On May, 26 Russian State Duma adopted the decision to inquire the government about the possible measures to “bring back” the Crimean Peninsular under Russian rule. This week the deputies upheld a corresponding protocol order to Duma external affairs committee and CIS committee.

The order reads that a bilateral agreement with Ukraine on recognizing the latter within her current borders expires in 2007. As a result, the deputies claim that by November, 30 2006 the Russian Federation should declare non-prolongation of the agreement and demand return of the Crimean Peninsular to Russia in accordance with Kuchuk Kainarji treaty of 1774.

In 1954 Nikita Khrushchev initiated the transfer of the Crimean province to the Ukrainian S.S.R. as a token of friendship on the 300 anniversary of the Pereyaslav Rada. In 1991 under the results of an all-Crimea referendum the Crimean province was converted into the Crimean Autonomous S.S.R. within the Ukrainian S.S.R. In 1992 the Supreme Rada of the Crimean Autonomous S.S.R. was renamed into the Republic Crimea. In 1998 a current constitution of the Crimea was adopted, the official name was changed into “the Autonomous Republic of Crimea”.

In any case, the high-flown statement of Russian deputies may create an interesting precedent in the post-Soviet area, because, firstly, it once again ignores the indigenous population of the peninsula – the Tatars – while debating on the future of the Crimea within the framework of Russian-Ukrainian relations. And, secondly, it arouses several casuistic issues of international law. For example, whether the Ukrainian parliamentarians have a right to initiate the debate on the return of historically Ukrainian regions (Kuban, Voronezh and Belgorod)? Or is Belarus entitled to bring forth the claims for Smalensk province as well as for a part of Bransk province and also demand indemnity from Moscow for handing over Białystok and Vilnius provinces, grounding on the illegitimacy of a Soviet agreement with Lithuania and post-war agreements with Poland, where Belarus was not represented as a party to the talks. The Georgian parliament may also initiate action to return Sochi. In this case German Bundestag is to promptly introduce into its agenda the question of returning Karaleviec (Königsberg) to Germany.