As a concept of international law, the right to self-determination is widely renowned for its lack of clarity. Broadly speaking, one can differentiate between a liberal and a nationalist tradition. In modern international law, the balance between these two opposing traditions is sought in an attempt to contain or ‘domesticate’ the nationalist conception by limiting it to ‘abnormal’ situations, that is to colonialism in the sense of ‘alien subjugation, domination and exploitation’. Essentially, this distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ situations has since, the distinction was made, been the heart of the matter in the legal discourse on the right to self-determination, with the important qualification regarding the need to preserve existing borders. This book situates Russia’s approach to the right to self-determination in that discourse by way of a regional comparison vis-à-vis a ‘Western’ or European perspective, and a temporal comparison with the former Soviet doctrine of international law. Against the background of the Soviet Union’s role in the evolution of the right to self-determination, the bulk of the book analyses Russia’s relevant state practice in the post-Soviet space through the prisms of sovereignty, secession, and annexation, illustrated by a total of seven case studies on the conflicts over Abkhazia, Chechnya, Crimea, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Tatarstan, and Transnistria. Complemented by a review of the Russian scholarship on the right to self-determination, it is suggested that Russia’s approach may be best understood not only in terms of power politics disguised as legal rhetoric, but can be seen as evidence of traits of a regional (re-)fragmentation of international law.
Trade-offs and inconsistencies of the Russian foreign policy: The case of Eurasia