This is also confirmed by the fact, that the name "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" has never been used by RF as a name on a unit of RF.
Actually, it is a fact, that the name is the exact name used only by the chechen people and government to name their independent state.
Nevertheless, by signing the treaty RF has recognized the existence of the republic with the exact name "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria". Since it is not part of the RF or any other state, it is an independent state. If not a de jure, at least a de facto independent state. As an independent state, de jure or de facto, it is subject to international law.
This is confirmed by the fact, that Yeltsin's signature also represent RF's recognition of Maskhadov as a valid representative for "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria". The only thing, that made him valid as a representative in 1997 was, that he was elected as a president for the de facto "independent state Chechen Republic of Ichkeria". Later on this was confirmed by RF, when Maskhadov on this ground was removed from power.
It has been said, that the recognizing was against the constitution of RF, because the unit "Chechen Republic" seems to be part of the RF, and therefore the recognizion couldn't be legal.
The "Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties", says, that "a party may not invoke the provision of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty" (5). Since RF has signed this convention, it has committed itself to keep it.
Therefore, unless there are legal reasons for cancelling, a recognizing made by valid statements or treaties on international law are always legally binding, according to international law, even though it might be against the constitution of a participating state. The reason is, that as regards subjects on international law, like a recognition of an independent state, the international law always breaks the national law.
oo
o
THE TITLE "PEACE TREATY"
The word "treaty" is the normally used word for agreements on international law between independent states. Therefore, it is a basically consideration, that an agreement using the word "treaty" is on international law.
Immediately, it has been said, that this treaty was ment to be on internal law of RF, because of the fact, that RF several times has used the word on internal agreements between the central power and a unit. The use of the word might symbolize some kind of power and self-determination. Anyway, these units of RF are not independent states. Basically because they are not in any ways allowed to act independently from RF's constitution and federal laws.
It is not against the "Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties", that RF use the word "treaty" on internal law.
It is important to notice, that nothing in the treaty shows, that the word is used on internal law. Despite, there are several things showing, the treaty is on international law.
Therefore, it is possible to conclude, that the word in this case is used in the original meaning, which is confirmed and argued by Boyle (6).
A VALID TREATY
It has been questioned, whether the treaty was valid or not. Regarding that, it is important to notice, that the two signatures of the treaty are made by the two presidents of the states making the treaty.
"Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties" says, that "In virtue of their functions and without having to produce full powers, the following are considered as representing their State: ... Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty ..." (7).
Also, the convention says, that "The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by the signature of its representative when ... the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect..." (8).
The treaty says, that "the treaty is active from the day of signing". So, the signing of the treaty is a condition for the treaty coming into force. When no other conditions are mentioned, the signing is the only condition. Therefore, the fulfilling of this condition automatically causes the treaty coming into force, which is what is written in the convention. (9)
Therefore, the conclusion has to be, that two president's signatures are enough to declare the treaty valid.
Anyway, the state has under any circumstances the right to estimate whether a treaty is valid or not. Declaring a treaty unvalid requires the performing of certain procedures, including the informing of the opposite party.
This did not happen. RF at no moment claimed the treaty to be unvalid.
It should be mentioned, that this would not make any change, while the performing of the procedures by tself would be a confirmation of RF's recognition of Chechnya as an independent state.
Also, the russian state never at any time expressed, that Yeltsin exceeded his competence as a president by signing the treaty. Since a president automatically by virtue of his function has the right to sign treaties, this would be a rather drastic move.
Therefore, it is possible to conclude, that the russian state considered Boris Yeltsin as being a valid representative, the signing as being in accordance with the policy of the state and the treaty as valid.
----------OOOOOO----------
The conclusion is, that RF by signing the treaty de facto recognized Chechnya as being an independent state. That means, that RF also has committed itself to treat Chechnya as an independent state.
Page 1
Page 3
oo