Legitimacy, constitutionality, lawfulness — A. Mahera, part 1 (18.08.2023)
The first of three conversations between Vitaliy Dribnytsya and Andrii Mahera — a specialist in constitutional law and former deputy chairman of Ukraine’s Central Election Commission. The central theme is the legal legitimacy of the 1954 transfer of Crimea: the three decrees of the Presidiums of the Supreme Soviets of the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR, the synchronized amendments to the “Stalinist” 1936 USSR Constitution, and the separate status of Sevastopol. Mahera refutes the thesis “there is no procedure — therefore it is unlawful” and explains the right of a union republic to freely secede from the USSR. A source for the article on the myth of an “unlawful” transfer of Crimea.
Key moments
- 03:33 Three decrees of 1954: of the Presidiums of the Supreme Soviets of the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR on the transfer of the Crimean Oblast
- 05:13 Amendments to the 1936 USSR Constitution: Crimea disappeared from the RSFSR and appeared in the Ukrainian SSR
- 06:19 Sevastopol: the 1948 decree — a separate economic unit, not a "city of republican significance"
- 07:13 The category of "cities of republican subordination" appeared only in 1978 (Kyiv and Sevastopol)
- 08:20 The borders were secured by the treaties of 1990 and 1997 — mutual recognition of territorial integrity
- 14:26 Why "there is no procedure — therefore it is unlawful" is a flawed argument: a procedure is derivative of a constitutional norm
- 25:50 The right of a nation to self-determination (the 1966 covenants) and the free secession of a union republic under all USSR constitutions