Background analysis: PMR's sovereignty in international law
The sovereignty of Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica in international law is sometimes challenged by defenders of the Republic of Moldova's territorial integrity. But to talk of "territorial integrity" we must first define what the territory is. In Moldova's case, this is done by determining how the Republic of Moldova was created, how its predecessor, the MSSR, was created, and Moldova's official opinion on the creation (and the borders) of the MSSR.
Facts speak louder than words. And the facts are clear: Moldova never annexed Pridnestrovie and doesn't have a valid claim to Pridnestrovie. If anything, it was the other way around, as the legal history shows.
Pridnestrovie is also not a "secessionist" or "breakaway" republic of Moldova. The two countries were independently formed as the result of the legal and (initially, at least) peaceful dissolution of the former Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic in the days of the overall breakup of the Soviet Union.
Map from the 1500's. Moldova is
clearly shown separate from
Pridnestrovie, then part of Poland
clearly shown separate from
Pridnestrovie, then part of Poland
Moldova's claim to Pridnestrovie is only supported by the international buzz-word of "territorial integrity". This concept is generally recognized, although it is not the holy grail of international law (with Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and half a dozen other exceptions to the rule). There is nothing inherently wrong with rooting for Moldova's territorial integrity, but the statement is meaningless until you first define just what Moldova's territory really is. And to do so it is helpful to look at official parliamentary statements and declarations on the matter from Moldova itself.
Who annexed who? And why?
It is sometimes said that Pridnestrovie is part of Moldova or that it became part of Moldova in 1940. But a closer look at how this happened reveals that it is the other way around: Stalin invaded Moldova and annexed it to Pridnestrovie (or to the MASSR which was for its most part made up of the territory which today is Pridnestrovie). Subsequently, upon independence, Moldova itself referred to this annexation and decried it as illegal and void.
If Pridnestrovie had wanted to pursue a claim on Moldovan territory it could probably do so on the basis of the concept of territorial integrity and the Helsinki Final Act's statement on inviolability of borders. This would of course be absurd ... but not nearly as the absurd as the claim which Moldova (the annexed of the two) pursues, on the very same basis, regarding its supposed right to Pridnestrovie's territory.
The "illegal annexation" of Moldova into the MSSR was decried as early as August 31, 1989, in the official final statement of the Moldovan parliament. Speakers frequently referred to the illegal annexation of the territory in 1940, and these views were expressed in the final document adopted by the assembly, "On State Sovereignty and Our Right to the Future" (Documentul Final, p. 2) which even called for the right of secession from the Soviet Union ... something which in the definitive declaration of independence became a dissolution of the MSSR rather than outright secession.
Dissolution, not secession
Outsiders sometimes refer to Pridnestrovie as a "secessionist" or "breakaway" republic of Moldova. Technically speaking, that's not true.To put a fine point on it (and that is important in international law as far as recognition of statehood is concerned), the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic was dissolved by overt acts of both of its two integrants, Moldova and Pridnestrovie. There was a dissolution (or a "suicide of the republic"), but not any act of secession at any time.
The dissolution of a state into smaller states is a much more accepted method for creating new nation-states than either self-determination or secession. In modern times it has been the fount of several dozen new countries. In Europe itself, around the same time as the founding of Pridnestrovie, it was also the model followed by the breakup of the Soviet Union and by the peaceful dissolution of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
By Moldova, the MSSR's dissolution was proclaimed, gradually, by that country's parliament in official state documents dated 27 August, 1989 and 16 December, 1990, which annul the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and culminating in its official Declaration of Independence of 27 August, 1991, again declaring the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 to be "null and void" and revoking the "political and legal consequences" of the pact, referring to the annexation of Moldova as "illegal" and stating that "the establishment of the Moldavian SSR" in 1940 was without "any real legal basis".
On the Pridnestrovian side, the MSSR's dissolution was likewise proclaimed in steps. In 1990, a referendum was held asking residents to vote on the dissolution of the MSSR and the establishment of a separate self-ruling entity in Pridnestrovie. On September 2, 1990,
Pridnestrovie declared its independence from the MSSR, and on December 1, 1991, following the dissolution of the MSSR consumated by the Republic of Moldova's Declaration of Independence, another nationwide refendum on the independence of Pridnestrovie was held. The Pridnestrovian voters reaffirmed the will of the people and voted to keep the full independence of Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica.
Legality of independence declarations not questioned
Since secession is generally frowned upon in international law as a method for creating new states, both Moldova and Pridnestrovie were careful to frame their respective Declarations of Independence as statements affirming each country's sovereignty and the dissolution of their joint Moldavian SSR (MSSR).
This was legal in every way, even from the point of view of the Soviet laws which were in effect on the territories at the time. In fact, had they chosen to go as far as an outright declaration of secession, this, too, would have been legally beyond reproach. The declaration of Pridnestrovie's sovereignty was in complete conformity with the Decree of the USSR of April 3, 1990, "About the order of solution of questions connected with secession of the Soviet Republics from the USSR" and was implemented on the basis of a referendum and other democratic methods. There are no legal grounds on which Pridnestrovie's and Moldova's respective declarations of independence can be questioned.
Moldova backtracks, lured by easy money
Despite the legal and peaceful dissolution of the MSSR, and despite the clear and unambigious wording of Moldova's own Declaration of Independence, the country changed its mind. Why? Because of money, or rather lack of it.
As an independent nation, Moldova discovered that it was poor ... and that nearby Pridnestrovie was much richer, on a per capita basis. Despite making up just 10% of Moldova's territory, Pridnestrovie in 1990 and 1991 produced 40% of its GDP and 90% of its electricity ... a prize which the Moldovan political elite was tempted to get its hand on; regardless of the international legalities or not.
So Moldova recognized the "right of self-determination" for itself, in its own Declaration of Independence. But refused to recognize that same right for Pridnestrovie.
Moldova also declared the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact "null and void" in order to reverse the "political and legal consequences" of the pact if it meant independence for Moldova. But refused to recognize that the main "political and legal consequence" of the pact was the artificial marriage of Moldova and Pridnestrovie.
In its declaration of independence, Moldova called the establishment of the MSSR an infringement of "its constitutional prerogatives" of its people. But refused to recognize that this wartime law, which it had just declared independence from, was the same law which had joined Moldova and Pridnestrovie in an unnatural union imposed by Stalin and the World War II redrawing of Europe's borders.
"When legal arguments fail, invade"
Moldova, despite all of its "null and void" language to the contrary, still eyed the industrial powerhouse on the other side of the Dniester. So it tried to bring Pridnestrovie back under its tutelage, using a claim to its territory which the Moldova itself had just renounced in document after document and declaration after declaration. In the absence of international law supporting Moldova's claim, Pridnestrovie's attitude was basically one of "you can not have your cake and eat it too".
So in 1992, Moldova took a page out of Saddam Hussein's playbook and invaded Pridnestrovie. Two years earlier, Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait (claiming that it was not an independent country but rather a "province" of Iraq). But international law did not support Saddam Hussein's argument and his invasion failed, just as Moldova's invasion of Pridnestrovie also failed. Retreating in shame, Saddam Hussein nevertheless still maintained his dubious claim to Kuwait until the fall of his regime. Likewise, to this day Moldova still maintains its dubious claim to Pridnestrovie.
These are the facts, as history and all available official documents prove. If you only read the headlines and the superficial undefined claim of "territorial integrity", you could be fooled into supporting Moldova's claim on Pridnestrovie. But you would be wrong ... both historically and legally. And while you're wrong, 555,000 people are waiting to be recognized and to live under a government with internationally integrated partnerships, good neighbors, a growing trade and a permanent peace settlement.
