Are you trying to tell me that the 2096 constitution was any different regarding secession or what it made any difference regarding the UN ruling?
I am not against the rule of law. My point is that you can’t apply law based on political expediency.
What is good for the goose, good for the gander.
“I am not against the rule of law.”
Sure you are. You said in an earlier post that at least two national constitutions were meaningless. You were adamant in saying that the Ukrainian constitution was meaningless. You are selective in your acceptance of the rule of law: If it goes your way, the law is valid; if it doesn’t the law is meaningless. Sorry, but laws don’t work that way. Therefore, you are opposed to the rule of law.