Karaites and Krymchaks cannot be considered indigenous peoples of Ukraine

The recognition of the Karaites and Krymchaks as indigenous peoples of Ukraine contradicts Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine No. 1616-IX “On the Indigenous Peoples of Ukraine,” which stipulates that an indigenous people cannot have its own state-forming entity outside of Ukraine. This decision also fails to comply with international law. In particular, Article 33 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms the right of indigenous peoples to determine their identity and membership in accordance with their own customs and traditions, as well as to establish their institutions and determine their members.

This provision excludes the possibility of multiple ethnic identities and presupposes the integrity of legal subjectivity. Therefore, an ethnic group cannot simultaneously be recognized as a distinct indigenous people of Ukraine and as part of the Jewish people, which possesses its own nation-state.

The Karaites and Krymchaks do not meet the specified criteria, since under Israeli law they are recognized as part of the Jewish people and enjoy the right of repatriation to the State of Israel. This right directly demonstrates the existence of their national state outside of Ukraine, which excludes the possibility of classifying them as indigenous peoples within the meaning of Article 1 of Law No. 1616-IX. Thus, their recognition as indigenous peoples of Ukraine is legally unfounded and contradicts both national legislation and international law.

Article 1:

“An indigenous people of Ukraine is an autochthonous ethnic community formed on the territory of Ukraine, a bearer of a distinct language and culture, possessing traditional, social, cultural, or representative institutions, recognizing itself as an indigenous people of Ukraine, constituting an ethnic minority within the population of the country, and not having its own state-forming entity outside Ukraine.”

Such a situation is legally impossible: in no legal system in the world is there an example where a so-called “indigenous people” of one country would possess a legally established right of repatriation to another state. The very fact that Karaites and Krymchaks are granted the possibility of repatriation to Israel demonstrates their recognition as part of the Jewish people, which has its own nation-state. This automatically excludes them from the category of indigenous peoples of Ukraine, since the right of return to Israel in itself confirms the existence of their state entity outside of Ukraine. Any other interpretation would not only contradict the law but would also create a legal fiction, violating the principle of legal certainty.

1. The Position of Israel: Karaites and Krymchaks are Part of the Jewish People

Under Israeli law, the right of repatriation is granted exclusively to Jews and their family members. This right is enshrined in the 1950 Law of Return and constitutes a unique ethnic right, distinct from the right to acquire citizenship through naturalization procedures. Consequently, the inclusion of Karaites and Krymchaks in the repatriation program demonstrates that the State of Israel recognizes them as part of the Jewish people, and not as an independent ethnic community.

Basic Law of Israel, 2018:

Article 1(b):

“The State of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people, in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination.”

Article 1(c):

“The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.”

The Law of Return of 1950 (as amended in 1970) further states:

Article 1:

“Every Jew has the right to immigrate to Israel as an oleh (repatriate).”

1970 Amendment, §4A:

“The rights of a Jew under this Law and under the Citizenship Law shall also apply to the child and grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew, and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew.”

The fact of the repatriation of Karaites and Krymchaks to Israel as Jews is documented in the practice of the Ministry of Aliyah and Integration of Israel. For example, in official correspondence of the Ministry and in the database of Jewish repatriates, the admission of individuals of Karaite and Krymchak origin is recorded without requiring conversion to Rabbinic Judaism, which indicates their recognition as Jews both de facto and de jure.

In addition, Karaite kenesas and the Karaite Religious Council operate officially in Israel, registered as part of the Jewish religious infrastructure. This is confirmed, in particular, by the activities of the Karaite community in Ashdod and the recognition of its right to participate in the Jewish cultural and religious life of Israel.

Thus, Israel grants Karaites and Krymchaks the right of repatriation as Jews. This constitutes their legal recognition as part of the Jewish people, which automatically excludes them from the definition of “indigenous people of Ukraine” under Ukrainian law — as well as in the broader context of international law, which excludes multiple ethnic subjectivity.

2. Administrative and Religious Practice of Israel

In official documents and registration databases of Israel, Karaites and Krymchaks are not distinguished as separate ethnic groups. They are included in the category of “Jews” during population censuses and civil registration, as confirmed by the data of the Central Bureau of Statistics of Israel. Thus, from the perspective of state registration and demographic practice, these groups are considered part of the Jewish people.

Moreover, from a religious standpoint, Karaites are recognized as part of the Jewish religious community, possessing rights to conduct marriages, funerals, and participate in the religious life of Israel. Their religious institutions, such as the Karaite kenesa in Ashdod, are officially registered and function within the framework of the Jewish religious infrastructure.

Therefore, the administrative, demographic, and religious practice of Israel is unified in recognizing Karaites and Krymchaks as part of the Jewish people, which contradicts the attribution to them of the status of indigenous people of Ukraine.

3. Violation of International Law

The recognition of Karaites and Krymchaks as indigenous peoples of Ukraine contradicts key international instruments.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (September 13, 2007), Article 33:

“Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This right shall be recognized with due regard to relevant international norms and with respect to the criteria determined by States concerned.”

Israel, as the nation state of the Jewish people, does not recognize Karaites and Krymchaks as separate peoples.

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), Article 2:

“States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms… and to refrain from sponsoring, defending or supporting racial discrimination by any persons or organizations.”

The creation of an artificial ethnic category of “Karaites and Krymchaks as indigenous peoples” and granting them a special legal status over other Jewish communities of Ukraine violates the principle of equality and breaches anti-discrimination obligations.

4. Political-Legal Context and Violation of the Foundations of the Constitutional Order

The recognition of the Karaites and Krymchaks as “indigenous peoples of Ukraine” has neither ethnographic nor legal grounds. It is a legal fiction that undermines the constitutional order, distorts international obligations, and in fact represents the surrender of elements of sovereignty through the delegation of collective rights to groups whose subjectivity is tied to a foreign state.

The key problem is that the Constitution itself has not been amended, but its interpretation has been substituted by Laws No. 1616-IX (“On Indigenous Peoples of Ukraine”), No. 2215-IX (on decommunization), and No. 2822-IX (“On National Minorities”). After their adoption, the term “Ukrainian people” de facto ceased to include ethnic Ukrainians, while collective rights were instead granted to “indigenous peoples” and “minorities.” Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court, the only body authorized to provide official interpretation, has been paralyzed, leaving the situation in a legal vacuum and allowing this scheme of excluding the people to function without constitutional review.

Constitution of Ukraine

• Article 1 — proclaiming Ukraine as a sovereign and legal state is incompatible with delegating collective rights to groups recognized as part of another people and under the jurisdiction of a foreign state (Israel). This amounts to surrendering elements of sovereignty and denies the exclusivity of the Ukrainian people’s ownership of power and territory.

• Article 8 — the principle of the rule of law and legal certainty is violated when the explicit criterion from Law No. 1616-IX (“does not have a state entity outside Ukraine”) is ignored. Karaites and Krymchaks possess the right to repatriation to Israel, which confirms their belonging to the Jewish people and their state. Their recognition as “indigenous” renders the concept of “indigenous people” arbitrary and politically manipulable.

UN Charter

• Article 2(1) — the principle of sovereign equality of states is violated when Ukraine creates, within its own territory, a regime of collective rights for groups whose subjectivity is vested in Israel. This constitutes a de facto transfer of elements of sovereignty to a foreign state.

• Article 2(7) — the principle of non-interference is breached, as recognition of “internal” subjects tied to a foreign jurisdiction creates a direct channel of external influence. This is not merely a risk but a documented surrender of sovereignty through domestic law.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)

• Article 33 — the right to self-identification belongs to indigenous peoples themselves. Israel recognizes Karaites and Krymchaks as part of the Jewish people with a right to repatriation. Ukraine cannot re-define them as a “separate people” in defiance of their already established subjectivity.

• Article 46(1) — no provision of the Declaration may be interpreted as permitting actions that undermine territorial integrity or political unity. Ukraine violates this rule by recognizing as “indigenous” groups that hold the right to self-determination within another state, creating transnational duplication of sovereignty.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)

• Article 1 — “all peoples have the right to self-determination.” A people as a subject of international law must be unique and exclusive. Recognizing Karaites and Krymchaks as both part of the Jewish people (with Israel as their state) and simultaneously as an “indigenous people of Ukraine” destroys the uniqueness of the subject and undermines the very concept of self-determination.

• Article 26 — equality of all citizens before the law and prohibition of discrimination. International law speaks of equality of citizens, not of “equality of peoples.” Ukraine has gone further, granting selected groups collective rights of a people while leaving the majority — ethnic Ukrainians — outside this status. This creates an unequal legal regime based on ethnicity.

European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol No. 12 (2000)

• Article 1 — general prohibition of discrimination. Ukraine has established a legal hierarchy: Karaites and Krymchaks recognized as peoples with collective rights, while ethnic Ukrainians are excluded. Moreover, part of the “privileged” groups may not even be citizens of Ukraine. This is institutionalized inequality.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)

• Article 27 — a state may not invoke its internal law as justification for failure to perform international obligations. By adopting Law No. 1616-IX, Ukraine cannot excuse its violations of principles of equality, self-determination, and sovereignty.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948)

• Articles II(b) and II(c) — deliberately creating conditions leading to the destruction of a group, or measures aimed at assimilating/destroying its subjectivity, fall under prohibited acts of genocide. Excluding ethnic Ukrainians from the category of “a people” and reallocating collective rights to other groups constitutes a form of legal genocide aimed at the destruction of the titular people’s subjectivity.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)

• Article 7(1)(h) — “persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights of a group by reason of ethnic or national identity. The construction “Ukrainians are not a people, others are a people” amounts to systematic persecution on ethnic grounds.

• Article 7(1)(k) — “other inhumane acts of a similar character.” When the state deliberately alters constitutional interpretation so that ethnic Ukrainians are no longer recognized as a people, it constitutes institutional deprivation of identity. Ukrainians are forced into the status of “population” without collective rights, undermining their right to self-determination. This is not a voluntary choice but a coerced substitution of legal status.

5. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the recognition of the Karaites and Krymchaks as indigenous peoples of Ukraine should be regarded not only as a legally null and void decision that contradicts the Law of Ukraine No. 1616-IX, the Basic Law of Israel, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, but also as an act that:

• undermines the territorial integrity and political unity of Ukraine by creating a duplication of collective rights with another state;

• creates vulnerability to foreign political influence and interference through the recognition of groups that fall under the legal jurisdiction of a third country;

• violates the principle of legal certainty enshrined in Article 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine by replacing the lawful content of the term “indigenous people” with a politically motivated list;

• is used as a tool to exclude the ethnic majority — the Ukrainian ethnic community — from the legal definition of “people,” depriving it of access to international rights and protective mechanisms;

• reproduces the narratives of the Russian Federation about the “non-full-fledged” or “non-existent” Ukrainian nation, thereby creating legal grounds for the denial of sovereignty and the legitimization of future occupations and reparation exclusions;

• paves the way for the monopolization of rights to compensation, repatriation, cultural self-government, and international protection in the event of occupation — solely in favor of an artificially designated group.

In view of the above, this legislative decision must be immediately recognized as threatening national security, subject to repeal, and its legal consequences annulled.

This material is submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, the Security Service of Ukraine, as well as international human rights mechanisms and UN bodies for legal assessment of its compliance with actions falling under the signs of interference in the sovereign internal affairs of the state, undermining the foundations of the constitutional order, and creating conditions for interethnic destabilization.