苏格兰公投与克里米亚公投的比较分析——基于公投类型和分离权双重视角

发布时间：2018-08-13 16:55

【摘要】：虽然苏格兰公投和克里米亚公投经常被误认为"独立公投"或"自决公投",但其实两者均是对外分离性民主公投。首先,苏格兰和克里米亚人民并不享有国际法上的自决权,其举行公投的依据是国内民主制度,故两地公投均为民主性公投而非自决性公投;其次,两地公投的主题是从母国脱离,而非从外国殖民统治或非法侵占下独立,抑或决定本地区内的治理问题,故均为对外分离性公投而非独立性公投或对内治理性公投;再次,苏格兰公投获得了英国同意,而克里米亚公投遭到了乌克兰反对,故前者为协议式公投,后者为单方面公投。作为分离公投的典型案例,两地公投牵扯出关于分离权的一系列问题,尤其是分离权的国际法地位、单方面分离权的道德基础和主权国家对分离公投诉求的回应等,对其进行深入研究是抵御分离主义、维护国家主权的关键一步。
[Abstract]:While the Scottish and Crimean referendums are often mistaken for "independence" or "self-determination", they are both foreign secessionist democratic referendums. First, the peoples of Scotland and Crimea do not have the right to self-determination under international law, and they hold referendums on the basis of domestic democracy, so both referendums are democratic referendums rather than self-determination referendums; and second, The theme of both referendums is to separate from the home country, not to become independent under foreign colonial rule or illegal occupation, or to determine governance issues in the region, so they are both foreign secession referendums, not independence referendums or internal governance referendums; again, The Scottish referendum was agreed by Britain, while the Crimea referendum was opposed by Ukraine, so the former was an agreed referendum and the latter was a unilateral referendum. As a typical case of the referendum on secession, the two referendums involve a series of issues concerning the right to secession, especially the status of the right to secession in international law, the moral basis of the unilateral right of secession and the response of sovereign states to the demands of the referendum on secession. It is a key step to resist separatism and safeguard national sovereignty.
【作者单位】：中国人民大学国际关系学院;
【基金】：“中国人民大学科学研究基金项目“公投制度对民族国家主权新挑战”（批准号是15XNI005）的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D756.1;D751.13

【参考文献】