DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing Human Rights Protection in Eastern European Disputed and Conflict Entities Report from the Fidh Regional Seminar

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessing Human Rights Protection in Eastern European Disputed and Conflict Entities Report from the Fidh Regional Seminar ASSESSING HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION IN EASTERN EUROPEAN DISPUTED AND CONFLICT ENTITIES REPORT FROM THE FIDH REGIONAL SEMINAR Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, September 2014 / N°638a Map of Eastern European Disputed and Conflict Entities Cover photo: Soldiers take part in exercises with the Operational group of Russian Forces in the Transnistrian region of Moldova, 2012. Credit: Sergey Kuznecov/RIA Novosti 2 / Titre du rapport – FIDH INTRODUCTION ---------------------------------------------------- 5 The FIDH regional seminar and its objectives ---------------------------------- 5 Historical and geopolitical context ------------------------------------------ 7 I. CHARACTERISING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN DISPUTED ENTITIES AND CHALLENGES TO THEIR PROTECTION AND PROMOTION ----------- 10 1.1. Main types of human rights violations ----------------------------------- 10 1.1.1. Right to citizenship ----------------------------------------------- 10 1.1.2. Freedom of movement --------------------------------------------- 11 1.1.3. Rights to life and security ------------------------------------------- 13 1.1.4. Violations of economic and social rights --------------------------------- 14 Right to an adequate standard of living ----------------------------------- 14 Right to health ---------------------------------------------------- 17 Right to education ------------------------------------------------- 17 1.1.5. Lack of an enabling environment for the civil society ------------------------ 18 Freedom of speech ------------------------------------------------- 18 Freedom of association ---------------------------------------------- 19 1.2. Legal frameworks and judicial systems in disputed territories -------------------- 21 1.2.1. Ineffective judicial systems ----------------------------------------- 21 1.2.2. The limited role of Ombudsmen -------------------------------------- 23 1.2.3. Torture and ill-treatment in the administration of Justice ---------------------- 25 Moving forward on human rights in disputed entities -------------------------- 26 II. THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY’S RESPONSE --------------------- 28 2.1. Council of Europe ------------------------------------------------- 29 Legal and political commitments associated with the Council of Europe membership ---- 29 2.1.1 European Court of Human Rights -------------------------------------- 30 -------------- 30 ---------------- 32 2.1.2. Other Council of Europe institutions ----------------------------------- 33 Committee of Ministers ---------------------------------------------- 33 Secretary General of the Council of Europe -------------------------------- 34 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) ---------------------- 34 Commissioner for Human Rights --------------------------------------- 35 Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) ------------------------------ 36 Other bodies and policies --------------------------------------------- 38 2.2. Organisation for the Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) ----------------- 40 2.2.1. Peace negotiations ----------------------------------------------- 40 2.2.2. Field Missions, ODIHR and other institutions ----------------------------- 41 2.3. European Union (EU) ---------------------------------------------- 43 2.3.1. Striving for peace: high-level diplomacy, negotiations, mediation ---------------- 43 ------------- 46 2.4 United Nations ---------------------------------------------------- 47 Human rights treaty bodies ------------------------------------------- 48 Special Procedures and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights -------------- 49 Possibilities for creative solutions --------------------------------------- 50 2.5 The International Criminal Court --------------------------------------- 51 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS -------------------------------54 FIDH – Assessing Human Rights Protection in Eastern European Conflict and Disputed Entities / 3 List of Abbreviations ABL Administrative Boundary Line CAT UN Committee Against Torture CERD UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination CPT Committee for the Protection of Torture of the Council of Europe CoE Council of Europe ECHR European Convention on Human Rights ECtHR European Court of Human Rights EU European Union EUBAM EU Border Assistance Mission EUMM European Union Monitoring Mission EUSR European Union Special Representative HCNM High Commissioner on National Minorities of the OSCE ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross IDP Internally Displaced Person IPRM Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation OSCE Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe SNTD Status Neutral Travel Documents UN United Nations UNCHR United Nations Commission on Human Rights UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNSR United Nations Special Rapporteur UPR Universal Periodic Review 4 / Assessing Human Rights Protection in Eastern European Conflict and Disputed Entities – FIDH “ Human rights do not have any borders. It is vital to address underlying human rights issues in disputed territories, regardless of the political recognition or the legal status of a territory.” INTRODUCTION The FIDH regional seminar and its objectives In April 2014, FIDH organised a two-day seminar on Assessing Human Rights Protection in Eastern European Disputed Entities: Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Crimea de facto states, Crimea has formed a de facto part of Russia since its annexation on 21 March 2014. However, these human rights enjoyment of their citizens. This is the issue that formed the principle focus of FIDH’s April seminar. have developed their own legislative and executive powers, electing presidents (de facto- de facto part of that state. Despite this, under international law, the de jure authorities of these human rights violations that take place there. As the de jure authorities have no real leverage over the de facto authorities, expecting the former to improve the human rights situation in such disputed territory is unrealistic. However, necessary human rights conventions in their own right, rendering those persons under their - ties may unilaterally choose to apply certain international covenants and conventions in such FIDH – Assessing Human Rights Protection in Eastern European Conflict and Disputed Entities / 5 Propaganda in Tiraspol stating: Our strength is unity with Russia. – Credit: Robert B. Fishman/ Picture-Alliance/AFP instances.1 International organisations are wary of engaging with de facto authorities for fear de facto authorities status of some geographical entities – and the legal and institutional vacuum they create – lead to a situation where individuals see their rights unprotected. Nevertheless, this is a situation human rights defenders and practitioners from the disputed entities in question and the coun- 1. For example, in 1992 the Supreme Council of Transnistria declared that the International Covenant on Civil and Political (See: FIDH 2013 Report, Torture and ill-treatment in Moldova, ICCPR, the ICESCR, the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and certain protocols to these conventions (information received from the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Ossetia, Murat Kusmitch 6 / Assessing Human Rights Protection in Eastern European Conflict and Disputed Entities – FIDH individuals with a platform to meet, share experiences and challenges, and look for strategies to improve human rights protection in disputed entities.2 contains an overview and analysis of main human rights violations at issue in these territo- community. Finally, Part III contains recommendations directed at international organisations, de facto authorities, de jure authorities and independent civil society organisations at entity, national and international levels. aims to focus attention on selected themes. It is hoped that this will promote more human rights- - Historical and geopolitical context The disputed entities in Eastern Europe are a direct result of the former Soviet Union’s stra- 3, whilst others Russia’s role in fomenting and perpetuating the existence of these entities was and remains helping them to politically and military maintain at least partial effective control over the terri- tory of the newly proclaimed states. As these entities went on to proclaim their independence de factode jure in Armenia. Renewed escalation of violence is a permanent threat. 2. Discussions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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/Abkhazia
    HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH ARMS PROJECT HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/HELSINKI March 1995 Vol. 7, No. 7 GEORGIA/ABKHAZIA: VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR AND RUSSIA'S ROLE IN THE CONFLICT CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................5 EVOLUTION OF THE WAR.......................................................................................................................................6 The Role of the Russian Federation in the Conflict.........................................................................................7 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................................................8 To the Government of the Republic of Georgia ..............................................................................................8 To the Commanders of the Abkhaz Forces .....................................................................................................8 To the Government of the Russian Federation................................................................................................8 To the Confederation of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus...........................................................................9 To the United Nations .....................................................................................................................................9 To the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe..........................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing the Russian Way of War Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia
    Analyzing the Russian Way of War Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia Lionel Beehner A Contemporary Battlefield Assessment Liam Collins by the Modern War Institute Steve Ferenzi Robert Person Aaron Brantly March 20, 2018 Analyzing the Russian Way of War: Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Chapter I – History of Bad Blood ................................................................................................................ 13 Rose-Colored Glasses .............................................................................................................................. 16 Chapter II – Russian Grand Strategy in Context of the 2008 Russia-Georgia War ................................... 21 Russia’s Ends ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Russia’s Means ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Russia’s Ways .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Wars in Georgia: Corruption Breeds Violence Pavel K
    7 Civil wars in Georgia: corruption breeds violence Pavel K. Baev Introduction incredibly rich and uniquely complicated case for the analysis of modern civil wars. It is a newly independent state that appeared Gwith the collapse of the USSR, but it also has a long history of statehood. It is a relatively small state, but it occupies a key geopolitical crossroads which has acquired strategic importance with the new development of hydrocarbon resources in the Caspian area. Its population is small and declining but the ethnic composition, cultural and religious traditions are extremely diverse. From the moment that Georgia restored its independence, it has found itself engulfed by political violence organised along several separate but criss-crossing tracks, with destabilising impulses spreading unchecked. In 1992–93, Georgia came breath- takingly close to collapsing as yet another ‘failed state’, however, all major violent clashes had terminated by the end of 1993. Despite serious international efforts to assist peace processes and internal reforms, to date none of the conflicts has been resolved, generating occasional skirmishes and, more importantly, significant uncertainty regarding Georgia’s ability to survive as an independent state. It is obvious that the civil wars in Georgia in 1990–93 erupted as a conse- quence of the break-up of the USSR;1 however, in most Soviet constituent repub- lics the inevitable destabilisation resulting from that cataclysm did not take such violent forms. Many regions in Central Asia (the Fergana valley), in the North Caucasus (Dagestan, see Chapter 6 in this volume) and in Georgia itself (Ajariya) had explosive combinations of risk factors but remained relatively peaceful.
    [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]
  • Russia, NATO, and Black Sea Security for More Information on This Publication, Visit
    Russia, NATO, and Black Sea Security Russia, NATO, C O R P O R A T I O N STEPHEN J. FLANAGAN, ANIKA BINNENDIJK, IRINA A. CHINDEA, KATHERINE COSTELLO, GEOFFREY KIRKWOOD, DARA MASSICOT, CLINT REACH Russia, NATO, and Black Sea Security For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RRA357-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0568-5 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: Cover graphic by Dori Walker, adapted from a photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Weston Jones. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface The Black Sea region is a central locus of the competition between Russia and the West for the future of Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conflict in Abkhazia: National Projects and Political Circumstances
    Chapter 2 The Conflict in Abkhazia: National Projects and Political Circumstances Ghia Nodia There are many different ways in which to contextualize - and explain - a conflict like the one in Abkhazia. In some cases pre-existent ("ancient") ethnic hatred, previously kept in check by an outside power but liberated by democratization, is seen as the cause of all the trouble; others see the conflict as a minority's reaction to an assault by a majority's nationalism; while instrumentalists prefer to look for elites who manipulate ethnic sentiments in their particular ("group") interests: once these interests have been exposed, the puzzle of the conflict may be considered solved. Still others tend to reduce the problem to a conspiracy by an outside imperial power which decided to play the divide et impera card once again. I believe that all the above factors were valid (to different degrees, of course), but that they could do no more than encourage a conflict which had its root causes elsewhere. In my view, the conflict in Abkhazia is a conflict of political modernization. In the modern era, ethnic groups find themselves in a world where the political map is increasingly defined by nation-states rather than multi-ethnic empires, and where political power is legitimized by the will of peoples/nations rather than divine right of monarchs. In this new world, ethnic groups feel that they have to define their own political status as well. Empires may acquire the policies of "official nationalism", that is, they may try to assimilate minority populations
    [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]
  • Abstract Autonomy in Georgia's Ajaria Region
    ABSTRACT AUTONOMY IN GEORGIA’S AJARIA REGION: ITS BENEFIT FOR THE STATE AND HOW IT HAS EVOLVED SINCE THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION by Michael James Browne This thesis asks how Ajarian autonomy has evolved since the collapse of the Soviet Union and inquires as to why autonomy remains necessary for the Georgian state. I construct a framework from scholarly literature on separatism, integration, and autonomy and how it shapes regional identity in Ajaria. This framework creates a basis to understand Ajaria’s history and how it has shaped its autonomy today. To answer my research question, I conducted a qualitative analysis by interviewing Georgian political and academic elites. Additionally I used secondary data and government documents. I argue that autonomy in Ajaria benefits from unusual circumstances and remains as a tool within the broader Georgian geopolitical discourse to help mend Georgia’s territorial issues. Second I argue that autonomy in Ajaria is protected by international treaties involving Georgia’s neighbors who have historically invested its interests in the region. Finally I argue that autonomy not only benefits Ajaria, but the rest of Georgia. AUTONOMY IN GEORGIA’S AJARIA REGION: ITS BENEFIT FOR THE STATE AND HOW IT HAS EVOLVED SINCE THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts by Michael James Browne Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2017 Advisor: Dr. Bruce D’Arcus Reader: Dr. Carl Dahlman Reader: Dr. Stanley Toops ©2017 Michael James Browne This thesis titled AUTONOMY IN GEORGIA’S AJARIA REGION: ITS BENEFIT FOR THE STATE AND HOW IT HAS EVOLVED SINCE THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION by Michael James Browne has been approved for publication by The College of Arts and Science and Department of Geography Advisor___________________________________________ (Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Armed Conflict in Georgia: a Case Study in Humanitarian Action and Peacekeeping
    Occasional Paper #21 ARMED CONFLICT IN GEORGIA: A CASE STUDY IN HUMANITARIAN ACTION AND PEACEKEEPING S. Neil MacFarlane, Larry Minear, and Stephen D. Shenfield i Occasional Papers is a series published by The Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies Brown University, Box 1970 2 Stimson Avenue Providence, RI 02912 Telephone: (401) 863-2809 Fax: (401) 863-1270 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Watson_Institute/ Publications/acrobat_pub.shtml Thomas J. Biersteker, Ph.D., Director Thomas G. Weiss, Ph.D., Associate Director Frederick F. Fullerton, Assistant Editor Amy M. Langlais, Staff Assistant Statements of fact or opinion are solely those of the authors; their publication does not imply endorsement by the Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies. Copyright © 1996 by the Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for Interna- tional Studies. All rights reserved under International and Pan American Convention. No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any other means, electronic or me- chanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information stor- age and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. All inquiries should be addressed to Occasional Papers, Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies. ii CONTENTS Preface ......................................................................................... v Executive Summary ................................................................. ix Acronyms.................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Private Military Companies: an Evolving Set of Tools in Russian Military Strategy
    WL KNO EDGE NCE ISM SA ER IS E A TE N K N O K C E N N T N I S E S J E N A 3 V H A A N H Z И O E P W O I T E D N E Z I A M I C O N O C C I O T N S H O E L C A I N M Z E N O T Russian Private Military Companies: An Evolving Set of Tools in Russian Military Strategy JUSTIN BRISTOW Major Justin Bristow is a Foreign Area Officer in the U.S. Army FOREIGN MILITARY STUDIES OFFICE Open Source, Foreign Perspective, Underconsidered/Understudied Topics Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited The Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, is an open source research organization of the U.S. Army. It was founded in 1986 as an innovative program that brought together military specialists and civilian academics to focus on military and security topics derived from unclassified, foreign media. Today FMSO maintains this research tradition of special insight and highly collaborative work by conducting unclassified research on foreign perspectives of defense and security issues that are understudied or unconsidered. FMSO has provided some editing, format, and graphics to this paper to conform to organizational standards. Academic conventions, source referencing, and citation style are those of the author. The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Abkhazia, Nagorno Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transnistria
    ProeliumProelium X VII (10) (5) (2016) (2013) 16143 -74- 178 THE BIRTH OF A (FAKE?) NATION AT THE AFTERMATH OF THE DECOMPOSITION OF USSR. THE UNSOLVED ISSUE OF POST-SOVIET ‘FROZEN CONFLICTS’ O NASCIMEntO DE UMA (FALSA?) NAÇÃO NO SEGUIMEntO DO DESMEnbRA- MEntO DA URSS. A QUESTÃO NÃO RESOLVIDA DOS CONFLITOS ‘CONGELADOS’ PÓS-SOVIÉTICOS Marco Marsili 1 Researcher, Center for International Studies (CEI-IUL) of the University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL) and Portuguese Military Academy and Research Center (CINAMIL). ABSTRACT This paper analyzes the situation of some states (Abkhazia, Nagorno Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transnistria), de facto independent after the dissolution of the USSR, which have been being in a limbo for 25 years, hovering between being considered ‘fake states’ and from getting the international legal status to which aspire. There is the problem of identifying the objective requirements for their largely recognition, which otherwise remains merely a discretionary choice of the other actors in the international society, based on purely political requirements and economic interests. In a world made up of states, which are the main actors on the international stage, how can these entities get the ‘certification’ of de jure sovereign states? Keywords: Frozen Conflict, Nationalism, International Community, International Law. RESUMO Este artigo analisa a situação de alguns Estados (Abkhazia, Nagorno Karabakh, Ossétia do Sul e Transnístria), de facto independentes depois da dissolução da URSS, que estão há cerca de 25 anos no limbo, oscilando entre ser considerados ‘Estados falsos’ e recebendo o status legal internacional a que aspiram. Existe o problema de identificar os requisitos objetivos para o seu reconhecimento, em grande parte, que de outra forma parece apenas uma escolha discricionária dos outros atores na comunidade internacional, com base em requisitos puramente políticos e interesses econômicos.
    [Show full text]