From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: Once again on restitution of states 
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:45:09 GMT

In article <Sorokin.55.726682735@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at>, Sorokin@ps1.iaee.
tuwien.ac.at (Sorokin Zhenya) writes:
> In article <1993Jan10.103512.1@cc.helsinki.fi> thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi 
writes:
>>
>>> As for legality. Suppose monarchy is restored in Russia tomorrow. Than, IMHO
>>> occupation (or better reaanexation) will be perfectly legal, it will just
>>> void treaties of illegal goverment. 
>>
>>
>>We have discussed this a couple of times before. Not every state should
>>be restituted, only the states recognized by the international community.
>>
> 
> Now I've got it! 
> The discussion is making a third round already 


At least third round. If the same (refuted) arguments are used and
the Estonian point of departure is neglected totally, there is no
other way: one has to repeat old arguments :-(


> and there is no way to 
> understand each other, because both sides use an arbitrary mixture of  
> "legalistic" and "realistic" approach (sometimes also "ignoristic", but this 
> can be cured), whatever favours the author's point of view.
> Just look at this message.
> 
> The statement above is legalistic. 


I think that it's important what the international court in the Hague
might say about the occupation and restitution of Estonia!
This discussion has given some results: more and more people understand
the nature of the claim of Estonians. No one is not claiming anymore
that the Estonians had done something "illegal" - now the strategy is
to claim that "legalism" is not enough (which should be clear in the
first place).


> It makes situation with three 
> Baltic states different from all other ex-USSR (which is naturally 
> favourable) 


Of course the Baltic states are a different case than other "released"
Soviet republics (with minor qualifications, the problems are complex).
Or, to put it in another way: the Baltic case is sui generis.


> and frees hands to everything.


Of course not to everything! But it is up to the Estonian citizens
to decide, how they will furnish their republic. Of course there
are many constitutional restrictions and as well the international
conventions Estonia has signed. But legally, Estonia is sovereign,
that's true. The will of it's citizens is expressed in the new
constitution: they have delimited their spehere of arbitration as
the civilized nations tend to do.



>>With international community I refer mainly to UN, 
> 
> This will not go, because UN recognized USSR after WW II with all its 
> borders. Note the word "mainly".


Mainly refers to the League of Nations. 

The allied powers promised to hold "free elections" in the Baltic states
so they might decide over their future. Stalin did not keep his promise -
and Great Britain and USA were not monitoring the situation eagerly
enough. They are also partly responsible of the case.

Anyhow: the main point has been and will be: the second world war ended
but three occupied countries remained occupied. Therefore, their
restitution is legally correct and morally right.

>>but 
> 
> There is a chance!
> 
>>in the Baltic case
>>also to the League of Nations, 
> 
> This is realistic. Really, what L.of N. has to do with today? Do its 
> decisions have _legal_ power? Besides, it is not the only international 
> organization. There were and are a lot of others.


Nowadays, when the Baltic states are again recognized by the international
community, one could in the future drop away totally the referring to
the League of Nations in this respect. After this, only the states
recognized by international community (= UN, not any more the League
of Nations) could be restituted.

 
>>because the Baltic states were the only
>>states that were the League of Nations recognized members but did not
>>become UN members. 
> 
> Again legalistic to get ends met. Not very logical sentence, but still.
 

I fail to see anything against logic in this sentence.


>>> Tsarist Russia was recognized for a hell
>>> longer. 
>>
>>
>>Tsarist Russia was never a member of the League of Nations. 
> 
> Legalistic.


I think that legal norms and international organisations have much
to offer for freedom and peace in our continent. You can call this
attitude anything you wish.

 
>>Restoring
>>the pre-World War I conditions would be futile and senseless. I think
>>we could agree on that.
> 
> Realistic. Really, if you stuck to the paragraph, what is the difference 
> between WWI and WWII? 


Why should we care about international organisations like the United
Nations? Mankind started to establish such organizations directly after
the first world war. It is a moral claim that such organisations should
be promoted. 

I think it's hard to find excuses why the Baltic republics should
NOT be restituted.

The only argument has been: it might lead to absurdity. All kinds
of states of history could be candidates for restitution.

With the qualification I have proposed, there are no absurd consequences.

I am concerned only on the possibility that the World War II would
finally be overcome in Europe. Not rectifying all possible crimes
and injustices in history.



Trace then back to Sweeden, Teutons... 
> 
>>
>>>(And ESSR was recognized, as a part of USSR, too). 
>>
>>USA never did that. Sweden formally recognized the annexation. Finland
>>never did that (in theory, but accepted this annexation in practice).
>>The exile Estonian government started it's activities in Sweden.
>>
> 
> OK, but UN did. Realistic approach, bacause legalistic fails.


It is an injustice that has already been rectified.

 
> Etc., etc., etc.
>  
> 
> I've said it already and repeat once more, that you'll always find an 
> infinite number of arguments to back almost any position. What really 
> matters is a political will. 
> And, by the way, human problems are *very* poorly solved by legalistic 
> approach. 


The Soviet Union did surely not use any legalistic approach when "solving"
the Baltic question.

And I have never said that a legalistic approach should be a sufficient
condition for solving the question. I have only supported the Estonian
claim that it is a necessary condition. Which is denied by some
people.

with best regards
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum


Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.europe