DOCSLIB.ORG

Harvard University John F

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Harvard University John F HARVARD UNIVERSITY JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT Caspian Studies Program FEDERALIZATION OF FOREIGN RELATIONS: DISCUSSING ALTERNATIVES FOR THE GEORGIAN- ABKHAZ CONFLICT By Bruno Coppieters, Tamara Kovziridze, and Uwe Leonardy Working Paper Series, No.2 October 2003 Federalization of Foreign Relations: Discussing Alternatives for the Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict Bruno Coppieters Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Tamara Kovziridze Researcher, Department of Political Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Uwe Leonardy Former Head of Division, Mission of Lower Saxony to the Federation of Germany Caspian Studies Program, 2003 Preface Dear Colleague, Georgia’s stability and security are essential factors to the success of the east-west corridor pipeline projects and the country’s economic development . Resolution of the secessionist conflicts affecting Georgia is vital to ensuring the state’s security and regional prosperity. Enclosed is a Caspian Studies Program Working Paper that addresses potential models of federalization that could encompass the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This paper focuses on the specific topic of the consequences of the various federation models for the foreign policymaking process. This paper is a very detailed study geared toward the specialist focusing on the conflicts affecting Georgia, as well as the student of conflict resolution and federation who is interested in studying the theoretical implications of the Georgian case. This paper is based on extensive field research conducted by the authors, Bruno Coppieters, Tamara Kovziridze, and Uwe Leonardy. In preparation of this paper, they discussed these federation models with Georgian and Abkhaz officials, politicians, scholars, journalists, and representatives of the nongovernmental organization (NGO) community, and this paper reflects those discussions. The paper is also intended to stimulate discussion among Georgians, Abkhaz, and South Ossetians. The results of these discussions may be helpful in optimally resolving their conflicts. Regards, Brenda Shaffer, Ph.D. Research Director Caspian Studies Program Federalization of Foreign Relations Federalization of Foreign Relations: • Discussing Alternatives for the Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict• By Bruno Coppieters, Tamara Kovziridze, and Uwe Leonardy Since its declaration of independence on April 1991, Georgia’s sovereignty has been challenged by civil war and by secession attempts on the part of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Negotiations on the reintegration of these two entities through federalization have failed. The Russian Federation, the United Nations (UN), and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) in Europe were involved in a series of negotiations on a federal division of powers between Georgia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, but these negotiations did not achieve practical results. The positions between the Georgian government and the Abkhaz authorities concerning the status of Abkhazia have been moving even further apart. Negotiations between the Georgian government and the authorities of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been focused thus far on the theoretical nature of sovereignty and the distinction between federation and confederation. They have not included any concrete views on institution building. This paper makes an attempt to go beyond these abstract discussions by presenting two possible models of a federalization of Georgia that would include Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It analyzes the practical consequences that a federal model of government would have on foreign policymaking. The authors of this paper have discussed these federation models with Georgian and Abkhaz officials, politicians, scholars, journalists, and representatives of the nongovernmental organization (NGO) community.1 This working paper reflects some of the results of those discussions. The following paper received the financial support of the European Union’s TACIS (Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States) Programme, the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. We want to thank the members of the Caucasian Institute for Peace, Development and Democracy for their support in the preparation of this paper. We are further thankful to Brenda Shaffer, Michael Waller, David Darchiashvili, Irakli Laitadze, Paula Garb, Alexander Kukhianidze, Stéphane Cools, Herbert Tombeur, Ketevan Tsikhelashvili, John Grennan, and Susan Lynch for their comments to this paper. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the European Commission, TACIS Programme, or any other organization that supported the project. 1 The first discussion took place on November 4–15, 2000. The two federal options of foreign policymaking were discussed in Tbilisi (by the three co-authors) and Sukhum(i), the capital of Abkhazia, (by Bruno Coppieters and Uwe Leonardy). Bruno Coppieters had further discussions on this paper with Georgian and Abkhaz experts on the seminar “State-Legal Aspects of the Settlement of the Conflict,” organized by the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) in Sukhum(i) on February 12– 13, 2001, with the participation of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). Coppieters was one of the experts for the Venice Commission. Kovziridze and Coppieters also had the opportunity to present a summary of this paper to Georgian journalists, officials, and politicians at the conference on “Human Rights and Regional Cooperation in the Caucasus: the Role of Georgia,” organized in Rome by the Istituto Affari Internazionali (Rome), the Tbilisi 2 Federalization of Foreign Relations The two constitutional models presented in this paper are based on the normative preference for a federation over a confederation. This preference is based on a number of observations. Conflicts within a confederation are ultimately resolved by the principle that each state retains supreme authority over its own affairs and may take decisions unilaterally, or even withdraw from the common polity. This type of institutional inflexibility makes it difficult for confederations to address severe ethno-political conflicts, including the kinds of conflicts that exist in Abkhazia or South Ossetia. Federations, on the other hand, are able to create an institutional balance between the principles of national self-determination and territorial integrity that respects the equal rights of the constituent nations. Constitutions of federations allow for the realization of the right of national self-determination on both the domestic and international levels. The paper discusses, from these various perspectives, two models for a federalization of Georgia that would include Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and the consequences that these forms of government would have on foreign policymaking. It consists of nine sections: (1) Introduction (2) The current situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the conditions put forward by Georgian, Abkhaz, and Ossetian leaders for a future peace settlement. (3) The current situation of local and regional self-government in Georgia. (4) The different mechanisms of foreign policymaking in federations and confederations. (5) The different types of competences that need to be taken into account when designing a federation in order to avoid conflicts between federal levels as well as an analysis of their practical consequences. (6) Various forms of treaty-making and cross border cooperation in the European Union. (7) Descriptions of both an asymmetrical and a symmetrical model of federalization for Georgia that would include Abkhazia and South Ossetia and their characteristic forms of foreign policymaking. (8) Georgian and Abkhaz discussions about models of federation with the authors in 2 Tbilisi and Sukhum(i). School of Political Studies, and the Center for European Policy Studies (Brussels) on May 11–12, 2001. Parts of this draft have been discussed at the conference “The Development of Trans-border Cooperation Policies,” organized by the Georgian Parliament with the support of TACIS, Tbilisi, December 15, 2001, and at the conference “Federalism and Distribution of Powers in Abkhazia,” organized by the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, the Friedrich Ebert Fund in Georgia, and the Regional Institute of South Caucasus Security, Tbilisi, November 11–12, 2002. 2 The capital of Abkhazia is called Sukhumi by Georgians and Sukhum by Abkhaz. We write Sukhum(i). 3 Federalization of Foreign Relations (9) Conclusions and perspectives: an analysis of the opportunities that could emerge from the federalization of foreign policymaking in Georgia, including the possibilities of cross border cooperation. The main part of the paper is devoted to a comparison between two potential models of federalization of foreign policymaking. Its aim is to stimulate discussion between Georgian and Abkhaz scholars, officials, and political representatives on institutional mechanisms and models for a future peace settlement. This paper is not an attempt to present prefabricated solutions. Rather, it goes beyond the highly abstract discussions that have taken place until now on the basic principles of common state structures and focuses on the practical consequences that various federal choices may have on concrete policy issues in the field of foreign relations.3 This paper is not designed to analyze how federations have to address the fears and uncertainties that still remain
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Russian Hybrid Tactics in Georgia
    Russian Hybrid Tactics in Georgia Niklas Nilsson SILK ROAD PAPER January 2018 Russian Hybrid Tactics in Georgia Niklas Nilsson © Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program – A Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center American Foreign Policy Council, 509 C St NE, Washington D.C. Institute for Security and Development Policy, V. Finnbodavägen 2, Stockholm-Nacka, Sweden www.silkroadstudies.org “Russian Hybrid Tactics in Georgia” is a Silk Road Paper published by the Central Asia- Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program, Joint Center. The Silk Road Papers Series is the Occasional Paper series of the Joint Center, and addresses topical and timely subjects. The Joint Center is a transatlantic independent and non-profit research and policy center. It has offices in Washington and Stockholm and is affiliated with the American Foreign Policy Council and the Institute for Security and Development Policy. It is the first institution of its kind in Europe and North America, and is firmly established as a leading research and policy center, serving a large and diverse community of analysts, scholars, policy-watchers, business leaders, and journalists. The Joint Center is at the forefront of research on issues of conflict, security, and development in the region. Through its applied research, publications, research cooperation, public lectures, and seminars, it functions as a focal point for academic, policy, and public discussion regarding the region. The opinions and conclusions expressed in this study are those of
    [Show full text]
  • BYZANTINE CAMEOS and the AESTHETICS of the ICON By
    BYZANTINE CAMEOS AND THE AESTHETICS OF THE ICON by James A. Magruder, III A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland March 2014 © 2014 James A. Magruder, III All rights reserved Abstract Byzantine icons have attracted artists and art historians to what they saw as the flat style of large painted panels. They tend to understand this flatness as a repudiation of the Classical priority to represent Nature and an affirmation of otherworldly spirituality. However, many extant sacred portraits from the Byzantine period were executed in relief in precious materials, such as gemstones, ivory or gold. Byzantine writers describe contemporary icons as lifelike, sometimes even coming to life with divine power. The question is what Byzantine Christians hoped to represent by crafting small icons in precious materials, specifically cameos. The dissertation catalogs and analyzes Byzantine cameos from the end of Iconoclasm (843) until the fall of Constantinople (1453). They have not received comprehensive treatment before, but since they represent saints in iconic poses, they provide a good corpus of icons comparable to icons in other media. Their durability and the difficulty of reworking them also makes them a particularly faithful record of Byzantine priorities regarding the icon as a genre. In addition, the dissertation surveys theological texts that comment on or illustrate stone to understand what role the materiality of Byzantine cameos played in choosing stone relief for icons. Finally, it examines Byzantine epigrams written about or for icons to define the terms that shaped icon production.
    [Show full text]
  • Federalism and the Soviet Constitution of 1977: Commonwealth Perspectives
    Washington Law Review Volume 55 Number 3 6-1-1980 Federalism and the Soviet Constitution of 1977: Commonwealth Perspectives William C. Hodge Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons Recommended Citation William C. Hodge, Federalism and the Soviet Constitution of 1977: Commonwealth Perspectives, 55 Wash. L. Rev. 505 (1980). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol55/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FEDERALISM AND THE SOVIET CONSTITUTION OF 1977: COMMONWEALTH PERSPECTIVES William C. Hodge* INTRODUCTION I. LEGAL NORMS AND ARBITRARY POWER IN THE 1977 CONSTITUTION: AN OVERVIEW OF SOVIET CONSTITUTIONALISM .................... 507 A. Soviet Constitutionalismand the Evolution of Socialist Society ....... 507 B. Rhetoric and Ideology .............................. 512 C. The Role of the Communist Party (CPSU) ............... 513 D. IndividualRights ........ .................... 517 II. FEDERALISM .................................... 519 A. The Characteristicsof Federalism................... 520 B. The Model of Soviet Federalism ................... 523 C. The Validity ofSoviet Federalism...... ................... 527 1. Marxist-Leninist Theory ....... ...................... 527 2. The Vocabulary of Soviet
    [Show full text]
  • Development Prospects of Tourist Passenger Shipping in the Polish Part of the Vistula Lagoon
    sustainability Article Development Prospects of Tourist Passenger Shipping in the Polish Part of the Vistula Lagoon Krystian Puzdrakiewicz * and Marcin Połom * Division of Regional Development, Faculty of Oceanography and Geography, University of Gda´nsk, 80-309 Gda´nsk,Poland * Correspondence: [email protected] (K.P.); [email protected] (M.P.) Abstract: The Vistula Lagoon is a cross-border area with high natural values and a developing market of tourist services. Passenger shipping is an important part of local tourism, but ship owners are insufficiently involved in planning processes and their views on creating shipping development are underrepresented. The article aims to compare the vision of the development of passenger shipping in the Polish part of the Vistula Lagoon between local governments creating the spatial policy and ship owners offering transport services. We have made an attempt to verify the development prospects. The collation of these visions was based primarily on the qualitative analysis of the content of planning and strategic documents (desk research method) and a survey conducted among all six ship owners. Thanks to the comparative analysis, it was possible to show similarities and differences and to indicate recommendations. The paper presents review of the available literature on the subject, thanks to which the research area was identified as unique in Europe. On the one hand, it is a valuable natural area, which is an important tourist destination, on the other hand, there are organizational and infrastructural limitations in meeting the needs of tourists. Then, field research was conducted, unpublished materials were collected, and surveys were conducted with the Citation: Puzdrakiewicz, K.; Połom, M.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Research Division Country Profile: Tajikistan, January 2007
    Library of Congress – Federal Research Division Country Profile: Tajikistan, January 2007 COUNTRY PROFILE: TAJIKISTAN January 2007 COUNTRY Formal Name: Republic of Tajikistan (Jumhurii Tojikiston). Short Form: Tajikistan. Term for Citizen(s): Tajikistani(s). Capital: Dushanbe. Other Major Cities: Istravshan, Khujand, Kulob, and Qurghonteppa. Independence: The official date of independence is September 9, 1991, the date on which Tajikistan withdrew from the Soviet Union. Public Holidays: New Year’s Day (January 1), International Women’s Day (March 8), Navruz (Persian New Year, March 20, 21, or 22), International Labor Day (May 1), Victory Day (May 9), Independence Day (September 9), Constitution Day (November 6), and National Reconciliation Day (November 9). Flag: The flag features three horizontal stripes: a wide middle white stripe with narrower red (top) and green stripes. Centered in the white stripe is a golden crown topped by seven gold, five-pointed stars. The red is taken from the flag of the Soviet Union; the green represents agriculture and the white, cotton. The crown and stars represent the Click to Enlarge Image country’s sovereignty and the friendship of nationalities. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Early History: Iranian peoples such as the Soghdians and the Bactrians are the ethnic forbears of the modern Tajiks. They have inhabited parts of Central Asia for at least 2,500 years, assimilating with Turkic and Mongol groups. Between the sixth and fourth centuries B.C., present-day Tajikistan was part of the Persian Achaemenian Empire, which was conquered by Alexander the Great in the fourth century B.C. After that conquest, Tajikistan was part of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, a successor state to Alexander’s empire.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of the Caucasus After the Second Chechen War
    CEPS Working Document No. 148 The Future of the Caucasus after the Second Chechen War Papers from a Brainstorming Conference held at CEPS 27-28 January 2000 Edited by Michael Emerson and Nathalie Tocci July 2000 A Short Introduction to the Chechen Problem Alexandru Liono1 Abstract The problems surrounding the Chechen conflict are indeed many and difficult to tackle. This paper aims at unveiling some of the mysteries covering the issue of so-called “Islamic fundamentalism” in Chechnya. A comparison of the native Sufi branch of Islam and the imported Wahhaby ideology is made, in order to discover the contradictions and the conflicts that the spreading of the latter inflicted in the Chechen society. Furthermore, the paper investigates the main challenges President Aslan Maskhadov was facing at the beginning of his mandate, and the way he managed to cope with them. The paper does not attempt to cover all the aspects of the Chechen problem; nevertheless, a quick enumeration of other factors influencing the developments in Chechnya in the past three years is made. 1 Research assistant Danish Institute of International Affairs (DUPI) 1 1. Introduction To address the issues of stability in North Caucasus in general and in Chechnya in particular is a difficult task. The factors that have contributed to the start of the first and of the second armed conflicts in Chechnya are indeed many. History, politics, economy, traditions, religion, all of them contributed to a certain extent to the launch of what began as an anti-terrorist operation and became a full scale armed conflict. The narrow framework of this presentation does not allow for an exhaustive analysis of the Russian- Chechen relations and of the permanent tensions that existed there during the known history of that part of North Caucasus.
    [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]
  • Oct. 6-12, 2020 Further Reproduction Or Distribution Is Subject to Original Copyright Restrictions
    Weekly Media Report –Oct. 6-12, 2020 Further reproduction or distribution is subject to original copyright restrictions. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…… EDUCATION: 1. Marine Corps’ Landmark PhD Program Celebrates First Technical Graduate (Marines.mil 7 Oct 20) (Navy.mil 7 Oct 20) (NPS.edu 7 Oct 20) (Military Spot 12 Oct 20) … Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Taylor Vencill When the Marine Corps developed its new Doctor of Philosophy Program (PHDP), the service recognized the need for a cohort of strategic thinkers and technical leaders capable of the applied research and innovative thinking necessary to develop warfighter advantage in the modern, cognitive age. The Technical version of the program, PHDP-T, just celebrated its first graduate, with Maj. Ezra Akin completing his doctorate in operations research from the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), Sept. 25. INDUSTRY PARTNERS: 2. Denver Startup Kayhan Space Lands $600k Seed Round for Collision Avoidance Software (ColoradoInno 6 Oct 20) … Nick Greenhalgh Much like on city streets, space traffic can be hectic and near misses are becoming all too common. Just last year, an in-orbit European Space Agency satellite was forced to perform an evasive maneuver to avoid a collision with a SpaceX satellite. Kayhan Space currently provides satellite collision assessment and avoidance support to the Naval Postgraduate School and BlackSky missions. FACULTY: 3. Will Armenia and Azerbaijan Fight to the Bitter End? [AUDIO INTERVIEW] (English News Highlights 5 Oct 20) Armenia and Azerbaijan accuse each other of attacking civilian areas as the deadliest fighting in the South Caucasus region for more than 25 years continues. KAN's Mark Weiss spoke with South Caucasus expert Brenda Shaffer, formerly a professor at Haifa University and now at the US Navy Postgraduate University.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Quiet Annexation of South Ossetia
    FEBRUARY 2015 Russia’s quiet annexation of south ossetia By Maia Otarashvili Maia Otarashvili is an FPRI Research Associate and Program Coordinator for FPRI's Project on Democratic Transitions. Her research has focused on democratic consolidation and regression in the EU-11 countries, as well as on fragile hybrid states such as Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and other former USSR states in the Black Sea and Caucasus region. Maia holds an MA in Globalization, Development and Transition from the University of Westminster in London, with emphasis on post-authoritarian transitions. All Georgian- and Russian-language material has been translated by the author. Russia and South Ossetia have ironed out final details of a “Treaty of Alliance and Integration.” The treaty was drafted in December 2014 and on January 31, 2015 Georgian news agencies reported that the leader of South Ossetia, Leonid Tibilov, had sent the finalized document back to Moscow. On February 18th Russia and South Ossetia signed a precursor to this treaty, called the “treaty on the state border.” According to Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the broader treaty is still under consideration, but “the approval process won’t take long.” Once the Treaty of Alliance and Integration is signed, it is set to be implemented in a matter of three to six months, allowing Russia to absorb South Ossetia. This comes less than three months after the signing of the Russia-Abkhazia treaty of a similar nature, although it is not as comprehensive. The international community and the Georgian government have condemned Russia’s actions and will not recognize either of the treaties but that is not likely to stem Putin’s expansionist policies – if Crimea is any guide.
    [Show full text]
  • Peasant Oaths, Furious Icons and the Quest for Agency: Tracing
    15 praktyka teoretyczna 1(39)/2021 } LUKA NAKHUTSRISHVILI (ORCID: 0000-0002-5264-0064) Peasant Oaths, Furious Icons and the Quest for Agency: Tracing Subaltern Politics in Tsarist Georgia on the Eve of the 1905 Revolution Part I: The Prose of the Intelligentsia and Its Peasant Symptoms This two-part transdisciplinary article elaborates on the autobiographical account of the Georgian Social-Democrat Grigol Uratadze regarding the oath pledged by protesting peasants from Guria in 1902. The oath inaugurated their mobilization in Tsarist Georgia in 1902, culminating in full peasant self-rule in the “Gurian Republic” by 1905. The study aims at a historical-anthropological assessment of the asymmetries in the alliance formed by peasants and the revolutionary intelligentsia in the wake of the oath as well as the tensions that crystallized around the oath between the peasants and Tsarist officials. In trying to recover the traces of peasant politics in relation to multiple hegemonic forces in a modernizing imperial borderland, the article invites the reader to reconsider the existing assumptions about historical agency, linguistic conditions of subjectivity, and the relation- ship between politics and the material and customary dimen- sions of religion. The ultimate aim is to set the foundations for a future subaltern reading of the practices specific to the peasant politics in the later “Gurian Republic”. The first part of the article starts with a reading of Uratadze’s narration of the 1902 inaugural oath “against the grain”. Keywords: agency, intelligentsia, oath, Orthodox icons, peasantry, political the- ology, Russian Empire, secular studies, speech-act, subaltern praktyka teoretyczna 1(39)/2021 16 I.1.
    [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]
  • A Captive Island Kaliningrad Between MOSCOW and the EU
    41 A CAPTIVE ISLAND KAlInIngRAD bETWEEn MOSCOW AnD ThE EU Jadwiga Rogoża, Agata Wierzbowska-Miazga, Iwona Wiśniewska NUMBER 41 WARSAW JULY 2012 A CAPTIVE ISLAND KALININGRAD BETWEEN MOSCOW AND THE EU Jadwiga Rogoża, Agata Wierzbowska-Miazga, Iwona Wiśniewska © Copyright by Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia / Centre for Eastern Studies CONTENT EDITORS Adam Eberhardt, Marek Menkiszak EDITORS Katarzyna Kazimierska, Anna Łabuszewska TRANSLATION Ilona Duchnowicz CO-OPERATION Jim Todd GRAPHIC DESIGN PARA-BUCH CHARTS, MAP, PHOTOGRAPH ON COVER Wojciech Mańkowski DTP GroupMedia PuBLISHER Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia Centre for Eastern Studies ul. Koszykowa 6a, Warsaw, Poland Phone + 48 /22/ 525 80 00 Fax: + 48 /22/ 525 80 40 osw.waw.pl ISBN 978–83–62936–13–7 Contents KEY POINTS /5 INTRODUCTION /8 I. KALININGRAD OBLAST: A SUBJECT OR AN OBJECT OF THE F EDERATION? /9 1. THE AMBER ISLAND: Kaliningrad today /9 1.1. Kaliningrad in the legal, political and economic space of the Russian Federation /9 1.2. Current political situation /13 1.3. The current economic situation /17 1.4. The social situation /24 1.5. Characteristics of the Kaliningrad residents /27 1.6. The ecological situation /32 2. AN AREA UNDER SPECIAL SURVEILLANCE: Moscow’s policy towards the region /34 2.1. The policy of compensating for Kaliningrad’s location as an exclave /34 2.2. The policy of reinforcing social ties with the rest of Russia /43 2.3. The policy of restricted access for foreign partners to the region /45 2.4. The policy of controlling the region’s co-operation with other countries /47 3.
    [Show full text]