As it appears in the quotations, Putin has declared, that RF "agreed to chechen independence", that "de facto they got full state independence", and that "thus de facto, if not de jure, we granted independence to Chechnya".
There is no doubt about the meaning of the word "independence", and by using this word, Putin confirmes, that RF recognized Chechnya as an independent state on international law. And not, as claimed, a republic with autonomy. According to international law Putin as the current president of Russia is bound by these statements as a matter of international law.
Besides, by this confirmation Putin also recognize Yeltsin's policy. This is in accordance with, as mentioned, the fact, that the russian state at no time declared Yeltsin's policy as being against the national law of RF.
It should be mentioned, that Putin in the above mentioned texts stresses, that this recognition was expressed by withdrawing everything from Chechnya. So, Putin confirmes by this, that the withdrawing by itself becomes a de facto recognition of Chechnya as an independent state. This conclusion is confirmed and argued by Boyle (17).
As mentioned a state exist, until it decide not to any longer. The status of Chechnya had not at any time been changed until 2003, when the new chechen constitution was made. This is in accordance with the fact, that the russian state at no time until at least 2003 claimed, that Chechnya had changed its status. That means, that RF, according to Putin's statements, considered Chechnya as being an independent state until at least 2003.
Therefore, Putin has by admitting the recognition confirmed, that RF considered the invasion into Chechnya and the interfering in other ways as being unlegal according to international law.
Nevertheless Putin has never admitted, that the entering into Chechnya with military force was a mistake, according to international law. On the contrary he has said again and again, as mentioned before, that the russian state had the right to take controle of the territory. That is also clearly expressed in the three above mentioned quotations.
Since RF, according to the admitment of Putin, could not lay claim to the territory on the basic of international law, it might be possible to say, that RF considered this right to be on the basic of national law.
This is stressed by the fact, that nothing in the interview indecates, that this right is grounded on international law.
On the contrary it appears from the statement of Putin, that the grounds for invading, taking controle and changing the opinion about Chechnya's status, was Russia's wish to fight criminality in Chechnya. As mentioned before, fighting criminality is on national law and is therefore not a legal reason, according to international law, for interfering in another state's internal affairs with military power and without this state's acceptance.
The conclusion has to be, that the war and the assumption of power in Chechnya was a result of a neglecting of International Law, while RF's national law became a priority.
As mentioned before a neglecting of international law with the purpose of fulfilling the national law is not legal, according to international law, because international law breaks national law.
THE NEW CONSTITUTION
The constitution (18) introduced in Chechnya 2003 established, that Chechnya was part of Russia. Immediately it seemed to be, what was necessary to get to the point, that a state by its own decision give up its independence. Therefore, several commentators had no more doubt, that Chechnya was a part of RF.
As mentioned before only independent states can decide to give up their independence. That implies, that the state making this decision at the moment of the deciding is able to make independent decisions.
The preparation of the new constitution was made at a moment, when RF had taken controle of power in Chechnya. Maskhadov as the legally elected president was forced from power and instead the pro-russian Kadyrov was sat in. At the same time RF, as an occupying military power, had controle of the civilian life in Chechnya. So, the situation was, that Chechnya, both the civilians and the government, was not able to act as an independent state.
That means, that Chechnya at the moment of the preparation of the constitution did not make any independent decision to give up the independence. So, when it did not make any such decision, it did not give up the independence.
If the decision concerning giving up the independence is made by another state against the first state's will, the decision is a violation of the state's right to make own decisions and therefore against international law. Therefore such a decision is, according to international law, unlegal, and therefore not valid.
So it is possible to conclude, that Chechnya in relation to the preparation of the constitution did not change the status from being an independent state to being a part of RF.
Which means, that RF today is still bound by its recognition of Chechnya as an independent state on international law, and RF is still committed to treat Chechnya as an independent state on international law.
----------OOOOOO----------
There is a tendency to acceptance of a new practice on international law, which implies the possibility to interfere in the internal affairs of other states in a way, which goes beyond, what the princples of international law and the Charter of the UN allow.
The practice is about acts, which can not be regarded as legal acts, according to international law and the Charter of UN, grounded on threats. Instead, they are grounded on the wish to increase the security of the states. So, these acts may be considered as acts based on national interests.
It is quite important to stress, that the consequences of such a practice are, that only some states benefit from it. Some other independent states in reality loose their right to protection under international law and find themselves outlawed regarding international law. Whether they are treated as independent states is dependent on if other states find it desirable to do so regarding their national law.
Therefore, such a practice can under no circumstances be in accordance with the basic principles of international law and must be considered as being at variance with them.
Page 6
Notes
oo