Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=maae20

Download by: [176.119.66.18] Date: 27 November 2016, At: 14:10

Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia

ISSN: 1061-1959 (Print) 1558-092X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/maae20

Rights and Dignity of Indigenous Peoples ofUkraine in Revolutionary Conditions and ForeignOccupation

Borys V. Babin

To cite this article: Borys V. Babin (2014) Rights and Dignity of Indigenous Peoples of Ukrainein Revolutionary Conditions and Foreign Occupation, Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia,53:3, 81-115, DOI: 10.1080/10611959.2014.1024080

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611959.2014.1024080

Published online: 29 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 435

View related articles

View Crossmark data

BORYS V. BABIN

Rights and Dignity of Indigenous Peoples ofUkraine in Revolutionary Conditions andForeign Occupation

Evolution of the Statute of the Indigenous Peoples ofUkraine, as Legal Grounding for Crimea

A detailed legal review is provided, analyzing the current and historical

situation of the Crimean Tatars, Karaites, and Krymchaks as

“indigenous peoples” of Crimea. The author argues that their status

was better within a relatively civil society-oriented Ukraine after Kiev’s

“dignity revolution,” than as endangered groups under the 2014

occupation by Russia. Crimean Tatar historical deportation and return is

discussed, as well as recent laws of Ukraine and Russia, in the context of

United Nations human rights standards.

It is crucial to consider historical, legal, and ethical preconditions in the

context of applying international legal mechanisms that protect and

promote the rights of indigenous peoples as specific ethnic groups in

Ukraine. Traditionally, relevant issues have been connected with the

Crimean Tatar people, although several other ethnic groups within

Ukraine also may qualify for comparable status. These issues were

aggravated by the continuing degradation of democratic freedoms in

81

Borys V. Babin, Dr. Hab. (Law), is based in Odessa. He has taught at the Institute ofInternational Relations at Kiev State University named for Taras Shevchenko and isProfessor of International Relations at Odessa State University. babinb@ukr.net.

Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, vol. 53, no. 3 (Winter 2014–15), pp. 81–115.q Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1061-1959 (print)/ISSN 1558-092X (online)DOI: 10.1080/10611959.2014.1024080

Ukraine and the disintegration of civil society institutions in 2010–14.

This led to the Dignity Revolution and at the same time was

exacerbated by an escalation of separatism claims, as well as the foreign

occupation of Crimea, the historic homeland of indigenous peoples of

Ukraine.

The ethnic name “Tatar” has been known on the territory of Crimea

since the thirteenth century. Crimean Tatars as a separate ethnic group

have lived in the territory of present-day Ukraine at least since medieval

times; their ancestral roots go further back. Crimean Tatars had their

own political and legal development, which resulted in the creation of an

original national state, the Crimean Khanate, from the fifteenth through

the eighteenth centuries. They maintained religious and cultural

autonomy within the Russian empire from the eighteenth to the

twentieth centuries. However, by the twentieth century, the Soviet

version of empire gradually pushed most Crimean Tatars into exile

abroad.1 Modern historians are unanimous in their acceptance of the

genesis of the Crimean Tatar people on the territory of the Crimean

Khanate. Documents have proven that they had their own legal system

based on shar’iah [koran-based law] and tore [customary law, Tatar;

adat, Arabic] and had relevant traditional institutions, such as collective

national property [vakf ].2

Crimean Karaites (Karais) and Krymchaks appeared as separate

ethnic groups in Crimea in the early Middle Ages. They had functioning

national-cultural autonomy in the Crimean Khanate, Russian Empire,

and the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (ASSR, to

1945). In legal acts of the Crimean Khanate, the Russian Empire, the

Crimean ASSR, the USSR, and the Republic of Crimea, these ethnic

groups were termed peoples and were recognized as indigenous

populations; they had features of collective state-legal status.3 The small

numbers of these populations has led to their almost complete

annihilation, for example resulting from Hitler’s genocide against the

Krymchaks. The destruction was furthered by USSR religious

authorities, which had previously contributed to the national consolida-

tion of Krymchak and Karaite groups.4 Remnants of these ethnic groups,

however, revived their national consciousness in 1989–92. Measures

were then instituted by Crimean Autonomous Region authorities to help

maintain their identity, leading to the legal recognition of these ethnic

groups as a “numerically small Crimean people.”

There have been occasional requests to consider Gagauz5 and Urums6

as indigenous peoples of Ukraine.

82 B.V. BABIN

Those ethnic groups that have their own national states (e.g.,

Belarusians, Jews, Poles) or statelike formations in the independent

states (e.g., Buryats, Karakalpaks) cannot be considered indigenous

peoples of Ukraine. These are minorities, even if a relatively small part

of this ethnic group originated on Ukrainian territory. Some ethnic

groups of the Ukrainian nation-state (e.g., Hutsuls) and some ethnic

minorities (e.g., Crimean Armenians) cannot be considered indigenous

peoples of Ukraine because they have no evidence that they are separate

ethnic groups (peoples) within Ukraine; they do not constitute a separate

nationality. In this context, a key issue is that of Ruthenians (Rusyns).

While considered problematic by some, their ethnic genesis and self-

awareness today is sufficient to admit their possible existence as a

separate people. There is a real prospect that Rusyns will be recognized

as indigenous peoples of Ukraine.

Historical analysis has shown repeated attempts by the Muscovy state

and the Russian Empire to destroy the Crimean Tatars and their state.

Their colonization methods were similar to Russian colonial conquest of

the regions of Asia. After the forced annexation of the Crimean Khanate

to Russia in 1783, until 1917 the Crimean Tatars had a kind of religious

autonomy in Russia. The decline of Crimean Tatars as a proportion of

Crimea’s population was connected with the seizure of their land by the

government and with the Russian–Turkish wars of the nineteenth

century, which resulted in the mass emigration of Crimean Tatars to

Turkey.7

From 1917–21, Crimean Tatars sought to achieve national self-

governance, autonomy, and even independence. Particularly in

December 1917, the Kurultay [National Congress] proclaimed the

establishment of the People’s Republic of Crimea and adopted the

Crimean Tatar Basic Laws as the Constitution of their republic. The

Crimean Tatar people’s numerical minority did not allow them to

defend their state. However, pushed by the need to consider the ethnic

factor in Crimea, Soviet authorities declared on 18 October 1921 the

creation of the Crimean Soviet Socialist Republic (later named the

Crimean Autonomous SSR).8

The newly founded Crimean ASSR of 1921–45 was treated by Soviet

authorities as the recognized Crimean Tatar people’s autonomous

political structure, as indicated by its official languages, and personnel

policies. The People’s Commissariat on Nationalities of the Russian

SFSR considered the Crimean ASSR to represent statehood for the

Crimean Tatar people. Two state languages were declared on creation of

WINTER 2014–15 83

the autonomous region, Russian and Crimean Tatar. Ethnic Crimean

Tatars headed the republic. By the late 1930s, Crimean Tatars continued

to have a relative majority in the region’s government; in official

documents of that period the Crimean Tatar people were recognized to

be the indigenous population of the republic.9 Crimean Tatars and

Karaites were recognized as indigenous peoples of Crimea in academic

journals of that period. In addition, they had been recognized as a

separate nation in legal acts of the Russian Empire, the USSR, and the

Crimean ASSR.

The Soviet practice of nation building reveals no cases of non-ethnic-

based territorial autonomous republics because all the Soviet

“autonomies” were proclaimed to ensure the right to self-determination

of one or more peoples residing on a given territory. All Soviet

autonomous republics had an ethnic character, and sometimes they were

multiethnic, like the Dagestan ASSR, or binational, like the Chechen–

Ingush ASSR. It is impossible to imagine that the Russian Soviet

Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR), which included the Crimean

ASSR in 1921–45, had established an autonomous republic in Crimea

on the basis of the residence on that territory of ethnic Russians, even

autochthonous ones.

The deportation of the Crimean Tatar people in May 1944 took place

by order of the People’s Commissariat of Defense of the USSR. In June

1944, most of the traditional ethnic minorities, Bulgarians, Armenians,

and Greeks, were also deported from Crimea. These illegal actions led to

the transformation of the Crimean ASSR into a non-ethnic-based

Crimean Region [Oblast] of the Russian SFSR. On 30 June 1945, the

Presidium of the Supreme Council of the USSR confirmed a 25 June

1945 resolution that directly links the deportation of the Crimean Tatar

people with the transformation of the Crimean ASSR into a region.

On 26 April 1956, a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of

the USSR canceled some administrative restrictions, such as the

punitive regime of forced settlement in areas of USSR far from Crimea.

However, restrictions were placed on Crimean Tatars’ residence in

Crimea and the decree did not compensate for confiscated property.

On 5 September 1967, a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme

Council of the USSR formally abolished restrictions against Crimean

Tatars and established that they had a right to reside anywhere that

normal passport holders could reside. The Crimean region had been part

of the Ukrainian SSR since 1954. Soviet policy toward Crimean Tatars

in 1967–89 was based on a doctrine that discouraged their en masse

84 B.V. BABIN

resettlement in Crimea, but simultaneously recognized their identity as a

people and gave them limited cultural rights in the Uzbek SSR, where

most of the deported Crimean Tatars lived.

The Crimean Tatars’ human rights movement in the Soviet period

attracted attention to their issue from outside the USSR. This ethnic

group was consolidated and mobilized, based on consistent rejection of

Soviet ideology and on their coherent self-organization. However, the

USSR and Crimean authorities prevented the Crimean Tatars’ attempts

to return to Crimea. A mass return became widespread only in 1988,

when it was hard to prevent their return, given conditions that lead to the

Soviet system breaking apart. The USSR Supreme Council approved a

formal declaration on 14 November 1989, defining all Soviet normative

acts regarding the deportation of Crimean Tatars as illegal. All formal

and informal restrictions on the resettlement of the Crimean Tatars in

Crimea were abrogated.10 But until 1992 this declaration was far from

reality, given practices of Soviet and local authorities.

A realistic perspective concerning the restoring of Crimean Tatar

statehood and the Soviet government’s desire to weaken the position of

a sovereign Ukrainian SSR must take into consideration an escalation of

separatist sentiments among the Russian-speaking immigrants who had

settled in 1950–80 in Crimea. (Earlier Russian-speaking populations of

Crimea had almost completely been annihilated during the Soviet

repressions, by World War II, and by the postwar famine.) Therefore a

resolution of the Council of the Crimean Oblast on 13 November 1990

was approved, for a provisional referendum and the procedure to

conduct it in the Crimean Oblast of the Ukrainian SSR.

This provision enabled conducting a referendum on 20 January 1991.

The submitted question addressed “the reconstitution of the Crimean

ASSR as a subject of the USSR, subject to the Union Treaty.” The

provision indicated that such reconstitution would implement “the right

of peoples of Crimea to self-determination,” and noted that the

resolution of 13 November 1990 contained a request to the authorities of

five Soviet republics (including Ukrainian and Uzbek) “to provide

necessary assistance to conduct a referendum among the Crimean Tatars

and other peoples deported from the Crimean region.”

Some political rights of the Crimean Tatar people were thus

recognized. However, the referendum was held without participation of

the deportees, who boycotted it. After the referendum was approved, the

Supreme Council of the Ukrainian SSR, without waiting for the decision

of USSR authorities, adopted Law No. 712-XII on 12 February 1991,

WINTER 2014–15 85

“On the Restoration of Crimean ASSR,” which transformed the statute

of the Crimean oblast of the Ukrainian SSR.11 On 7 March 1991, the

Resolution of the Supreme Council of the USSR no. 2013-1 was

adopted. While it canceled the 30 June 1945 Supreme Council Decree

turning the autonomy into an oblast, the Law of the Russian SFSR dated

25 June 1945 was not canceled.12 Authorities within the newly created

ASSR were constituted from the same former executive committee of

the Crimean Oblast; Crimean Tatar representatives were not involved in

the system. Analysts of these documents may assume that Russian

separatists hoped to use the Crimean Tatars’ movement for their own

purpose—the secession of Crimea from the Ukrainian SSR—and to

achieve some cooperation with it.

However, the reconstitution the Crimean ASSR without the

participation of the Crimean Tatars brought the opposite effect.

In July 1991, the Kurultay opposed this appropriation of state-building

in Crimea and formed their Mejlis [council] of the Crimean Tatar

people, as a representative body.13 In December 1991 this Mejlis

approved a draft Constitution of the Crimean Republic, declaring it as

the Crimean Tatar People’s state, and offered it for public debate.14

After these events, pro-Russian authorities of the Crimean ASSR

refused to cooperate with Crimean Tatar representative institutions.

They approved [a different] Republic of Crimea constitution on 6 May

1992. Political rights of the Crimean Tatars were considered by the pro-

Russian authorities not in terms of state building, but only in the context

of restoration of the rights of deportees, with speculation on the political

rights of other deported groups (e.g., Germans, Armenians). For

example, electoral quotas for deportees’ representatives were set for

elections to the Supreme Council of Crimea by Crimean Law on 14

October 199315 and by the Law of Ukraine on 6 April 1995 for local

elections in Crimea.16

At the same time, Crimean authorities recognized Karaites and

Krymchaks as separate peoples, obviously not having reasons for

concern about threats from these ethnic groups on the verge of

extinction. Thus, on 21 January 1991 the Council of Ministers of the

Crimean ASSR recognized the Karaites and Krymchaks as numerically

small peoples of Crimea, and established a list of measures to maintain

their cultural identity.17

Legal regulations guiding ethnic processes began after Ukraine

gained independence in 1991, reflecting the multiculturalism of

Ukraine’s people as well as the issue of the structural need to provide

86 B.V. BABIN

status to non-Ukrainian ethnic groups indigenous to Ukraine. These

processes led the Ukrainian parliament to adopt the Declaration of the

Rights of Nationalities (1991) and the Appeal to the Citizens of All

Nationalities in Ukraine (1991). These and many other acts recognized

the existence of certain “peoples” as part of Ukraine, including the

Crimean Tatar people, with guaranteed collective rights. However, no

subsequent legal development described the rights of those peoples.

After the political decision regarding the problem of Crimean

autonomy, the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine did not connect the status of

the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) with the Crimean Tatar

people. The 1998 Constitution of the ARC avoided mentioning the

rights of the indigenous peoples of Crimea as a basis of autonomy.

However, the status of official languages of the ARC as established for

both for Russian and Crimean Tatar.

The development of democratic, social, and legal state institutions,

creating civil society inUkraine, objectivelymade it necessary to provide

legal status to the indigenous peoples of Ukraine as an integral part of

Ukraine’s multinational people and to create the preconditions for their

development. So the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine confirmed national

constitutional guarantees for indigenous peoples. According toArticle 11

of the Constitution of Ukraine, the state shall promote the development of

ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious identity of all indigenous peoples

of Ukraine; under its Article 92 these rights must be determined by the

laws of Ukraine; Section 3 of Article 119 of the Constitution states that

local state administrations must implement programs of their cultural

development in areas where indigenous peoples live. Comparable rights

were secured by the Constitution for other minorities.

Introducing the “indigenous peoples” term into the constitution (in

Articles 11, 92, and 119) was made possible in June 1996, in particular

through democratic discussion of amendments to the draft constitution

within the framework of a parliamentary constitutional commission.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has not passed the legislation that would specify

those provisions of the Constitution. The rights of some ethnic

communities living in Ukraine are not able to be ensured by general

laws onnationalminorities. Such rights should take into account historical,

sociocultural, and political factors resulting from indigenous origin.

According to the governmental draft of the Conception of the State

Ethnic Policy of Ukraine, indigenous peoples are an autochthonous

ethnic community whose origin and genesis is confirmed to be within

the borders of contemporary Ukraine. They form an ethnic minority in

WINTER 2014–15 87

Ukraine’s population and do not have their own state formation outside

the Ukrainian state. Some 1990s laws contain the “indigenous peoples”

term, in particular the Law “On Local State Administrations” (9 April

1999) and the Law “On the Supreme Council of the ARC” (10 January

1998). From 1998 to 2003, some regulations of the ARC established de

jure special status for the Crimean Tatar language in Crimea, although

these regulations were mainly not enforced.

In independent Ukraine, Karaites, Krymchaks, and Crimean Tatars

claimed recognition as indigenous peoples. Interestingly, the political

movement of Ruthenians (Rusyns) never adopted the idea of

recognizing Rusyns as indigenous people. The national movements of

Karaites and Crimean Tatars have acquired specific organizational

forms. The Crimean Tatar National Movement created a system of

representative bodies that represent the interests of a large part of their

ethnic group. These bodies should be elected via democratic procedures

by the Kurultay. The Kurultay in turn elects a representative body, the

Mejlis. Local communities should elect regional and local councils, in a

system that incorporates administrative-territorial units of Crimea and

some other regions of Ukraine. This structure has been active since

1991. The Karaite ethnic group has a representative council (Ulu

Beylik), elected by the Karaite National Congress in 2003.

Unfortunately, Krymchak demise makes consideration of this ethnic

group’s future rights as an indigenous people moot.18

Karaites and Crimean Tatars are recognized as indigenous peoples of

Ukraine on the basis of their compliance with international standards.

This is furthered in Ukraine through:

—the emergence and development of these indigenous peoples as

separate ethnic groups in Ukraine, the absence of their own

historical country outside Ukraine, and lack of other state or public

entities with which they could connect their own national identity,

rendering these groups autochthonous;

—the presence of a traditional territory of residence (Crimea) in

Ukraine, enabling close organic historical and cultural ties;

—national, linguistic, cultural, and religious identity;

—self-awareness of these ethnic groups as indigenous peoples.

Aspects of these ethnic groups imposed by the current national

ethnopolitical situation, including loss of traditional forms of farming

and nature management, lack of a long tradition for modern

88 B.V. BABIN

representative institutions, the relative minority of Crimean Tatars in

Crimea and the absolute paucity of Karaites, did not permit Ukraine to

allow establishment of full national-territorial autonomy, or to give

them ownership of all natural resources and lands of Crimea. Within

twenty-three years of Ukraine’s independence, formal final recognition

of those ethnic groups as indigenous peoples did not occur.

At the same time, Ukraine de facto recognized the Crimean Tatar

people as a separate nation (as the indigenous people) of Crimea, with

appropriate political rights. To provide organizational and financial

forms of appropriate assistance, the legal fiction “deported peoples” was

used. But this policy was unstable, since not only Crimean Tatars but

previously deported Germans, Armenians, Bulgarians, and Greeks were

included in a list of “deported groups.” National minorities, mostly of

foreign origin, who had entered Crimea in the nineteenth century were

made equal to indigenous peoples. The deportation of peoples was

historically a form of mass repression, widely used by the USSR

authorities. In particular, there was mass deportation of the Crimean

Tatars, with their forcible exile from the Crimean ASSR on 18–20 May

1944.

On 14 November 1989 the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted a

Declaration “On Recognizing as Illegal and Criminal Repressive Acts

against Peoples subject to forcible replacement and Protection of Their

Rights.” The term “deported peoples” was introduced into legal

practice. On 7 March 1991, a Resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the

USSR repealed Soviet legislation on the status of deportees, which

restricted their rights. On 9 October 1992 some former Soviet countries

signed the Bishkek Agreement on the Issues Connected with the

Restoration of the Rights of Deported Peoples, National Minorities and

Peoples. This was ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by Law

No. 3736-XII; ten years later the Agreement was extended until 2013 by

the Protocol of 30 May 2003. Unfortunately, in 2012–13 the

Yanukovych regime did not permit another extension.19 The Bishkek

Agreement unequivocally condemned “totalitarian practices of forced

migration of peoples, national minorities, and individual citizens of the

former USSR” as a crime, contrary to all peoples’ humane principles.

It stipulates “legislative and other normative acts adopted by former

USSR, Soviet republic, and Soviet local governments and adminis-

tration officials on the forced migration of peoples, national minorities,

and individual citizens of the former USSR, are illegal and not valid

from their inception.”

WINTER 2014–15 89

The preamble to the Bishkek Agreement confirmed “the right of

deported persons, minorities, and peoples to restore historical justice

and return to their place of residence at the time of deportation, knowing

that the provision of this right is interstate in nature and requires both

multilateral and bilateral coordinated approaches.” The Bishkek

Agreement provided to deportees who voluntarily returned to their

place of former residence, political, economic and social rights and

conditions for resettlement, employment, education, national, cultural,

and spiritual development equal to those of other citizens living on the

territory. But implementing these norms and provisions of the rights and

legitimate interests of citizens residing in the territories shall not be

redistricted, as was pointed out in the agreement.

The recommendations of the Ukrainian parliamentary hearings

“Problems of the Legislative Regulation and Implementation of the

State Policy on Ensuring Rights of the Deported Crimean Tatar People

and Ethnic Minorities Who Return Voluntarily to Ukraine,” approved

by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 20 April 2000, No. 1660-III,

stated the importance of legal issues related to restoration of the rights of

those deported on ethnic grounds. This resolution stated that “the

historic homeland of the Crimean Tatars in which they were formed as

an ethnic group, is located in the territory and under the jurisdiction of

the Ukrainian state, which should create a set of political and legal

conditions that ensure the maintenance and development of the Crimean

Tatars in Ukraine and its equal participation in political, economic, and

cultural life of the state.”20

The problem of recognizing the Crimean Tatar Mejlis had been

solved de facto by the Decree of the President of Ukraine No.

573/2000 (7 April 2000), by approving “Regulations on the Council of

Representatives of the Crimean Tatar People.” All Mejlis members

became members of this council at the same time. We should also

note the Prescript of the President of Ukraine No. 412/2002 (24

December 2002) on the Days of Crimean Tatar Culture and on the

Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 873/2010 (26 August 2010),

which approved the new membership of the Council of Representa-

tives. Unfortunately, a Yanukovych government decree rejected

cooperation with the Mejlis through the Council of Representatives.

Instead of Mejlis members, some NGO representatives were invited to

take part in this council without the wide presentation of Crimean

Tatar interests. This did not help protect the rights of indigenous

peoples of Ukraine.

90 B.V. BABIN

The Law of Ukraine “On Restoration of the Rights of Persons

Deported on Ethnic Grounds” No. 1872-IV, passed by parliament 24

June 2004 and vetoed by the president of Ukraine, defines the

deportation as “the forced relocation of peoples, minorities, and persons

from their places of residence on the basis of decisions adopted by

bodies of state government of the former USSR.” So we see that at least

in 1991–2010 Ukrainian authorities did not recognize the Crimean

Tatars as indigenous people de jure but tried to promote their political,

economic, and social adaptation and ensure their right to peace and

development of property in territories of historical habitat. Such a

compromise policy was grounded not only on the will of central

government authorities but on the threat of pro-Russian separatism in

Crimea, as the Russian community settled in Crimea after deportation

flatly opposed such recognition.

Processes of recognition of the Statute of Indigenous Peoples

The collective rights of indigenous peoples is a separate category of

human rights, influenced by concepts of individual human rights. The

legal institution of indigenous rights that originated in some national

legal systems (e.g., United States, Canada) was subsequently developed

at an international level, especially in the framework of the International

Labour Organization (ILO), the United Nations, and its relevant

structures such as the United Nations (UN) Permanent Forum on

Indigenous Issues, a focus of attention to indigenous issues within the

international community. Those acts used the category of indigenous

worker and noted that the worker may belong to, or assimilate with, the

indigenous population of a dependent territory or the dependent

indigenous population of a state’s home territory.21

The ILO concept of indigenous issues was developed in 1957; the

Convention Concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous

and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries

was adopted as the first international legal instrument to protect the set

of indigenous peoples rights (27 ratifications). This convention endorsed

special rights of indigenous peoples, explaining acquisition of these

rights as due to its isolation from the achievements of modern

civilization, not to an autochthonous origin of a particular ethnic

group.22 This ILO approach23 contradicted the ideas of UN conventions

Nos. 64 and 65 and was subsequently rejected by the UN, but it is firmly

entrenched in Soviet and post-Soviet international legal doctrine.

WINTER 2014–15 91

This approach establishes the marginality of indigenous populations,

defined as denial of indigenous peoples’ subjectivity or their pseudo-

subjectivity.24 In addition, in Russian doctrine one sign of an indigenous

population is its small numbers; by definition an ethnic group that

adheres to a traditional way of life cannot be numerous. The issue of

indigenous peoples intensified in the twentieth century not due to some

states’ philanthropic considerations but because of renewed activity in

the national movements of indigenous peoples. These had survived

despite the domination of other groups, and had created a national elite

as well as modern forms of social organization.25

The “tribal” concept in regard to indigenous peoples was revised by

the ILO, when ILO Convention No. 169 Concerning Indigenous and

Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries was adopted on 27 June 1989.

This act recognized special rights for two separate categories:

indigenous peoples and tribal peoples. Unfortunately, many post-Soviet

authors continued to interpret this agreement as identifying as

equivalent indigenous peoples and tribal peoples.26 Ukraine neither

ratified Convention ILO No. 169, nor UN Nos. 64, 65.27

In parallel with the ILO, in the last decades of the twentieth

century the issue of indigenous peoples was considered by the UN.

Under its auspices in 1970–90, several studies by independent experts

became an important part of the international legal doctrine and

fostered development of the legal status of indigenous peoples.

In 1982 based on proposals of the UN Special Rapporteur J.R.

Martinez-Cobo,28 the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations

was established to develop international standards for the rights of

indigenous peoples. It resulted in adoption of the UN Declaration on

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on 13 September 2007, enabling the

Working Group to disband. The UN proclaimed 1993 International

Year of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, a Permanent Forum on

Indigenous Issues was established in 2002 to advise the UN ECOSOC,

and the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

was formed.29

Certain ethnic groups of Ukraine, in particular Crimean Tatar

representatives, participated since 1994 in UN forums and structures

concerning indigenous peoples’ issues. Recognition by the international

community of the rights of certain ethnic groups to participate in solving

the problems of the world’s indigenous peoples may not be a de jure

recognition of the indigenous status of these ethnic groups, but it may

with reservations be regarded as de facto recognition. We must add that

92 B.V. BABIN

the UN and most indigenous peoples’ organizations view such

recognition with caution.30

Modern international law has proposed common criteria for

indigenous peoples and these may apply to indigenous peoples of

Ukraine: self-identification as a separate indigenous ethnic group, a

strong connection with traditional areas and lands of residence, the non-

state nature of the ethnos, and the absence of a titular nation that has full

national affinity with this ethnic group.31 However, the last criterion has

eroded in recent decades because of the practice of some states (e.g.,

Canada) to give indigenous peoples territorial national autonomy with

statehood attributes.

The 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

(DRIP) was developed over twenty-five years. In 1993 a coherent DRIP

project was first presented to the UN and approved by its subcommission

on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. The

project was subjected to long discussion. A final version was approved

on 29 June 2006 by the UN Human Rights Council (30 countries voted

“for”; 2 “against,” 12 abstained, including Ukraine, and 2 did not vote).

Despite the resulting lack of binding obligation, as the UN High

Commissioner for Human Rights pointed out, states should “follow its

spirit and implement its principles.” It acquired key political and legal

significance, forcing states that voted against its adoption to reconsider

their decision.32 In April 2009 the Australian government announced its

adherence and Canada joined officially on 12 November 2010. The

order of accession to the UN declaration has become an interesting

issue. In June 2009 the minister of Maori affairs for New Zealand,

P. Sharpls, made an official statement in support of the Declaration, but

it was formally refuted immediately by the government of New Zealand.

However, in April 2010 that minister repeated his statement in the UN,

and this time the government did not refute it. In December 2010,

President Barack Obama announced his intention to “sign the

declaration” after meeting with representatives of United States

indigenous peoples, but subsequently the U.S. did not follow with any

official statements on group indigenous rights.

Seventeen of the 46 articles in the Declaration relate to the culture of

indigenous peoples and to methods for protecting and promoting their

cultures by encouraging participation in decision making and giving

people access to resources such as education in their native language.

Fifteen articles concern the participation of indigenous peoples in

decisions that affect their lives, including real participation in

WINTER 2014–15 93

democratic forms of government power. The Declaration affirms the

right of indigenous peoples to self-determination and recognizes their

right to exist and their rights to lands, official territorial boundaries, and

resources. The Declaration recognizes that indigenous peoples deprived

of their means of subsistence are entitled to reasonable and fair

compensation. Discrimination against indigenous peoples is declared

unlawful. Full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in all

public decisions that affect them is stipulated, as well as their right to

develop separately, according to their own views of economic and social

development. Indigenous peoples have the right to a decent life, to

maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures, and traditions,

and the right to develop in their chosen direction according to their

needs and aspirations. The Declaration thus endorses collective and

individual rights, in regard to culture and identity, and rights to

education, health, work, and their own language.

The Declaration provides indigenous peoples with the right to

determine their own procedures for creating institutional structures and

electing membership. They also have the right to determine the

responsibilities of individuals in relation to their communities. Further,

they have the right to promote, develop, and maintain institutional

structures, as well as customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, and

practices. This includes, where they exist, legal systems or customs, so

long as they accord with international standards of human rights. Article

38 states that effective legislative measures must be promoted to achieve

the Declaration’s objectives, in consultation and cooperation with

indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples have the right of access to

financial and technical assistance from governments and through

international cooperation to exercise their rights. They have the right of

access to fair and expedited legal decisions, to resolve conflicts and

disputes with states or other parties, as well as to effective remedies in

the event of any violation of their individual and collective rights. Such

decisions take into account the customs, traditions, rules, and legal

systems of indigenous peoples and relevant international human rights

(Article 39). Some indigenous rights enshrined in the Declaration

require new approaches to address global issues such as development,

decentralization, and multicultural democracy. To provide a deep

respect for the identity of indigenous peoples, countries will have to

adopt a common path for solving problems of indigenous peoples. This

requires effective consultation, establishing partnerships with indigen-

ous peoples.33

94 B.V. BABIN

UN General Assembly Resolution No. 67/153, adopted without a vote

on 20 December 2012, asked governments and indigenous peoples to

organize international and regional conferences and other themed events

to facilitate preparations for a September 2014 conference. Interestingly,

this resolution recommended that states that had not ratified ILO

ConventionNo. 169 (1989)do so; stateswere also asked to consider how to

support the UN Declaration. The resolution proposed that states increase

their support through consultation and cooperation with indigenous

peoples, and with appropriate measures including legislation.34

Another direction was represented by the 1992 Convention on

Biological Diversity, since Article 8, part “j” mentioned the knowledge,

innovation, and practices of indigenous communities. On 29 November

1994 this treaty was ratified by Ukraine as Law No. 257/94-CR.35

However, this act is somewhat discordant with the contemporary UN

position on indigenous peoples’ issues since it focuses on traditional

communities (not peoples) and refers to “tribes” in its terminology.

The tragic events in Crimea after February 2014 led to the UN’s

increased attention to the problem of indigenous peoples in Ukraine.

This is shown in a Statement of Indigenous Peoples Participating in the

13th Session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in May

2014.36 In this Statement, a representative of the Foundation for

Research and Support of Indigenous Peoples of Crimea noted that the

region is “the homeland for the three indigenous peoples—Crimean

Tatars, Karais (Karaites), and Krymchaks,” who were “deprived of their

natural rights by both parties to the conflict.” It stated that the indigenous

peoples of Crimea neither initiated nor supported the Ukraine–Russia

conflict but were victims of this conflict against their will. The

Statement pointed out that legal steps taken by Ukraine and Russia in

their mutual opposition “look like an attempt to use the Crimean Tatar

people as an additional factor, and have no real intention of ensuring the

rights of indigenous peoples in practice.” This document acknowledged

that legal manipulation, including intent to avoid recognition and

respect for the rights of indigenous peoples—Crimean Tatars,

Krymchaks, and Karaites in Crimea—make them vulnerable to

oppression by the dominant population and the Russian government,

which took control of the Crimean territory.

Through this Statement indigenous peoples of the world appealed to

the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights with a proposal to

organize a special international meeting on the situation of indigenous

peoples in Crimea. Contacting the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights

WINTER 2014–15 95

of Indigenous Peoples, they offered a visit to the region for information

gathering. They also proposed including a delegation of indigenous

peoples of Crimea to the [then forthcoming] World Conference on

Indigenous Peoples in 2014.

In this Statement, indigenous peoples of the world suggested the

following to Ukraine and Russia:

—to undertake exclusively peaceful and diplomatic efforts to solve

the dispute, stopping any military action in Ukraine, and ensuring

the physical security indigenous peoples;

—to ensure the full participation of indigenous peoples of Crimea in

accord with free, prior, and informed consent in settlement of the

conflict;

—to refrain from intimidation and harassment of activists and

organizations that protect the rights of indigenous peoples of

Crimea through nonviolence and public debate;

—to officially support the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples’

Rights and use it as the basis for their policies and legislation

relating to Crimea and its indigenous peoples;

—to recognize the right of members of indigenous peoples of Crimea

to keep or modify their citizenship, to have dual citizenship of their

choice, and to return to Crimea from places of exile without

negative consequences for their civil, political, economic, social,

and cultural rights in the Crimea.

The Statement contained an appeal to members of the world

community of indigenous peoples:

—to emphasize their solidarity with the indigenous peoples of

Crimea, who were in the position of hostages;

—to turn to appropriate partners and governments to assist the

peaceful settlement of the Crimean crisis, especially given the

presence of indigenous peoples in the region, and the need to

recognize and protect their rights;

—to exchange and disseminate information on the situation of

indigenous peoples in Crimea in order to improve it and prevent

human rights violations and bloodshed.

Indigenous issues were the subject of monthly reports on the

human rights situation in Ukraine provided by the UN Office of the

96 B.V. BABIN

High Commissioner for Human Rights, such as the reports on 15 April

and 15 June 2014.37 In particular, UN officials expressed the view that

“because of the promise of Ukraine’s recognition of indigenous people

status,” Crimean Tatars boycotted the [Russian directed] “referendum”

on 16 March 2014. They identified cases of discrimination and violence

against the Crimean Tatars. The UN Commission on Human Rights

recommended to “Crimean authorities” that they protect the rights of

minorities and indigenous peoples in Crimea, in particular—the rights of

the Crimean Tatars. Their report stressed the role of the international

community and the UN for protecting human rights, including the rights

of indigenous peoples. Authors of the April 2014 report recommended

ensuring inclusive and equal participation of indigenous people,

especially the Crimean Tatars, in public affairs and political life, by

developing mechanisms to enhance such participation. Similar

requirements were in the 15 June 2014 report, which included a special

section “Rights of indigenous peoples.” It analyzes prohibitions by

occupation authorities in Crimea during events planned to memorialize

the 70th anniversary of the deportation of Crimean Tatars. Authors

mentioned Mejlis documents concerning deportation, and referred to

acts of the occupation authorities of the Russian Federation (RF) and of

the “Crimean parliament” that declared social security for deportees.38

Current threats to indigenous peoples of Ukraine in conditions ofRussian occupation

The occupation and subsequent annexation of the Autonomous Republic

of Crimea, and Sevastopol by the Russian Federation in February–

March 2014 greatly exacerbated the problem of the rights and interests

of the Crimean Tatars as an indigenous people of Ukraine. Given foreign

occupation of Crimea, which grew into annexation, the newly formed

government of Ukraine paid greater attention to the issue of indigenous

peoples. Tatar collective rights were rejected by authorities of Russia

and the “separatist government” of the Crimea. Therefore, as proposed

by President Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s parliament adopted the

Statement of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the Guarantees of the

Rights of the Crimean Tatar People as a Part of the Ukrainian State,

Resolution 20 March 2014 p. No. 1140-VII. The preamble of the

Statement referred to objectives and principles enshrined in Articles 3,

11, 15 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Article 1 of the UN Charter, the

UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,

WINTER 2014–15 97

and the Vienna Declaration. Especially relevant is part 2 of Article 1 of

the UN Charter on the development of “friendly relations among nations

based on respect for equal rights and self-determination of peoples”

regarding the right of peoples to self-determination,39 as well as the

provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine on indigenous peoples, based

on political diversity (parts 1, 4 of Article 3 of the Constitution of

Ukraine) and on the state guarantees of freedom of political activity not

prohibited by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine (Article 15).

The Statement pointed out that Ukraine guarantees the preservation

and development of ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of

Crimean Tatars as an indigenous people and provides similar guarantees

to all the national minorities of Ukraine. At the same time, Ukraine

guaranteed protection and realization of the inherent right to Crimean

Tatar self-determination as a part of a sovereign and independent

Ukrainian state. By this Statement Ukraine has recognized the Mejlis, as

the executive body of the Kurultay of the Crimean Tatar people. By this

Statement (point 4), Ukraine’s parliament also has declared its support

for the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights. An initial draft

had only promised “to begin the process of Ukraine’s accession” to this

Declaration.

The Parliament also instructed the Cabinet of Ministers to submit

urgently the drafts of laws and other legal acts of Ukraine that would

determine and fix the status of Crimean Tatars as an indigenous people

of Ukraine. The development of the relevant projects envisaged

consultations with the Mejlis “in close cooperation with the UN, OSCE,

and Council of Europe in accord with international law and standards of

human, indigenous peoples’ and National Minorities’ Rights.” The

Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine also instructed the government of Ukraine

to develop practical mechanisms for cooperation between state

authorities and the Mejlis.

Ukraine also strongly condemned any attempt to restrict the political

and social rights or civil liberties of Ukraine’s citizens of various

ethnicities living in Crimea, in particular, Ukrainian, Russian, Crimean

Tatars, Armenians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Germans, Karaites, Krymchaks,

specifically mentioning the unconstitutional referendum that had been

held in Crimea. (Compare the Resolution by the Supreme Council of

ARC No. 1702-6/14 “On Conducting the All-Crimean Referendum.”)

Wemust note that Resolution No. 1660-III and other acts of Ukrainian

legislation until March 2014 did not directly recognize the Crimean

Tatars as an indigenous people. For example, Resolution No. 1660-III

98 B.V. BABIN

suggested that the president of Ukraine “give the order to study the

question of Ukraine’s signing the ILO Convention No. 169”40 devoted

to indigenous people problems. That is why the Statement on March

20, 2014 had historical impact. Further, implementation was

announced on the international scene during the regular annual

session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in May

2014.41 The Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the UN organized an

event to support the Crimean Tatars during the forum, and on 13 May

2014 the representative of the Ukrainian mission formally declared

support for the Declaration of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights. We should

add that this announcement was made on behalf of the government of

Ukraine. It managed to avoid ambiguity concerning parliamentary

versus governmental support, characterized by other states on this

issue, including the Australia, Columbia, Canada, and New Zealand

governments.

Relevant adverse events in Crimea contributed to approval of some

new regulations, especially the Law of Ukraine on 15 April 2014 No.

1207-VII “OnEnsuring of the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and Legal

Regime for the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine.” Its

preamble declared “protection and full realization of national, cultural,

social, and political rights of citizens of Ukraine, including indigenous

peoples and national minorities” as grounds for humanitarian, social, and

economic policy in relation to the population of the “temporarily

occupied territory.” The collective rights of indigenous peoples thus

become a form of exercising the rights of all citizens of Ukraine. This is

not perfect in terms of existing international theoretical concepts,

according to which collective rights may be considered as human rights

but not as the rights of a citizen. However, this configuration ensures that

rights of indigenous peoples ofUkraine inCrimea are covered by the rules

of parts 1 and 3 of Article 5, and parts 1 and 2 of Article 17 of the Law.

Ukraine is taking all necessarymeasures to guarantee rights and freedoms

stipulated by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, by international

treaties, for all citizens of Ukraine who live in the temporarily occupied

territory. Thus the responsibility for the violation of such rights in the

temporarily occupied territory is placed on Russia as a state-occupier, in

accord with the norms and principles of international law.42

The same events in Crimea have resulted in the Law of 17 April 2014,

No. 1223-VII “On Restoration of the Rights of Persons, Deported on

Ethnic Grounds.” This act has no “indigenous people” term but covers

deported peoples, including Crimean Tatar. Striving for universality, the

WINTER 2014–15 99

document is trying to cover all criminal Soviet deportations that were

perpetrated on a nationality basis. Law No. 1223-VII defines deportation

as forced relocation of peoples, minorities, and persons on a national

basis from their permanent residence on the grounds of decisions taken

by public authorities of former USSR or its union republics. In Article 3

of this Law, Ukraine recognized the deportation as based on decisions

taken by the government of the former USSR and the union republics, as

illegal and criminal. The law does not mention later decisions of USSR

authorities concerning rehabilitation of former Soviet violently

displaced deportees and restoration of their rights. Law No. 1223-VII

continued a paternalistic approach to the deportees characterized in

Ukraine’s social policy since 1990; however, de facto it fixed some

rights of the deported Crimean Tatars: to voluntary return to Ukraine, to

adaptation and integration into Ukraine’s society; to preservation and

development of ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious identity; to

return to historic names of settlements that had been renamed in the

USSR in connection with deportation. The relevant rights are named in

Law No. 1223-VII as guarantees for deported persons, as long as their

implementation does not restrict the rights and legitimate interests of

other citizens residing in the relevant territories.43

A significant Decree of the President of Ukraine was approved on 16

May 2014, No. 472/2014: “About the Day of Struggle for the Rights of

the Crimean Tatar people,” before the 70th anniversary of Crimean

Tatars’ deportation. This act stated that seventy years after the

deportation, caused by the actions of the totalitarian regime of the

former USSR, the Crimean Tatars faced further threats of discrimination

in their own homeland. Therefore, “to support the struggle of citizens of

Ukraine—Crimean Tatars for realization of their rights as indigenous

people in Ukraine” the Decree established 18 May as a day to honor

rights of the Crimean Tatar people.44 An alternative draft by V.A.

Yavorivsky proposed additional public recognition.45 Also relevant is

the “Law on the Status of indigenous peoples of Ukraine,” introduced to

parliament in March 2014, with drafts “About the Restoration of the

Rights of indigenous peoples of Ukraine Forcibly Relocated from

Crimea” No. 4434 on 13 March 2014, submitted by MP G. Moskal and

“On the Rights of indigenous peoples of Ukraine” No. 4501 on 20

March 2014, submitted by deputies V. Karpuntsov, O. Prodan,

R. Pavlenko, T. Corner, and I. Heraschenko.

Project No. 4434 was analogous to previous bills, including

governmental, previously proposed to solve the deported peoples’

100 B.V. BABIN

return problem.46 However, the category of “deportees” in the text was

replaced by the category of “indigenous people.” The project,

exclusively concerning Crimean Tatars, was devoted to establishing

the competence of public authorities to organize returns and

resettlement in Ukraine.47 These circumstances led to the rejection of

the bill by a parliamentary committee.

The draft Law No. 4501, proposed by democratic deputies, is more

sophisticated, focused on determining the rights of all indigenous

peoples in Ukraine, and furthering implementation. This draft reflects

the maximum possible implementation of UN norms. It presents a list of

the rights of indigenous peoples set in the UN Declaration. Therefore,

this approach should be considered as most productive. Article 1

stipulates that an indigenous people of Ukraine is an autochthonous

ethnic community, densely settled, with descent from the territory held

within the state border of Ukraine. It constitutes an ethnic minority in the

population of Ukraine, and does not have own state formation outside

Ukraine. The Crimean Tatars, Karaites, and Krymchaks are therefore

indigenous peoples of Ukraine “compactly residing in ARC—an

integral part of Ukraine.”48 This article was borrowed by its authors

from draft legislation: “Concept of National Ethnic Policy of Ukraine.”

However, the issue of ethnic genesis is difficult to connect with a certain

territory inside modern state borders. In addition, Karaites and

Krymchaks now live scattered across Ukraine, and not mostly in

Crimea. Also, we must not forget that besides Crimea, a traditional

territory of residence of the Crimean Tatars in Ukraine is Sevastopol and

areas of Kherson and Zaporizhzhya oblasts. During parliamentary

consideration of this draft, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine sent project

No. 4501 for revision and also proposed reviving project No. 4434 that

had been rejected by the parliamentary committee.

The Russian Federation, as a state-occupier, considers Crimea’s

territory as its own, and has extended its own national legislation over

Crimea. Therefore, it is necessary to examine separately the legislation

of the Russian Federation on indigenous issues. The imperial Russian

State contributed to the compilation of original solutions to the problem

of the legal status of indigenous populations of Russia. Historical

background includes the so-called inorodets [aliens] law in the imperial

period. After the 1917 Revolution, Russia’s Soviet Federated Republic

and the USSR borrowed the relevant institutions to solve the problem of

the status of the indigenous inhabitants of the North, Siberia, and Far

East. Other peoples received the status of titular nations of autonomous

WINTER 2014–15 101

republics, or were assimilated during the twentieth century, to the point

of losing political and cultural identities.

Current legal regulations, including federal laws and laws of the

federation subjects, now regulate the legal status of indigenous peoples

of Russia, as approved under the banner of the provisions of Article 69

of the Constitution, 1993. The Russian Federation guarantees rights of

numerically small indigenous peoples “in accordance with universally

recognized principles and norms of international law and international

agreements.” Beyond the Constitution, additional federal laws were

approved: “On Guarantees of the Rights of Numerically Small

Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation” on 30 April 1999, No.

82-Fi; “On General Principles of Organization of Communities of

Indigenous Numerically Small Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far

East of the Russian Federation” on 20 July 2000, No. 104-Fi; and “On

Territories of Traditional Nature Use of the Indigenous Peoples of the

North, Siberia, and Far East of the Russian Federation” on 7 May 2001,

No. 49-Fi.49

Important for determining the status of indigenous peoples have also

been such acts as a “List of Places of Traditional Residence and

Traditional Economic Activities of Numerically small Indigenous

Peoples of the Russian Federation, approved on 8 May 2009, No. 631-p;

and the “Concept of Sustainable Development of Numerically small

Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East, approved

4 February 2009, No. 132-p. These Russian acts provide a wide range of

collective (ethnic) rights for numerically small indigenous peoples, but

do not recognize the existence of indigenous peoples’ rights to political

self-determination and they limit the rights of collective ownership in

traditional areas of residence and restrict access to natural resources for

the indigenous peoples. Legal doctrine recognizes the ethnos as

equivalent to an indigenous people, according to autochthonous factors

and historic grounds. But the numerically small criteria stipulates that

indigenous people have recognized rights only if its representatives are

under 50,000 persons, with an additional condition that they preserve

traditional forms of their lifestyle.50

Such conditions do not allow for a number of ethnic groups in the

Russian Federation to obtain the status of indigenous people—in cases

of growing beyond 50,000 persons or in cases of rejection (even partial)

of traditional ways of life in favor of modern urbanization. Therefore, in

particular, Crimean Tatars cannot attain the status of an indigenous

people from the occupying power and use it to protect their collective

102 B.V. BABIN

rights and interests. There are approximately 250,000 Crimean Tatars

currently living in Crimea.

We should add that the government of the Russian Federation

provides an exhaustive list of numerically small indigenous peoples

living in Russian territory. The first was the Unified List of Numerically

Small Indigenous Peoples approved 24 March 2000, No. 255. The next

was the List of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia, and Far East

approved 17 April 2006, No. 536-p. Interestingly, the list was amended

several times, as some ethnic groups were included and some excluded

without any official explanation. Today the list includes forty ethnic

groups, of which only two (Saami and Veps) are living in the European

part of the Russian Federation. During 2009–11, the government

excluded such European nations as the Besermyans, Vod’, Izhors, and

Seti. We can assume that the Saami are still on the list because of their

cross-border status, and Veps because of Vladimir Putin’s ethnic origin.

Further, the right of a state to determine which ethnic group is an

indigenous people in general is ambiguous, since it borders on violating

the right to self-determination. This self-arrogated competence of the

state does not negate recognition of an ethnic group as an indigenous

people due to subjective factors. Also, the federal law of 30 April 1999,

No. 82-Fi gave a special mandate to the State Council of the Republic of

Dagestan to establish a separate list of that republic’s indigenous

peoples, to determine their number and other characteristics—because

of the “unique ethnic composition of the population of the Republic of

Dagestan given the number of peoples residing in its territory.” The list

of indigenous peoples of the Republic of Dagestan was approved by its

State Council on 18 October 2000, No. 191, and soon was adopted by

Russian Federation authorities. Noteworthy is that among the fourteen

recognized indigenous peoples of Dagestan were ethnic Russians.

Given increasing international attention to indigenous peoples of

Crimea, separatist authorities decided to implement selected Russian

Federation legislation, identifying numerically small indigenous

peoples as the Karaites and Krymchaks. This step has some political

importance but in practice it is clear that the separatist regime and

Russian authorities do not see less than a hundred assimilated

Krymchaks and a few hundred Karaites as any kind of a threat. The

so-called “State Council of the Republic of Crimea” adopted on 25 June

2014, Resolution No. 2254-6/14 on the government’s proposal “On the

Inclusion the Crimean Karaites and Krymchaks into the Unified List of

Indigenous Numerically Small Peoples of the Russian Federation.” This

WINTER 2014–15 103

proposal recognized that in Crimea’s multiethnic community a special

position is occupied by numerically small indigenous peoples—

Crimean Karaites and Krymchaks, formed historically on this territory,

with a complex and multilayered ethnogenesis, ethnic identity, cultural

identity, and religious independence.51 This resolution was officially

proposed for a public discussion scheduled for 27 June–18 August 2014

on a governmental website.

Some “nongovernmental” organizations today unite officially

indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation, such as the Russian

Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East

(RAIPON), and the L’auravetl’an Information and Education Network

of Indigenous People (LIENIP). These associations have been used as

tools of influence by federal authorities on the indigenous peoples

themselves, especially concerning their interface with international

structures concerning problems of indigenous peoples. (LIENIP is

supported by federal authorities slightly more than RAIPON.) Both

include only peoples considered appropriate within the list of

numerically small indigenous peoples. So many indigenous peoples of

Russia have no chance to be members of those organizations. Despite

active participation, the Russian Federation as a state does not use UN

international rules or their applications to address issues of indigenous

peoples residing in their country, nor has the Russian Federation signed

the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples.

The official attitude of the Russian Federation to the population of

Crimea and Sevastopol is defined by existing doctrine concerning the

“multinational people of the Russian Federation,” and by approaches

that have been widespread among the pro-Russian part of Crimea’s

population. Evidence is in provisions of the 18 March 2014 “Treaty

between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on

Acceptance of the Republic of Crimea to the RF and the Formation of

New Subjects of the RF.” This act tried to justify the Russian annexation

of Crimea as coming from the “free and voluntary will of the Peoples of

Crimea expressed in the All-Crimean referendum held in the

Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol City on 16 March

2014, during which the peoples of Crimea agreed on reunification with

Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation.” In Article 3 of this

“Treaty,” peoples “residing in the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol

city” the right to preserve their native language and to create conditions

for its learning and development. Further, the state languages of the

Republic of Crimea are declared as Russian, Ukrainian, and “Crimean-

104 B.V. BABIN

Tatar.” It should be added that the word “Crimean Tatar” is used in

modern Russian official vocabulary with a hyphen (not “krymskota-

tarskii,” which is grammatically correct, but “krymsko-tatarskii”).

We may guess that such use corresponds to a traditional perception of

Crimean Tatars by Russia as a link to the mythical “all-Tatar” ethnos;

hyphens in the name of the people emphasizes adherence to this

concept.

Implementation of the right to self-identification by indigenous

peoples of Ukraine under occupation is complicated by the anti-humane

Russian propaganda, and by quasi-historic “scientific” theories. These

are used by occupation authorities to prove “non-indigenousness,” and

“inferiority” of indigenous peoples, and to distort their history.

Unfortunately, similar state authority efforts were made in the past as

well, but they were rarely so frequent or rigid.

A Resolution of the Supreme Council of Crimea “On the

Independence of the Crimea” on 17 March 2014, No. 1745-6/14 also

emphasized “direct expression of the Peoples of Crimea in the

referendum,” which “showed that the Peoples of Crimea were in favor

of joining into Russia, and therefore, for withdrawal from Ukraine and

for establishing an independent state.” However, this model of “peoples

of the Crimea” is rendered useless in the so-called “Constitution of the

Republic of Crimea” (CRC) of 11 April 2014. The preamble of the

Constitution declares “the will of the multinational People of the

Republic of Crimea”; Article 2 states “the source of power in the

Republic of Crimea is in its People, part of the multinational People of

the Russian Federation.” However, Article 5 states that land and other

natural resources are the basis of “life and activities of Peoples living in

the Republic of Crimea.” Article 37 states “the Republic of Crimea

creates and provides equal opportunities for conservation and

development of the cultures of all peoples living in it.” Article 83

mentions preservation and development of ethnic and cultural diversity

for “Peoples of the Russian Federation residing in the Republic of

Crimea,” but also guarantees “protection of national minorities.”

Article 10 declares Crimea’s official languages as Russian, Ukrainian,

and Crimean-Tatar.

Interestingly, a federal-level presidential decree of 21 April 2014, No.

268 “On Measures for the Rehabilitation of Armenian, Bulgarian,

Greek, Crimean Tatar, and German Peoples and State Support of Their

Recovery and Development”52 was adopted in response to Ukraine’s 17

April 2014 Law No. 1223-VII on the restoration of the rights of deported

WINTER 2014–15 105

persons. Its timing would otherwise have been suitable to be approved

on the anniversary of the deportation (18 May), not a month before. The

preamble declares “restoration of historical justice, the elimination of

the consequences of illegal deportation from the territory of the Crimean

ASSR of Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek, Crimean Tatar, and German

Peoples.” “Formerly allowed violations of their rights” is mentioned.

However, this decree did not “rehabilitate” those “peoples” officially,

but rather focused on the illegality of their deportation. The content of

the decree was reduced to some abstract orders for the Russian

government to create “a set of measures to restore historical justice, and

political, social, and spiritual revival.” These included “promotion of the

establishment and development of national-cultural autonomies, other

associations, and organizations” of the relevant groups; instructions to

public authorities of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol City for

marking the 70th anniversary of deportation; and measures for national

cultural and spiritual revival within a federal target program of social

and economic development of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol

City until 2020.

Attempts to “dissolve” the problem of Crimean Tatars within the fact

of deportation of other groups (Armenians, Germans, and others) are

traditional for pro-Russian forces in Crimea since 1989, as well as for

some former Ukrainian authorities. But among the 280,000 deportees

who returned to Ukraine (officially recorded as a minimum figure in

Resolution No. 1660-III), 270,000 were Crimean Tatars. Moreover,

Crimean Tatars were the only ones deported from Crimea as a whole

ethnic group. In general, it is difficult to imagine events honoring

“rehabilitation of the German people” by the government of the Russian

Federation. Appropriate measures for Armenian, Bulgarian, and Greek

peoples also are absurd—as their own national states have not requested

such “measures.”

In any case, the world’s community of indigenous peoples has

negatively evaluated Decree No. 268. On 11 May 2014, members of the

UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues explained that it “ignores the

recognition of Crimean Tatars as an indigenous people and equates them

with settlers from Europe, located in Crimea in the XIX century.”

Mentioning historical displacement policies, their Statement condemned

the de-jurewaiver of CrimeanTatar rights “as an indigenous people”; and

noted “the content of the decree is very weak and is very far from the

norms and principles established by international law for indigenous

people and from the good practices for their implementation.”53

106 B.V. BABIN

Current Russian policy on Crimean nationality issues is exemplified

in a “Law of the Republic of Crimea” drafted by the Crimean deputies

L. Bezaziev and E. Gafarov on 21May 2014 No. 1520/30-10: “On Some

Guarantees of the Rights of the Peoples Extra-judicially Deported on a

National Basis 1941–44 from the Crimean ASSR.” This draft

enumerated “social protection measures” for repatriates, chillingly

recalling USSR euphemisms. The authors propose:

—reimbursement of expenses for relocation and transportation of

luggage to Crimea;

—one-time financial assistance for construction of separate housing;

—provision of housing or land for construction of separate housing;

—other Soviet-style measures of social support, such as priority

telephone installation or preferential provision of manufactured

goods);

—one-time financial assistance of thirty minimum wages.

Given that most of these “social protection measures” were already

passed in Ukrainian legislation from 1992 to 2010 and were even

realized more or less, the proposed draft becomes purely

propagandistic.54 Crimean Tatars have not been extended specific

rights under the Russian Federation Law of 26 April 1991, No. 1107-1

“On the Rehabilitation of the Repressed Peoples,” which is technically

still in force. By this act all repressed peoples of the Russia were

rehabilitated; all repressive acts against these peoples were declared

illegal and criminal, and Crimean Tatars were officially in the Crimean

ASSR of the Russian SRSR in 1921–44. Article 2 of this Law defined as

repressed people “any nation, nationality, or ethnic group and other

historical cultural and ethnic entities (such as Cossacks), against whom

state-level policy of slander and genocide was conducted on the grounds

of ethnic or other affiliation, accompanied by their forced relocation, by

abolition of their national-state formations, by the merging of national-

territorial boundaries, by conducting a regime of terror and violence in

places of special settlements.”55

Traditionally (before 2014), Russian and Ukrainian legal doctrines

suggested that this act did not apply to Crimean Tatars because their

historical motherland since 1954 had come under the jurisdiction of the

Ukrainian SSR and [newly independent] Ukraine. (Central Asia also

was not under the jurisdiction of Russia.) However, the act of

deportation, a repressive act against the Crimean Tatar people, occurred

WINTER 2014–15 107

in 1944 when Crimea and the Crimean Tatars were under the

jurisdiction of the Russian SFSR. Therefore the Law of 26 April 1991,

No. 1107-1 should include the Crimean Tatars. Russia’s Law No. 1107-

1 has no effect on the territory of Ukraine. However, given that the

Russian Federation extended its jurisdiction since 18 March 2014 as an

occupying power, it has to fulfill its own specified Law No. 1107-I or

cancel or change this law officially.

Key norms of Law No. 1107-1, in addition to recognition of the

Soviet genocide against the Crimean Tatars, are in Article 3.

It guarantees rehabilitation of repressed peoples as including

recognition of their right to restore the territorial integrity of their

borders existing before the “unconstitutional policy of violent

redrawing of borders.” This means restoration of national-state entities

that have developed despite abolition, as well as compensation for

damages to the repressed caused by the state. This suggests recreation

of the Crimean ASSR in the form it existed before 1945, not as an

abstract “Republic of Crimea,” where, according to the constitution

live some nameless peoples, but as a national subject of the Russian

Federation.

The Ukrainian SSR reconstituted the Crimean ASSR in 1991 “within

the territory of the Crimean oblast as part of the Ukrainian SSR” by the

Law of 12 February 1991, No. 712-XII. Therefore, paradoxically, any

state entity that exists in Crimea under Ukrainian or Russian

(occupational) jurisdiction must continue to treat the Crimean ASSR

of 1921–45 as the basis of the national autonomous state of the Crimean

Tatars. Relevant laws are Russia’s [SFSR’s] 26 April 1991, No. 1107-1

or the Law of the Ukrainian SSR No. 712-XII.

Crimean Tatar representative bodies have weighed in on conditions

of the occupation. Their Mejlis was defined as a United Plenipotentiary

Representative Body in the first session of the second Kurultay in June

1991. It was composed of thirty-three members elected by the Kurultay

and led by the Mejlis head, elected by the Kurultay in separate voting.

From 1990 to 2006, the Kurultay used in elections an absolute majority

of Crimean Tatar citizens of Ukraine including Crimean Tatars living in

Ukraine, regardless of citizenship. However in 2006, election rules

changed radically, initiated by the Mejlis head. From 2006–2013, the

Kurultay was de jure and de facto electing by a minority (1/3 þ 1 vote)

of Crimean Tatar electors. This procedure was criticized very actively

by several political groups of Crimean Tatars, who insisted that this

undermined its representative nature.

108 B.V. BABIN

In 2013, the norm concerning the level of participation of Crimean

Tatar’s electors was abolished in principle. Instead, delegates to the

Kurultay began to be elected by a relative majority of any number of

those electors who took part in regular Kurultay elections. Many

Crimean Tatar Movement activists felt that this mean the Kurultay and

Mejlis lost their right to be recognized as representative bodies of the

Crimean Tatar people. All these changes impacted negatively on the

authority of the Mejlis. However, many Crimean Tatar representatives

living in Ukraine still were closely connected to Mejlis activities and

positions.

Under conditions of Russian occupation, these contradictions

manifested very dramatically. Six acting members of the Mejlis

among thirty-three were invited and accepted positions in the separatist

government and local self-government bodies of Crimea. Many

members of local councils did the same. The Kurultay currently is

unable to arrange any session now, for technical as well as for political

reasons. The former deputy head of the Mejlis occupies the position of

the vice-head of the “State Council of the Republic of Crimea.” This is

the separatist republic “parliament,” and it closely collaborates with the

local Russian administration. He announced the creation of a “Crimea

Movement” (Dvizhenie Krym), whose main goal is to collaborate with

the Russian state. De facto he prepares the arrangement of Federal

National-Cultural Autonomy for Crimean Tatars in Russia, to accord

with Russian legislation. A new reelected Kurultay of Crimean Tatars is

planned and delegates of this future Kurultay are being specially

selected by Crimean Tatar pro-Russian officials. In this way, the Mejlis

of the Crimean Tatars has lost the potential to represent politically and to

defend the rights of the Crimean Tatars in Crimea.

Conclusions

The issue of indigenous peoples’ rights is based on the global problem of

the status of peoples as holders of a number of collective rights. The

specificity of indigenous peoples is caused by the practical impossibility

of implementing full sovereignty for such peoples through the formation

of a national independent state. The issue of indigenous peoples’ rights

is aggravated under conditions of assault by countries where they reside,

on their property, ethnic identity, and political structure. The political

and legal fate of indigenous peoples of Ukraine living now in occupied

Crimea is a striking example of those processes.

WINTER 2014–15 109

Collective political, economic, social, and cultural rights of

indigenous peoples are recognized by the world community through

the 2007 UN Declaration of Indigenous People’s Rights, a major

document facilitating political and legal power. The legal status and

actual situation of indigenous peoples of Ukraine—Crimean Tatars,

Crimean Karaites, and Krymchaks—is connected with the tragic history

of their historic homeland. Ukraine since 1991 recognized the rights of

these indigenous peoples de facto. Further recognition came with

adherence to the UN Declaration by Ukraine de jure in 2014 after the

occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.

Russia’s occupying authorities in Crimea do not recognize the legal

status of Crimean indigenous peoples, particularly the Crimean Tatars.

Their protection, restoration, and realization of their potential are urgent

matters for Ukraine and for the whole international community. Ukraine

should recognize the Krymchaks and Karaites as indigenous peoples,

with a procedure analogous to the statute concerning Crimean Tatars

Statement of 20 March 2014. It should adopt a law on the status of

indigenous peoples in accord with the UN Declaration of Indigenous

People’s Rights. Ukraine must use the UN mechanisms and

international nongovernmental indigenous peoples’ mechanisms for

the protection of the rights of its own indigenous peoples in the occupied

territories of Ukraine. Ukraine also should advocate protection of the

rights of indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation, given conditions

of the revival of Russian imperialism.

Notes

1. V.Y. Vozgrin,Historic Destinies of Crimean Tatars (Moscow: Mysl’, 1992),pp.76–108.

2. B.V. Babin, Legal Statute of the Indigenous peoples of Ukraine (Donetzk:Kashtan, 2006), pp. 101–14.

3. I.V. Achkinazy, Krymchaks: Historic-Ethnographic Essay (Simferopol: Dar,2000), pp. 24–28.

4. E.I. Lebedeva, Essays on History of Crimean Karaites-Turks (Simferopol,2000), pp. 58–84.

5. M.N. Guboglo, Little Turkic-Language Peoples of the Balkan Peninsula (Onthe Question of the Origin of the Gagauses). Ph.D. dissertation in history (Moscow,1967); N.V. Anikin, Problems of Ethnic Identification of the Gagauz in Moldova.Ph.D. dissertation in history (Moscow, 2009).

6. O. Garkavetz, Urums of Up-Azov: History, Language, Tales, Songs, Riddles,Proverbs, Writing Monuments (Alma-Ata, 1999).

7. V.Y. Vozgrin, ibid., pp. 156–202.

110 B.V. BABIN

8. M.N. Guboglo, Crimean Tatar National Movement. History. Problems.Perspectives, ed. M.N. Guboglo and S.M. Chervonnaia (Moscow: Nauka, 1992),vol. 1, pp. 79–87.

9. Crimean ASSR. Little Soviet Encyclopedia in 10 Volumes— (Moscow,1936), vol. 5, pp. 1012–15.

10. Crimean Tatars: Company of the Civil Protest against Discrimination of theIndigenous Peoples of Crimea. Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People. Legal-politicDepartment. Informational Service (Simferopol, 2000), pp. 44–65.

11. On the Restoration of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialistic Republic:Law of the Ukrainian SSR on 12 February 1991, No. 712-XII. http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/712-12

12. On Cancellation of the Legislative Acts in Connect to the Declaration of theSupreme Council of the USSR on 14 November 1989: resolution of the SupremeCouncil of the USSR on 7 March 1991, No. 2012-I Vedomosti Verkhnogo SovetaSSSR, 1991, no. 23, p. 653.

13. Declaration on the National Sovereignty of the Crimean Tatar People on 28June 1991 / Documents of the Kurultay 26–30 June 1991. http://qtmm.org/public/images/ckeditor/file/quick-folder/dokumenty_1_sessii_2_kurultaya.doc.

14. Constitution of the Crimean Republic: project adopted by the Mejlis of theCrimean Tatar People on 29 December 1991, in Guboglo, ibid., vol. 2, pp. 144–77.

15. On Amendments to the Law of the Republic of Crimea “On Elections of theSupreme Council of Crimea”: Law of the Republic of Crimea on 14 October 1993Vedomosti Verkhnogo Soveta SSSR, 1993, no. 5, p. 220.

16. On Specific of the Participation of Citizens of Ukraine, ConsideringDeported from Crimea, in Elections of the Deputes of Local Councils inAutonomous Republic of Crimea on 6 April 1995, No. 124/95-cr. http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/124/95-cr

17. On Measures for Preserving the Cultural Heritage of Karaites andKrymchaks: resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Crimean ASSR on 21January, no. 5, Vestnik Soveta Ministrov Kryma, 1992, no. 1, pp. 6–11.

18. Babin, ibid., pp. 203–12.19. Mentioned in a letter of the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Ukraine No. 72/14-

612/2-304 on 1 February 2013. See Agreement on Issues Connected withRestoration of Rights of Deported Peoples, National Minorities and Peoples on 9October 1992. http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/997_090.

20. On the Recommendations of the Parliamentary Hearings “Problems of theLegislative Regulation and Implementation of the State Policy on the Ensuring theRights of the Deported Crimean Tatar People and Ethnic Minorities Who ReturnVoluntarily to Ukraine: Resolution of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 20 April2000, No. 1660-III. http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1660-14. Some localelements of restoration of the rights of deportees on ethnic grounds are regulated byacts of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, such as the Procedure of Providing forDeportees and Family Members Who Have Returned to Ukraine, the Housing Builtor Purchased through the Budget Funds, coordinated by the government ResolutionNo. 1952 (17 December 2003); the Procedure of Provision of Drinking Water toPlaces of Compact Settlement of Deported Crimean Tatars and Other Nationalitiesin the ARC, and the Procedure of Payment the Compensation Costs for Relocationand Transportation of Luggage to the Deported Crimean Tatars and Persons ofOther Nationalities and Their Family Members Who Have Returned to Ukraine for

WINTER 2014–15 111

Permanent Residence, determined by the government Resolution No. 626 (13 May2004).

21. ILO Convention No. 64 “Regulation of Written Contracts of Employment ofIndigenous Workers,” 27 June 1939. http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p¼NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312209:NO. The first collective international act devoted to indigenous issues were the ILOConvention No. 64 Concerning the Regulation of Written Contracts of Employmentof Indigenous Workers (27 June 1939, 31 ratifications by countries), ConventionNo. 65 Concerning Penal Sanctions for Breaches of Contracts of Employment byIndigenous Workers (27 June 1939, 33 ratifications), and ILO RecommendationNo. 58 Concerning the Maximum Length of Written Contracts of Employment ofIndigenous Workers and Recommendation No. 59 Concerning Labor Inspectoratesfor Indigenous Workers (27 June 1939).

22. ILO Convention No. 107 Concerning the Protection and Integration ofIndigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countrieson 26 June 1957. http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p¼NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312252:NO.

23. Indigenous Peoples, Living and Working Conditions of AboriginalPopulations in Independent Countries. International Labour Office (Geneva, ILO,1953).

24. G. Bennett, Aboriginal Rights in International Law (London: RoyalAnthropological Institute, 1978). Occasional Paper No. 37.

25. Benedict Kingsbury, Indigenous Peoples and the International Communitywith Particular Reference to the Right of Self-Determination. Ph.D. dissertation(Oxford: University of Oxford, 1984).

26. V.A. Kriazhkov, Indigenous Numerically Small Peoples of North in theRussian Law (Moscow: Norma, 2010); S.V. Sokolovskii, “The Concept‘Indigenous Peoples’ in Russian Science, Policy, and Legislation,” Etnografiches-koe obozrenie, 1998, no. 3, pp. 74–89.

27. ILO Convention No. 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples inIndependent Countries on 27 June 1989. http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p¼NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_ILO_CODE:C169. ConventionNo. 169 now includes twenty-two states, including fifteen states of Latin America(Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic,Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela),Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Nepal, Fiji, and the Central AfricanRepublic. We can confidently assert that Convention No. 169 reflects thecompromise developed between indigenous peoples, governments, and the rest ofthe population of Latin America.

28. J.R. Martinez-Cobo, Study of the Problem of Discrimination againstIndigenous Populations (New York: United Nations, 1981).

29. Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Resolution 67/153 adopted by the UN GeneralAssembly on 20 December 2012 [on the report of the Third Committee (A/67/454)].http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/6731386.18469238.html. The UN Special Rappor-teur addressed the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms ofindigenous peoples (now known as the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples). The UN General Assembly Resolution No. 59/174 (20December 2004) approved the Second International Decade of the World’sIndigenous Peoples (2005–14), and GA UN Resolution No. 60/142 (16 December

112 B.V. BABIN

2005) approved the Program of Actions for the Second International Decade andadopted as topic for the decade “Partnership for Action and Dignity.”

30. C.P. Cohen, Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples (New York: TransnationalPublishers, 1998).

31. S. James Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1996); Wolfgang S. Heinz, Indigenous Populations, EthnicMinorities and Human Rights (Saarbrucken: Breitenbach, 1991).

32. S. Allen, Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples, ed. S. Allen and A. Xanthaki (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2011). When theGeneral Assembly voted, 144 votes were “for”; 4 countries voted “against”(Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States), 11 countries abstained(including Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia,Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, and Samoa). The remaining 13 states wereabsent during the vote, including Israel, Romania, Montenegro, and Central Asiancountries (Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan).

33. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: adopted by the UNGeneral Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007 [without reference to aMain Committee (A/61/L.67 and Add.1)]. http://www.un-documents.net/a61r295.htm. After the Declaration was approved in 2007, the General Assembly hasrepeatedly addressed indigenous peoples’ issues in procedural acts, as evidenced,for example, by Resolutions No. 65/198 on 21 December 2010, No. 66/142 on 19December 2011, and No. 66/296 on 17 September 2012. Resolution No. 66/296envisaged organizing a high-level plenary meeting called a World Conference onIndigenous Peoples,” held on 22–23 September 2014 with the participation ofindigenous peoples.

34. Ibid. Resolution 67/153 adopted by the UN General Assembly on20 December 2012.

35. Denys M.Kitzenko, International Legal Statute of the Indigenous Peoples:Ph.D. dissertation in international law (Kyiv, 2003).

36. Concerning the Urgent Situation of Indigenous Peoples of Crimea, Statementof Indigenous Peoples attending the 13th session of Permanent Forum on IndigenousIssues, 11.05.2014. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2014/hr5179.doc.htm.

37. The Report of 15 April raises indigenous issues in paragraphs 6, 11, 89, 97,and 103 of its narrative, and in pp. 3 and 19 of its recommendations. Report on theHuman Rights Situation in Ukraine, 15 April 2014: Office of the UN HighCommissioner for Human Rights. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_Report_15April2014.doc.

38. Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, 15 June 2014: Office ofthe UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/HRMMUReport15June2014.pdf.

39. This is Article 1 of the 1966 Covenant International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights: adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 2200A(XXI) of 16 December 1966. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/cescr.aspx.

40. Ibid. Resolution of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 20 April 2000, No. 1660-III. http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1660-14.

41. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Thirteenth Session 3rd & 4thMeetings (A.M. & P.M.); UN Economic and Social Council, HR/5179. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2014/hr5179.doc.htm.

WINTER 2014–15 113

42. On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and Legal Regime forthe Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine on 15 April 2014,No. 1207-VII. http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1207-18. According to therules of Law No. 1207-VII in a case of violation of its provisions, state bodies ofUkraine should use the mechanisms provided by the laws of Ukraine andinternational law, to protect the peace, security, human rights, freedoms, andlegitimate interests of citizens of Ukraine who are located in the temporarilyoccupied territory. Also, Ukraine is obliged to take all possible measures, includingthose prescribed by international law, to restore the rights and freedoms of humanbeings and citizens undermined as a result of the occupation. The UN Declarationcan be regarded as a collection of relevant international law norms that can beapplied by Ukraine to implement the requirements of the Law No. 1207-VII. Part 7of Article 5 stipulates responsibility for the protection of cultural heritage in thetemporarily occupied territory is put on Russia as the state-occupant, according tothe norms and principles of the International Law.

43. On Restoration of the Rights of Persons, Deported on Ethnic Grounds: Lawof Ukraine on 17 April 2014, No. 1223-VII. http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1223-18.

44. On the Day of Struggle for the Rights of the Crimean Tatar People: Decree ofthe President of Ukraine on 16 May 2014, No. 472/2014. http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/472/2014.

45. An alternative draft was “On the 70th Anniversary of the Deportation ofCrimean Tatars and other Nationalities from Ukraine (Autonomous Republic ofCrimea): Draft resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 5 November 2013,No. 3539, introduced by p.d. V.A. Yavorivsky. http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc34?id¼&pf3511¼48927&pf35401¼281399.

46. On Restoration of the Rights of Persons, Deported on Ethnic Grounds: Draftlaw of Ukraine on 11 September 2008, No. 3142. http://gska2.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb_n/webproc4_1?id¼&pf3511¼33290

47. On the Restoration of the Rights of the Indigenous People of Ukraine,Forcibly Resettled from the Crimea: Draft law of Ukraine on 13 March 2014,No. 4434 introduced by p.d. G.G. Moskal. http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc34?id¼&pf3511¼50220&pf35401¼293990.

48. On the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples of Ukraine: Draft law of Ukraineon 20 March 2014, No. 4501 introduced by V.V. Karpuntzov, O.P. Prodan,R.M. Pavlenko, et al. http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511¼50327.

49. On Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Numerically small Peoples of theRF: the Federal Law of April 30, 1999 No. 82-Fi; On Territories of TraditionalNature Use of the Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East of the RF.Federal Law May 7, 2001 No. 49-Fi; On General Principles of Organization ofCommunities of Indigenous Numerically small Peoples of the North, Siberia and FarEast of the RF: Federal Law of July 20, 2000 No. 104-Fi. http://constitution.garant.ru/act/right/180406; http://base.garant.ru/12122856; http://base.garant.ru/182356.

50. V.A. Kryazkov, ibid.; F.R. Ananydze, “Indigenous Peoples and Peoples’Right on Self-Determination,” in Vestnyk Rossiyskogo Universiteta DruzbyNarodov. Series “Law,” 2001, vol. 2, pp. 66–75.

51. “On the Inclusion the Crimean Karaites and Krymchaks into the Unified Listof Indigenous Numerically small Peoples of the RF”: Resolution of the SCRC on

114 B.V. BABIN

25 June 2014, No. 2254-6/14. http://regulation.gov.ru/project/17036.html?point¼view_project&stage¼1&stage_id¼6158. It was not adopted as of this writing.

52. On Measures for the Rehabilitation of the Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek,Crimean Tatar and German Peoples and the State Support of their Revivaland Development: Decree of the President of the RF on 21 April 2014, No. 268.http://www.rg.ru/2014/04/21/reabilitaciya-site-dok.html.

53. On the Urgent Situation of Indigenous Peoples of Crimea: Statement ofIndigenous Peoples Attending the 13th Session of Permanent Forum on IndigenousIssues, 11.05.2014; http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2014/hr5179.doc.htm.

54. On the Draft Law of the Republic of Crimea “On Some Guarantees of theRights of the Peoples Who Were Extrajudicially Deported on a National Sign in1941–1944 from the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic”: Decision“of the State Council of the Republic of Crimea” on 4 June 2014, No. 2203-6/14;http://www.rada.crimea.ua/ua/app/3449.

55. OnRehabilitationofRepressedPeoples:Lawof theRussianS.F.S.Ron26April1991, No. 1107-1. http://www.lawrussia.ru/texts/legal_689/doc689a267x252.htm.

WINTER 2014–15 115