De facto statehood in Eurasia: a political and security phenomenon

Abstract

De facto entities (most importantly for this discussion, those in Nagorny Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria and the alleged People’s Republics in south-eastern Ukraine), if viewed from a formal-legal point of view, do not exist for the international community. However, the “virtual” existence of those states does not prevent them from being real participants in the political and security processes in the post-Soviet space. Many momentous events in Eurasia are connected in some way with developments surrounding these statelets. This article reviews the establishment of de facto states in the context of the demise of the USSR, ethno-political self-determination during this process and the transformation of international law after the end of the Cold War. The article provides a definition and typology of unrecognized states, and explains their similarities and differences. It is argued that the phenomenon of de facto entities cannot be reduced exclusively to the consequences of “frozen conflict”: their domestic dynamics as well as processes of democratization and nation/state-building also need to be considered. Special attention is paid to the importance of Eurasian de facto states for international affairs.

"New Great Game" Conflict and Cooperation Area Georgia: Turkey and Russia in Competition

“…While the South Caucasus was previously considered to be on the periphery of the international agenda, after the dissolution of the SU and the subsequent formation of newly independent states, it became much more important both to its neighbors and influential non-regional actors (Markedonov. 2012).…”

Twenty Years of de facto State Studies: Progress, Problems, and Prospects

“…In one of the earlier contributions to this literature, Lynch (2002, p. 832) lamented that "[m]uch analysis has been directed to individual cases of conflict in the former Soviet Union; however, there has been virtually no comparative study of the separatist states." That might have been true at the time he wrote it, but comparative work on some or all the post-Soviet de facto states has since exploded (Berg & Mölder, 2012;Broers, 2013;Broers, Iskandaryan, & Minasyan, 2015;Caspersen, 2008;Kolstø & Blakkisrud, 2008;Lynch, 2004;Markedonov, 2015;O'Loughlin et al, 2014;Popescu, 2007;von Steinsdorff, 2012;Yemelianova, 2015). Indeed, arguably the problem today is not a dearth of comparative work on the post-Soviet cases but rather a dearth of comparative work involving other cases.…”