|
|
Пишет imp_1192 (![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/imported-profile.gif){kind=small} dmpogo@lj) |
Absoljutely, but to have a definition of official borders (almost on constitutional level in the case of Estonia, with border treaty explicitly mentioned in the constitution, am I right ?) which encompass currently foreign territory is very close to 'have territorial claim'. What else is it ?
Yes, the new treaty would have resolved it, but before it is accepted,
we have an issue.
In another message it is was noted that in 1995 there was an explicit official statement from Estonia about absense of territorial claims. This is important,
but notice, it is 1995, not 1992, so 4 years of independence passed in different context.
Yes, the new treaty would have resolved it, but before it is accepted,
we have an issue.
In another message it is was noted that in 1995 there was an explicit official statement from Estonia about absense of territorial claims. This is important,
but notice, it is 1995, not 1992, so 4 years of independence passed in different context.
Добавить комментарий:
