Laurinavičiūtė, Lina

Straipsnyje nagrinėjamas perskridimo laisvės turinys pagal dvi tarptautines sutartis - 1982 m. Tarptautinę jūrų teisės konvenciją ir 1944 m. Tarptautinę civilinės aviacijos konvenciją. Tyrimas atskleidžia perskridimo laisvės ypatumus virš atskirų jūros erdvių: teritorinės jūros, atvirosios jūros, išskirtinės ekonominės zonos, salyno vandenų bei tarptautinių sąsiaurių. Nepaisant skirtingo reguliavimo objekto, skrydžius virš jūros erdvių reguliuoja abi minėtos Konvencijos, todėl straipsnyje taip pat analizuojamas Tarptautinės jūrų teisės ir Tarptautinės civilinės aviacijos konvencijų santykis ir nagrinėjama, kaip gali būti sprendžiamas šių tarptautinių sutarčių kolizijos klausimas.

The article introduces a set of remedial conditions that might justify unilateral secession under international public law and examines whether remedial secession might be applied in the post-Soviet “frozen conflicts”: South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transdniestria and Crimea. The article concludes that the remedial right to secession has no relevance in the “frozen conflicts” in post-Soviet region and neither of the entities cannot justify their independence on remedial secession. However, all the cases confirm the existence of the right and its conditions. Moreover, the situations of the “frozen conflicts” in the post-Soviet region add clarity to the procedural criterion for the exercise of the negotiations. Negotiations in good faith are possible merely if the conflicting parties are not influenced by the third states, which violate international law. The cases of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transdniestria and Crimea reveal that the right to remedial secession simply is not relevant in the cases which are related to the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of the norms of international law. Remedial secession cannot be exercised in the cases, created in serious breach of international law norms.

The article deals with the application rationae personae of the right to selfdetermination. Relying on the existing international legal framework, decisions of the judicial bodies and doctrine, the author analyses conceivable beneficiaries of the above-mentioned right: the inhabitants of Trust and Non-Self-Governing territories, peoples under foreign occupation, the entire population of a state and subgroups within a state.

According to the opinion, the principle of territorial integrity applies horizontally but not vertically and cannot be balanced with the principle of self-determination. Territorial integrity remains the law governing the relations between states. For the Court, territorial integrity is a rule, the meaning of which is precisely determined. In contrast, the Court left room for the development of the principle of self-determination in a non-colonial context.