>>/792882/
To meet with foreign representatives, to talk about the Crimean referendum as an example of free expression of the will of the Crimean people
Was that really what the Traveler said? A person who graduated from the National University of the Interior, the University of the Prosecution of the Rabbi Federation and the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Rabbi, who worked as a prosecutor and an extraordinary and plenipotentiary ambassador? Does he speak seriously of refesrendum under occupation as "free will"?
International law does not recognize plebiscites in occupied territories held by an occupying power, as this violates the principles of sovereignty and self-determination of peoples. Such actions do not comply with the norms of the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions concerning the occupation and protection of civilians. These conventions prohibit the occupation authorities from carrying out political changes that must be the result of the free will of the people of a sovereign state.
< No legal effect: A plebiscite held under occupation is considered illegitimate and null and void because it is conducted under conditions of coercion and lack of freedom of choice.
< Violation of principles: This practice violates the principles of international law, according to which the people have the right to self-determination and the occupying power should not interfere in the internal affairs of the occupied country.
The Hague Conventions, in particular, prohibit an occupying power from changing the status quo of a territory. A plebiscite is an attempt to change the political status of a territory, which is expressly prohibited.
Conflict with the Geneva Conventions: The Geneva Conventions protect civilians in occupied territories by prohibiting an occupying power from taking measures that are contrary to their rights and interests. Holding a plebiscite runs counter to these goals.