DOCSLIB.ORG

“Frozen Conflicts” in Europe Anton Bebler (Ed.)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Frozen Conflicts” in Europe Anton Bebler (Ed.) www.ssoar.info "Frozen conflicts" in Europe Bebler, Anton (Ed.) Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Sammelwerk / collection Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Bebler, A. (Ed.). (2015). "Frozen conflicts" in Europe. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich. https:// doi.org/10.3224/84740133 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY-SA Lizenz (Namensnennung- This document is made available under a CC BY-SA Licence Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen) zur Verfügung gestellt. (Attribution-ShareAlike). For more Information see: Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de Diese Version ist zitierbar unter / This version is citable under: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-65616-2 “Frozen conflicts” in Europe Anton Bebler (ed.) “Frozen conflicts” in Europe Barbara Budrich Publishers Opladen • Berlin • Toronto 2015 An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libraries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access for the public good. The Open Access ISBN for this book is 978-3-8474-0428-6. More information about the initiative and links to the Open Access version can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org © 2015 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0. (CC- BY-SA 4.0) It permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you share under the same license, give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ © 2015 Dieses Werk ist beim Verlag Barbara Budrich GmbH erschienen und steht unter der Creative Commons Lizenz Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Diese Lizenz erlaubt die Verbreitung, Speicherung, Vervielfältigung und Bearbeitung bei Verwendung der gleichen CC-BY-SA 4.0-Lizenz und unter Angabe der UrheberInnen, Rechte, Änderungen und verwendeten Lizenz. This book is available as a free download from www.barbara-budrich.net (https://doi.org/10.3224/84740133). A paperback version is available at a charge. The page numbers of the open access edition correspond with the paperback edition. ISBN 978-3-8474-0133-9 (hardcover) eISBN 978-3-8474-0428-6 (ebook) DOI 10.3224/84740133 Verlag Barbara Budrich GmbH Stauffenbergstr. 7. D-51379 Leverkusen Opladen, Germany 86 Delma Drive. Toronto, ON M8W 4P6 Canada www.barbara-budrich.net A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from Die Deutsche Bibliothek (The German Library) (http://dnb.d-nb.de) Jacket illustration by Bettina Lehfeldt, Kleinmachnow, Germany – www.lehfeldtgraphic.de Typesetting by Anja Borkam, Jena Table of contents Anton Bebler Introduction ...................................................................................................... 7 Republic of Cyprus vs. Northern Cyprus James Ker-Lindsay The Cyprus Problem ...................................................................................... 19 Muhittin Tolga Ozsaglam Comments ...................................................................................................... 35 International Crisis Group Recommendations .......................................................................................... 39 Moldova vs. Transnistria Natalya Belitser The Transnistrian conflict .............................................................................. 45 Erwan Fouere OSCE’s efforts to resolve the conflict ........................................................... 57 Georgia vs. Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia Sergey Markedonov The conflict in and over Abkhazia ................................................................. 71 David Matsaberidze Comments .................................................................................................... 107 Sergey Markedonov The South Ossetia conflict ........................................................................... 111 David Matsaberidze Comments .................................................................................................... 119 International Crisis Group Recommendations ........................................................................................ 121 Azerbaijan vs. Nagorny Karabakh Thomas de Waal The elusive search for resolution of the Nagorny Karabakh dispute ........... 125 Irada Baghirova Comments .................................................................................................... 137 6 Table of contents Aram Simonyan, Menua Soghomonyan and Alik Gharibyan Comments .................................................................................................... 143 International Crisis Group Recommendations ........................................................................................ 147 Serbia vs. Kosovo Anton Bebler The Serbia-Kosovo conflict ......................................................................... 151 Ilir Deda The normalization agreements between Kosovo and Serbia ........................ 171 Oliver Ivanovi The Kosovo Serbs and normalization .......................................................... 179 Sonja Biserko Serbia’s recognizing realities ....................................................................... 183 Ukraine vs. Russia Anton Bebler Crimea and the Ukrainian-Russian conflict ................................................. 189 List of Contributors ...................................................................................... 209 Index ............................................................................................................ 211 Introduction Anton Bebler The structure of international community has over centuries experienced countless changes resulting from state amalgamation and integration and, on the other hand, disintegration and dissolution of large states leading to ap- pearance of smaller state formations. In earlier times the non-recognition of new entities by other states had often had little or no consequence but later became important due to growing interdependence of states. Global politics in the first half of the XXth century had been strongly marked by the break- down and/or disappearance of several multinational and colonial empires, although their partial contraction in Northern and Southern America started already in the XVIIIth and XIXth centuries. As their result a number of new states were created in Europe and Asia, on the territories of the disintegrating Austro-Hungarian, Russian, Ottoman and Chinese empires. Some of them proved to be short-lived (Slovak Soviet Re- public, Independent state of Fiume, independent republics of Ukraine, Geor- gia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, et al.) and were absorbed by stronger neighboring states. But some nevertheless survived and obtained international recognition, also from the successor of the former imperial overlord. Such were the cases of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians (later renamed into Yugo- slavia), Czechoslovakia, Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, who subsequently entered the League of Nations. Two former Chinese dependen- cies formally proclaimed their independence but in fact became protectorates of Soviet Russia and later of the Soviet Union. Mongolia eventually, more than two decades later obtained limited international recognition and almost five decades later was admitted to the United Nations. The former Chinese dependency Tuwa has been however never internationally recognized and in 1944 was simply annexed by the Soviet Union and included into the Russian Federation. One year later the Soviet government made a similar attempt in Northern Iran which was since 1941 occupied by Soviet troops. A secession- ist Gilan Republic was proclaimed but did not survive the evacuation of the Soviet Army under British-American political pressure. The next wave of new state creation started in the 1940s under the influ- ence of the Second World War and followed the defeat of Fascist Italy and the destruction of the Third Reich. During the Second World War Iceland separated itself from Denmark. Occupied Germany (1945-1949) and Austria (1945-1955) lost their international status as independent states and under foreign occupation constituted parastates of a special kind. Similarly as in Eastern Asia (China, Korea, Vietnam) the political-ideological polarization 8 Anton Bebler during the “Cold War” caused the division of amputated Germany (and Aus- tria) into occupation zones followed by the much-longer division of Germany into two separate states (FRG, DDR). The “Free Territory of Trieste” (FTT), a parastate officially under UN jurisdiction, formally existed between 1947 and 1954 on the former Austrian territory occupied and annexed by Italy after the First World War. Under the terms of an interstate protocol this parastate was abolished and its territory divided between Italy and Yugoslavia. The Yugoslav zone of earlier military occupation was then subdivided into two parts which today belong to Slovenia and Croatia. The process of decolonization in Africa, Asia, Oceania, the Caribbean and Mediterranean attained its acme in the second half of the XXth century. Two former British colonies in Mediterranean Europe-Cyprus and Malta became
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Georgia: an Emerging Governance: Problems and Prospects
    Chapter 12 Georgia: An Emerging Governance: Problems and Prospects Dov Lynch Introduction Even if the Republic of Georgia has existed independently since 1992, it remains logical to discuss security sector governance as an emerging question. For much of the early 1990s, applying the notion of ‘security sector governance’ to a state at war and barely on its feet stretched the concept too far. The Georgian state embarked on a process of consolidation from 1995 onwards, initiated with the approval of a Constitution, and Georgia experienced thereafter several years of growth and relative political stability. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the main lines of security sector reform were formulated on paper, and limited changes were effected in the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces. However, as a whole, security sector reform remains an emerging concern in so far as most of the work remains ahead for the new Georgian leadership in terms of addressing a distorted legacy, clarifying the scope of problems and prioritising amongst them, sketching out a coherent programme and implementing it. Two points should be noted from the outset. The first concerns the security sector in Georgia, the number of the agents involved and the nature of their interaction. Many have argued that the notion of ‘security sector reform’ is useful in drawing attention away from more limited understandings of military reform. Traditional discussions of civil- military relations tended to focus on the dyadic relationship between civilian political structures and a professional military agency. By contrast, reforming the security sector entails a more complex 249 understanding of these two poles and adds new actors to the picture1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the United Nations in the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict
    The Role of the United Nations in the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict SUSAN STEWART The Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, University of Mannheim, Germany Issue 2/2003 EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR MINORITY ISSUES (ECMI) Schiffbrücke 12 (Kompagnietor Building) D-24939 Flensburg Germany ( +49-(0)461-14 14 9-0 fax +49-(0)461-14 14 9-19 e-mail: [email protected] internet: http://www.ecmi.de The Role of the United Nations in the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict* SUSAN STEWART The Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, University of Mannheim, Germany This article analyses UNOMIG efforts at stabilization and mediation in the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, arguing that while progress in both realms has been slight, there is reason to conclude that stabilization attempts have been more successful than those of mediation. The author contends that difficulties in the mediation sphere can largely be attributed to UN insistence on Georgian territorial integrity and on a comprehensive settlement including continued substantial progress on the question of Abkhazia’s political status. While coordination between the CIS peacekeepers and the UN has proceeded smoothly, the multidimensional involvement of the Russian Federation has complicated the constellation of actors surrounding the conflict. Owing to these external as well as other internal factors, the author concludes that the outlook for Georgian-Abkhazian negotiations in the short to medium term appears bleak, but that the conclusions drawn from the role of the UN in the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict can be useful for understanding difficulties the UN is likely to encounter in similar interventions. I. Introduction The recent war in Iraq has again called into question the potential role of the United Nations in world affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia Case Study Part II: Internally Displaced Persons Viewed Externally
    Georgia Case Study Part II: Internally Displaced Persons Viewed Externally Brian Frydenborg Experiential Applications – MNPS 703 Allison Frendak-Blume, Ph.D. The problem of internally displaced persons (referred to commonly as IDPs) and international refugees is as old as the problem of war itself. As a special report of The Jerusalem Post notes, “Wars produce refugees” (Radler n.d., par. 1). The post-Cold-War conflicts in Georgia between Georgia, Russian, and Georgia‟s South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions displaced roughly 223,000 people, mostly from the Abkhazia part of the conflict, and the recent fighting between Georgia and Russia/South Ossetia/Abkhazia of August 2008 created 127,000 such IDPs and refugees (UNHCR 2009a, par. 1). A United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) mission even before the 2008 fighting “described the needs of Georgia's displaced as „overwhelming‟” (Ibid., par. 2). This paper will discuss the problem of IDPs in Georgia, particularly as related to the Abkhazian part of the conflicts of the last few decades. It will highlight the efforts of one international organization (IO), the UNHCR, and one non-governmental organization (NGO), the Danish Refugee Council. i. Focus of Paper and Definitions The UN divides people as uprooted by conflict into two categories: refugees and internally displaced persons; the first group refers to people who are “forcibly uprooted” and flee from their nation to another, the second to people who are “forcibly uprooted” and flee to another location within their nation (UNHCR 2009b, par 1). Although there are also IDPs and refugees resulting from the fighting in South Ossetia, this paper will focus on the IDPs from the fighting in and around Abkhazia; refugees from or in Georgia will not be dealt with specifically because the overwhelming majority of people uprooted from their homes in relation to Georgia‟s ethnic conflicts ended up being IDPs (close to 400,000 total current and returned) and less than 13,000 people were classified as refugees from these conflicts (UNHCR 2009a, par.
    [Show full text]
  • GEORGIA Summary of Amnesty International’S Concerns
    GEORGIA Summary of Amnesty International’s concerns Introduction Since Georgia’s early years of independence, marked by armed hostilities in various parts of the country as well as severe economic dislocation, the country has achieved a greater stability and taken various concrete steps towards building democratic institutions and reforming its judicial and legal systems. Recent moves welcomed by Amnesty International have included the appointment in October 1997 of a Public Defender, a new post introduced under the 1995 Constitution to monitor the defence of individual rights and freedoms, and complete abolition of the death penalty in November that year.1 Amnesty International remains concerned, however, that some of the guarantees and laws adopted to protect human rights are not fully implemented or observed. These areas of concern are described below. This paper also details alleged human rights violations in two areas of Georgia currently outside the de facto control of the Georgian authorities - Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Allegations of torture and ill-treatment in detention “Torture, inhumane, brutal or degrading treatment or punishment” is prohibited under the Georgian Constitution 2, which also forbids the physical or mental coercion of a detainee 3 and rules that evidence obtained by breaking the law is inadmissible and has no legal force.4 It is also a criminal offence for investigators and others to force a person to give testimony by use of threats or other illegal actions.5 These conditions are, of course, in addition to the guarantees against torture contained in the international standards to which Georgia is party. 1 See Concerns in Europe: July to December 1997, AI Index: EUR 01/01/98, February 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 WARID: Georgia (Abkhazia) 1992-1993 STARDATE: 18 August
    WARID: Georgia (Abkhazia) 1992-1993 STARDATE: 18 August 1992 ENDDATE: 1 December 1993 Related cases: Russia (Chechnya) 1994-1996 Last update: 15 October 2015 Authors: Julian Demmer, Johanna Speyer Reviewer: Günther Bächler Conflict overview Abkhazia used to be an Autonomous Republic within the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, part of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union fell and Georgia gained independence, eth- nic Abkhaz living in Abkhazia desired to either stay part of the Soviet Union or to become independent rather than join Georgia. However, Georgia – pursuant of nationalist policies under its first president Zviad Gamsakhurdia – considered Abkhazia an integral part of its territory and denied it even partial autonomy. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that the majority of Abkhazia’s inhabitants were ethnic Georgians (45.7%) compared to 17.8% Abkhaz.1 On 14 August 1992, the Georgian military deployed troops to Abkhazia. On account of its superior force and the element of surprise, it rapidly occupied large amounts of territory, including the capital Sukhumi. The Abkhaz – largely aided by fighters from the North Cauca- sus and Russia (after 2 October 1992) and supported by the ethnic Russian and Armenian mi- norities in Abkhazia – quickly gained superiority after winning the Battle of Gagra on 26 Sep- tember 1992. Thereafter, ceasefire agreements were forged and subsequently broken on vari- ous occasions. Following a surprise attack along two fronts on 16 September 1993, the Ab- khaz expelled all Georgian soldiers from Abkhazia. The Abkhazian victory led to its de facto independence. Since then, the conflict has been labeled ‘frozen’ as a return to large scale war- fare has not taken place.
    [Show full text]
  • History in the Context of the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict*
    BRILL Iran and the Caucasus 18 (2074) 289-374 History in the Context of the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict* George Hewitt School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London Abstract The 2014 disturbances in the Ukraine occasioned renewed discussion of the 2008 Russo- Georgian War. As the situation continued to worsen in eastern Ukraine, US President Obama announced on a visit to Poland at the start of June that the US and NATO would strengthen ties even with the non-NATO-member-states of the Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. This last has aspirations of membership, even though it does not control the re­ publics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which most of the world nevertheless regards as in­ tegral parts of Georgia. As long as the Georgian-Abkhazian dispute remains unresolved, there will be problems regarding inter-state relations with/for western Transcaucasia. And there can be no resolution of the Abkhazian issue without a proper understanding of Ab­ khazia’s history (both ancient and more recent); it was to try to ensure that the debate is not based on misconceptions, unsubstantiated assertions or even plain errors that this ar­ ticle was written, it is grounded on a consideration of a range of materials (from Agathias' Greek text through relevant discussions in Georgian, Russian and English). The toppling of Abkhazia’s democratically elected president (Aleksandr Ankvab) at the end of May 2014 makes the question of Abkhazia even more topical. Keywords Abkhazia, Georgia, Georgian-Abkhazian Dispute, Caucasian History Events during the spring of 2014 in the Ukraine (in particular Russia’s reacquisition of the Crimea) reawakened Western memories of the short Russo-Georgian war of August 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Discordant Neighbours Ii CONTENTS Eurasian Studies Library
    CONTENTS i Discordant Neighbours ii CONTENTS Eurasian Studies Library Editors-in-Chief Sergei Bogatyrev School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London Dittmar Schorkowitz Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle/Saale, Germany Board Members ildikó bellér-hann – paul bushkovitch – peter finke geoffrey hosking – mikhail khodarkovsky marlène laruelle – virginia martin david schimmelpenninck van der oye – willard sunderland VOLUME 3 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/esl CONTENTS iii Discordant Neighbours A Reassessment of the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-South Ossetian Conflicts By George Hewitt LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 Coveriv illustration: Whilst the map on the front-coverCONTENTS delineates the frontiers of the former Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, the areas in green represent the republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as recognised by Russia (26 August 2008) and five other UN member-states; red indicates the territory subject to the writ of the Georgian government and thus the reduced frontiers of today’s Republic of Georgia. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hewitt, B. G. Discordant neighbours : a reassessment of the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-South- Ossetian conflicts / by George Hewitt. pages cm. -- (Eurasian studies library, ISSN 1877-9484 ; volume 3) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-24892-2 (hardback : acid-free paper) -- ISBN 978-90-04-24893-9 (e-book) 1. Georgia (Republic)--Relations--Georgia--Abkhazia. 2. Georgia (Republic)--Relations--Georgia-- South Ossetia. 3. Abkhazia (Georgia)--Relations--Georgia (Republic) 4. South Ossetia (Georgia)-- Relations--Georgia (Republic) 5. Ethnic conflict--Georgia. 6. Georgia (Republic)--Ethnic relations. 7. Georgia (Republic)--History--1991- 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Danish Immigration Service
    Danish Immigration Service _______________________________________________ Report of the roving attaché mission to Georgia 16 November – 21 November 1998 Copenhagen, October 1999 Report on rowing attache mission to Georgia Contents 1.0. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1. BACKGROUND TO MISSION ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.2. PURPOSE OF MISSION............................................................................................................................. 4 2.0. GENERAL POLITICAL SITUATION IN GEORGIA ...................................................................... 5 2.1. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................ 5 2.2. POLITICAL SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3. POLITICAL PARTIES ................................................................................................................................6 2.4. ZVIADIST PARTIES................................................................................................................................... 6 2.5. ELECTIONS TO LOCAL COUNCILS ............................................................................................................ 7 2.6.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Elites in Georgia: Old and New
    Chapter 9 Power Elites in Georgia: Old and New Zurab Chiaberashvili and Gigi Tevzadze ‘Elites’, as referred to in this Chapters, follows Pareto1 and Mosca2, who defined the condition of elitism as the exercise of state control by those individuals with personal and/or group resources disproportionate to those necessary for management of the state. The terms used to describe these resources differ, but theories have in common the fact that such societies the management of a minority over the majority/masses, even in cases of democratic systems (Schumpeter3). Other classical theories about the state and society4, such as Marxism (struggle of classes) and pluralism (inter-balanced sources of authority), describe various types of authority and, accordingly, different social structures. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, newly-formed states began to emerge in the Soviet Union. New forces came to power within these states and their ‘new order’ moved in different directions. In this Chapter, we argue that due to different conditions in these new states, different social structures and state-society relations evolved and, accordingly, fulfilled different theories. The differing levels of legislative activity and the rules by which executive authority was administered both affected the eventual roles of elites. Our investigation focuses on how the state system in Georgia developed according to a theory of elites. Below we give concrete examples showing that, in Georgia, the legislation was developed according to the interests of strong elite groupings, based on the premise of permanently implanting 1 Pareto, The Rise and Fall of the Elites, (New Jersey, 1968). 2 Mosca.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics and Mediation 62 | Part 2: Politics and Mediation
    PART 2 Politics and Mediation 62 | Part 2: Politics and Mediation CHAPTER 3 The Schlaining Process Jonathan Cohen1 1 Director of Programmes, Conciliation Resources, London While I take sole responsibility for the content and views expressed in this article, the Schlaining Process itself was a collaborative endeavour. Martin Schumer and Norbert Ropers were critical in conceptualising what we called the “social infrastructure for peace”, the way a dialogue process could contribute to this and then making the process happen. Clem McCartney introduced an essential creativity and adaptive approach to the facilitation team. Colleagues at Conciliation Resources provided continuous and vital support – in particular Rachel Clogg, whose accompaniment of the process throughout was indispensable, latterly assuming a central facilitation role. Colleagues at the Berghof Centre were crucial to developing the process – in particular Oliver Wolleh and Antje Buehler, who acted as process observers, feeding ideas into the facilitation and undertaking support activities. A number of non-governmental donors and governments funded the process and the latter provided support in facilitating participant travel (especially the governments of Austria, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom). Representatives of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) provided invaluable insights, as did colleagues from a number of other initiatives – Paula Garb, Bruno Coppieters, Walter Kaufmann, Gevorg Ter-Gabrielyan and Magdalena Frichova. The participants and many political and civic actors in their respective communities provided challenge, critique and support. Above all, the process would not have happened without Manana Gurgulia, Paata Zakareishvili, Liana Kvarchelia and Arda Inal- Ipa, whose courage and commitment to change the way their societies resolve conflicts was and remains inspirational.
    [Show full text]
  • “Frozen Conflicts” in Europe Anton Bebler (Ed.)
    “Frozen conflicts” in Europe Anton Bebler (ed.) “Frozen conflicts” in Europe Barbara Budrich Publishers Opladen • Berlin • Toronto 2015 An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libraries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access for the public good. The Open Access ISBN for this book is 978-3-8474-0428-6. More information about the initiative and links to the Open Access version can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org © 2015 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0. (CC- BY-SA 4.0) It permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you share under the same license, give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ © 2015 Dieses Werk ist beim Verlag Barbara Budrich GmbH erschienen und steht unter der Creative Commons Lizenz Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Diese Lizenz erlaubt die Verbreitung, Speicherung, Vervielfältigung und Bearbeitung bei Verwendung der gleichen CC-BY-SA 4.0-Lizenz und unter Angabe der UrheberInnen, Rechte, Änderungen und verwendeten Lizenz. This book is available as a free download from www.barbara-budrich.net (https://doi.org/10.3224/84740133). A paperback version is available at a charge. The page numbers of the open access edition correspond with the paperback edition.
    [Show full text]
  • Organized Crime and Corruption in Georgia
    Organized Crime and Corruption in Georgia Georgia is one of the most corrupt and crime-ridden nations of the former Soviet Union. In the Soviet period, Georgians played a major role in organized crime groups and the shadow economy operating throughout the Soviet Union, and in the post-Soviet period, Georgia continues to be an important source of inter- national crime and corruption. Important changes have been made since the Rose Revolution in Georgia to address the organized crime and pervasive corruption. This book, based on extensive original research, surveys the most enduring aspects of organized crime and corruption in Georgia and the most important reforms since the Rose Revolution. Endemic crime and corruption had a devastating effect on government and everyday life in Georgia, spurring widespread popular discontent that culminated with the Rose Revolution in 2003. Some of the hopes of the Rose Revolution have been realized, though major challenges lie ahead as Georgia confronts deep-seated crime and corruption issues that will remain central to political, economic, and social life in the years to come. Louise Shelley is a Professor in the School of International Service of Amer- ican University. She is the founder and director of the Terrorism, Transna- tional Crime and Corruption Center (Traccc). She specializes in transnational crime, the relationship between terrorism and transnational crime, human trafficking and smuggling. Her particular regional focus is the former Soviet Union. She is the author of Policing Soviet Society (Routledge, 1996), and has published numerous articles and book chapters on different aspects of crime, corruption and terrorism. Erik R.
    [Show full text]