Transitional intervention strategies for conflict transformation in the South Caucasus

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 130-141
Author(s):  
Tabib Huseynov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Conflict Transformation ◽  
Institutional Arrangements ◽  
Intervention Strategies ◽  
The South ◽  
South Caucasus ◽  
South Ossetia ◽  
Peace Processes ◽  
State Models

This article discusses major policy and institutional interventions needed for conflict transformation in the South Caucasus. It examines how different forms of territorialpolitical organisation of government have been used to mitigate both violent and nonviolent conflicts and how international experience could be applied to promote peaceful resolution of the conflicts over Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorny Karabakh. The article shows how the conflicting parties’ mental fixation on final status stalls peace processes, and argues that rather than discussing end-state solutions or end-state models of governance, conflict parties need to focus on interim (transitional) policy and institutional arrangements that would allow them to normalise relations and set out roadmaps for cooperation and gradual reconciliation. The article also underlines the importance of adhering to standards of good governance and human rights, as necessary preconditions for ensuring the legitimacy, and thus, sustainability, of peace processes.

scholarly journals South Caucasus: Stages of Post-Soviet History

2021 ◽  
pp. 147-162
Author(s):  
A. Krylov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The South ◽  
South Caucasus ◽  
Soviet History ◽  
South Ossetia ◽  
Conflict Zone ◽  
New States ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of The South

The post-Soviet history of the South Caucasus is divided into three stages of different duration, format and character. The first stage (1991-2008) began after the collapse of the USSR and continued until the war in South Ossetia in August 2008. At this time, the formation of independent states took place, the vectors of foreign policy of the new states were determined. The second stage of the post-Soviet history of the South Caucasus (2008-2020) began after a five-day war and Russia's recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia has strengthened its position in the South Caucasus by building a long-term system of response to potential threats in the southern direction. The Georgian factor has ceased to play an important role, the Armenian direction has become the main one in the policy of the United States and the collective West. To reformat the South Caucasus in American interests, “football diplomacy” was used, and then the second Karabakh war followed. After the end of the second Karabakh war, the third stage of the post-Soviet development of the South Caucasus began. At the end of 2020, Moscow managed to stabilize the situation and bring a contingent of Russian peacekeepers into the conflict zone. Further prospects for the development of the South Caucasus depend on many contradictory factors. The more tense the international situation and Russia's relations with the United States and the collective West will be, the higher the likelihood of the outbreak of new wars and conflicts in the South Caucasus.

Fieldnotes from a war zone: South Ossetia, September 2008

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Larisa Sotieva
Keyword(s):  
General Situation ◽  
The South ◽  
South Caucasus ◽  
South Ossetia ◽  
Track Record ◽  
War Zone ◽  
The People ◽  
Unusual Position ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Russian Military

Editors’ note: Immediately following the August 2008 war in and around South Ossetia, two London-based peacebuilding organisations active in the South Caucasus, Conciliation Resources and International Alert, commissioned Larisa Sotieva to conduct research into the situation on the ground in the aftermath of the war. Sotieva, who grew up in South Ossetia and has a long track record in humanitarian and peacebuilding work in the South Caucasus, was in an unusual position to be able to conduct research within the area. She did not, however, have access to territory controlled by the Georgian side during a fortnight of fieldwork and was therefore only able to cover those areas under the control of the Russian military at that time. This paper, which is based on that research, is not an academic article, but an eye-witness account documenting the general situation and fate of the people whom the researcher was able to contact, as well as particular examples offering insights into the situation in South Ossetian society at the time of writing (September-October 2008). Research findings were circulated to a limited policy-oriented audience in March 2009 and have now been edited into this paper for publication. The editors thank International Alert and Conciliation Resources for permission to publish this material.

scholarly journals The EU’s hegemonic interventions in the South Caucasus: Constructing ‘civil’ society, depoliticising human rights?

2020 ◽  
pp. 001083672095447
Author(s):  
Laura Luciani
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Discursive Construction ◽  
The South ◽  
South Caucasus ◽  
Identity Processes ◽  
Eu Policies ◽  
Financial Survival ◽  
Transitioning Countries ◽  
Human Rights Standards

This article draws upon poststructuralist and postcolonial theories to examine the European Union’s (EU’s) policies of human rights promotion in the South Caucasus – notably, the EU’s engagement with local human rights activists and organisations in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Contrary to most literature, which has been concerned with policy (in)effectiveness, this article is interested in problematising the discursive foundations of this EU-civil society ‘partnership’ in the realm of human rights promotion, as well as in retrieving the agency of actors who are ‘at the receiving end’ of EU policies. It is argued that the discursive construction of ‘civil’ society as a ‘good-Other’ of the EU-Self serves as a means to depoliticise the EU’s interventions, aiming at the approximation of ‘transitioning’ countries to the EU’s human rights standards. Although the hegemonic relation requires subaltern actors to perform the ‘civil’ society identity, processes of hybridisation and subversion arise as external interventions interact with local realities and meanings. Building on in-depth interviews and ethnographic observations, the article shows how the hegemonic identity of ‘civil’ society is negotiated by South Caucasus ‘not-quite-civil’ actors striving for local legitimacy, financial survival or ownership of their human rights work.

Autonomy as a Source of Conflict: Caucasian Conflicts in Theoretical Perspective

2002 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Svante E. Cornell
Keyword(s):  
Minority Groups ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
External Support ◽  
Minority Populations ◽  
The South ◽  
South Caucasus ◽  
Central State ◽  
South Ossetia ◽  
Political Conditions ◽  
Separate Identity

The granting of autonomous status to minority populations has gained support among academics and practitioners alike as a way to solve, manage, and even preempt ethnic conflict. In spite of the enthusiasm for ethnofederalism, however, the provision of autonomy to minorities may actually increase rather than decrease the likelihood of conflict. Under certain political conditions, autonomy promotes the separate identity of the minority and increases its motivation and capacity to seek separation from the central state. This article presents a rudimentary theoretical framework identifying which qualities of autonomy solutions increase the likelihood of conflict. It discusses how autonomy relates to other factors conducive to conflict by studying minorities in the South Caucasus and examines the case of Georgia. In Georgia, there were five ethnic minority populations, two of whom—the Abkhaz and the South Ossetians—enjoyed autonomous status and were the only minorities to engage in armed conflict with the Georgian government. This article shows how autonomy, by empowering ethnic elites with control of statelike institutions and by enhancing factors such as leadership, economic viability, and external support, played a crucial role in the escalation of the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Conversely, the absence of autonomy mitigated separatist and secessionist sentiments among two of Georgia's other minority groups—Javakheti's Armenian and Kvemo Kartli's Azeri populations.

scholarly journals ABKHAZIA AND SOUTH OSSETIA – A SOVEREIGN, DEMOCRATIC, LEGAL YOUNG STATES OF THE SOUTH CAUCASUS: POLITICAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Д. Дзидзоев
Keyword(s):  
Legal Aspects ◽  
The South ◽  
South Caucasus ◽  
South Ossetia

Статья посвящена проблеме обретения суверенитета Абхазией и Южной Осетией, которые были признаны в августе 2008 г. Российской Фе- дерацией, а затем и некоторыми другими государствами. Автор анализирует сущность суверенитета применительно к Абхазии и Южной Осетии

scholarly journals Il sostegno esterno ufficiale agli stati de facto nel Caucaso del sud

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Comai
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Pension Funds ◽  
The Political ◽  
The South ◽  
South Caucasus ◽  
South Ossetia ◽  
De Facto States ◽  
International Status

De facto states in the South Caucasus are supported by a patron: Russia in the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Armenia in the case of Nagorno Karabakh. In spite of the contested international status of these territories, assistance to de facto states is often fully formalised, and relevant details are included in budget laws as well as documents issued by pension funds. This article presents relevant data and sources, and highlights the importance of taking them in consideration to inform analyses on the political economy of these territories, as well as to develop policies of engagement.

Challenging the Unconditional: Partial Compliance with ECtHR Judgments in the South Caucasus States

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-195
Author(s):  
Ramute Remezaite
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The South ◽  
South Caucasus ◽  
Emerging Democracies ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Partial Compliance ◽  
Selective Approach ◽  
European Court

The European human rights system has long been seen as one of the greatest European achievements, with its European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as the world's leading human rights court. Current turbulent times, however, pose serious challenges to the European system, which is increasingly being contested by the deepening ‘implementation crisis’. The absolute obligation of member states of the Council of Europe (CoE) to abide by ECtHR judgments under Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been increasingly compromised by the selective approach of states, often resulting in minimal, dilatory, lengthy or even contested compliance with ECtHR judgments. As the implementation backlog has grown largely after the accession to the CoE of the newly emerged states, as aspiring democracies, in the late 1990s and early 2000s following the collapse of the Soviet Union, this article analyses the compliance behaviour of these states by looking at the South Caucasus states: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. The research findings suggest that partial compliance is a very likely form of compliance in the South Caucasus states as democratising states, and that some of the factors that explain such behaviour discussed in the article may be distinctive of states that joined the CoE as emerging democracies after the collapse of the Soviet Union. These states continue to display various vulnerabilities in the areas of human rights, the rule of law and democracy. This, in turn, has serious implications for the whole European human rights system and its ability to ensure that states’ commitments to the CoE are duly respected in the longer term.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document