<<
>>

§ 1. International legal maintenance of realisation of the right of the nations on self-determination in the countries of continental Europe in first half XX century

The principle of self-determination in its legal, moral and political aspects has been anyhow put in pawn in the bases of all great and small revolutions which extended self-determination and to the citizen getting the sovereignty, based on a recognition of the rights and freedom, and also an element of national identity as motive power of registration of national states.

The right of the nations to self-determination as a politiko-legal principle during the investigated period, only started to enter into international law gradually. Peace treaties forming a post-war peace arrangement: the Versailles 1919, Sen-Zhermensky 1919, Nyojisky 1919, Trianonsky 1920, Sevrsky 1920 and Lozannsky 1923 have put in pawn preconditions of formation of international legal bases of realisation of the right of the nations on self-determination in the countries of continental Europe.

After the First World War the destiny of the world has appeared in hands of leaders of the countries-winners and dared at the Parisian peace conference of 1919 It was supposed, that she like the Viennese congress (1815) will try to create new strong system of peace international relations. The first plenary session of the Parisian peace conference has taken place on January, 18th, 1919 in the Mirror hall of Versailles. All decisions of conference were accepted at first on Council of Ten into which structure entered on two representatives from 5 powers-winners - England, the USA, France, Italy and Japan. The small countries as the countries of "special interests», were not got to take part in the decision of the major questions. Discharge of these countries was diplomatic success of England for England was afraid, that V.Wilson, being based on the «14 points» and the slogan of self-determination of the nations, will lean against the small countries in struggle against England and France.

However and the circle of ten persons has soon seemed to D.L.George too wide and not providing privacy of discussion. Therefore from second half of March Council of Ten has been actually abolished and instead of it Council of Four in structure ZH.B is created. Klemanso (the French prime minister - the minister), L-dzh. David (the prime minister of the Great Britain), T.V.Wilson (US president) and V.E.Orlando (the chairman of ministerial council of Italy). In this narrow circle reduced subsequently to three persons ("Triumvirate" - Klemanso, Lloyd-George, Wilson), there was a rigid struggle round the questions connected with recutting of a world card and creation of a new balance in the post-war world.

"Triumvirate" could not "divide" openly the territories which are a subject of political interests. In this connection it was necessary to create the international organisation which can "objectively settle geopolitical questions in the post-war world. The League of the Nations became such organisation. On the one hand, it is possible to tell, that creation of League of the nations was a serious concession to the democratic public opinion demanding guarantees from repetition of wars and creation of the international organisation on maintenance of safety. However instead of seriously, sincerely and amicably being engaged in the device of the effective organisation of the post-war world, supervising figures of powers - of winners began to consider creation of League of the nations as the forced concession and tried to enclose in it other maintenance.

In particular, they aspired to give to it anti-Soviet character and through its activity to realise the imperialistic interests, that directly contradicted the declared purposes of this international establishment [173].

For legitimation of territorial repartition of the world the League of the Nations used a principle of the right of the nations on self-determination as the main basis and an occasion to "partition" of territory of this or that state.

The basic defect of the Versailles system consisted that it, trying patsifitsirovat Germany, simultaneously blocked restoration of equal relations between the European countries. The Versailles peace treaty (VMD), according to J. M.Keynes, has not given the chance to restore completely system of the international economic relations with participation of Germany and other won states [174].

Studying of the text of the Versailles contract with clearness shows its obviously imperialistic character in a combination to mainly imperative principle of realisation of the right to self-determination. Character and the maintenance of the Versailles contract have been already predetermined long before by aggressive aspirations of the countries-winners and in advance constituted secret agreements.

Publication of classified documents of Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs was one of the first certificates of the Soviet government after its arrival to the power. The maintenance of these documents immediately became known all over the world. Italy has signed on April, 26th, 1915 the secret agreement with England, Russia and France on which basis it was obliged to oppose allied to it of the central powers, and for it to receive part Tirolja, some islands in east corner of Mediterranean sea, a part of the Balkan earths and solid territorial indemnifications at section of Ottoman empire. Allies have entered into agreement carefully disappearing from Serbia with Romania, having given to it for performance on their party Transylvania, a part of Hungary, Bukovina and Banat. England "has managed to get" at section of Turkey influence over a neutral zone in Persia. France has provided to itself the consent of Russia to joining of Alsace-Lorraine left coast of Rhine with a recognition beyond France special interests in Saarsky pool, and also visible participation in section of Ottoman empire. On the Balkans for participation in war allies offered same and Serbia, and G retsii, certainly, with that intention that one of these countries did not know that is promised another.

According to a part of III article 32 of a department I VMD, Germany recognised the sovereignty of Belgium over batable ground Moreno. According to article 33, Germany has refused in favour of Belgium the rights on Moreno [175]. Also under article 34 VMD Germany has refused the rights to territories of districts Ejpen and Malmedi where according to requirements of League of the Nations were assumed plebistsity. Their results the government of Belgium reported on League of the Nations, Belgium and accepted whose decision [176].

Article 36 VMD established an order of transition of the sovereignty and acquisition of the Belgian citizenship instead of the German. Thus the citizens of Germany living in territories new to Belgium, since August, 1st, 1914 could receive the Belgian citizenship with the permission of the government of Belgium [177].

According to article 40 of a department II VMD, G ermanija recognised an exit of Great Duchy Luxembourg of the German Customs union with refusal of the rights of operation of railways. G ermanija recognised cancellation of a neutrality of Luxembourg and all international agreements concluded by allied and consolidated powers concerning Duchy [178].

According to article 45 of a department IV VMD, the Saarsky coal basin passed France as indemnification for destruction of collieries in the north of France, and also on account of reparations for losses of war [179].

Management of territory of Saarsky pool has been entrusted the commission representing League of the Nations. Also by positions VMD it was supposed after the expiration pjatnadtsatiletnego term to spend interrogation of the population of Saar, for the purpose of an establishment of three following alternatives: 1) preservation of the mode established VMD; 2) joining to France; 3) joining to Germany [180]. Article 51 of a department V VMD fixed transfer Alsace - Lorraine France with what Germany agreed [181].

According to article 80 of a department VI VMD Germany recognised independence of Austria in borders which will be established by the contract concluded between this state both the main allied and consolidated powers; also she recognised, that this independence will be inaliennable, if the consent of Council of League of the Nations [182] follows.

Article 81 of a department VII VMD fixed a recognition of independence of Czechoslovakia, including independent territory Rusin to the south from Carpathians. Germany has agreed with the future borders of Czechoslovakia defined by allies and other interested states [183]. According to article 83 of a department of VII Contract, Germany has refused in favour of Czechoslovakia the rights to a part of Silesia [184].

Also Germany (article 87 of a department VIII) after allies recognised independence of Poland with refusal in its advantage of the rights to the territories limited to Baltic sea, eastern frontier G ermanii, defined on VMD (article 27 a part II) [185]. Article 100 of a department XI VMD contained refusal of Germany in favour of allies from the rights to territory from Baltic sea to the South and before crossing navigable rusel the rivers Nogata and Vistula [186]. Also Germany (article 116 of a department XIV VMD) recognised independence of territories of the former Russian empire (as of August, 1st, 1914). Germany has agreed with cancellation Brest-Lithuanian and other contracts and the agreements concluded with «the Maximal Government in Russia» [187].

The destiny of some batable grounds between Germany and Poland (the Top Silesia, a part of areas of the Western and East Prussia, Varmija and Masurs) where have been planned plebistsity has not been defined. Offered variants of demarcation of the polsko-German border did not arrange both parties: Germany disagreed to transfer to Poland the essential of historical territory as East Prussia would be cut off from Germany. Batable grounds had both geopolitical, and moral value as Germans there lived. Territories besides, transferred to Poland were industrially developed, and their transfer involved also economic harm for Germany.

From its part, Poland was not content offered as counted on essentially big acquisitions. The Versailles decisions have caused discontent in Warsaw, the Polish prime minister I. Paderevsky has made in Paris the protest which has been dismissed. With Poles carried on dialogue «preuvelichenno kindly», but resolutely specifying on a place and carrying out the to the policy [188].

The big problem was represented by a situation with section of Avstrovengersky empire. In territory earlier belonging to it there was variety of independent state formations: Austrian, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the West Ukrainian national republic, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, have been proclaimed Karpatsky Russia and Romania, also during empire disintegration there was a republic Tarnobzhegska and Russian National republic lemkov.

The legal documents regulating occurrence of the new states, were Sen-Zhermensky (SZHMD) and the Trianonsky peace treaty (TMD). In the given contracts basically the questions connected with change were resolved is state-legal status the Austrian and Hungarian earths. Besides the specified contracts separate articles Versailles, Nejsky, and also the Sevrsky peace treaty contained the norms, called to settle geopolitical changes after "disintegration-section" of Austro-Hungarian and Osmansky empires.

Except contracts of the Versalsko-Washington system of the world

There was a considerable quantity of the international standard

The documents concluded already between the neogenic states concerning inclusion in their structure of separate territories, before a part of Austro-Hungarian empire. The important role in the course of geopolitical "recutting" of the post-war world was played by the decisions accepted at conferences of League of the Nations, assembled on concrete territorial questions.

At national level constitutions and the declarations proclaiming the state independence have been accepted. On territorial changes which follow after declaration of independence, interstate legal documents did not contain concrete instructions, however, they legally fixed the fact of realisation by the people of the right to self-determination.

The decree from August, 24th, 1918, having proclaimed the right of the people to self-determination, has defined the right to self-determination and unity that had a consequence creation independent Polish for Poles

Republics [189]. Restoration of Poland as the states has been formalized in «the Small constitution» 1919, and then (March, 1921) - in the so-called March Constitution [190].

On October, 28th, 1918 the Czech national board has proclaimed independence of Czechoslovakia, and on October, 30th, 1918 Slovak national board in Prague has declared branch of Slovakia from Hungary and creation of the Czechoslovak state. «The Martinsky declaration» [191] has been accepted so-called. The constitutional fastening of self-determination of Czechoslovakia has begun with the statement in November, 1918 of "the Time constitution» [192].

The National veche the same year assembled on the basis of a provincial cathedral under the pressure of revolutionary national performances declared branch from Austro-Hungary all South slavic provinces and has proclaimed independent Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. On October, 17th, 1918 Hungary declared creation of independent republic, and later, on November, 12th, 1918, the independent republic Austria has been proclaimed. But, as it has already been told, these dogovory fixed independence of the gained independence states, and territorial changes have been registered in norms of the peace treaties concluded with Austria and Hungary.

For correct, first of all from the legal point of view, understanding of the geopolitical processes connected with disintegration of Avstrovengersky empire, it is necessary to carry out the analysis of the given documents. Following chronology of events, it is necessary to begin with the Sen-Zhermensky peace treaty.

The sen-Zhermensky peace treaty has been signed on September, 10th, 1919 between the USA, England, France, Italy, Japan and others «the allied and consolidated powers», on the one hand, and Austria - with another.

Parts II, III, IV SZHMD regulated an establishment of new borders, definition of the new statute of the territories entering and leaving structure of Austria, and also contained a number political and martial laws. Besides it the contract included the positions defining economic and financial restrictions which Austria should incur, but us territorial changes first of all interest. Directly part III «the Political positions, concerning Europe» SZHMD contained the norms regulating allocation of those or other territories from structure of Austria. The part III SZHMD included 8 departments, 5 from which have been devoted a recognition by Austria of territorial claims of the concrete countries.

Article 27 SZHMD regulated an establishment of new borders of the Austrian state: the part of 1 article 27 defined, that borders of Austria with Switzerland and with Luxembourg remain in such condition in what they were at the moment of signing of the given contract; the part of 2 articles 27 said, that borders of Austria with G ermaniej are restored as of August, 3rd, 1914

The department I SZHMD is devoted Italy. According to article 36 of the given department Austria «refuses, as that it concerns, in favour of Italy from any rights and pravoosnovany on the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy located on that party of borders of Austria, as they are established in article 27 of a part II (Borders of Austria), and prisoners between these borders the former Austro-Hungarian border with Italy, Adriatic sea and an eastern frontier of Italy as it will be established subsequently». [193]

«Austria refuses similarly as that it concerns, in favour of Italy from any rights and pravoosnovany on other territories of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy recognised as any contracts a part of Italy, concluded in kinds of settlement of a modern state of affairs». [194]

Thus, according to a department 1 SZHMD, Italy the southern part Tirolja named Italians Trentino departed. At once it is necessary to give a geographical binding: in the north (on ridges of the Alpes) Tirol borders on Austria, in the west - with Switzerland and area Lombardy, on jugovostoke - with area Veneto. Also Austria lost the most part of the South slavic territories, but their section between Italy and Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes has not been settled in SZHMD as dispute on this question for that moment still proceeded.

Only in 1920 as a result of signing of the Rapallsky peace treaty [195] Italy has received Julijsky Krajnu. To the First World War the duchy Krajna was koronnoj the earth of Austro-Hungary and concerned to it tsislejtanskoj parts, and also almost all Istria.

It is necessary to consider in more details the Rapallsky contract as he solved destiny of the specified territories. The Rapallsky contract of 1920 has been concluded between Kingdom Italy and Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes for settlement of territorial disputes at northern coast of Adriatic sea, in Dalmatia and Venice - Dzhulii.

There is a question: what caused dispute? Here it is necessary to address to the London contract of 1915 [196] concluded between England, Russia and France on the one hand and Italy - with another. This contract was confidential and has defined conditions of the introduction of Italy in the First World War on party Antanty. According to articles 1, 2, 3 London contracts (further LD) Italy was obliged to enter war on the party of allies with which the military and sea conventions providing the sizes of the military help on a land and on the sea immediately should be concluded, to it given by them.

But, by itself, for «it is simple so» Italy would disagree to take part in military actions, it was necessary to satisfy its economic and territorial interests. As indemnification of Italy a number of following territories has been promised under the future peace treaty: according to article 4 LD, Italy received Trentino, Tirol to Brennera, Goritsa, Gradiska, Trieste and all Istria to gulf Kvarnero (Kornaro), including islands in this gulf; articles 5, 6, 8 LD granted Italy the right to receive Dalmatia, Valon with island Saseno and Dodekanezsky islands. Northern and southern parts of Albania were supposed to be divided between Montenegro, Serbia and G retsiej, and from its central part with the city of Duratstso (Durres) to create the independent neutral state under protectorate of Italy is it has been fixed in article 7 LD.

Intensity in relations between Italy and Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes has arisen after the First World War when the Avstrovengersky empire has broken up, and Italy annexed the territories intending to it, according to the London pact of 1915 the Problem consisted that the population of the given territories was ethnically non-uniform (its considerable part Slovenes and Croats) constituted, that, naturally, has displeased the population of the annexed territories.

Though the Rapallsky contract could settle most sharply standing territorial questions, nevertheless Italy have departed territories, on 70 % occupied by Slavs that has unequivocally put in pawn a basis of the future national conflict. It allows to tell once again, that the policy of territorial repartition of the world was harmful and often at all did not consider national interests of the population of the various territories which status has changed after the First World War.

Let's return to consideration of positions of the Sen-Zhermensky peace treaty. The department 2 SZHMD has been devoted territorial claims of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Article 46 of the given section said, that «Austria recognises, as it the Allied and Consolidated Powers have already made, full independence of the Serbo-Horvatoslovensky state». [197]

According to article 47 SZHMD: «Austria refuses, as that it concerns, in favour of the Serbo-horvato-Slovene State from any rights and pravoosnovany on the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy located on that party of borders of Austria, as they are described in article 27 of a part II (Borders of Austria) and recognised as the present Contract or any other Contracts concluded in kinds of settlement of a modern state of affairs as a part of the Serbo-Horvatoslovensky state».

The analysis of given article allows to tell, that SZHMD concerning a number of territories contained only general provisions. For example, in given article we see actually a direct reference on mentioned Earlier Rapallsky contract. As it has more full settled territorial disputes between Italy and Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes which in turn had mutual requirements concerning territories at northern coast of Adriatic sea.

Article 49 SZHMD is rather interesting. In it it is said, that «inhabitants of area of Klagenfurt will be called in that measure in what it is defined more low, to specify by voting the state to which they wish that this territory has been attached». [198] This article that other, as legal fastening of one of certificates of national self-determination in pure, not deformed by a policy of territorial repartition of the world a kind. That in article the way of a choice the given territory of its state accessory the most democratic by - voting is defined is important. It also is realisation of idea of national self-determination in the pure state. National interest of this or that territory should become a basis of its change is state - a legal status. It is necessary to tell, that more than 95 % of the population of Klagenfurt spoke German, that, obviously, has defined results of voting though the remained 5 % were constituted by Slovene minority.

The department III SZHMD is devoted Czechoslovakia. According to article 53 SZHMD Austria «recognises, as it the Allied and Consolidated Powers have already made, full independence of the Czechoslovak state which will include independent territory Rusin to the south from Carpathians». [199] From article that henceforth Austria cannot show any territorial claims to absolute to the independent state Czechoslovakia follows. And here, that represents «independent territories Rusin to the south from Carpathians», from article 53 positions not clearly. To consideration of the given question we will return hardly later.

Article 54 SZHMD fixes that Austria «refuses as that it concerns, in favour of Czechoslovakia from any rights and pravoosnovany on the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy located on that party of borders of Austria as they are established in article 27 of a part II (G ranitsy Austria), and are recognised according to the present Contract as a part of the Czechoslovak state». [200]

According to the territorial and political decisions SZHMD fixed in parts II - IV, - Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia - passed the former Austrian provinces in structure of Czechoslovakia. We will define a geographical position of the specified territories: Bohemia is a part

Czechoslovakia, adjoining in the north and the southwest with Germany, on the northeast - with Poland, in the east - with Moravia, and in the south - with Austria. Moravia in the north borders on Poland and the Czech part of Silesia, in the east - with Slovakia, in the south - with the Bottom Austria, in the west - with Czechia. Silesia is the historical part of the Central Europe adjoining in the east with Poland and in the west - with Germany. Now it is necessary to tell

0 population of the given territories and about its linguistic features.

The given territories were occupied by Czechs, Germans, sileztsy and Poles. Czechs constituted a considerable part of the population in the "former" kingdom of Czechia, markgrafstve Moravia and duchy of Silesia. Two title nationalities Here lived. In Silesia - three nationalities: Germans, Poles and Czechs. At essential prevalence of Czechs (Bohemia - to 63 %, Moravia - 70 %, Silesia - more than 20 %) Germans did not know the Czech language, and intelligency and did not wish it to study, believing Czechs below themselves in cultural development [201] Czechs, accordingly, did not know German language. In Silesia where Poles and Czechs were capable to understand each other mutual hostility nevertheless remained.

Thus, occurrence in structure of Czechoslovakia of Bohemia and Moravia is proved by features of a language accessory of the people occupying given territories is is correct, but only from the point of view of the primary ideas which have been put in pawn in a principle of the right of the nations on self-determination on which basis of "country-winner" "were promised" to create the new world and an order in post-war Europe.

Duchy Silesia position requires more detailed consideration. It is necessary to give due and to tell, that activity of League of the Nations concerning definition it is state-legal status the duchy Silesia earths is one more precedent of the "not deformed" application of a principle of the right of the nations on self-determination. After a referendum spent in the Top Silesia on which a part of inhabitants (Poles) have supported occurrence in structure of Poland, and a part (Germans) have preferred to live in Germany, the League of the Nations found reasonable to divide this region on a part, according to preferences of inhabitants. East part of Silesia has formed as a part of Poland independent Silezsky voevodstvo. The Most part, however, remained in structure G ermanii and the Top and the Bottom Silesia has formed provinces.

Receiving the specified territories, Czechoslovakia, according to article 56 SZHMD, it has been obliged «not to erect any military strengthenings on a part of the territory located on the right coast of Danube to the south from Bratislava (pressburga)». [202] Bratislava is now a capital of Slovakia. The interdiction of erection of any military strengthenings meant a full exception of any aggression between the Czech and Slovak parts of the neogenic state.

Having finished consideration of the territorial questions connected with Czechoslovakia, we will return to earlier postponed problem of independent territory Rusin to the south from Carpathians. For bolshego understanding it is necessary to define a geographical position of the given territory. Lemkovina is a territory, basically settling down in the southeast of modern Poland (Malopolsky and Podkarpatsky voevodstva), and also partially in Slovakia and the Zakarpatye area of Ukraine, occupied in the past an East slavic ethnic group lemki. Scientists define lemkov as subethnos of the Ukrainian people.

It is necessary to notice, that a department V SZHMD, called «Russia and Russian states», included article 87 [203] in which it has been fixed, that Austria recognises and undertakes to respect, as constant and inaliennable, independence of all of the territory which were a part of the former Russian empire by August, 1st, 1914 Point 2 of article 87 also is rather interesting: in it it is said, that «Austria undertakes to recognise full force of all contracts or the agreements, which allied and consolidated Powers would conclude with the states which were formed or formed on all or on a part of territories of the former Russian empire as it existed by August, 1st, 1914 And to recognise borders of these states as they according to it will be established »[204] Given norm carries otsylochnyj character as it is supposed, that the questions connected with territories of the former Russian empire, will be settled by the subsequent the conclusion of various contracts between the allied both consolidated countries and the neogenic states.

With disintegration of Austro-Hungary by autumn of 1918 political movement in Lemkovine took orientation to Russia, to unity with Ugrian rusinami, but in any way with neogenic (November, 1918) the Western Ukrainian National Republic (ZUNR). So on December, 5th, 1918 at congress in Florinka to 500 delegates from 130 lemkovskih villages have created homing lemkovskuju an administrative and territorial unit, having founded authorities. It was Russian National Republic Lemkov in Florinke, aspiring administratively to consolidate karpatskih rusinov in the uniform state - Karpatsky Russia with the subsequent reunion with Russia. Leaders of new Republic recognised that historically joining Lemkoviny to Poland was considered as the unacceptable.

On December, 26th, 1918 National Council of Russian Prikarpatye has published the memorandum which said: «... The Imperial government... Long did not pay attention to the consanguineous Russian brothers in Prikarpatye. And only recently, trying to correct the fatal flaw..., lips of minister Sazonov (the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Russian empire)... Has proclaimed in 1914 joining of Prikarpatye to great Russian Empire. We have hope, that Majestic Russia remains this important minute to true words... We feel and we understand ourselves... Citizens of the uniform, great Russian State, we do not recognise on our earth any Magyar, Polish, gabsburgsko-Ukrainian and any another's power...». [205] the Given fragment is of great value, as it is a vivid example of how the representatives carrying to the certain nation, wished to realise the right to self-determination.

Sociopolitical shocks to Russia, strengthening of Poland and rasklad at the Versailles peace conference have forced heads lemkovskogo movements to be guided by Czechoslovakia where in the end of December, 1918 for negotiations about occurrence Lemkoviny emissaries have gone to its structure.

In second half of 1919 great allied powers final judgement about occurrence «territories rusinov in the south from Carpathians» in structure of Czechoslovak Republic in the status of the widest territorially-political autonomy compatible to unity of Czechoslovak Republic was accepted. Occurrence of Podkarpatsky Russia in structure of Czechoslovakia it has been fixed in the Versailles peace treaty in article 81 [206], in the Sen-Zhemensky peace treaty with Austria in article 53 [207], in the Trianonsky peace treaty in articles 4, 48 [208], partially this process was regulated by the Sevrsky peace treaty in article 2 [209].

It is necessary to consider in more details specified articles of the Versailles and Trianonsky peace treaties. The Versailles peace treaty included a department VII called «Cheho-Slovak state». Article 81 of the given section contained following positions: «Germany recognises,

As it have already made the Allied and Consolidated Powers, full independence of the Cheho-Slovak state which will include independent territory Rusin to the south from Carpathians. She declares the consent to borders of this state as they will be defined by the Main Allied and Consolidated Powers and other interested states ». [210] Thus, it has been legally fixed

Independence of Czechoslovakia from G ermanii. From the chronological point of view this contract was the first, that has considerable importance. The similar department under the maintenance has been included in a department IV «the Cheho-Slovak state» Trianonsky peace treaty. Article 48 of the Trianonsky peace treaty in turn fixed that Hungary «recognises as it was already made by the Allied and Consolidated Powers, full independence of the Czechoslovak state which will include independent territory Rusin to the south from Carpathians». [211]

There was a question on delimitation «territories rusinov in the south from Carpathians». According to the obligations taken on the central government of Czechoslovakia has directed time civil manager Yana Brejhu to Podkarpatsky Russia. On November, 18th, 1919 was has published vised Brejhom the text of the General statute «About the organisation and administration of Podkarpatsky Russia included by the decision by the Parisian peace conference in structure of Czechoslovak Republic». [212] It contained main principles of the organisation of administration managerial control of Podkarpatsky Russia.

In the first part of the General statute the substantive provisions of the Sen-Zhermensky peace treaty concerning Podkarpatsky Russia have been stated. In the second part of the General statute the questions connected with an establishment of its borders have been considered: «the Territorial commission of peace conference in Paris has established borders of Podkarpatsky Russia as follows:

The line of demarcation between Slovaks and rusinami passes on a straight line from the city of Chop to northern suburb of the city of Uzhgorod (Ungvar) so, that the railway remains on territories of Slovakia, and Uzhgorod - in Podkarpatsky Russia, then along the river (Ung) to Carpathians. All territory on the east from this line will be considered independent rusinskoj as the earth;

Southern borders independent rusinskoj territories are defined by peace conference in such a manner that the border with Hungary passes from CHopa on the south; the railway from CHopa remains on rusinskoj to territory up to Marmaroshsky Sigeta which departs to Romania, then the border passes partially lengthways Yews on the east to northern border which corresponds to border between the former Hungary and G alitsiej;

As the part rusinskogo the people on certain peace conference of Slovak territory constitutes a national minority, the Czechoslovak government has charged to representatives of both people to agree about possible inclusion of territory with compact residing rusinov in structure rusinskoj territories ». [213] Thus, northeast borders of Podkarpatsky Russia at anybody did not cause any questions - they remained"historical", proved the efficiency throughout many centuries. [214]

Now it is necessary to tell about destiny of the Ukrainian people in the course of geopolitical transformations on a card of Europe after the First World War. On October, 16th, 1918, when the Austro-Hungarian empire has been already doomed, the manifesto of the emperor of Austro-Hungary «For my true Austrian people» which provided a federal reorganisation of the state [215] was. According to positions of this document, on October, 18th, 1918 the Ukrainian members of parliament from East Galicia and Northern Bukovina, heads of political parties and church hierarches have created in Lvov representative authority body - the Ukrainian National board. [216] on November, 1st, 1918 in territory of East Galicia and Bukovina the West Ukrainian National Republic has been proclaimed.

On January, 22nd, 1919 «Certificate Zluki» which has proclaimed association of the West Ukrainian national republic with the Ukrainian National Republic [217] has been signed. The given standard document deserves the big attention. «Certificate Zluki» is a solemn declaration of the uniform Ukrainian state.

Signing of the specified certificate is one more example of standard fastening of "successfully taken place" and "not deformed" certificate of realisation by the Ukrainian people of the right to self-determination. As bright acknowledgement of that the fragment from «Certificate Zluki» serves: «Henceforth together merge centuries torn off one from other part of uniform Ukraine — the West Ukrainian National Republic (G alichina and the Hungarian Ukraine) and Pridneprovsky Great Ukraine. Eternal dreams with which lived and for which the best sons of Ukraine died were executed. Henceforth there is a uniform independent Ukrainian National Republic» [218]. However not all was so simply and unequivocally. Romania had territorial claims to Bukovina, and in December, 1918 it has been attached to Romania. It is necessary to consider this geopolitical process more in detail. It is for this purpose again reversible to the Sen-Zhermensky peace treaty.

The department IV SZHMD is devoted Romania. Article 59 of the given department contains positions that Austria «refuses as that it concerns, in favour of Romania from any rights and pravoosnovany on a part of the former duchy Bukovinsky, concluded on this party of borders of Romania as they will be established subsequently by the Main Allied and Consolidated Powers» [219]. We will define a geographical position of the specified territory: in 1867-1918 Bukovina was duchy in structure tsislejtanskoj parts of Austro-Hungary, adjoining in the north with G alitsiej, in the west, except G alitsii - with Hungary and Transylvania, and in the south and the east - with Romania and Bessarabia. Bukovina became a province of Romania in 1919

On December, 19th, 1918 the Declaration «About association of all Bukovinsky edge» [220] has been handed over the king of Romania. In the given declaration very important words underlining correctness of such definition of destiny of specified territory contained: «... This success is not a military gain, and returning in the paternal house of aloof brothers which in the name of your Majesty find for a long time lost and so desired parent». [221] on January, 1st, 1919 has been published Dekretzakon «About a recognition of association of Bukovina with Romania» [222], signed by king Ferdinand (the king of Romania 1865-1927) and the prime minister - minister Bretianu (the chief executive of Romania).

It is necessary to tell, that the key moment in a choice the people or the nation of the accessory to this or that state in the course of realisation of the right to self-determination is its ethnic, and the main, linguistic unity with the population of territories of that state into which structure they wish to enter. The structure of the population of Bukovina, on the Romanian official data, at the moment of joining was the following: rusiny - 38 %, Romanians - 34 %, Jews - 13 %, Germans - 8 %, Poles - 4 %. Also Hungarians lived in small amounts, velikorusy, Slovaks, Armenians, gipsies. During a finding of Bukovina as a part of Austro-Hungarian empire German was a national language, however, other languages were not pursued, the population of Bukovina freely spoke in Russian, Ukrainian and especially Romanian languages. The Declaration maintenance «» allows to draw a conclusion On association of all Bukovinsky edge, that the population of Bukovina ranked itself exclusively as "brothers-Romanians", as has played a main role in the course of realisation of the right by it on national self-determination.

Article 90 SZHMD has the huge importance. In given article it is said, that: « Austria undertakes to recognise full force of peace treaties and additional conventions which are concluded or will be concluded by the allied and consolidated powers with the powers combating on the party of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy, to agree on decisions which were or Hungary, the Bulgarian kingdom and Ottomansky empire will be accepted concerning territories were G ermanskoj empires, and to recognise the new states in borders which for them thus are established »[223]. Actually given article, finishing a department III SZHMD, is definitive and an unqualified recognition Austria all geopolitical changes connected with an exit from its structure of certain territories. Besides it, the analysis of given article allows to tell, that it carries otsylochnyj character as in it the instructions on decisions which were contain and will be concluded with the German empire, Hungary, the Bulgarian kingdom and Ottomansky empire with which Austria undertakes to agree.

So, the Sen-Zhermensky peace treaty regulated a number of territorial changes in continental Europe after the First World War, and also has fixed refusal of Austria of any claims in territory of the former Austro-Hungarian empire which population has expressed desire to appear as a part of other states or to form own statehood. Now it is necessary to analyse the Trianonsky peace treaty - the document which has been urged to settle territorial disputes and questions politikoterritorialnogo delimitation of Hungary.

The Nejisky Peace treaty of 1919 (further NMD) - one of contracts of the Versailles system, the prisoner between powers Antanty and Bulgaria. The part II NMD established borders of Bulgaria in conformity and is identical to positions of the Sen-Zhermensky peace treaty. According to a part of III article 36 of a department I NMD, Bulgaria recognised the Serbo-Horvatoslovensky state and, according to article 37 of the same department, refused any rights and claims to the former Bulgarian territories which were a part SHS [224]. The department II NMD in articles 42 - 45 defined territorial questions of Greece to identically positions SZHMD [225]. Also positions of a department III NMD articles 48 refusal of Bulgaria of the rights and pravoosnovany in territory of Thrace which belonged to it proved to be true.

It is important to notice, that the Sevrsky peace treaty signed by the countries Antanty and the states which have joined them (Italy, Japan, Belgium, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Czechoslovakia, etc.), on the one hand and the government of Ottoman empire - with another, mainly repeated position of the Versailles, Sen-Zhermensky, Trianonsky peace treaties, therefore it has not undergone to so detailed consideration, as other specified contracts of the Versalsko-Washington system.

The Trianonsky peace treaty has been signed on June, 4th, 1920 by Hungary on the one hand and won in war by "the allied and consolidated powers» (the USA, the Great Britain, France, Italy,

Japan, Greece, etc.) - with another. This contract also was a component of the Versalsko-Washington system of peace treaties. In many respects made out the legal status which has actually developed in pool of Danube. In the Trianonsky peace treaty (further TMD), as well as in SZHMD, there was a part III called: «the Political positions, concerning Europe», departments and articles of this part regulated a recognition Hungary of some territorial changes. At once it is necessary to tell, that many positions TMD practically precisely coincided with positions SZHMD under the maintenance with a difference only that they concerned Hungary.

In article 45 of a department III TMD Hungary refuses claims on the territories, the departed Romania, agrees SZHMD. According to a department III TMD, Transylvania and east part of Banat have been transferred Romania. It is necessary to define a geographical position of these territories: Transylvania - historical area in the northwest of Romania. The Public assembly which has taken place on November, 18th, 1918 in the city of Alba Iulia has supported association of Transylvania with Romania. It was quite explainable, as about 75 % of the population of Transylvania Romanians constituted.

Borders of Banat from three parties are defined by the rivers: in the north of Mureshom, in the west Tisoj and in the south Danube. The eastern frontier is formed by Carpathians Mountains. It is necessary to tell, that Romania all Banat, and only that its part on which the Romanian population prevailed has departed, accordingly, this part of Banat was closer to territory of Romania.

Other part of Banat has been transferred, agrees TMD, to Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes. This question has been settled in a department II TMD According to this section to Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes the western part of Banat which population basically was constituted by Serbs and Croats departed. Such decision did not contradict bases of a principle of self-determination as it was accepted after voting of the population of Banat on public assembly. Though it is necessary to notice, that in the western part

Banat Germans and Romanians lived, but them was only 25 - 27 % from the general number of the population.

The Lozannsky peace treaty (further LMD) 1923 signed between the Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania and the state of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes on the one hand and Turkey with another, ceased a state of war between Ottoman empire and powers Antanty. Territorial positions LMD fixed in a department I articles 2-22, these articles established new borders of Turkey and legally made out thereby disintegration of Ottoman empire.

So, dogovory the Versalsko-Washington system have legally issued the big number of geopolitical changes after the First World War in continental Europe. However a number of territorial questions demanded specification as already there were questions between the new and neogenic states. Each of again formed states showed different territorial requirements at the Parisian peace conference. Complexity of a question for rulers of destinies of Europe consisted that these claims have been directed not only against the won countries, but frequently and against allies. [226] named states in every possible way exposed the merits before Antantoj and quite often being covered with the self-determination slogan, demanded, actually, the unlimited right to oppression of another's nations.

The majority of new state formations has noted the beginning of the existence by violence and aggression certificates, captures and annexations, occupation of another's territories, oppression and suppression of the national minorities which have got under their domination. [227] ruling circles of those nationalities which have been still oppressed yesterday, today have turned to oppressors of another's people. Burzhuazno-nationalist cliques tried to grasp as much as possible another's territory to put the opponents, and also the patrons from camp Antanty before the come true fact. [228]

So under notices from Poznan, Galicia, Lithuania it was informed on a nationalist slaughter-house in Galicia, peremyshl from three parties has been surrounded by the Ukrainian armies. In Galicia the state of siege has been declared. In the Prussian part of Poland there was a fierce struggle against Germans. Poznan was in hands of the Polish Council of Soldier's Deputies [229].

The interesting facts are found out concerning prospective projects of restoration of Poland (that underlines mainly imperative character of the international legal maintenance of realisation of the right of the nations on self-determination in continental Europe in first half XX century). Allies give promises to Poland, pursuing the aim otgranichenija Russia from Germany to create a strong barrier in the name of the Polish state. The coherent plan is not present, there are only three projects (that became known from the report of vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs T. Fillipovicha) [230].

The first project: at restoration of Poland it is necessary to have in view of so-called «slavic idea» - for what the establishment of the general border between Czechia and Russia is necessary. So Russia east Galicia and gravitating as if to it territory of Slovakia on border Spizha and Crowds would depart. To Czechia would depart Spizh, the Crowd and Silesia. Under this plan Poland is isolated from the south, removed from Black sea and loses the general border with Romania [231].

Under the second project Poland should be restored as powerful Federal Polish Speech pospolitoj in borders till 1771, i.e. to the first section - but against this plan the Czechs considering for more favourable union with Russia, rather than with Poland [232] rose. The third project provides restoration of Poland only in its ethnographic borders, but in the union with Czechia, Slovaks and serbo - Croats [233].

The Czechoslovak table of an information department at the National Commissariat on affairs of nationalities of RSFSR informed, that there is no doubt that the Czechoslovak government has taken of a historical position in a territorial question in relation to Germans, to Magyars and Poles while Poles violently interfere in conclusive territories and historical principles of the Czechoslovak state. The correspondent added, that the Czech social democracy does not approve a policy of the existing government, breach of law of self-determination and the device it of bloodsheds [234].

The jugo-slavic table of an information department at the National Commissariat on affairs of nationalities of RSFSR informed, that on termination of victorious national revolution in the jugo-slavic earths, Austro-Hungary has been forced, owing to external and internal circumstances, forced to obey to consent powers, the last occupied these areas. American and Italian a vessel have entered into ports of Adriatic sea, the Italian armies have occupied the territories promised to Italy by the London contract 1915 g though these areas are occupied in the majority, or, it is possible to tell, is almost exclusive the southern slavic people (Serbs, Croats, Slovenes etc.).

The protest has been directed to London, Paris, Rome and Washington against such actions of Italy breaking national laws of jugo-Slavs on self-determination [235].

The big interest represent operating in Paris the various national committees aimed at creation of independent states in continental Europe after disintegration of multinational empires by means of the countries-winners operated. So, for example, the Polish national committee (1917-1919) the purpose had lobbying of education of the independent Polish state which should include the Lithuanian, Belarus and Ukrainian earths in the structure, without granting of an autonomy by it [236]. The Poznansky diet of representation of interests of Poland assigned to the same National committee in Paris the big hopes, and of the relation to the government has taken out the decision, that only round the government personifying all forces of the people, there are people [237].

It is impossible to disregard and activity of League of the Nations on questions

0 international guarantees of protection of the rights of national minorities, so

As the idea of the rights of minority preceded idea of the right of the nations and the people on self-determination. It is necessary to tell, that in first half XX century this idea also took of an independent position. Already I Assembly of League of the Nations (1920) recommended compulsion at reception in League of execution of all contracts on minority. When Albania, Latvia, Lithuania

And Estonia have applied about acceptance in this organisation, from them have demanded an official statement about a recognition them principles about the rights of minority and about their responsibility before League in this area.

Questions of protection of national minorities, their rights and guarantees of preservation of identity and development repeatedly and without results rose representatives in the course of working out of the Statute of League of the Nations where as a result and equality principles, as well as guarantees of preservation of national minorities have not been included. These questions have been excluded already from projects of the corresponding articles, concerning national minorities. Participants of discussions, representatives of great powers-winners did not show interest in these questions.

Within the limits of League of the Nations some agreements including positions about minority have been concluded. Five contracts on minority concerned them with Poland (1919), Czechoslovakia (1919), the Serbo-Horvatoslovensky state (1919), Romania (1919) and Greece (1920). Special sections and heads about protection of minority have been included in four peace treaties with Austria (1919), Bulgaria (1919), Hungary (1920), Turkey (1920), and also in six declarations of Council of League of the Nations - with Albania (1921), Lithuania (1922), Latvia (1923), Estonia (1923), Iraq (1932) and Finland (about minority on the Aland islands) (1921); the Polsko-Danzig convention (1920), the Germano-Polish convention on the Top Silesia (1922), the Convention about Memele (1924) . In this connection international legal protection of national minorities extended (except podmandatnyh territories) almost on 30 million the persons speaking in 36 languages and occupying 16 states. Minority thus constituted to a quarter of their population.

The International legal system of protection of minority had obviously unilateral character. The statute of League of the Nations did not include principles of national equality, as well as konfessionalnoj freedom. Allies - winners did not aspire to their recognition as it would threaten their colonies [238]. The above-stated agreements had positions which recognised League of the Nations as the Supreme observer and the guarantor in performance of conditions of the given agreements, and have been put under a guarantee by special resolutions of League of the Nations.

Also the imperative principle was shown and at the decision of questions of the rights of minority. So to the population of the Aland islands it has been given up in free will under the status of territory of their residing. Possibly, on the given question Finland had English "guarantees". The population of the Aland islands - Swedish, and Sweden suggested to solve for a long time this question popular voting, but Finland supported earlier by a number of the states has refused such decision of a question (has informed the Finnish table of an information department at the National Commissariat on affairs of nationalities of RSFSR) [239].

Summing up, it is necessary to notice, that in peace treaties of Versalskovashingtonsky system and decisions of League of the Nations the right of the nations to self-determination was declared and used as norm-principle that allowed the countries-winners to reach their geopolitical interests and the purposes in first half XX century

On the basis of these contracts the geopolitical card of the world though it was declared was altered, that at formation of the new states or change of the status of some territories representatives of the countries-winners start with «a principle of the right to self-determination». Dogovory Versalskovashingtonsky system fixed transfer of territory without local population will.

During the period between world wars of XX century maintenance of realisation of the right of the nations on self-determination at the international level mainly had the unilateral, imperative character caused by dictatorship of leaders of the countries-winners in the First World War (1914-1918).

In the basic ways of realisation of the right of the nations on self-determination in the conditions of disintegration Austro-Hungarian, G ermanskoj and Osmansky empires, an event in the course of the First World War (1914-1918), at interstate level are interconnected, interpenetrating and mediating each other setsessija and irredentizm which corresponded to the imperative beginnings of realisation of the right of the nations on the self-determination, fixed by peace treaties following the results of the First World War and the Charter of League of the Nations.

<< | >>
A source: Gostev Sergey Sergeevich. LEGAL MAINTENANCE OF REALIZATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE NATIONS ON SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE COUNTRIES OF CONTINENTAL EUROPE In FIRST HALF of XX-th century. The DISSERTATION on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Moscow - 2017. 2017

More on topic § 1. International legal maintenance of realisation of the right of the nations on self-determination in the countries of continental Europe in first half XX century:

  1. § 2. Legal regulation of realisation of the right of the nations on self-determination at interstate level in the countries of continental Europe in first half XX century
  2. § 3. Ways of realisation of the right of the nations on self-determination in the countries of continental Europe in first half XX century
  3. Gostev Sergey Sergeevich. LEGAL MAINTENANCE OF REALIZATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE NATIONS ON SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE COUNTRIES OF CONTINENTAL EUROPE In FIRST HALF of XX-th century. The DISSERTATION on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Moscow - 2017, 2017
  4. the Chapter II. LEGAL BASES, ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS And WAYS of REALIZATION of the RIGHT of the NATIONS ON SELF-DETERMINATION In the COUNTRIES of CONTINENTAL Europe IN FIRST HALF XX V
  5. the Chapter I. TEORETIKO-LEGAL BASES And HISTORICAL PRECONDITIONS of FORMATION of the RIGHT of the NATIONS ON SELF-DETERMINATION In the COUNTRIES of CONTINENTAL Europe
  6. § 2.1. Fastening of structures of a false denunciation in the legislation of Russia, the countries of continental Europe and the USA
  7. § 2.2. Designing of structures of false witness by legislators of Russia, the countries of continental Europe and the USA
  8. § 3. National self-identification as a condition of occurrence and right realisation on the nations on self-determination
  9. the Chapter I. ISTORIKO-LEGAL PRECONDITIONS And SOCIAL CONDITIONALITY of the ESTABLISHMENT of the CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR FALSE INFORMATION GRANTING In the CRIMINAL TRIAL of Russia, the COUNTRIES of CONTINENTAL Europe And the USA
  10. § 1.2. The Criminal liability for false information granting in the criminal trial of the countries of continental Europe and the USA: historical aspect
  11. § 2. Occurrence and development of the categories constituting the right of the nations on self-determination in standard legal acts
  12. § 3.1. Designing of sanctions for the basic structures of the false denunciation and false witness under the legislation of Russia, the countries of continental Europe and the USA
  13. § 3.2. Qualifying signs as means of differentiation of the criminal liability for the false denunciation and false witness under the legislation of Russia, the countries of continental Europe, and also the USA
  14. §1.3. Social conditionality of an establishment of the criminal liability for false information granting in the modern criminal trial of Russia, the countries of continental Europe and the USA
  15. § 3.3. The special bases of clearing of the criminal liability (punishment) for granting of the false information dangerous to the criminal trial, under the legislation of Russia, the countries of continental Europe and the USA
  16. the Chapter II. The LEGISLATIVE REGULATION of the BASES of the CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR GRANTING of the FALSE INFORMATION DANGEROUS TO the CRIMINAL TRIAL, In Russia, the COUNTRIES of CONTINENTAL Europe And the USA
  17. § 1.3. Change of an order of acquisition by police shots in second half XVTTT century - first half XIX century
  18. the Chapter III. DIFFERENTIATION of LIMITS of the CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR GRANTING of the FALSE INFORMATION DANGEROUS TO the CRIMINAL TRIAL, In the LEGISLATION of Russia, the COUNTRIES of CONTINENTAL Europe And the USA
  19. Teslenko Anton Viktorovich. the Criminal liability for granting of the false information dangerous to the criminal trial: rather-legal analysis of the legislation of the Russian Federation, the countries of continental Europe and the United States of America. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Volgograd - 2017, 2017
  20. Chapter 2. Genesis of the housing law of the USA during the period since second half XIX century to second half of XX-th century.