The genesis of the Ukrainian crisis and its significance for post-Soviet space

The post-Soviet space is once again in turbulence. It is difficult today to predict how such reorganization will play out and what consequences it will have for Russia, its neighbouring states and forthe international order as a whole. Nevertheless, we are already witnessing the most extensive changes in the former Soviet Union since the collapse of what was once a single state. It is necessary, however, to separate the legal process ofthe collapse ofthe USSR from the historical dimension of the phenomenon. In legal terms, the USSR does not exist, and in historical terms, the end of the single state could not automatically ensure the viability and legitimacy of the new independent entities that emerged from its ruins. At the present stage, it is indisputable that the Belovezha Accords failed to provide a real guarantee against a repetition, to one degree or another, of the Yugoslav scenario

State Integrity and Self-Determination in a World of Problematic Sovereignty

The article was submitted on 02.12.2019.This article analyses the phenomenon of states with problematic sovereignty, which has arisen in recent decades, primarily in the former Yugoslavia and the USSR (but not only). The existing model of the world order, in which only UN member countries are recognised as participants in international relations, does not reflect a real picture of the world. At the beginning of the study, the authors examine theoretical approaches (A. Yannis. A. Tsutsiev, A. Sebentsov, V. Kolosov) to typologising entities with problematic sovereignty and territorial principles of national self-determination (i. e. the realisation of the right to self-determination) as well as re-conceptualising sovereignty approaches (J. Agnew and N. Dobronravin). Next, the authors describe how these topics are embedded in the logic of the developing crisis of relations between Russia and the West and lead to a diplomacy of double standards. It is especially emphasised that at different periods and depending on the political state of affairs, both sides in the present-day confrontation supported separatist projects and the preservation of territorial integrity and state unity. This results from contradictions in the system of international law, vague criteria for recognising newly formed independent states, and attempts to use conflicts instrumentally to realise strategic interests. According to the authors, a way out of this impasse could be an agreement between the West and Russia on some general rules of the game, including clearer criteria for the recognition of new states, the legality/illegality of secession, and the preservation of territorial integrity, as well as possible procedures for transition to a new status. However, this is unlikely to happen without reaching a comprehensive compromise or modus vivendi between the main stakeholders. The result of the article is a demonstration on the theoretical and applied levels that in the modern system of international relations, the concept of “territoriality” has become more complicated as a basic characteristic of the state. It now requires new legal and diplomatic approaches to resolve the contradiction between the principles of territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination. These new approaches should be developed by the expert community in the course of an unbiased analysis of the contemporary architecture of international relations.Рассматривается феномен государств с проблемной суверенностью, которые возникли в последние десятилетия, в первую очередь на территории бывших Югославии и СССР (но не только). Существующая модель мирового порядка, в котором фактически участниками международных отношений признаются только страны – члены ООН, не отражает реально сложившуюся картину мира. В исследовании рассматриваются теоретические подходы к типологизации образований с проблемной суверенностью и территориальным принципам национального самоопределения, то есть реализации права на самоопределение (А. Яннис, А. Цуциев, А. Себенцов, В. Колосов), а также взгляды на реконцептуалиазацию суверенитета (Д. Эгнью, Н. Добронравин). Дан анализ того, как данные сюжеты развиваются в логике нарастающей конфронтации между Россией и Западом и приводят к дипломатии двойных стандартов. Особо подчеркивается, что обе стороны сегодняшней конфронтации в разные периоды и в зависимости от соображений политической конъюнктуры поддерживали и сепаратистские проекты, и принципы сохранения территориальной целостности и государственного единства. Этому способствуют и противоречия в системе международного права, и размытые критерии признания вновь образовавшихся независимых государств, а также попытки инструментального использования конфликтов для реализации стратегических интересов ведущих мировых держав. Выходом из имеющейся тупиковой ситуации, по мнению авторов, могли бы быть договоренности между Западом и Россией о неких общих правилах игры, которые включали бы более четкие критерии правомерности/неправомерности сецессии и сохранения территориальной целостности, а также возможные процедуры перехода к новому статусу. Однако без достижения если не всеобъемлющего компромисса, то определенного modus vivendi между заинтересованными сторонами это маловероятно. Итогом работы является демонстрация на теоретическом и прикладном уровнях того факта, что в современной системе международных отношений произошло значительное усложнение понятия «территориальность» как базовой характеристики государства. В этой связи оно требует новых правовых и дипломатических подходов к разрешению противоречий между принципами территориальной целостности и правом наций на самоопределение. Эти новые подходы должно выработать экспертное сообщество в ходе непредвзятого анализа актуальной архитектуры международных отношений.Статья подготовлена при финансовой поддержке МГИМО МИД России в рамках проекта № 1921–01–05

Post-Soviet De Facto States: Trajectories of Their Struggle for Sovereignty

The de-facto statehood is a multi-faceted phenomenon of the international politics. They are key elements of the ethno-political conflicts in the contexts of collapse of multi-ethnic federations, empires as well as processes of decolonization. In spite of growing scientific interest to this phenomenon de-facto states’ studies face a clear lack of interdisciplinary research. Most of papers are devoted to the conflict dynamics, issues of theory and international law issues or cover some particular country cases. The topical perspectives of de-facto states are often studied with no special attention to their historical background. The offered article examines the trajectories of the struggle for the sovereignty of Post-Soviet de facto entities. The author provides a comprehensive analysis of their evolution in the last years of the existence of the Soviet Union and in the period after of the USSR dissolution. The article offers a typology of de facto states. From the author’s point of view, we can talk about two generations of such formations. If the first generation was a result of the once single state collapse as well as growing fight for revisiting statuses of former union and autonomous entities, the second one was a consequence of the crisis of nation-building in the newly independent states and the growing competition between Russia and the West for influence in Eurasia. The article presents the evolution of the trajectories of the de facto states struggle for sovereignty in the context of three successive Post-Soviet regional orders. According to the author, all the Post-Soviet unrecognized republics were formed in the conditions of the destruction of the constitutional consensus of 1977–1978. However, then the trajectories of asserting and protecting the sovereignty of the de facto entities diverged significantly. The author evaluates the general and special features of these processes. In his view, this dynamic has depended on the regional context changes (revision of “the Belavezha order”) but at the same time, changes within de facto states seriously influenced the international environment.</jats:p

Between Legal Norms and Realpolitik: De Facto States in Contemporary International Affairs

.</jats:p

Rightful Might or a Mighty Right?

.</jats:p