Court rules Latvia-Russia border treaty complies with

UNCLAS RIGA 000884 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PBTS PREL RS LG SUBJECT: Court rules Latvia-Russia border treaty complies with Constitution ¶1. Summary. Latvia's Constitutional Court (ST) announced November 29 that the Latvia- Russia Border Treaty, which provides Latvia's acknowledgment to the transfer of the Abrene region of Latvia to Russia in Stalin's era, complies with the Constitution of Latvia. The court ruled that the Treaty itself does not breech the Constitution, thus removing any legal barriers for exchange of instruments of ratification between the two countries. End summary. ¶2. The text of the border treaty was agreed in 1997 but political tensions left it dormant for ten years. It was signed in Moscow on March 27. In May, Latvia ratified the agreement. The main opposition party New Era (JL) and several dissident MPs from the ruling coalition objected to the agreement and asked the Constitutional Court to evaluate whether the Treaty complies with the Constitution. The agreement recognizes that Abrene is part of Russia. Abrene was part of pre-WWII Latvia's territory and was moved by Stalin from the Latvian SSR to the Russian SSR at the request of the residents in the 1940's. Opponents of the treaty argued that the Constitution specified Latvia's territory as being four regions and its borders defined by international agreements, which they argued was retrospective, and meant specifically the 1920 peace treaty between Latvia and the USSR. Amending this part of the Constitution requires a referendum. The government expressed its contrary view that the language was prospective and the constitution was written to allow the borders of Latvia to be modified by future international agreements. The court ruled that the Treaty itself complies with the Constitution. Judge Juris Jelagins stated that there were no grounds for the government to call a referendum on transferring Abrene's region to Russia. ¶4. Comment. The negative CC ruling would have placed Latvia in a very difficult legal situation as there would be a conflict between domestic and international law. The main responsibility for that would be on the ruling coalition since it decided to proceed with the Treaty even while waiting for the ruling by the Constitutional Court. The ruling removes all remaining legal barriers to resolve Latvia's long-running border issue with Russia. While this is an important step in Latvia - Russia relations, it will not bring about any immediate, significant changes in the overall relations between the two countries. Bailey