CC BY
155
Unrecognized states as a modern political phenomenon Vidritskaya N.1, Shtraukh H.2 (Republic of Kazakhstan) Непризнанные государства как современный политический феномен Видрицкая Н. И.1, Штраух Е. В.2 (Республика Казахстан)
'Видрицкая Наталия Игоревна / Vidritskaya Nataliya — кандидат экономических наук, доцент, кафедра мировой экономики и международных отношений; 2Штраух Елена Владимировна / Shtraukh Helena — студент, специальность: международные отношения, Карагандинский экономический университет, г. Караганда, Республика Казахстан
Abstract: the article analyzes the problem of unrecognized states. The position of the Republic of Kazakhstan in relation to the unrecognized states is presented.
Аннотация: в статье анализируется проблема непризнанных государств. Представлена позиция Республики Казахстан по отношению к непризнанным государствам.
Keywords: unrecognized state, Palestine, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Transdniestria, South Ossetia, Somaliland, force reintegration, autonomy, federalization.
Ключевые слова: непризнанные государства, Палестина, Нагорно-Карабахская Республика, Приднестровье, Южная Осетия, Сомалиленд, принудительная реинтеграция, автономия, федерализация.
These days much of attention is paid to the problem of the existence of unrecognized states, territorial integrity, sovereignty, the right of nations to self-determination and other related matters in foreign literature.
Scattered around the world are a number of states that have declared independence but are not recognized by other states. These political entities are referred to by various names: 'de facto states', 'unrecognized states', 'para-states', 'pseudostates', and 'quasi-states' [1].
While terms insurgent state, black spot anti-state describe self-governing entities under the administration of rebel groups seeking to overthrow the central government, the term state-within state describes de facto independent region which is out of the control of the central government as a result of the state break-down, but does not challenge the central government's legitimacy [2].
Overall, the general definition of the category of unrecognized states includes the following elements: «An unrecognized state has achieved de facto independence covering at least two-thirds of the territory to which it lays claim and including its main city and key regions; its leadership is seeking to build further state institutions and demonstrate its own legitimacy; the entity has declared formal independence or demonstrated clear aspirations for independence, for example through an independence referendum, adoption of a separate currency or similar act that clearly signals separate statehood. The entity has not gained international recognition or has, at the most, been recognized by its patron state and a few other sates of no great importance; it has existed for at least two years» [3, p. 17].
The Pegg's definition is «de facto state exists where there is an organized political leadership, which has risen power through some degree of indigenous capability; receives popular support and achieved sufficient capacity to provide governmental services to a given population in a defined territorial area, over which effective control is maintained for an extended period of time» [4].
Currently, a list of unrecognized states usually includes the Republic of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, the Republic of China (Taiwan), the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the Transdniestrian Moldavian Republic, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the Republic of Kosovo, Somaliland, etc. In light of recent events of the Ukrainian crisis, more specifically since the March 2014, Lugansk and Donetsk regions declared themselves as unrecognized independent republics.
To be classified as a quasi-state, a political entity must fulfill three criteria. Its leadership must be in control of (most of) the territory it lays claim to, and it must have sought but not achieved international recognition as an independent state. Finally, to eliminate a whole spate of ephemeral political contraptions, we exclude those that have persisted in this state of non-recognition at least for two years [1].
Most quasi-states, then, lack not only international recognition but also strong state structures, and yet they exist. At least five factors can be identified that contribute to the viability of unrecognized quasi-states: symbolic nation-building; militarization of society; the weakness of the parent state; support from an external patron; and lack of involvement on the part of the international community [1].
An attempt to classify unrecognized states belongs to A.G. Bolshakov given in his work «The unrecognized states of the former Soviet Union in system of the Russian national interests». He classifies
unrecognized states by control of the self-proclaimed governments over the declared territory and by extent of their international recognition.
A key criterion for recognition of the unrecognized states is control over the territory. The size of the controlled territory has great military and political value for the unrecognized states. Many unrecognized states could win and hold considerable spaces due to military and economic assistance of the adjacent countries, allies, or intervention of the international community. By this indicator they can be subdivided into four ideal types:
1. Unrecognized states with complete control of the territory (Vaziristan, Transdniestria, Somaliland, Northern Cyprus).
2. Unrecognized states partially controlling territory (Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Tamil Eelam, South Ossetia).
3. Entities under protectorate of the international community (Kosovo was operated by administration of the UN since 1999, and since 2008, after the proclamation of independence, it came under the control of the EU).
4. The quasi-states (which did not acquire the right for self-determination), controlling enclaves of their ethnic group compact settlement (Kurdistan located in the territory of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria) [5].
There are some ethnic/linguistic, political, geopolitical, economic factors that led to secession in the former Soviet countries and in the Greater Middle East.
Trans-Dniestr Moldavian Republic declared its independence in the early 1990s as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The deep ethnic conflict and intention of a part of the ruling circles of Moldova to carry out the idea of the state reunion with Romania is the cornerstone of the conflict. Today it is considered by international community as an autonomous territorial entity of Moldova. Only three non-member states of the UN recognize Transnistria. They are South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Abkhazia. The conflict is marked as "frozen". The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is a place of aggravated ethnic strife with deep historical and cultural roots. The reason of secession was the people's will to implement their right of self-determination. The international status of the NKR is not settled. The UN member countries do not recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as an independent state. The resolutions of the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. The reason for the conflict in South Ossetia was sharp strain of relations between Georgians and ethnic minorities (primarily Abkhazians and Ossetians), who had their own autonomous entities, and even made demands to independency. The question of the status of South Ossetia remains opened. The state is recognized by four UN member states. They are the Russian Federation, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru.
After the Civil War, Somalia ceased to exist as a state, the situation is still unstable. Somaliland has all attributes of statehood. It also has offices in the USA, Great Britain, Italy and Ethiopia. Nevertheless, Somaliland did not gain official recognition, mostly because Somaliland's parent state Somali refused to recognize it. Palestine is a partially recognized state. Emergence of the Palestinian problem is connected with the Great Britain's government policy in the region. Creation of the Jewish state in the territory of mandated Palestine generated territorial disputes, ethnic and religious contradictions. These days, the state is in process of creation. It has already been recognized by 136 member states of the UN.
According to Liam Anderson, there are three broad categories of destination for unrecognized states: full independence, force reintegration with parent state or peaceful reintegration with parent state in a form of autonomy (federalization). The last option is more normatively desirable than forced reintegration, because it resolves the status of the unrecognized state without violence and bloodshed, but it is also more plausible than full independence because it does not disturb the territorial integrity of the international community of recognized states. It is, therefore, the only option that is likely to be clearly supported by most members of the international community [6].
The position of the Republic of Kazakhstan [7] in relation to the unrecognized states in the post-Soviet space remains unchanged. Kazakhstan is not going to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as the other new states. The principle of territorial integrity is a key in international law for Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan holds a neutral position on the issue of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Kazakhstan and Armenia are involved in two key integration unions in the post-Soviet space. They are the Eurasian Economic Union and The Collective Security Treaty Organization. That participation imposes certain obligations. Kazakhstan calls on the parties to find a compromise and peaceful ways to resolve the conflict.
Kazakhstan supports the legitimate right of the Palestinian people for self-determination, and therefore stands for a fair solution of the problem of Palestinian refugees, creation of an independent State of Palestine and will not accept violent change of the demographic structure of the occupied Palestinian territories. At the same time, Kazakhstan condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and, in this regard, supports the aspiration of Israel to live in security.
References
1. Pal Kolst0. The Sustainability and Future of Unrecognized Quasi-States. [Electronic resource]: Journal of peace research. Volume 43. Number 6. November 2006. URL: http://jpr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/43/67723/ (date of access: 03.06.2016).
2. Martin Riegl. Prospects and limits of economic development of unrecognized states: between organized hypocracy and private interest. [Electronic resource]: European Scientific Journal, February 2014, vol.10, No.4. URL: http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/download/2679/2531/ (дата обращения: 03.06.2016).
3. Nina Caspersen. Unrecognized states: the struggle for sovereignty in the modern international system. Polity, 2012, 224 p.
4. Scott Pegg. De Facto States in the International System Institute of International Relations. [Electronic resource]: The University of British Columbia. Working Paper. No. 21 February 1998. URL: http://www.liu.xplorex.com/sites/liu/files/Publications/webwp21.pdf (date of access: 03.06.2016).
5. Bol'shakov A. G. Nepriznannye gosudarstva postsovetskogo prostranstva v sisteme rossijskih nacional''nyh interesov. [Electronic resource]: Zhurnal politeks. Politicheskaja jekspertiza. URL: http://www.politex.info/content/view/413/30/ (date of access: 03.06.2016).
6. Liam Anderson. Reintegrating Unrecognized States: Internationalizing Frozen Conflicts. [Electronic resource]: Academia URL: http://www.academia.edu/203543/Reintegrating_Unrecognized_States_Interna tionalizing_Frozen_Conflicts (date of access: 03.06.2016).
7. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan. [Electronic resource]: The official site. URL: http://www.mfa.kz (date of access: 03.06.2016).
