DOCSLIB.ORG

Land Violation of Children's Rights in Gali District

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Land Violation of Children's Rights in Gali District No Future Violation of Children’s Rights Land in Gali District Contacts E [email protected] W http://truth-hounds.org/en/ https://www.facebook.com/truthhounds E [email protected] W https://www.nofutureland.org/ https://www.facebook.com/Nofutureland/ Contents Executive Summary 4 Introduction 5 Sources of Information and Methodology of Documentation 7 The Rights of Children to Life and Health 8 Right to Education 12 Freedom of Movement 18 Legal Qualifications 23 The Right to Education 24 Freedom of Movement 25 The Right of Children to Life and Health 26 Conclusion and Recommendations 28 Authors of the Report 29 4 Executive Summary This report presents compelling evidence of human rights violations in occupied Abkhazian territories, specifically in Gali district, a predominantly Georgian part close to the boundary line. As for the time of the publication of this report, the people living in Gali are lacking the opportunity to cross the demarcation line without restrictions, they become victims of arbitrary detentions and illegal imprisonment, have limited accessibility to health services and are forced to apply for an “Abkhazian Passports” to get to work, to travel within and out of the region, etc. The right to education of children living in Gali is also violated. Their right and opportunity to education in their native Georgian language are deprived because Georgian was replaced with Russian at all schools of lower and upper zones of Gali in 2015. Children are the victims of “Russification”, ethnic discrimination and suppression of their Georgian identity. The amount of children crossing the boundary line on a daily basis, to study at schools on Tbilisi-controlled territory, is decreasing with every year. The state of children’s rights in the occupied territories is alarming. Introduction 5 This report focuses on the right to education in native language, freedom of movement (detention of minors), right of children to life and health, and socio-economic situation in Gali, the southernmost district of Georgian region of Abkhazia where, predominantly, ethnic Georgians have settled. The facts that this report refers to, occurred after the administrative border closures in 2016-2017. Abkhazia as well as another region Tskhinvali/South Ossetia has been occupied by Russian Federation for 25 years now. People living in occupied territories are facing several human rights violations including arbitrary detentions, restrictions of the freedom of movement, lack of proper protective mechanisms, limited access to services, ethnic discrimination and suppression of Georgian identity. “Russification” policy encompasses the prohibition of studying and communicating in the native language, low quality of education, ethnic discrimination and suppression of Georgian identity, war propaganda, dishonest treatment, problems connected to ofcial do cumentation, lo w qu ality an d li mited ac cessibility an d availability of health services, detention of minors etc. These are the issues children face on a daily basis in Gali district. All the above mentioned factors impose a negative impact on the children’s psyche, free will and mental development. The current human rights situation in the occupied territories of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region have largely been shaped by the conflicts of the 1990s and the ensuing developments. The conflicts h ave a fected ev ery as pect of th e people’s life there. In spite of the fact that armed conflict has ended 25 years ago in Abkhazia and eight years ago in Tskhinvali region, creeping occupation is an ongoing process and human rights issues continue to pose a serious challenges for local communities. Russian occupation forces continue to mark the boundary line with artificial barriers on a daily basis resulting in major implications on the inhabitants’ freedom of movement. Consequently, inhabitants of Gali become deprived of access to qualitative medical and educational facilities situated on the Georgian-controlled territories. Simultaneously, authorities of Abkhazia enforce the regulation that further limits the use of Georgian language at Gali schools and study of Georgian history. Such moves are intended to eliminate the Georgian identity of the residents in Gali. Abkhazia is a self-proclaimed republic, ruled by a Russian-backed government after the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict in 1992–1993. G eorgian authorities lost de facto control over Abkhazia. Though Abkhazia unilaterally declared independence in 1999, no international actor recognized it at that time. Russian Federation recognized the independence of Abkhazia (and South Ossetia) in the wake of the August 2008 war. Other countries namely Venezuela, Nicaragua, Nauru and in 2018, Syria followed suit. The European Union, together with the United States of America and the rest of the international community are supporting the territorial integrity of Georgia and do not recognize Abkhazia’s claim to independence. Ofcially, Tbilisi lacks the control over Abkhazia due to the unclear legal status and occupation. In addition, international human rights organizations have also limited access there. The ofce of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe High Commissioner for National Minorities (OSCE HCNM) and others could visit the region of Abkhazia without any restrictions prior to 2010. In that year the mission’s mandate was terminated as the result of a veto imposed by the Russian Federation. Issues in Gali district are among the most contentious in the Georgian-Abkhaz 6 context. Over the past two decades, people living in Gali are experiencing significant vulnerabilities. What makes situation in Gali even more sensitive and fragile is the fact that the territory of Gali, specifically the lower zone of the district, runs along the administrative boundary line (ABL). Gali residents face diferent problems connected to documentation, access to education, crossing the administrative boundary line through crossing points, access to health services. One of the resent cases that violated most of the above mentioned rights took place in January 2019 and is still ongoing during the editing period of this report. In the beginning of January, de facto authorities of Abkhazia declared quarantine due to reports H1N1 (Swine Flu), and people living on occupied territories can’t leave Abkhazia unless they are Enguri Hydro-Power Plant employees and persons with medical certificates. Certificates are issued by the Gali central hospital and they need to be confirmed by so-called State Security Service. People are standing in the queues for days to get this certificates, cross ABL and get medical services in Tbilisi-controlled hospitals even if they need emergency services. As Gali residents say: “You can cross the border unofcially if you will pay border guards, but cost is pretty high for people in difcult socio-economic situation”. Victims of this quarantine situation are students, who study in Tbilisi or Zugdidi. They were in Gali for New Year holidays and now can’t cross the ABL back, even though they have exams to pass. Gali residents say, that they don’t know exactly when the crossing points will be opened again.1 It’s not surprising that most of the children from Gali try to find their way to Tbilisi- controlled territories and continue to study and/or work in the capital city or in Zugdidi, but some of them are forced to stay in this “No Future Land”. 1 https://www.radiotavisupleba.ge/a/%E1%83%95%E1%83%98%E1%83%9C-%E1%83%93%E1%83%90- %E1%83%A0%E1%83%9D%E1%83%92%E1%83%9D%E1%83%A0-%E1%83%99%E1%83%95%E1%83%94% E1%83%97%E1%83%A1-%E1%83%94%E1%83%9C%E1%83%92%E1%83%A3%E1%83%A0%E1%83%98%E1 %83%A1-%E1%83%AE%E1%83%98%E1%83%93%E1%83%A1-%E1%83%99%E1%83%90%E1%83%A0%E1% 83%90%E1%83%9C%E1%83%A2%E1%83%98%E1%83%9C%E1%83%98%E1%83%A1-%E1%83%9E%E1%83 %98%E1%83%A0%E1%83%9D%E1%83%91%E1%83%94%E1%83%91%E1%83%A8%E1%83%98/29742026. html?fclid=IwAR3f5AyjmDk6SXE3xxDV0vqmCwHTs8b0GpQYVxKpgXXgtLD35rMKr6ddATo (last access 31.01.2019) Sources of Information and 7 Methodology of Documentation This report is intended to outline the findings of three Truth Hounds’ preliminary Fact-Finding-Missions which took place in Summer and early Autumn of 2018 into the possible violations of children rights. There is no complete data, nor quantitative surveys or statistic available to paint a realistic picture of children’s rights issues in occupied Abkhazia. While preparing the report, we mostly relied on data gathered by the Georgian government and the Ofce of the Public Defender of Georgia, which itself has no direct representation in Abkhazia. We also used the interviews with people living in the aficted area to gain a realistic picture of local trends and needs. Consequently, the report does not fully cover the range of problems and challenges that afect children in Gali. But it highlights important facts about violations, which Truth Hounds has managed to verify. Prior to these missions, desk research revealed the need for concrete evidence into the possible violations of children rights through interviews with directly affected residence of Gali district. An in-depth questionnaire was compiled as a result of the above mentioned desk research. During the fact-finding missions Truth Hounds conducted 56 interviews mostly with the people raised in Gali district who entered universities in Tbilisi and Zugdidi during the last two years. The evidence of violations presented in this report has been empirically documented by Truth Hounds through field missions and interviews, or collected from reliable sources. 8 The Rights of Children to Life and Health A problematic issue, for children living in occupied territories, are the underdeveloped medical services.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Freedom of Religion in Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Tskhinvali Region
    Freedom of Religion in Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Tskhinvali Region Brief prehistory Orthodox Christians living in Abkhazia and South Ossetia are considered by the Patriarchate of the Georgian Orthodox Church to be subject to its canonical jurisdiction. The above is not formally denied by any Orthodox Churches. Abkhazians demand full independence and imagine their Church also to be independent. As for South Ossetia, the probable stance of "official" Ossetia is to unite with Alanya together with North Ossetia and integrate into the Russian Federation, therefore, they do not want to establish or "restore" the Autocephalous Orthodox Church. In both the political and ecclesiastical circles, the ruling elites of the occupied territories do not imagine their future together with either the Georgian State or the associated Orthodox Church. As a result of such attitudes and Russian influence, the Georgian Orthodox Church has no its clergymen in Tskhinvali or Abkhazia, cannot manage the property or relics owned by it before the conflict, and cannot provide adequate support to the parishioners that identify themselves with the Georgian Orthodox Church. Although both Abkhazia and South Ossetia have state sovereignty unilaterally recognized by the Russian Federation, ecclesiastical issues have not been resolved in a similar way. The Russian Orthodox Church does not formally or officially recognize the separate dioceses in these territories, which exist independently from the Georgian Orthodox Church, nor does it demand their integration into its own space. Clearly, this does not necessarily mean that the Russian Orthodox Church is guided by the "historical truth" and has great respect for the jurisdiction of the Georgian Orthodox Church in these territories.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Council Distr.: General 18 July 2007
    United Nations S/2007/439 Security Council Distr.: General 18 July 2007 Original: English Report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia I. Introduction 1. The present report is submitted pursuant to Security Council resolution 1752 (2007) of 13 April 2007, by which the Security Council decided to extend the mandate of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) until 15 October 2007. It provides an update of the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia since my report of 3 April 2007 (S/2007/182). 2. My Special Representative, Jean Arnault, continued to lead the Mission. He was assisted by the Chief Military Observer, Major General Niaz Muhammad Khan Khattak (Pakistan). The strength of UNOMIG on 1 July 2007 stood at 135 military observers and 16 police officers (see annex). II. Political process 3. During the reporting period, UNOMIG continued efforts to maintain peace and stability in the zone of conflict. It also sought to remove obstacles to the resumption of dialogue between the Georgian and Abkhaz sides in the expectation that cooperation on security, the return of internally displaced persons and refugees, economic rehabilitation and humanitarian issues would facilitate meaningful negotiations on a comprehensive political settlement of the conflict, taking into account the principles contained in the document entitled “Basic Principles for the Distribution of Competences between Tbilisi and Sukhumi”, its transmittal letter (see S/2002/88, para. 3) and additional ideas by the sides. 4. Throughout the reporting period, my Special Representative maintained regular contact with both sides, as well as with the Group of Friends of the Secretary-General both in Tbilisi and in their capitals.
    [Show full text]
  • "Frozen" Human Rights in Abkhazia, Transdniestria, and the Donbas: the Role of the OSCE in a Shaky System of Internati
    In: IFSH (ed.), OSCE Yearbook 2017, Baden-Baden 2018, pp. 181-200. Lia Neukirch “Frozen” Human Rights in Abkhazia, Transdniestria, and the Donbas: The Role of the OSCE in a Shaky System of International Human Rights Protection Mechanisms Introduction The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1990 and 1991 led to the formation of several new countries with little or no previous experience of statehood. The national movements in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine combined their struggle to “escape” the Soviet Union with ambitious pro-Western agendas. At the same time, these struggles over the political direction of the newly created states – whether more towards Moscow or closer to Europe – have been accompanied by powerful secessionist movements that have challenged the territorial integrity of the young states themselves. While the latter were fighting to create their own fragile democracies, separatist military groups carved out the secessionist territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Trans- dniestria, and, most recently, the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) and the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) in the Donbas region of Ukraine, profiting from political and socio-economic instability and augmenting their power with Russian support to create de facto entities. Both Abkhazia and Transdniestria are considered “classic” frozen con- flicts, while the recent conflict in Donbas is not yet openly referred to as such; the level of violence is still too high, and the political magnitude of the conflict is considered too great for open acceptance, with the result that it might remain unresolved for a prolonged period of time. Nonetheless, it is highly probable that Luhansk and Donetsk will follow the same path as the older frozen conflicts, becoming “another frozen conflict”,1 as President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation declared on 13 November 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Terms of Reference (Tor) for Final Evaluation Consultancy
    Terms of Reference (ToR) for Final Evaluation Consultancy Project Title: Promoting integrated approaches to animal health and plant protection in Abkhazia Country: Abkhazia Georgia Project Number: 8351-00/2017 Name of Partner Organisation: Action Against Hunger 1. Introduction/Background The project “Promoting integrated approaches to animal health and plant protection in Abkha- zia” has been implemented by Action Against Hunger since October 2017 and will be com- pleted at the end of March 2020. The total budget is 780,000 Euros which is co-financed by the Austrian Development Cooperation. The intended impact of the project is that it will con- tribute towards the reduction of rural poverty in Abkhazia through improved agricultural pro- duction and increased agricultural productivity specifically focusing on those farming commu- nities working in arboriculture and livestock farming, with a focus on south-eastern and central Abkhazia (Gali, Tkvarcheli, Ochamchire, Gulripshi and Sukhumi Districts). The economy of the south-eastern region of Abkhazia is predominately focused on agricultural production; however, the majority of farm holdings are small and non-commercial, with the average farmer holding approximately 0.5 hectares of land. Almost every household has to work on a wide number of agricultural activities to ensure the food security of the household. The scope of activities focuses primarily on arboricultural production, mainly on hazelnut and citruses, but also apples, persimmons and kiwis, livestock farming (specifically, cattle rearing), some potato and corn production, and market gardening, which are primarily for self-consump- tion, with any surplus sold locally. Most products are sold directly by the farmers at the market or to traders who come to the village.
    [Show full text]
  • Lora Gerd Russian Policy in the Orthodox East: the Patriarchate of Constantinople (1878-1914)
    Lora Gerd Russian Policy in the Orthodox East: The Patriarchate of Constantinople (1878-1914) Lora Gerd Russian Policy in the Orthodox East: The Patriarchate of Constantinople (1878-1914) Managing Editor: Katarzyna Tempczyk Language Editor: Kerry Fast Published by De Gruyter Open Ltd, Warsaw/Berlin This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 license, which means that the text may be used for non-commercial purposes, provided credit is given to the author. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. Copyright © 2014 Lora Gerd ISBN (paperback): 978-83-7656-030-4 ISBN (hardcover): 978-83-7656-031-1 e-ISBN: 978-83-7656-032-8 Managing Editor: Katarzyna Tempczyk Language Editor: Kerry Fast www.degruyteropen.com Cover illustration: © ivan-96 Contents Preface VII 1 Russian Policy in the Balkans, 1878-1914 1 1.1 Between the Two Wars: 1856-1877 1 1.2 After the Congress of Berlin: Fin de Siècle 3 1.3 The Macedonian Question 8 1.4 Russian Cooperation with Austro-Hungary 11 1.5 Russo-Austrian Attempts at Reforms in Macedonia: The Mürzsteg Agreement 12 1.6 The Bosnian Crisis (1908-1909) 14 1.7 Preparation of the Balkan League 15 2 The Byzantine Legacy in Russian Foreign Policy in the Second Part of the 19th and the Beginning of the 20th Century 20 2.1 Historical Background 20 2.2 The Greek Megali idea 23 2.3 From Pan-Slavism to Imperial Nationalism 24 2.4 Russian Philhellenists 30 2.5 Plans for a Russian Constantinople during the First World War 36 3 Russia and the Patriarchate
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 21 May 2019
    United Nations A/73/880 General Assembly Distr.: General 21 May 2019 Original: English Seventy-third session Agenda item 35 Protracted conflicts in the GUAM area and their implications for international peace, security and development Status of internally displaced persons and refugees from Abkhazia, Georgia, and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, Georgia Report of the Secretary-General Summary The present report, submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution 72/280, pertains to the status of internally displaced persons and refugees from Abkhazia, Georgia, and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, Georgia. The report is focused on, in particular, the right of return of refugees and internally displaced persons and their descendants, the prohibition of forced demographic changes, humanitarian access, the importance of preserving the property rights of refugees and internally displaced persons, and the development of a timetable to ensure the prompt voluntary return of all refugees and internally displaced persons to their homes. 19-08099 (E) 290519 *1908099* A/73/880 Contents Page I. Introduction ................................................................... 3 II. Background ................................................................... 3 III. Right of return ................................................................. 6 A. Scope of displacement, return and local integration .............................. 6 B. Institutional framework and operational measures ................................ 10 IV. Prohibition of forced
    [Show full text]
  • GEORGIA Second Edition March 2010
    WHO DOES WHAT WHERE IN DISASTER RISK REDUCTION IN GEORGIA Second edition March 2010 Georgian National Committee of Disaster Risk Reduction & Environment Sustainable Development FOREWORD Georgia is a highly disaster-prone country, which frequently experiences natural hazards (e.g. earthquakes, floods, landslides, mudflows, avalanches, and drought) as well as man-made emergencies (e.g. industrial accidents and traffic accidents). Compounding factors such as demographic change, unplanned urbanization, poorly maintained infrastructure, lax enforcement of safety standards, socio-economic inequities, epidemics, environmental degradation and climate variability amplify the frequency and intensity of disasters and call for a proactive and multi-hazard approach. Disaster risk reduction is a cross-cutting and complex development issue. It requires political and legal commitment, public understanding, scientific knowledge, careful development planning, responsible enforcement of policies and legislation, people-centred early warning systems, and effective disaster preparedness and response mechanisms. Close collaboration of policy-makers, scientists, urban planners, engineers, architects, development workers and civil society representatives is a precondition for adopting a comprehensive approach and inventing adequate solutions. Multi-stakeholder and inter-agency platforms can help provide and mobilize knowledge, skills and resources required for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into development policies, for coordination of planning and programmes,
    [Show full text]
  • The Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human
    ! FACULTY OF LAW Lund University Lidia Carchilan The extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention against Torture in frozen conflict regions as a tool of ensuring the prohibition of torture — the cases of Transnistria and Abkhazia JAMM07 Master Thesis International Human Rights Law 30 higher education credits Supervisor: Vladislava Stoyanova Term: Spring term 2019 !1 of !75 Table of contents Abstract …………………………………………………………………………….3 Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………….4 Abbreviations and acronyms…………………………………………………………5 Map no.1 of the Soviet Union and map no.2 of contemporary Abkhazia……………6 Map no.3 of contemporary Transnistria and map no.4 of contemporary Eastern Europe……………………………………………………………………….….……7 Chapter 1. Thesis outline and historical background……………………………8 1.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….8 1.2. Research questions, motivation of choice and limitations, previous research and contribution to scholarship………………………………………………….………10 1.3. Theory and methodology ………………………………………………………13 1.4. Historical background - Transnistria and Abkhazia……………………………14 Chapter 2. Jurisdiction and responsibility of States for activities perpetrated outside their territory…………………………………………………………….24 2.1. The notion of jurisdiction………………………………………………………24 2.2. International Court of Justice (ICJ) - attribution of conduct under the strict and effective control test………………………………………………………………27 2.3. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) - attribution of conduct under the overall control test……………………………………………28 2.4. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) jurisdiction under the effective overall control test…………………………………………………………………29 Chapter 3. Legal considerations regarding extraterritoriality of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)…………………………………………31 3.1. General case-law that developed the extraterritorial nature of the ECHR……..33 3.2. Specific ECtHR case-law concerning the frozen conflict regions of Transnistria and Abkhazia………………………………………………………………………38 Chapter 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Women Challenging Gender Norms and Patriarchal Values in Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation Across the South Caucasus 46
    Caucasus Edition Journal of Conflict Transformation CHALLENGING GENDER NORMS, DEALING WITH THE PAST, AND PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT Community-Driven Conflict Transformation in the South Caucasus Caucasus Edition: Journal of Conflict Transformation Caucasus Edition Volume 3, Issue 1 2018 Volume 3 | Issue 1 CHALLENGING GENDER NORMS, DEALING WITH THE PAST, AND PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT Community-Driven Conflict Transformation in the South Caucasus Editors: Philip Gamaghelyan, Sevil Huseynova, Maria Karapetyan, Pınar Sayan Tbilisi 2018 © Caucasus Edition: Journal of Conflict Transformation ISSN 2155-5478 1 2 This publication has been produced in the framework of the project “Joint Platform for Realistic Peace in the South Caucasus” of the Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation in partnership with the Center for Independent Social Research – Berlin. The Imagine Center is an independent, non-political organization that is dedicated to positively transforming relations and laying foundations for lasting and sustainable peace in conflict- torn societies. www.imaginedialogue.com, [email protected] The Center for Independent Social Research – Berlin (CISR-Berlin) is a non- governmental organization focused on social research, civil society development and education in cooperation with Eastern Europe and post-Soviet states. www.cisr-berlin.org, [email protected] The project “Joint Platform for Realistic Peace in the South Caucasus” is funded by ifa (Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen) / Funding program zivik with resources provided
    [Show full text]
  • The Visa-Free 3D Effect: Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine by Stanislav Secrieru
    28 2017 M-SUR/ADOBESTOCK The visa-free 3D effect: Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine by Stanislav Secrieru Since its inception, the EU’s Eastern Partnership Attractive and secure passports (EaP) sought to speed up reforms and pull coun- tries of the eastern neighbourhood closer to the After the EU cancelled the need for visas for Union. Yet despite the incentives, transforma- short-stay travel, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine tions were often slow and painful: vested in- surged overnight in the Global Passport Power terests continue to shape domestic politics to a Rank. Compared to 2016, Ukraine jumped 15 large degree, justice is frequently selectively ap- places in 2017 to 32nd in the world. Georgia ad- plied against the opponents, and high-level cor- vanced by 14 places and caught up in the rank- ruption discourages large-scale investments. ing with Moldova (which came in 43rd), with both countries enjoying visa-free regimes with Although the pace of reforms has been sluggish, 105 countries. By opening the visa-free door to the level of connectivity between the EU and its a total of 120 countries, the Ukrainian passport eastern neighbours has nevertheless increased. leapfrogged the Russian one, which came 41st. The liberalisation of visa regimes with the EU is Although the citizens of the Western Balkans re- one of the main drivers behind this process. ceived visa-free status earlier, the three EaP states have now even overtaken these countries. First stated as a goal in 2009 at the inaugura- tion of the EaP at a summit in Prague, a visa-free The possession of a biometric passport is a pre- regime with the EU was a long-waited milestone condition for visa-free travel to the EU.
    [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]
  • Protection of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia: a Gap Analysis
    Protection of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia: A Gap Analysis This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union. July 2009 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................. 6 1. Context ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 1.1. Demographic profile .......................................................................................................................... 10 1.2. Meaningful participation.................................................................................................................... 10 1.3. Solution Oriented Approach .............................................................................................................. 11 1.5.1. Focus on return as the only durable solution ................................................................................. 11 1.5.2. Humanitarian space and access.....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]