Ukraine: sovereign decentralisation or federalism without sovereignty? OSW Commentary No. 133, 18.04.2014

A key element of Russia’s policy towards the new government of Ukraine concerns demands for a constitutional reform that would transform the country from a unitary into a federal state in a way that would considerably privilege the eastern and southern regions. Such a change to Ukraine’s administrative system would enable Moscow to put pressure on Ukraine’s central government via the regions. In order to achieve its objectives, Russia has been pressuring Kyiv to establish a constitutional assembly in a form that would guarantee the endorsement of solutions dictated by Russia. In other words, Russia has been demanding, in what is practically an ultimatum, that Ukraine give up one of the fundamental sovereign rights of a state, the right to freely determine its system of government. Transforming Ukraine into a federal state is an unacceptable idea, primarily because the intention behind Russia’s demands is to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, both through the content of the proposed changes and the way in which they are to be implemented. However, keeping in place the current, centralist model of state governance is not a feasible alternative. Ukraine will have to grant its regions broad self-governance powers, including the power to hold local referendums, and to transfer a considerable portion of the prerogatives currently held by the state to the local self-governments, along with adequate financial resources. That is because decentralisation along these lines is the only way forward towards a modern democracy in Ukraine. Russia’s policy has forced Kyiv to undertake legislative work on constitutional reform as a matter of urgency, rather than waiting until a new parliament is elected in which the new, post-Maidan balance of political power will be reflected, as political logic would require. The first draft of the constitutional amendments (of which no details are known at this stage) is to be presented in mid-May, and is expected to come into force in early autumn. However, whether these plans can be put into practice depends on further developments in the eastern part of Ukraine, because (among other reasons) if a state of emergency is introduced, the constitutional amendment process will have to be suspended.

Trading off sovereignty. The outcome of Belarus's integration with Russia in the security and defence field. OSW Commentary No. 107, 2013-04-25

Although the Republic of Belarus is constitutionally designated as a neutral country1, it is in fact closely connected with Russia’s own security and defence architecture. Within the Union State of Belarus and Russia, the armed forces are integrated to an extent unequalled in the world. A legacy of the Soviet division of labour, the Belarusian defence industry complex remains structurally dependent on Russia, which is its main raw material provider, outlet for exports and intermediary on world markets. Bilateral military cooperation also builds on the perception of common threats and partly shared security interests. Hence it unfolds regardless of the disputes that sporadically sour relations between Minsk and Moscow, standing out as the main achievement of the Union State – if not the only one.

Europe as International Actor: Maximizing Nation-State Sovereignty. CES Germany & Europe Working Papers, No. 06.3, 1996

The continually increasing literature on foreign- and security-policy dimensions of the European Union (EU) has provided no remedy for the widespread helplessness in gaining a purchase on Europe as an international actor. The basic hindrance to understanding this policy comes from an all-too-literal interpretation of the acronym involved: the CFSP is understood as a total or partial replacement of the nation-states' foreign and security policy. This article aims to point the way to a new understanding of the CFSP in which this policy is not based on the integration of nation­ state foreign and security policy. I suggest that the proper way to grasp the phenomenon of the CFSP is to describe it as an international regime whose goal is to administer links between economic integration and foreign- and security­ policy cooperation in the sense of maximizing the sovereignty of member states. This requires, on the one hand, the prevention of "spillovers" from the economic area that could interfere with the foreign- and security-policy indepen­ dence of member states. On the other hand, it demands applying the EU's economic potential to reinforce the foreign- and security-policy range of member states. Due to the logic of this policy, CFSP priorities and fields of ac­ tion differ profoundly from those of a national foreign and security policy. Expectations on the evolution of the CFSP must be aware of these basic characteristics of this policy.

How can we enhance our security without damaging our liberty? For a Progressive and European Rehabilitation of Sovereignty. European Policy Brief No. 41, January 2016

How can we reinforce internal security without destroying basic freedoms? This dilemma will become increasingly topical in the context of rising terrorist threats and in view of some of the responses already put in place at the national level. Many observers have pointed out the threat that these measures pose to individual freedom. But few have highlighted their relative inefficiency. Indeed, if the right to security is one of the founding reasons for political government and one of its main sources of legitimacy, can states still guarantee this basic right? This article examines this dilemma and focuses more specifically on its implications for the notion and practice of sovereignty. It also sketches a strong, but nuanced, rescue of sovereignty at the European level in order to assure individual security while, at the same time, protecting our freedoms.

Penetration of the political institutions of Guatemala by the international Communist movement: threat to the peace and security of America and to the sovereignty and political independence of Guatemala.

Mode of access: Internet.

Territorial slavery question : observations on Senator Douglas' views of popular sovereignty, as expressed in Harper's Magazine for September, 1859.

Printed in double columns.

Journal // of // the Senate // of // the United States of America, // being the // second session // of // the Fourteenth Congress, // begun and held in the city of Washington, // December 2d, 1816. // And // in the forty-first year of the sovereignty of // the said United States. //

Appendix (33 p.) contains: Acts passed at the second session of the Fourteenth Congress.--Senators ... whose seats will become vacant 1819, 1821, 1823.--The proceedings of a session specially called on Tuesday, March 4th, 1817, including also the inaugural addresses of President James Monroe and Vice-President Daniel D. Thompkins.

Journal // of // the Senate // of the // United States of America; // being the // first session // of // the Tenth Congress, // begun and held in the city of Washington, // October 26, 1807, // and // in the thirty-second year of the sovereignty of // the said United States. //

"Senators of the United States, whose seats will be vacated 1809, 1811, 1813": 1 .

Journal // of // the Senate // of the // United States of America, // being the // first session // of the // Ninth Congress, // begun and held at the city of Washington, // December 2, 1805, // and // in the thirtieth year of the sovereignty of the // said United States. //

Appendix (7, [1] p.): Acts passed at the first session of the Ninth Congress.--Senators whose seats will be vacant March 1807, 1809, 1811.

Journal // of the // Senate // of the // United States of America: // being the // first session // of the // Seventh Congress, // begun and held at the city of Washington, // December 7th, 1801; // and in the twenty-sixth year of the sovereignty // of the said United States. //

Appendix (p. [279]-284): Acts passed at the first session of the Seventh Congress.--Senators of the United States whose seats will be vacated March 1803, March 1805, March, 1807.

Journal // of // the Senate // of // the United States of America; // being the // third session // of the // Thirteenth Congress, // begun and held in the city of Washington, // September 19, 1814, // and // in the thirty-ninth year of the sovereignty // of the said United States. //

"Senators ... whose seats will be vacated; 1817, 1819, 1821" and "Appendix" containing the acts passed: p. [533]-545.