The Georgian-Abkhaz conflict

Der Verfasser setzt sich mit dem historischen Hintergrund des von dem Wunsch nach Identität und Sicherheit getriebenen georgisch-abchasischen Sezessionskonflikts auseinander und fragt nach Aussichten auf eine Lösung, die im hierarchischen Föderalsystem der UdSSR nicht gefunden werden konnte. Nach dem kriegerischen Konflikt der Jahre 1992/93 sagte sich Abchasien von Georgien los. Eine Vermittlung durch die UNO blieb bislang erfolglos. Der Verfasser beschreibt die Vorschläge und Initiativen der beiden Konfliktparteien und der internationalen Vermittler. Er zeigt, wie die Konfliktparteien den Prozess der Europäisierung ihrer Region wahrnehmen, welche Rolle die EU in diesem Konflikt spielt und welche Ergebnisse die Zukunft bringen kann. Die Vorschläge der UNO sehen Abchasien entweder als Teil einer Föderation mit Georgien oder als Teil eines georgisch-abchasischen Staatenbundes. Solange aber kein gemeinsamer Ansatz der internationalen Kräfte zur Überwindung des toten Punkts in den politischen Verhandlungen existiert, lässt sich das Ergebnis dieses Konflikts nur schwer prognostizieren. (ICEÜbers)'This chapter analyses the historical background to the secessionist conflict in Abkhazia and the prospect of a settlement. The Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, driven by a need for identity and security, is one that failed to be resolved within the hierarchical federal framework of the Soviet state. Abkhazia seceded from Georgia as a result of the 1992-93 war. UN mediation has so far failed to bring a political settlement closer. The chapter describes the solutions proposed and political actions taken both by the parties to the conflict and by the external mediators. It assesses the way in which the conflicting parties perceive the process of Europeanization in their region, the role of the European Union in the conflict on Abkhazia, and possible future outcomes. The UN proposals for a settlement make it possible to envisage the future of Abkhazia either as part of a federation with Georgia or as an associated state with Georgia, but as long as the external powers are unable to devise a common approach to overcoming the present deadlock in the political negotiations, it remains difficult to predict the precise outcome of the conflict.' (author's abstract

What is ‘just’ secession? (Is Kosovo unique)? ESF Working Papers No. 28, 13 February 2008

The 28th session of the European Security Forum, on 11 February 2008, was timed one week before the expected declaration of independence by the government of Kosovo. The widespread expectation is that the US and a progressive cascade of EU member states will recognise Kosovo, and that the EU will go ahead with a major ‘rule of law’ mission there without further UN resolution (arguing that the wording of the existing Resolution 1244 is sufficiently elastic to authorise this action). It is further expected that one or more EU member states (such as Cyprus) will oppose recognition, but will not prevent this mission from being launched

Chapter 19 Engagement without Recognition

state; recognitio

Westliche Sicherheitspolitik und der Konflikt zwischen Georgien und Abchasien

'Der Bericht analysiert die westliche Georgienpolitik, vor allem die westliche Sicherheitspolitik gegenüber dem georgisch-abchasischen Konflikt. Die westliche Sicherheitspolitik bezüglich der Energieversorgung seit 1994 ist ein Kernpunkt der Arbeit. Hier wird das Sicherheitskonzept in der 'Pipelinepolitik' Georgiens wie auch des Westens untersucht. Weiterhin werden die Sicherheitsdilemmata beschrieben, denen sich die georgische sowie die abchasische Führung gegenübersehen. Diese verlangen auch russischen und westlichen Politikern schwierige Entscheidungen ab, um die es im letzten Teil des Berichts geht. Der Bericht basiert auf Interviews, die der Autor mit Wissenschaftlern und Beamten in Tiflis und Suchum(i) geführt hat, auf den Ergebnissen von zwei Konferenzen über den Konflikt zwischen Georgien und Abchasien, die der Autor an der Vrije Universiteit Brussel organisiert hat, und auf internationalen Veröffentlichungen und Quellen zu diesem Konflikt.' (Textauszug)'The report analyses the West's policy towards Georgia and especially the West's security policy with regard to the Georgian/ Abkhazian conflict. Western security policy since 1994 on the subject of energy supplies forms a focal point of the work. In this context, the security conception of Georgia's and the West's 'pipeline policy' is examined. The report also describes the security dilemmas with which both the Georgian and the Abkhazian leaderships are confronted. These are also calling for Russian and Western politicians to take some difficult decisions, which are dealt with in the final part of the report. The report is based on interviews conducted by the author with scholars and civil servants in Tbilisi and Sukhum(i), on the outcome of two conferences organised by the author at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel on the topic of the conflict between Georgia and Abkhazia, and on international publications and sources dealing with this conflict.' (extract

Kosovo and the Principles of Just Secession. CEPS Policy Brief No. 146, 3 December 2007

Kosovo has raised three international debates. Firstly, NATO’s decision in March 1999 to go to war over Kosovo created a deep division within the United Nations. The second debate was about the creation of an international administration for Kosovo and the third is now about the future status of the territory. The six ‘just war’ principles – a just cause, last resort, likelihood of success, proportionality, right intentions and legitimate authority – are traditionally applied to war settings in order to assess the legitimacy of the use of force. They can be also used to answer the question of the extent to which the Kosovo conflict can serve as a political model for forceful external involvement in a secessionist crisis with severe humanitarian consequences. But these six jus ad bellum principles can also be of heuristic value for dealing with the legitimacy of the creation of an international administration in Kosovo, and with Kosovo’s right to unilateral secession and its recognition by other states

Conflict Resolution for Moldova and Transdniestria through Federalisation? CEPS Policy Brief No. 25, August 2002

The present note is a response to the invitation from Moldova to comment on the new draft agreement proposed by Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE to resolve the decade-old stand-off between Moldova and Transdniestria, following the conflict over the latter’s attempted secession in 1992. It is a contribution to an open international debate over the search for a viable solution. Summary At a meeting in Kiev on 1-3 July 2002, the mediators for the Moldovan- Transdniestria conflict proposed, at the initiative of the OSCE, a draft agreement on the constitutional system that would regulate the distribution of competencies between Chisinau and Tiraspol. This draft agreement defines the Republic of Moldova as a “federal state”. The implementation of the agreement would be monitored and ultimately guaranteed by the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the OSCE.1 It is to be greatly welcomed that the interested parties have reached the stage of negotiation over a full text to finally resolve a conflict in a constitutionally ordered way. It is also notable, and highly positive, that this process is now being made open and transparent. This improves the chances that the outcome will be viewed as democratically legitimate by the population, which is an important condition for its long-term viability. Under the present circumstances, the choice of a federal solution should also be welcomed as the best option for a multi-national state such as Moldova. Furthermore, the federalisation of Moldova could lead to a positive spillover effect in the frozen conflicts of the southern Caucasus

European Institutional Models as Instruments of Conflict Resolution in the Divided States of the European Periphery. CEPS Working Document No. 195, July 2003

[From the Introduction]. This working document is part of a research project for the Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs, the department of the Belgian Federal Government responsible for scientific research. The project is carried out by the Centre for Political Science (POLI) of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel... and the Centre for European Policy Studies... It makes a comparative assessment of the potential for supra-national and international settlement in four secessionist conflicts at the periphery of the EU. It focuses on the potential role that institutional models from the EU and its members can play in the design of solutions to such conflicts – particularly the federation institutions such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) or the Council of Europe. In all of these cases, conflict settlement may have to be facilitated by the intervention of third party actors. The four cases studied in the POLI-CEPS project are confronted by unresolved secessionist crises: Cyprus...; Montenegro and Serbia...; Moldova...; Abkhazia..

Chapter 19 Engagement without Recognition

state; recognitio