Home » Articles » Historical Dilemma of Crimea: Stages of Development

Historical Dilemma of Crimea: Stages of Development

Vladimir Pavenkov

HISTORICAL DILEMMA OF CRIMEA:
Stages of Development

Abstract. Paper presents Stages of Historical Development of Crimea. The author
based on opinion of different political forces speaks about 10 stages of Crimean
History and discusses about new dilemma.

The history of Crimea can be divided into several stages:
“Crimea Cimmerian and Scythian» (II thousand. – III century BC.)
“Crimea Greek and Byzantine» (III century BC-1242)
“Crimea – a part of the Golden Horde” (1242-early XV century.)
“Crimea – a part of the Crimean Khanate” (beginning of the XV century-1475)
“Crimea – a vassal of the Ottoman Empire” (1475 – 1783 years.)
“The Crimean part of the Russian Empire” (1783-1917),
“The Soviet of Crimea, a part of the Russian Federation” (1920-1954),
“Crimea as a part of the Soviet of the USSR” (1954-1991),
“Crimea as part of Ukraine” (1991-2014),
“Crimea and Sevastopol in the Russian Federation” (2014- present).

In 1768 started the first Russian-Turkish war, which was aimed at alleviating the threat of invasion by the Ottoman Empire. For the sake of its security, Russia had to stop the raids from the Crimea. In 1771, the Russian army took the fortress of Perekop and then be circulated to countries to dominate the Crimea. Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca (July 10, 1774) announced the Crimean Khanate independent of all, and part of Russia entered the territory between the Bug and the Dnieper, as well as the fortress of Kerch, Yenikale,
Kinburn.

However, the Ottoman Empire routinely had violated the Treaty and interfere in the affairs of the Crimean Khanate, creating a tenseness in the south and the threat of escalation of the conflict. In 1783, the Russian Government was referring to the apparent violations, saying that his duty – to care for the welfare and greatness of the Fatherland, so Russia is regaining the rights of the winner in the last war and includes
the territory of the Crimea to Russia.

In April 1783, Catherine II signed the “Manifesto of the adjunction Crimea to Russia.” The Crimean Khanate was liquidated, the territory gained their original historical name Taurida. Treaty of Jassy, concluded in 1791 at the end of the second Russian-Turkish war, reaffirm the right of Russia to the Crimea.

It must be stressed that the Crimea became part of the territory of the Russian Empire at the end of the XVIII century on the basis of international treaties. City Sevastopol arose and was built as the base of the Russian fleet. It was in the territory of the Taurida province, but is a special administrative area and managed in-military-maritime administration, headed by a military governor, who was the
commander of the post of the Black Sea Fleet.

After October 1917, when the old system collapsed, it proclaimed the establishment of Ukrainian People’s Republic, It was created on the territory of the nine provinces of the southwest of Russia, including the Tauride, but not included in the Crimea its territory.

On the eve of the USSR, in 1921, it was established Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic within the RSFSR. Russian population in Crimea at that time was more than 50%. In 1945, the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was abolished and instead formed the Crimean region of the RSFSR, which, together with the Ukrainian SSR, the Byelorussian SSR, created a new state – the Soviet Union.

February 19, 1954, the Crimean region was transferred from the RSFSR in the Ukrainian SSR. This unprecedented event was timed First Secretary of the CPSU, Khrushchev, for the celebration of the 300th anniversary of Pereyaslav Rada. Some researchers believe that this was the decision of Khrushchev. There is also a view that this decision was dictated by economic considerations.

In these acts need to transfer Crimea explained territorial proximity, common economy, economic target-consistent, the presence of historical, cultural ties between the people of the Crimean region and the Ukrainian SSR.

When deciding on the transfer of Crimea the ethnic factor was not taken into account. Since the end of XIX century, the Russian population in Crimea has continued to grow unceasingly. According to the census of 1979, Russian in Crimea was almost 2.5 times more than the Ukrainians.

In 1991, the Crimean region of the results of Crimean Referendum was transformed into the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (then part of the USSR), and a year later, after the collapse of the USSR renamed the Republic of Crimea. In the same year, the Supreme Council of the republic proclaimed its independence, and then under the pressure of Ukrainian power suspended its decision. The decision of the High-Owl is the Russian Federation of 21 May 1992 has been established that the illicit acquisition of Ukraine’s Crimea and Sevastopol.

Since the legal significance of the base document, including the Crimea and Sevastopol in the territory of Ukraine, some researchers proposed to assume that during the period from 1954 to 2004, Ukraine entered into temporary administrative councils the Crimean region, at the beginning of a part the USSR, and then in 1991 as a sovereign state. This sovereignty over the Crimea these legally anyone and never passed.
In 1997, Sevastopol was recognized leased from Ukraine territory. Since 1998, the official name of the Crimea has become the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as part of Ukraine.

In April and May 1999 in the Crimea have been mass demonstrations of the Crimean Tatars, who began to demand the return of Crimea Turkey. However, intensified and pro-Russian sentiment in the Crimea. By the beginning of the XXI century, more than 60% of the population of the Crimea were Russian.
Established at the turn of XX – XXI centuries the political situation around Crimea demanded changes in the status of Crimea and Sevastopol. In the end of 2013 – the beginning of 2014 in Crimea, the action against Yanukovych did not find broad support.

November 21, 2013, the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea supported the decision to suspend the process of European integration and called Crimean “strengthen friendly relations with Russia.” In December 2013 – January 2014 the leadership of the Crimea acted with repeated-for events in support of the legitimate government of Yanukovych.

In the period from 4 to 21 February Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of Crimea, and deputies have repeatedly discussed the situation in Ukraine, was accepted by the Presidium of the Crimean average to initiate a survey on the status of the peninsula. The possibility of appeal to the president and the State Duma of the Russian Federation with an appeal to act as guarantor of the inviolability of the status of the Crimean autonomy. Chairman of the High-owl is the Crimea, Vladimir Konstantinov said that “the current model of the Crimean autonomy… the Constitution of Ukraine sample of 1998 has exhausted itself. We want a completely different autonomy “.

February 19 a number of deputies of the Supreme Council supported the initiative of the deputy Nicholas Kolisnichenko (Party of Regions) to raise the issue of the annexation of Crimea to Russia. A day later, the speaker of the Crimean parliament, Vladimir Konstantinov said that does not rule out the separation of Crimea from Ukraine if the central government is broken. “And then we will be the only way – a denunciation of the decision by the Presidium of the CPSU of 1954… From now on we will accept those decisions that we consider necessary.”

February 21 after signing an agreement with Yanukovych opposition, pro-Russian Crimean residents who refuse to have known, when the new leadership of Ukraine, started an indefinite protest, demanding the separation of Crimea from Ukraine and the establishment of an independent State. During the period from February 23 to March 1, in the Crimea was a series of meetings and other events in which the participants stated that, considering what happened was a coup d’etat, call for re-making in defence of Russian language and the deepening of independence region-one.

During the period from February 27 to March 1, 2014, was formed, but the howling government Crimea and 11 March 2014 the Supreme Council of Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol city council adopted a declaration of independence Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol. According to it, in the case of decisions of the peoples of Crimea to re-enter the result of the referendum of the Russian Federation, the Crimea will be declared a sovereign republic. In this capacity, it will be reunited with the Russian Federation on a subject.

March 17, 2014, in the Crimean average result of the referendum, who was walking about 16 March 2014, based on the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed the Sovereign Republic of Crimea, including a city with a special status of Sevastopol. At the same time, Vladimir Putin signed a decree on the recognition by the Russian Federation Republic of Crimea as a sovereign and independent state.

March 18, 2014, President of the Russian Federation and Chairman of the State Council of Crimea signed a treaty, according to which in the Russian Federation were way entities – the Republic of Crimea and the city of federal significance Sevastopol. On the same day, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation received a request of the President of Russia to verify the agreement between the Russian Federation Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea. The Constitutional Court, under an agreement with the Constitution, knew.

March 19, 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin has made on ratifications to the State Duma the Accession Treaty of the Crimea in the Russian Federation and the amendment to the Constitution for the establishment of the new Federation. March 20 was ratified by the State Duma adopted the relevant law, as well as a federal constitution Law on Amendments to the Constitution. March 21 The Council approved the Federal law, both the law and the President of Russia signed them.
Legal registration of the reunification of the Crimea with Russia was administered. In the Russian Federation Crimean Federal District formed.

Ukraine called the referendum illegal, violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine. However, assigning a referendum on independence, the Supreme Council of Crimea co-started from the same article of the United Nations, which is referred to, stolen in 1991 with his self-determination and which was in Kosovo. The decision of the International Court of Justice over Kosovo, it was stated that “general international law contains no prohibition of declarations of independence (§ 84”). In a memorandum to the United States, sent to the court in the case of the independence of Kosovo, also recognized that the “declaration independence may violate domestic law, but this does not mean the violation of international law.” Thus, the position of the critics of the Crimea to Russia does not have a sufficient legal basis due to the controversial practice of law and the selective application of its provisions in a legally similar case. The case of the Crimea was the catalyst of debate about the right of people to self-decision making in different parts of the world.

Unfolded after the Crimea internal Russian discussion also made a contradictory impression. Despite considerable share of criticism this decision on the part of the liberal opposition, most of its leaders did not anticipate the possibility of mechanical return Crimea to Ukraine. For example, in an interview with the liberal radio station “Echo of Moscow,” Navalny said that he believes Russian territory of Crimea. A similar point of view has repeatedly by Khodorkovsky. As a solution, a second referendum was offered or “municipalization” (A. Navalny, M. Khodorkovsky).

References
Фирсов С.А. История Росси: XVIII – начало XX в. М.: Издательский центр «Академия», 2012. – стр.72-74, стр.154-155.
Фёдоров А. В. Правовой статус Крыма: Правовой статус Севастополя. — М.: Изд-во Московского университета, 1999.
Фёдоров А. В. Правовой статус Крыма: Правовой статус Севастополя. — М.: Изд-во Московского университета, 1999.
Выступление Председателя ВС АРК Владимира Константинова на Всеукраинском форуме областных советов Украины и Верховного Совета АРК // Официальный сайт Государственного Совета Республики Крым [Электронный ресурс] http://www.rada.crimea.ua/news/12_02_2014_2
Официальный сайт Государственного Совета Республики Крым [Электронный ресурс] http://crimea.gov.ru/news/20_02_2015_1
Хронология митингов в Крыму представлена на сайте [Электронный ресурс] http://news.allcrimea.net/news/2014/2/26/mitingi-v-simferopole-onlain-obnovlyaetsya-5881
Официальный сайт Государственного Совета Республики Крым [Электронный ресурс] http://www.rada.crimea.ua/news/11_03_2014_1
Федеральный конституционный закон от 17 декабря 2001 г. «О порядке принятия в Российскую Федерацию и образования в ее составе нового субъекта Российской Федерации» №6 – ФКЗ
«Право народов на самоопределение формы своего государственного существования в составе другого государства или в виде отдельного государства»
Интервью радиостанции «Эхо Москвы» с А. Навальным 15 октября 2014 [Электронный ресурс] http://echo.msk.ru/programs/beseda/1417522-echo/
Рубцова М.В. Качество управления как фактор, обеспечивающий социальные права граждан. Исследования Всемирного банка // Третьи Ковалевские чтения / Материалы научно- практической конференции 12-13 ноября 2008 г. СПб.: Издательство СПбГУ, 2008. С. 563- 565.
Кирдина С.Г. Институциональные матрицы и развитие России. М.: ТЕИС, 2000. Г.А. Меньшикова, М.В. Павленкова Социологический журнал, С. 140-144, 2001
Павенков О. В. Нормативистские Концепции Ценностей И Ценностных Ориентаций В Социологической Науке (Э. Дюркгейм, М. Вебер и Т. Парсонс) //Известия Уральского государственного университета. – 2011. – Т. 91. – №. 2.
Павенкова М. В. Институт и институциональность как социологические категории //Вестник СПбГУ. Cерия: философия, политология, социология, психология, право, международные отношения. – 2001. – №. 3. – С. 2-12.
Социальное управление и планирование. Под ред. Волчковой Л.Т. СПб: Книжный дом, 2004
Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo // International Court of Justice. 2010-07-22. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15987.pdf
Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo Written Statements – USA http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15706.pdf
Aucouturier E. et al. La Russie: Entre L’État Planificateur Et L’État Réactif (Russia: Between the Planning State and the Reactive State) //SOCIOLOGIE-Journée d’études:” L’État réactif: acteurs, politiques et temporalités de l’urgence”-ENS Cachan-21 novembre. – 2013
Menshikova G. A., Pavenkova M. V. SG Kirdina //Institutional matrices and development of Russia, Soc. Zhurn. – 2001. – Т. 1. Rubtsova, M. V. (2007). Manageability: Sociological theoretical analysis of notions. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, (12), 32-38. Rubtsova, M. V. (2011). Governmentability in interactions of subjects. Traditional and new practices. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, (2), 46-53.
The concept” altruism” for sociological research: from conceptualization to operationalization (2015). arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.01258
Volchkova L. T., Pavenkova M. V. (2002) Sociology of management. Theoretical principles. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya. Issue: 3:141-144

4 Comments
  1. Pingback: Second “El Patriotismo y la Globalización” Competition 2016 – AVS-Sociologia.com

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *