Volodymyr Lipkan,
the head of the supervision council of Global Organization of Allied Leadership,
Doctor of legal science
Actuality of the problem
Recently, much attention is paid to the issue of development of various civil society institutions. Scientists increasingly are trying to provide their own interpretation of the concept anthropocentrism and its implementation to different sectors of society racing one another.
In this article I do not want to talk about the expediency of the approach but present my own hypothetical opinions, which are based on the methodology of security studies, trends of security renaissance and also methodology of interdisciplinary approach. It gives an opportunity to interpret differently such demonization of the concept of human rights, to understand the roots of the problem, to formulate a predictive model of the modern state development.
Environment of modern state existence
I will not be original if I say that democracy is not the best political-legal regime for a state. In this mode, most authorities, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, which was finally developed by Pius XI, is given to places, so decentralization of power is made. This modern word, which somehow is primitively identified only with favorite Russian proponents and representatives of geopolitical fantasy, is “federation”.
If you remove the mythical glasses and discard speculative ideological patterns that are imposed as a result of performance of systematic information-psychological operations, it will appear that the domination of civil society institutions, and exaggerated idea of the comprehensive capabilities of the private sector in solving of many important problems is the way to depreciation of a state, decreasing of its role as the most effective organization of the civil society.
The role of a state is gradually leveled, while in parallel with this is greatly enhanced role not of civil society institutions, and the role of transnational corporations, oligarchs and big capital. Today we can clearly say: the role of state in the modern world has changed significantly. Today a state exists only as a territorial unit, while TNCs get significant advantages through both cumulative financial potential and established managed relations in a state power bodies, including supranational bodies that govern states and regions.
Thus, there is strengthening and depreciation of the role of the state, and the formation of new – real and effective actors of international relations. The state is becoming an atavism for the development of modern capital, consequently this institution should be discredit or its impact on transnational corporations should be minimized by any pretext. Instead of the national government – supranational body, that decides the fate of many countries; instead of its own army – membership in the system of collective security or the formation of private military corporations which will defend the interests of those who pay them. In fact, the state gradually loses its organizational, legal, information and other potentials concerning influence on modern social relations. Subsequently, the state will lose the important – resources, including human resources. The same can be stated about the role of law, which in today’s world takes the role of such a deontological imperative but not more.
The scientific weakness: conscious or sightless?
Events in Ukraine in summer 2014 are striking example of this.
Through the systematic destruction of Ukrainian army from the inside of the state over the past 23 years, as a result of active and successful activity of agents of influence of different countries, the ideology of strong and successful state was not formed in Ukraine. Heralds of the weak state professed for years an approach in which the greatest threats to the state were inside threats.
But even Mr. H. Kissinger said: who is too focused on domestic threats, then will be in burden of a foreign.
Ukraine has become a classic example, when scientists as intelligent mercenaries who are blinkered by alien ideology, served not Ukrainian state and the interests of their own nation, but those scientific postulates that were drown to them in leading security institutions both of our country and foreign countries. The postulates were formed by quite respectable figures whose thoughts were seen almost axiomatically. But it is said not fairly: don’t create an idol for you…
As a result of this scientific homophobia, ideas on the formation of adequate indices and indicators of national security were considered only in theoretical plan, without taking into account current trends of aggressive and many-structured security environment. Thus, our country in scientific terms was devoid of objective scientific support of implementation of the state policy in general and policy of national security, in particular.
In such conditions, the accumulation of theoretical studies and practical prerequisites for increasing of the role of civil society institutions and parallel reduction of the role of the state was focused only on internal threats.
As a result, in a condition of a real threat the state was not able to perform its major functions of defense and security.
In consequence of ideological unavailability the forces of national security were unable to perceive the opinion even at the early stages that Russian mercenaries and Russia will do unlawful acts and oust the Ukrainian life, engage in torture and carry out liquidation of Ukrainian statehood, sack Ukrainian property and create real and significant damage.
Problems of self-identification
Moreover, some segments of Ukrainians, having not determined with its own self-identity, mixed economic prosperity with citizenship, history and future, their nostalgic memories about the Soviet Union and the realities of modern Ukraine and Russia as independent and ideologically different states. Thus our Ukrainian soldiers, who lived in the Crimea, stupidly gave Crimea; so some representatives of the police officers began to move to the side of separatists and terrorists in eastern Ukraine, only because “there pay more”.
One of the motivational sides of this problem is that these citizens were thinking simply and primitively: we want a salary as in Russia; we want to get Russian pensions … such worldview prostitution, corruption, primitive materialism. Indeed, under such circumstances, if the US offered to higher wages then Russia, so, for logic of the population, they would like to become part of America? But would like the US to have these venal “hired citizens”? And why these citizens haven’t gone to another country, haven’t acquire citizenship of the country in which they want to live … It is like to live with a woman, but always rivet her brain and give examples of how and what to do like his mistress and still continue to use the flat, to live for account and consume resources of “boring” wife.
Under these conditions occurred wandering people for years, both in the state as the most effective institution that creates conditions for realization of the citizens interests and in local officials, who actually performed the tasks of the center, although represented local elites.
Thus the problem of Eastern Ukraine is rooted in deep of forming of real citizen’s position.
The rights and obligations: domination or correspondence?
As note modern scholars, the essence of the legal relation of citizenship lies in complex of mutual rights and obligations of the state and the citizen. I deliberately underlined these words, nevertheless natural dichotomy: right – duties, powers – responsibility – are crucial in this context.
The concept of human rights has been so distorted in practice that ordinary citizens began to perceive the state as its own maid. This was caused unjustified and untimely concept of providing of administrative services by the state, which was actually reckless and hypocritically implemented in many areas that cannot be defined by services.
The right on a dignified existence must be provided by the state. But citizens who do not wish to be active citizens, take part in the state life cannot and have no right to pretend to social and other rights, as they voluntarily excluded themselves from social and political, financial, economic, information and legal discourse and context. In other words, if a person does nothing to develop their own state, he or she independently excludes itself on their own will, consciously from the members of state-organized society.
Therefore, the state is not obliged, but has no right to hold such members, because in this case one of the guiding principles of relationships is violated: the principle of equivalence.
The state is not obliged to anyone. The state functions and helps those who are responsible member of society, actively participate in the development of the state, and just is a citizen in the original sense of the word.
The problem of Ukrainian statehood is that the majority of citizens inherited totalitarian ideology in which freedom of thought, freedom of expression was absent. All the hopes and expectations were associated with the state and its bodies. Through this activity, active citizenship position, awareness attitude to the state development, they have their own citizen’s position, sometimes not similar to the state – have not yet become the attributes of the modern world-view of average Ukrainian person.
The problem also lies in the fact that some citizens only require from the State the right on dignified existence, neglecting their duties to the state and the society, the social system in which they exist. Rights always correspond with obligations.
Citizens should associate itself with the social system in which he or she exists, and identify him with by the state in which he lives, and from which he expects protection and creation of favorable conditions for realization of his own interests.
Therefore, to be a citizen means to be a part of the state, and therefore bear obligations primarily before the state. Citizenship is a stable legal connection between the individual and the state, which is exposed in their mutual rights and obligations.
So now after the events in the east of Ukraine in 2014, when residents especially of Luhansk region supported separatism and with mercenaries committed acts aimed at the violent overthrow of the constitutional order, the question arises: can the state considers as its children persons who betrayed her? Could the state continue to maintain connection with the children of the Fatherland, who practically terminated legal connection between themselves and the state, deliberately maintaining external aggressor, feel with him and doing actions to overthrow the constitutional order? Committing crimes, these people have broken the legal connection between them and the state, they de facto ceased to be a part of the state, and bear the mutual obligation to ensure the state security.
After all, when there are problems in the family and someone wants to go from it, he/she breaks the marriage to break the family connection with this person, disclaims a duty to be responsible for him/her, to do some family responsibilities, to be a part of a large family, he breaks the mutual obligation to prosperity and happiness in this family.
Similarly can be said concerning for the citizens. I am convinced that now is urgent a question about the review of the case on deprivation of citizenship as one of the types of criminal penalties for crimes against national security, commission of separatism and terrorism.
Why the state should continue to pay wages to those who do not work for the state, who wants to destroy it and helps foreign mercenaries?
Why the state has to treat who wanted her death for its own funds?
Why the state should rebuild at their own expense those areas where people freely and responsibly committed action to overthrow the constitutional order, rebuild objects of private property which is owned by oligarchs who do not support Ukraine, support actions that are not compatible with progressive state development?
These people do not deserve to be Ukrainian, they do not deserve to be citizens of the state, which is represented by autochthonous and historical, political Ukrainian nation, a part of the remarkable history of the creation of democratic traditions and the most important sources of law and achievements in all fields of science and technology, as part of the future of new Europe.
Their place is in the dustbin of history, the Procrustean bed of metaphysical systems, in the wilds of emptiness and unresolved. This is the place they have chosen consciously and independently, refused from connection with Ukrainian state. They have become redundant and unnecessary part, they have become strangers for the state, that’s why their staying in Ukrainian citizenship is exhausted and not appropriate.
Legal grounds for implementation of deprivation of citizenship
As for the legal basis of the decision I will note.
According to Art. 17 of the Law “On Citizenship of Ukraine” citizenship is terminated: a) due to the renunciation from the citizenship of Ukraine; b) due to the loss of the citizenship of Ukraine; c) on the grounds provided by international treaties of Ukraine.
Today in Ukraine the renunciation of citizenship – is the deprivation of citizenship by person’s initiative.
This erroneous practice should be modified and theory supplemented by the provisions of the theory that the renunciation of citizenship – is a process of termination of citizenship under grounds prescribed in the law. Fixation of the principle of impossibility to deprive a citizen of Ukraine Ukrainian citizenship is just illogical and that does not meet modern trends of the state development.
Why a person alone usurps the right on unilateral resolving of her organizational and legal connection with the state? Why the state is denied the right to decide the question of deprivation of citizenship of citizens who independently and deliberately have broken connection with it? Even the definition of marriage says: This is a voluntary union of man and woman. So, this will must be mutual. Especially, the profile law clearly states mutual rights and obligations.
In this case, you should talk about voluntary desire of both individuals and the state which will provide citizenship and deprive it.
In order to implement these proposals it is expedient to amend the Law of Ukraine “On Citizenship of Ukraine”:
1) to exclude item 3, part 1, Art. 2, removing the principle of “impossibility of deprivation of a citizen of Ukraine citizenship Ukraine”;
2) Art. 17 of the Law “On Citizenship of Ukraine” should be added and expressed as follows: “Citizenship is terminated: a) due to the release of the citizenship of Ukraine; b) due to loss of citizenship of Ukraine; c) due to deprivation of citizenship by the state; d) on the grounds provided by international treaties of Ukraine. ”
Historical experience of deprivation of citizenship exists, as well as a practice of the type of punishment.
In particular, at the end of August in the Netherlands began to discuss at the state level the issue of deprivation of citizenship for participating in extremist organizations. Moreover, the power of the state is trying to reach an agreement with local Internet providers concerning blocking of Jihad websites.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/rolling_news/2014/08/140829_rn_netherlands_islamism_measures.shtml
The main thing is to ensure the state with the adequate tools to protect its own interests, to create conditions for the development of social systems and individuals who want to be citizens of their country, they want to create and build and not to destroy and liquidate.
Ukrainian statehood has rich tradition of State Building and forming of new progressive institutions. One of them is deprivation of citizenship, which will be as the next step in establishment of strong state in the era of permanent heolegal and geopolitical transformations.
To paraphrase some well known politic, I note: we created Ukraine, now we should create Ukrainians!!!!