CC BY
107
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
might push the sides toward military confrontation if they are not offered any dynamic and balanced programs.
C o n c l u s i o n
The above analysis of the ethnopolitical dimension of national security of the Azerbaijan Republic, one of the leaders of the Central Caucasian region, makes it possible (in the theoretical-practical respect) to perform a test-diagnosis of its key parameters. The multi-component conceptual model was used to identify the level of influence of ethnopolitical factors and threats, as well as their internal disposition. This, in turn, can serve as a basis for later theoretical discussion of the problem’s empirical foundation. However, a separate analysis should be conducted of the internal correlations among the groups of components, the regulatory potential, and the limits of the national security system’s managerial impact on them.
Joni KHETSURIANI
D.Sc. (Law), professor, Corresponding Member of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences, judge at the Constitutional Court of Georgia
(Tbilisi, Georgia).
RUSSIA’S RECOGNITION OF ABKHAZIA AND SOUTH OSSETIA AS INDEPENDENT STATES IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: VIEW FROM GEORGIA
Abstract
This article looks at the legal aspects of the Russian presidential decrees of 26 August, 2008 that recognized the independence of Georgia’s breakaway regions—Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The
author concludes that these legal acts contradict not only the generally accepted regulations and principles of international law, but also Russia’s own constitutional legislation.
I n t r o d u c t i o n
Russia’s large-scale military action in Georgia has ended. Now Russia is trying to legally enforce the results of this “victorious war.” On 26 August, 2008, Russian Federation President Dmitry
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
Medvedev signed decrees that recognized Georgia’s breakaway regions—Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Tskhinvali Region)—as independent states.1 The Russian president also made a special speech in which he informed society of why this decision had been made and the substantiation for it. According to Dmitry Medvedev, there were several reasons for issuing these decrees, in particular:
(1) the Georgian authorities violated the U.N. Charter and their obligations under international agreements and reopened the armed conflict in the Tskhinvali Region, which led to the deaths of the peaceful population and peaceful Russian citizens. This same fate awaited Abkhazia. On 8 August, Tbilisi made its choice—it chose genocide to resolve its political tasks and in so doing single-handedly wiped out all hopes of the Ossetians, Abkhazians, and Georgians coexisting peacefully in the same state;
(2) at several referendums the peoples of Abkhazia and South Ossetia confirmed their desire for the independence of their republics; they have the right to decide their own fate;
(3) the presidents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia asked the Russian Federation to recognize the sovereignty and independence of these regions;
(4) the Russian Federation Council and State Duma supported them and on the strength of the decision of 25 August, 2008 asked Russia’s executive power to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
The U.N. Charter, the U.N. Declaration of 1970 on Principles of International Law, the Helsinki Final Act of the CSCE of 1975, and other fundamental international documents give Russia the right to recognize the independence of the separatist regions of another state.
These are the legal arguments on the basis of which the Russian president issued the decrees that recognized the state independence of Georgia’s two breakaway regions.
Russian Presidential Decrees and Contemporary International Law
According to Russian legislation, a presidential decree is a sub-legal act that “shall not run counter to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the federal laws.”2 Even though the Russian presidential decree on recognition of the state independence of Georgia’s breakaway regions is a political-legal act of the Russian state, it has international legal significance and so should also correspond to the generally accepted international legal regulations and Russia’s international agreements. This is necessary since according to the Russian Constitution: “The universally-recognized norms of international law and international treaties and agreements of the Russian Federation shall be a component part of its legal system” and have prevailing legal force with respect to internal state regulatory acts.3 Thus a Russian presidential decree must be in compliance with Russian legislative acts, a vital component of which are the generally accepted regulations and principles of international law, as well as Russia’s international agreements.
It is a well-known fact that these international acts set forth the ten basic principles of international law, which are the most important sources of today’s international legal system, its internal
1 See: Statement by Russian Federation President Dmitry Medvedev, published on the Rossiiskaia gazeta site on 26 August, 2008 [http://www.rg.ru/2008/08/26/medvedev-anons.htmlj; Russian presidential decree of 26.08.2008 No. 1260 On Recognition of the Republic of Abkhazia; Russian presidential decree of 26.08.2008 No. 1261 On Recognition of the Republic of South Ossetia, both available at [http://document.kremlin.ru/index.aspj.
2 Constitution of the Russian Federation, Iuridicheskaia literatura, Moscow, 1997, Art 90.
3 Ibid., Art 15.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
foundation. They are generally accepted, universal, and all states are bound to strictly observe their requirements.
This is precisely why the Russian president placed special emphasis in his speech on full correspondence of the decrees he issued to the U.N. Charter,4 U.N. Declaration of 1970 on Principles of International Law,5 and the Helsinki Final Act of the CSCE of 1975.6
Now let us take a look at how Russia observes these principles and to what extent the Russian presidential decrees of 26 August, 2008 correspond to the generally accepted regulations and principles of international law.
1. First of all, the Russian presidential decrees contradict the principle of inviolability of a state’s territorial integrity. Historically and juridically, Abkhazia and so-called South Ossetia are inalienable parts of Georgia. In compliance with Article 2 of the Constitution of Georgia, the territory of the Georgian state was determined on 21 December, 1991 and included the territory of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Last century, Georgia reinstated the state independence it lost as the result of Russian aggression, occupation, and annexation (1921) on the basis of a referendum held on 31 March, 1991 throughout the entire country, including the Abkhazian Autonomous Republic and the former South Ossetian Autonomous Region. Most of the voting population, including the residents of these regions, supported Georgia’s state independence during the referendum. As a result, Georgia was accepted as a member of the U.N. within the borders and in the territorial state it was in when it restored its state independence, that is, including the territory of Abkhazia and the former South Ossetian Autonomous Region. Georgia’s territorial integrity was recognized by the world community of states, including Russia and international organizations.
Violation of the principle of inviolability of territorial integrity of states is expressed in the fact that Russia’s recognition of the state independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia presumes divesting Georgia of the territories of these two regions against its will.
2. The Russian presidential decrees contradict the principle of the inviolability of state borders.
According to this principle, states recognize each other’s borders as inviolable and so will refrain now and in the future from any encroachment on these borders, will not seek to reexamine them, and will not make any territorial claims. States should also refrain from any claims or action aimed at seizing or usurping parts or all of the territory of another state. The principle of inviolability of state borders may only be challenged in the event of a voluntary change in the borders as the result of an equitable agreement between the states concerned.
The Russian presidential decrees violate the above-mentioned principle by recognizing Georgia’s separatist regions as independent states, whereby in so doing Russia is unilaterally, without Georgia’s consent, changing the state borders of the latter.
Contemporary international law recognized any attempt to violate this principle as a crime.
3. The Russian presidential decrees contradict the principle of non-interference into the internal affairs of another state. According to this principle, no state or group of states has the right to directly or indirectly interfere, no matter what the motivating factor, into the internal or
4 United Nations Charter, Chapter I, Art 2, available at [http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/].
5 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nation of 24 October, 1970), available at [http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/348/90/IMG/NR034890.pdf7OpenElement].
6 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Final Act (Helsinki, 1 August, 1975), available at [http:// www.wilsoncenter.org/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/addm/osce.htm].
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
external affairs of another state; armed interference and all other forms of interference or any threat against the legal standing of a state or its political, economic, and cultural foundations are prohibited.
The Russian presidential decrees violate this principle in that, by recognizing the independence of Georgia’s two breakaway regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia has arbitrarily determined the status of the regions of another state—Georgia—which is the internal affair of this republic alone. These Russian presidential decrees are aimed directly against the political foundations of Georgia’s statehood.
The Russian president’s statement that Russia recognized the independence of Georgia’s two breakaway regions because Georgia’s actions have wiped out “all hopes of Ossetians, Abkhazians, and Georgians coexisting peacefully in the same state” cannot be regarded as justification for issuing the Russian presidential decrees, since this statement by a highstanding state official in itself is a gross violation of the principle of non-interference into the internal affairs of another state. No state, including Russia, has the right to decide how another state shall establish its state-territorial structure or determine whether certain nationalities will live together in the same state or separately. Contemporary international law regards violation of the abovementioned principle as intervention.
4. The Russian presidential decrees contradict the principle of the sovereign equality of states.
According to this principle, all states, regardless of the size of their territory and population and political, economic, or military might, are equal under international law. Proceeding from this, states should respect each other’s sovereign equality, and all rights inherent in this sovereignty are equal, including the right to the judicial equality, territorial integrity, freedom, and political independence of each state. No state has the right to impose its supremacy on another state or place itself in a privileged position.
The Russian presidential decrees violate this principle in that, by recognizing the independence of Georgia’s two breakaway regions, that is, by issuing its unilateral act, Russia confirmed that it does not regard Georgia as a legally equal entity and is placing itself in a privileged position to the detriment of Georgia’s sovereignty.
5. The Russian presidential decrees contradict the principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes.
According to this principle, every state should resolve its international disputes with other states by peaceful means and without creating a threat to international peace, security, and justice. In compliance with this, the states that are sides in an international dispute, as well as other states, should refrain from any action that might aggravate the situation to such an extent that a threat is posed to international peace and security.
Russia, which from the beginning has been a participant and side in the conflicts in Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali Region inspired by the separatist forces it arms and manages, has been rejecting all offers from the Georgian authorities, the U.N., the OSCE, and other international organizations to find a peaceful solution to these conflicts for almost fifteen years. Thus, unilateral recognition by the Russian presidential decrees of the independence of Georgia’s two breakaway regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, without taking into account Georgia’s sovereign rights not only will fail to promote peaceful settlement of Russian-Georgian relations (as is required by the abovementioned principle of international law), rather, on the contrary, will aggravate the currently extremely tense relations between these two states even more, thus posing a real threat to international peace and security.
6. The Russian presidential decrees contradict the principle of equality and self-determination of nations.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
According to this principle, all nations have the right to self-determination, on the strength of which they may freely establish their political status and freely enhance their economic, social, and cultural development.
Moreover, the realization of the right to self-determination should not entail the division or violation of territorial integrity and political unity of a sovereign and independent state. Every state should refrain from any action aimed at partial or complete violation of the national unity and territorial integrity of another state.
The Russian president was evidently guided only by the first part of this principle when, as justification for issuing his decrees on recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, he referred to the results of the referendums held by these separatist regimes. These referendums supposedly expressed the will of the Abkhazian and Ossetian people regarding the independence of their unrecognized republics and prompted the leaders of the breakaway regions to ask the Russian state to recognize their independence.
Neither the referendums held in the separatist regions, nor the requests of their leaders can be regarded as legal substantiation for the following reasons: the referendums in these separatist regions were held after ethnic cleansing was carried out in them, as a result of which about 250,000 Georgians, 100,000 members of other nationalities, and half of the Abkhazian population itself (approximately 40,000 Abkhazians) were driven out of Abkhazia.7 So the referendum held among the population that remained after the ethnic cleansing can in no way express the will of the people living in Abkhazia and so-called South Ossetia, or of the Abkhazians and Ossetians themselves. Nor can the so-called presidential and parliamentary elections held by the separatists among the population that remained after the ethnic cleansing be regarded as legitimate. Consequently, the acts and statements issued by these de facto leaders do not have any legal force. Graphic confirmation of this is the OSCE Summit Declaration (1999) which noted: “We consider the so-called presidential elections and referendum in Abkhazia, Georgia, this year as unacceptable and illegitimate.”8 It is worth noting that this declaration was adopted with the participation and approval of Russia itself.
The self-determination of a nation should be realized by participation in the constitutional system of the state in question based on respect of its territorial integrity. With this in mind, during the conflict in Chechnia, for example, when a large number of peaceful residents perished, the Western states, when criticizing Russia, although they also pointed out the disproportionality of the attacks on the civilian population, always noted that the matter was, in principle, within the domestic affairs of the Russian Federation.9 This is precisely why the international community of states refuses to recognize self-proclaimed independent states created by separatists on the basis of ethnic cleansing and demands definition of the status of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali Region as inalienable parts of the Georgian state only within Georgia’s internationally recognized borders. In this respect, we should at least recall the document adopted just recently on 1 September, 2008 by the European Union, according to which the EU criticizes Russia’s unilateral decision to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and calls on other states not to follow suit. In so doing, the European Union notes that peaceful settlement of the conflicts in Georgia should be based on observation of Georgia’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity recognized by international law.10
7 [http://www.geocities.com/abkhazia_dream/public/19.htm].
8 OSCE Summit Declaration, Istanbul, 19 November, 1999, Item 17, available at [http://www.ena.lu/].
9 See: P. Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, Seventh revised edition, London, 1997,
p. 340.
10 See: Final Declaration of the Summit of Heads of State and Government of the European Union of 1 September, 2008, available at [http://www.newsru.com/world/01sep2008/closesummit.html].
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
Thus, the Russian presidential decrees violate the principle of equality and self-determination of nations in that, by recognizing the independence of Georgia’s two regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, justified by realization of the misunderstood right of the Abkhazians and Ossetians to self-determination and based on the results of the illegal referendum held among the population that remained in the separatist regions after the ethnic cleansing, they encroach on the territorial integrity and political unity of the sovereign Georgian state.
7. The Russian presidential decrees contradict the principle of honest performance of obligations under international law.
According to this principle, states should conscientiously perform the obligations ensuing from the generally accepted principles and regulations of international law, as well as the obligations adopted under treaties or other agreements entered in compliance with international law. Based on this, a state does not have the right to evade the obligations ensuing from international legal regulations or present provisions of its internal state law or any other circumstances as reasons for not performing the adopted obligations. Each state should bring its legislation and administrative regulations into harmony with its international legal obligations.
The Russian presidential decrees violate this principle in that, by recognizing the independence of Georgia’s two regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia grossly violated both the obligations that ensue from the generally accepted principles and regulations of international law (this can clearly be seen from the example presented in this article) and the obligations ensuing from the international treaty and agreement concluded with Russia’s participation in which Russia recognizes the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and inviolability of Georgia’s existing state borders.
As graphic proof we will present an excerpt from the Declaration on Observance of the Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and Inviolability of the Borders of Member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States of 15 April, 1994 (Moscow), which was naturally also signed by Russia. The Declaration reads:
“The member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States:
1. Ensure execution in their interrelations of the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and inviolability of state borders.
2. Confirm that when building friendly relations, the states will refrain from military, political, economic, or any other form of pressure, including blockade, as well as from supporting or using separatism against the territorial integrity, inviolability, and political independence of any of the Commonwealth member states.
3. Affirm that seizing territories by means of force cannot be accepted, and territory of other states cannot be occupied in order to attain international recognition or impose a change in its legal status.”11
It is not difficult to see that President Medvedev’s decrees already fundamentally contradict all the items of this obligation that Russia assumed.
8. The Russian presidential decrees contradict the principle of states’ obligation to cooperate with each other.
According to this principle, states, regardless of their political, economic, and social systems, are obliged to cooperate with each other in different areas of international relations in order to protect international peace and security.
11 Declaration on Observance of the Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and Inviolability of the Borders of Member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States of 15 April, 1994 (Moscow), available at [http://www.inpravo.ru/data/ base250/text25v878i300.htm].
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
The Russian presidential decrees violate this principle in that, by recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia is confirming its loyalty to aggressive separatism and is preferring to cooperate with the de facto authorities of the self-proclaimed republics formed as a result of ethnic cleansing instead of cooperating with Georgia as a sovereign neighboring state and member of the U.N. to protect international peace and security.
9. The Russian presidential decrees contradict the principle of respect of human rights and basic freedoms.
In compliance with this principle, states recognize the universal significance of human rights and basic freedoms, respect of which is an important factor of peace, justice, and prosperity and necessary for ensuring the development of friendly relations and cooperation among states.
The Russian presidential decrees violate this principle in that, after recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it will be impossible to eliminate the consequences of the ethnic cleansing of the Georgian population in these regions, the hundreds of thousands of Georgian citizens exiled from them will be deprived of the opportunity of returning to the places of their time-honored residence, of retrieving their property, or participating in elections, and of realizing their other basic human rights. Moreover, these Russian presidential decrees inspired a new wave of ethnic cleansing of the Georgian population remaining in these regions due to which the right to life and other basic human rights of hundreds of thousands of peaceful citizens is entirely unprotected.
Attempt to Legally Justify Aggression
As noted above, the Russian president said that one of the reasons for issuing his decrees was the mass and grave violation of human rights and genocide committed in the conflict regions by the Georgian authorities. This was how he justified Russian armed forces invading Georgia and his decision to issue decrees that recognized the separatist regions.
In this respect, it should be noted that the provision prohibiting the use of coercive measures against a foreign state in order to protect human rights is a vital part of the principle of respect of human rights and basic freedoms. This principle can only be violated if competent U.N. structures believe that mass and systematic violation of human rights is occurring in a certain state, which is regarded as an international crime. It is a well-known fact that no competent U.N. structure adopted a decision and correspondingly granted Russia the right to intercept instances of human rights violations in a neighboring country with the use of military force.
As for the Russian president’s statement about the genocide committed by the Georgian authorities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, this is only a verbal accusation put forward to justify the decision he made and is not confirmed by any international organization. On the other hand, the mass violations of human rights committed by the Abkhazian separatists during Russia’s military support, the large-scale deportation of the Georgian population, and the crimes against humanity attracted the attention of the international community.
The final documents of the Budapest (1994),12 Lisbon (1996),13 and Istanbul (1999) OSCE summits,14 as well as the Resolution of the U.N. General Assembly (2008)15 confirm that crimes
12 CSCE Budapest Document 1994 Towards a Genuine Partnership in a New Era, Budapest, 6 December, 1994, Para. II, available at [http://www.osce.org/documents/mcs/1994/12/4048_en.pdf].
13 Lisbon OSCE Summit Declaration, Lisbon, 2-3 December, 1996, Para. 20, available at [http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/osce/archive/december/os21204.htm].
14 OSCE Istanbul Summit Declaration, Istanbul, 19 November, 1999, Item 17.
15 Resolution of the U.N. General Assembly 62/249 of 15 May, 2008. Status of Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees from Abkhazia, Georgia, available at [http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/news/GA-249.pdf].
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
against humanity and ethnic cleansing of the Georgian population were committed in Abkhazia, as a result of which approximately 10,000 civilians were killed in Abkhazia and almost 250,000 ethnic Georgians were exiled from their places of permanent residence. It is worth noting that the abovementioned international legal documents were adopted with the participation and consent of Russia, that is, along with other states of the world, Russia also confirmed the ethnic cleansing of the Georgian population in Abkhazia by separatist forces.
A similar situation also occurred in South Ossetia (Tskhinvali Region), where separatists usurped local power in 1990 and declared the South Ossetian Autonomous Region artificially created by the Bolsheviks in 1922 an independent “Soviet republic.” With the aim of separating this region from Georgia, these forces began an ethnic conflict that is still going on to this day and resulted in the deaths of multitudes of Ossetians and Georgians and in the exile of a large part of the Georgian population due to ethnic cleansing.
Instead of performing their peacekeeping mission, the peacekeeping forces deployed by Russia in Abkhazia and South Ossetia began supporting the separatist regimes and essentially fulfilled the function of border troops in these regions. Hoping for this support, the separatist regimes avoided peace talks and refused to return the forcibly displaced population to their places of permanent residence.
Ethnic cleansing in international law is recognized as a crime against humanity and is a form of genocide. Recently it is genocide and ethnic cleansing that have become the main tools of aggressive separatism. According to the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), all states are obligated to actively fight against any manifestation of genocide within their borders.16
We can see that, according to the regulations of international law, Georgia is not only legally empowered, but also obligated by all means, including coercive measures, to intercept any manifestation of ethnic cleansing and genocide on its territory, particularly when instances of ethnic cleansing are confirmed by competent international organizations.
As for other states, in this specific case Russia, according to the principle of non-use of force or the threat of force in international relations, no state has the right to attack another state, no matter how justified the motives may be that prompted it to resort to such preventive measures. Only the United Nations has the right to adopt corresponding measures, including the use of armed forces, should the Security Council make such a decision. The seventh chapter of the U.N. Charter, “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression” sets forth special procedures for this.17 Such are the demands of international law and order.
But evidently imperative international legal regulations do not mean anything to Russia. This is confirmed by Chairman of the Russian Constitutional Court V. Zorkin in an article he published in Rossiiskaia gazetals on the development of the events in the Tskhinvali Region. V. Zorkin calls the military action carried out by Russia in Georgia a peacekeeping operation to force [Georgia] to accept peace. He writes that usually such operations are carried out with the sanction of the U.N. Security Council, but if Russia had waited to receive a special mandate from the United Nations, thousands more peaceful citizens would have been killed. Whereby these peaceful citizens are not merely citizens of a neighboring state, they are Russian citizens, who are in the majority in South Ossetia.
16 See: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948, Art 1, available at [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu37b/p_genoci.htm].
17 See: U.N. Charter, Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression (Arts 39-51), available at [http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.shtml].
18 See: V. Zorkin (Chairman of the Constitutional Court), “Proiti po lezviiu britvy,” Rossiiskaia gazeta, Federal issue, No. 4727, 13 August, 2008.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
Thus, according to Russian President Medvedev and Chairman of the Russian Constitutional Court Zorkin, Russia, in order to protect Russian citizens (incidentally the residents of the Tskhinvali Region and Abkhazia became Russian citizens as the result of an entirely illegal and shameful campaign to hand out Russian passports) or human rights, has the right to bring land, air, and sea forces into any state in the world, bomb population settlements, destroy infrastructure, and seize the territory of this state. This of course is complete profanation of the principle of respect of human rights and a gross violation of the principle of non-use of force or the threat of force in international relations.
According to this principle, the most dangerous manifestation of the use of force is aggression, which is a crime against peace.
Aggression is defined as the use of the armed forces of a state against the state sovereignty, territorial inviolability, or political independence of another state.19 According to the 1974 U.N. Resolution on the definition of aggression, an act of aggression is:
(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,
(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;
(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;
(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;
(e) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State, etc.
If we follow Russia’s actions against Georgia, which today is a world-renowned event, since 8 August, 2008 and evaluate them on the basis of the abovementioned international legal document, only one conclusion can be drawn—the Russian Federation carried out military aggression against Georgia and occupation of its territory. Therefore the Russian presidential decrees on recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are nothing more than an attempt to legally enforce the consequences of this military aggression.
C o n c l u s i o n
Based on the above, the Russian presidential decrees of 26 August, 2008 on recognition of the independence of Georgia’s breakaway regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Tskhinvali Region), contradict all the generally accepted international legal regulations and principles and so do not have legal force.
Now let us take a look at the Russian president’s request during the signing of these decrees for other states to follow suit. Let us imagine for just a moment what would happen in the world if other states did indeed follow Russia’s example. Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia Ilia II summed this up in his address to the Russian president on 25 August, 2008: “Russia’s recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali Region welcomes separatism in the world, and so the international community is forced to raise its voice in protest. Separatism is a terrible contagious centrifugal force that undermines a state’s foundations, and if it is encouraged, the earth will be plunged into chaos.
19 “Definition of Aggression,” approved by Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of the U.N. General Assembly of 14 December, 1974, available at [http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html].
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
There are numerically small peoples in every state and, if they decide they want political independence, this will only lead to endless wars.”20
0 Sakartvelos respublika, 27 August, 2008 (in Georgian).
Elshad MIRBASHIR
Ph.D. (Political Science), lecturer at the Political Science and Political Management Department, Academy of State Administration under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan (Baku, Azerbaijan).
ETHNOPOLITICAL CONFLICTS IN THE CAUCASUS AND THEIR SPECIFIC FEATURES
Abstract
The author probes into the nature of the ethnopolitical conflicts that are now unfolding in the Caucasus to reveal the intricacies and interpenetration of the problems that led to their emergence in the first
place. He pays particular attention to their origins and functioning. The events of the summer of 2008 in Georgia demonstrated that if ignored they might hit the local countries and send negative waves across the world.
I n t r o d u c t i o n
The events of the turn of the 21st century demonstrated with clarity that ethnopolitical conflicts have not only developed into a permanent feature of domestic life in many states, they have also become one of the main factors of world politics and international relations. A large part of the political scientist community is convinced that the factor behind the ethnic conflicts is being pushed to the fore by two opposite trends of ethnopolitical development.
The first can be described as the peoples’ desire to reach a higher level of ethnosocial organization (national self-determination), the highest rung of which is a nation-state. We have already witnessed that if realized (in various forms up to and including bloodshed) this trend will shake the building of international relations down to its very foundations. The second worldwide trend, which reflects globalization imperatives, is manifested in the limited sovereignty the nation-state imposes on itself when it integrates into poly-ethnic entities (I have in mind all sorts of integration structures, the most convincing of which is the European Union).
