6

According to William E. Pomeranz of the Wilson Center:

the Minsk accords call on Kyiv not only to recognize the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk within the country but also to give these two regions veto power over any national legislation. Such authority would mean that Russia could effectively gain control over Ukraine’s internal politics.

But looking at Wikipedia's rather lengthy page on the accords, I don't see where veto power (by LPR/DPR) over "any" legislation is mentioned. The accords do explicitly provide for quite a few things, including LPR/DRP armed militias, limits the reach of Ukrainian law in LPR/DRP (effectively giving supremacy to the local decisions), and simultaneously obliges Ukraine to economically support these regions. But I don't quite see how it goes further than that, i.e. how it would have given LPR/DPR veto power in "any" national legislation. So how can one infer such a result from the Minsk accords?

5
  • 2
    The agreements repeatedly reference a "Law on Special Status" and "Special Order on interim local self-government order in certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk region". Although it could be an artefact of the translation, the wording makes it sound like these are naming one or more existing draft documents, not merely describing possible future documents, so I wonder if this is where the claim comes from.
    – IMSoP
    Jun 23 at 16:59
  • I think this is more suited to the Politics stack, since it is a question about possible interpretations of an international agreement rather than the true/false type question suited for this site.
    – antlersoft
    Jun 25 at 13:55
  • 2
    @antlersoft I think the question is not so much "is this interpretation correct?" as "what are people even interpreting?" The actual Minsk Process documents seen to be very short, with nothing even remotely resembling the claim.
    – IMSoP
    Jun 25 at 22:11
  • @IMSoP - The "very short" Minsk documents contain a reference to an ongoing "decentralization", the final outcome of which was vague but was interpreted by some as giving veto power over national legislation to either individual provinces or some combination of them. It is the interpretation of "decentralization," I think, that is in dispute rather than the text of the accords themselves. As I am not an expert, I'd defer to Pomeranz' interpretation, but as it is a question of interpretation, probably better for Politics stack.
    – antlersoft
    Jun 26 at 17:52
  • @antlersoft That's more or less what I guessed a few comments ago, but I wasn't sure where to look for details. If you can find a reference for that, I think that would be an answer to this question, even if it was "this is the document in question but its interpretation is disputed".
    – IMSoP
    Jun 26 at 18:12

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .