are no international processes and events beyond time and space, beyond history and geography, beyond exact circumstances," the article says.