Conflict Resolution in Georgia a Synthesis Analysis with a Legal Perspective

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Conflict Resolution in Georgia a Synthesis Analysis with a Legal Perspective Conflict resolution in Georgia A synthesis analysis with a legal perspective Antje Herrberg Crisis Management Initiative A synthesis analysis with a legal perspective 3 Conflict resolution in Georgia A synthesis analysis with a legal perspective June 4 2006 Editor: Antje Herrberg, Crisis Management Initiative1 Introduction The purpose of this paper is to discuss the Georgian conflicts of Ab- khazia and South-Ossetia from the perspective of international law. As discussions on these frozen conflicts receive additional attention by the international community, notably the European Union, which is surrounded by considerable political rhetoric creating uncertainty and sometimes confusion, it is timely to present a factual analysis that might allow a constructive framing of negotiations or mediations in the future. This paper is a synthesis of a complete study that was undertaken by the Crisis Management Initiative, and thus might not make explicit reference to important case law. Rather it sets out the main and most crucial elements relevant to Georgia. This synthesis includes a legal 1 The Editor would like to thank her colleagues and consultants for the first drafts of this study and input that lead to this synthesis report 4 Conflict resolution in Georgia A synthesis analysis with a legal perspective 5 analysis regarding the demands for independence made by Abkhazia In spite of the lack of any international recognition as to their inde- and South Ossetia from Georgia. pendence, both Abkhazia and South-Ossetia have continued to dis- tance themselves from their central government. The areas have de- The paper starts out with a condensed overview of the background in veloped their own political institutions; presidents, parliaments, and particular the armed conflicts in the 1990’s in Abkhazia and South-Os- local political parties. While they also possess other insignia of formal setia. This is followed by an assessment of the limits and possibilities statehood, such as security and armed forces, the economic conditions provided by the current Georgian constitution for the settlement of the of the areas remain weak and illegal trade or criminality flourishes.2 conflicts. The main part of this paper examines the international law of While the two breakaway-regions share their desire to secede from statehood and self-determination as applied in the conflicts. Georgia, the territories differ in many respects. The respective roots of The main conclusion of this paper is that neither Abkhazia nor South- the conflicts are different, the population and territories possess differ- Ossetia has a valid claim to statehood under international law on the ent characteristics, and they enjoyed different status within the Soviet basis of unilateral action. Nevertheless, to the extent that the Abkhaz Union. The pace and developments in their secessionist struggles have and South-Ossetians may be held as distinct “peoples”, they enjoy the also varied. right of self-determination. Solution of the conflicts is legally possible only by a negotiated solution. An examination of international legal a) abkhazia practice in analogous cases shows that self-determination may either Abkhazia, formally the Georgian Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, is be realized through appropriate federative or autonomous arrange- situated in the north-west of Georgia, bordering the shores of the Black ments for self-government within Georgia or by other arrangements Sea to the west, Russia in the north, and the Georgian provinces Svan- for minority protection. The conclusion of this study is that since these etia and Mingrelia in the south. The region comprised of 8,700 sq km, conflicts seem to be intractable possibly due to a lack of full assessment one eight of the territory of the Republic of Georgia and comparable in of the legal framework, that the reframing of key questions and mu- size to that of Cyprus, is today the homeland for some 200,000 inhab- tual discussion of them within the possibilities presented here could be itants composed of different ethnicity, the majority of whom are Ab- conducive in terms of finding a settlement to the conflicts. Given the khaz.3 The demographic structure of Abkhazia was, however, notably deep entrenched position of the parties, it would be advisable to draw a different at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the out- credible and neutral third party to facilitate these talks. break of armed conflict with Georgia in 1992. Before the war the popu- lation number was considerable higher – 525,000 – and the ethnic Abkhaz population maintained a minority position with the following ethnic composition: Abkhaz (18%), ethnic Georgians (46%), Armeni- 1. The hIsTorICal ConTexT ans (15%), Russians (14%), and others (8%).4 The 1992 hostilities gave rise to a wide displacement of populations – which especially targeted Since its independence in the aftermath of the dissolution of the So- the ethnic Georgians – and it still constitutes one of the unresolved viet Union, Georgia faced notable ethno-territorial conflicts within questions that a final settlement will have to address. its borders. Three areas that have enjoyed autonomous status since the 1920’s1 – Ajaria, Abkhazia and South-Ossetia – have striven to Despite the worsened inter-ethnic relations in Abkhazia during the strengthen their position vis-à-vis the Georgian central government, 1992-93 war and its aftermath, Georgians at large adhere to the view ultimately challenging the national unity of Georgia. Whereas a peace- that the Abkhazians are an autonomous people with Abkhazia being ful solution has been found for the Ajaria region, the conflicts in Abk- their native land.5 The Abkhaz population differs ethnically from the hazia and South-Ossetia still await resolution. Both regions have pro- Georgians and their separate identity is recognized and accepted. Al- claimed independence from Georgia in the 1990’s. With the support though the Abkhaz language is a Caucasian language like the Georgian, of the international community Georgia has rejected their secessionist the two languages are not mutually understandable. Religion-wise the claims and insisted on its territorial integrity. Abkhaz also differentiate themselves from Georgians; the Orthodox 6 Conflict resolution in Georgia A synthesis analysis with a legal perspective 7 Church forms an important part of the Georgians’ life, whereas the Ab- to negotiate with Georgia on the formation of a federal constitutional khazians are religiously divided into Christianity and Islam. structure that would preserve Georgia’s territorial integrity. This ethnically and culturally distinct population lives in the moun- The declaration of independence of Georgia on 9 April 1991, the op- tainous, but yet subtropical region of Georgia. It has relied on tourism position against president Gamsakhurdia and the military coup that and agriculture for survival. The effect of the 1992-93 war and years of removed him from power created a general atmosphere of turmoil economic embargo and isolation has, nonetheless, disassembled the during which the Georgian constitution from 1921 was reinstated. This Abkhaz economy to a dependency on Russia. Still, some perceive Abk- constitution did not stake out any separate status of Abkhazia. hazia as capable of surviving on its own economically as the region at Whereas Georgia’s independence was manifested through internation- least has been self-sufficient in food and electricity. According to the al recognition and membership in international organizations, Abkhaz- UNDP much of the population of Abkhazia is, however, impoverished ia continued the struggle to enhance its status. The Abkhaz Supreme and relies on humanitarian aid. Furthermore, the UNDP has concluded Soviet reinstated the Abkhaz constitution of 1925, according to which that infrastructure in Abkhazia “is in a stage of progressive collapse”.6 the “Republic of Abkhazia” was to have a federative relationship with The international community has been unwilling to support the claims Georgia based on equality between the two republics. This declaration for independence by Abkhazian representatives; the UN, OSCE, EU as of independence on 23 July 1992 did not further the protection of Abk- well as other international institutions have all sustained the territorial hazia’s hitherto autonomous political status. Instead it turned the long integrity of Georgia. tension into an armed conflict between Georgia and Abkhazia. Abkhazia under Soviet Rule The 1992 Conflict and Its Aftermath The history of Abkhazia involves certain periods when the Abkhaz have It was on 14 August 1992, when Abkhazia’s proposals for a federa- assumed ownership of governance and administration, yet it has for tive/confederative arrangement with Georgia were met by Georgia’s the most part constituted an autonomous part of Georgia or Russia/the Shevardnadze dispatching troops to bring Abkhazia into order. Not- Soviet Union. The Abkhaz history in the twentieth century follows at withstanding initial military success on the Georgian side, the Abkhaz large the creation, existence and dissolution of the USSR and challeng- fighters along with support from North Caucasian volunteers and Rus- es posed by its federal structure, both between and within the Union sian military supplies managed to force the Georgians to retreat in Sep- republics. Therefore the relations between Abkhazia, Georgia and the tember 1993. The toll of the armed conflict was hundreds of lives and Soviet Union
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]
  • Europe Report, No. 195: Russia Vs Georgia
    RUSSIA VS GEORGIA: THE FALLOUT Europe Report N°195 – 22 August 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. i I. CHRONOLOGY OF THE VIOLENCE......................................................................... 1 II. MONITORING THE CEASEFIRE AND KEEPING PEACE .................................... 4 III. IMPLICATIONS FOR GEORGIA ................................................................................. 7 A. TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY .............................................................................................................7 B. NATO MEMBERSHIP .................................................................................................................10 C. DOMESTIC ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS ...............................................................13 1. Energy..................................................................................................................................13 2. Economy..............................................................................................................................14 3. Politics .................................................................................................................................15 IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR RUSSIA.................................................................................... 16 A. RUSSIAN MOTIVATIONS BEYOND GEORGIA ..............................................................................17 B. POINTS OF LEVERAGE WITH RUSSIA...........................................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • Six-Point Ceasefire Agreement Between Russia and Georgia
    IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW: SIX-POINT CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RUSSIA AND GEORGIA THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AND DAVID L. PHILLIPS August 2011 THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY The National Committee on American Foreign Policy was founded in 1974 by Professor Hans J. Morgenthau and others. It is a nonprofit activist organization dedicated to the resolution of conflicts that threaten US interests. Toward that end, the National Committee identifies, articulates, and helps advance American foreign policy interests from a nonpartisan perspective within the framework of political realism. American foreign policy interests include: • Preserving and strengthening national security; • Supporting countries committed to the values and the practice of political, religious, and cultural pluralism; • Improving U.S. relations with the developed and developing worlds; • Advancing human rights • Encouraging realistic arms-control agreements; • Curbing the proliferation of nuclear and other unconventional weapons; • Promoting an open and global economy An important part of the activity of the NCAFP is Track I ½ and Track II diplomacy. Such closed-door and off-the-record endeavors provide unique opportunities for senior U.S. and foreign officials, think-tank experts, and scholars to engage in discussions designed to defuse conflict, build confidence, and resolve problems. Believing that an informed public is vital to a democratic society, the National Committee offers educational programs that address security challenges facing the United States and publishes a variety of publications, including its bimonthly journal, American Foreign Policy Interests, that present keen analyses of all aspects of American foreign policy. v THE INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF HUMAN RIGHTS AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY The Institute for the Study of Human Rights (ISHR) was established in 1978 at Columbia University as the Center for the Study of Human Rights (CSHR).
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of War Prospects for Peace
    Georgian Orthodox Church Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung CAUSES OF WAR PROS P E C TS FOR PEA C E Tbilisi, 2009 1 On December 2-3, 2008 the Holy Synod of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung held a scientific conference on the theme: Causes of War - Prospects for Peace. The main purpose of the conference was to show the essence of the existing conflicts in Georgia and to prepare objective scientific and information basis. This book is a collection of conference reports and discussion materials that on the request of the editorial board has been presented in article format. Publishers: Metropolitan Ananya Japaridze Katia Christina Plate Bidzina Lebanidze Nato Asatiani Editorial board: Archimandrite Adam (Akhaladze), Tamaz Beradze, Rozeta Gujejiani, Roland Topchishvili, Mariam Lordkipanidze, Lela Margiani, Tariel Putkaradze, Bezhan Khorava Reviewers: Zurab Tvalchrelidze Revaz Sherozia Giorgi Cheishvili Otar Janelidze Editorial board wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Irina Bibileishvili, Merab Gvazava, Nia Gogokhia, Ekaterine Dadiani, Zviad Kvilitaia, Giorgi Cheishvili, Kakhaber Tsulaia. ISBN 2345632456 Printed by CGS ltd 2 Preface by His Holiness and Beatitude Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia ILIA II; Opening Words to the Conference 5 Preface by Katja Christina Plate, Head of the Regional Office for Political Dialogue in the South Caucasus of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung; Opening Words to the Conference 8 Abkhazia: Historical-Political and Ethnic Processes Tamaz Beradze, Konstantine Topuria, Bezhan Khorava - A
    [Show full text]
  • Europe Report, No. 193: Georgia and Russia
    GEORGIA AND RUSSIA: CLASHING OVER ABKHAZIA Europe Report N°193 – 5 June 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. i I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 II. THE APRIL ESCALATION............................................................................................ 2 A. THE DIPLOMATIC ROW ...............................................................................................................2 B. SECURITY INCIDENTS AND MILITARY BUILD-UP .........................................................................4 C. THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE .................................................................................................6 III. RISKS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS .......................................................................... 7 A. THE MILITARY OPTION...............................................................................................................8 B. MILITARY CAPABILITIES.............................................................................................................9 C. TIMING .....................................................................................................................................10 D. RUSSIA’S INTERNAL DYNAMICS................................................................................................12 IV. GEOPOLITICAL INFLUENCES................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict Marietta König
    In: IFSH (ed.), OSCE Yearbook 2004, Baden-Baden 2005, pp. 237-249. Marietta König The Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict As late as autumn 2003, the discussions involving the parties to the Geor- gian-South Ossetian conflict and the OSCE Mission to Georgia were still dominated by the danger of growing alienation between the two ethnic groups, war-weariness among the Georgian and South Ossetian populations, and the counterproductive insistence of both sides on maintaining irreconcil- able positions. Discussions of how to end the conflict were largely sup- pressed as a result of South Ossetian demands for economic aid to enable re- construction, and the insistence of South Ossetian authorities that their pri- mary goal was unification with North Ossetia-Alania, an Autonomous Re- public in the Russian Federation. For its part, the Georgian side had never accepted the local rulers of South Ossetia as equal negotiating partners. Nor was the Georgian promise of “the broadest autonomy” for South Ossetia and other separatist regions ever put in writing. Regime Change in Georgia The lethargy affecting all sides in the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict- resolution process was finally overcome by the rapidly escalating events that took place in Tbilisi in November 2003. Ballot forging on a massive scale by the government of incumbent President Eduard Shevardnadze in the election of 2 November triggered what became known as the “Rose Revolution”. Thanks to Shevardnadze’s resignation on 23 November, this took place en- tirely without bloodshed. With the leaders of the “National Movement” (Mikhail Saakashvili) and the “Burjanadze Democrats” (Nino Burjanadze and Zurab Zhvania) electoral alliances in the vanguard – the groups denied victory in the November 2 poll by the official results – the Rose Revolution brought about a regime change that was watched with considerable concern by the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the Autonomous Republic of Ajaria.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex E.4.12 Public
    ICC-01/15-4-AnxE.4.12 13-10-2015 1/44 EK PT Annex E.4.12 Public ICC-01/15-4-AnxE.4.12 13-10-2015 2/44 EK PT GEORGIA: A VOIDING WAR IN SOUTH OSSETIA 26 November 2004 international crisis group Europe Report N° I 59 Tbilisi/Brussels GEO-OTP-0008-0615 ICC-01/15-4-AnxE.4.12 13-10-2015 3/44 EK PT TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ANO RECOMMENDATIONS i 1. INTRODUCTION 1 II. UNDERLYING CAUSES OF THE CONFLICT 2 A. H1sTORIC/\1, CAust-:s 2 1. Competing narratives of South Ossetia's past.. 2 2. The 1990- 1 992 conflict and its aftermath 3 3. The peace agreement and peace implementation mechanisms 4 B. HUlvl/\N RlGHTS VIOL.I\ TIONS J\ND POPULATION DISPL./\CE:tviEl\T 5 I. Ossetian and Georgian population settlement and displacement.. 5 2. War-time atrocities 7 c. POLITICAL CA USES or rnt CONfLICI 7 D. GEOPOLITICALC AUSES 8 E. POLITICAL-ECONOlvflCC AUSES Of CONfLICT 9 III. UNFREEZI~G THE CONFLICT 11 A. FOCUSING ON THE POLTTTC'\L ECONO\ifTC CAUSES OF CONFLICT I I 1. Attacking greed 1 I 2. Addressing grievance 12 3. The South Ossetian reaction 12 B. THE START OF VIOLENT CONFLICT 14 C. THE UNEASY TRUCE 15 IV. INTER OR INTRA-STATE CONFLICT? 16 A. Gt-:C)R(tl1\N ALLl-:0/\TIONS ON RUSSJ/\'S ROLi·: ] 6 8. Tm: Vn.w FROM RUSSI/\ 17 C. UNITED STATES INVOLVElviENT 18 D. THE OSCE ·19 E. THE EUROPR/\>J UNTOK I 9 F.
    [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]
  • Georgia, EU-Integration, and the Settlement of the Frozen Conflicts?
    One step closer – Georgia, EU-integration, and the settlement of the frozen conflicts? Authors: Paata Gaprindashvili Mariam Tsitsikashvili Gogi Zoidze AUTHORS: Vakhtang Charaia One step closer – Georgia, EU- PAATA GAPRINDASHVILI integration, and the settlement MARIAM TSITSIKASHVILI GOGI ZOIDZE VAKHTANG CHARAIA of the frozen conflicts? Tbilisi 2019 The research was prepared by Georgia’s Reforms Associates within the project Europeanization beyond process supported by a grant from the Foundation Open Society Institute in cooperation with the OSIFE of the Open Society Foundations. About GRASS Georgia’s Reforms Associates (GRASS) is a non-partisan, non-governmental policy watchdog and multi- profile think-tank, which was established in October 2012. With its initiatives and activities, GRASS supports the implementation of democratic reforms, the building of a strong civil society and the transparency and accountability of state institutions together with the ongoing process of Georgia’s Europeanisation. GRASS has been working on conflict issues, one of its major programs, since 2013. So far, the primary focus of GRASS’s activities has been Abkhazia. The organization has brought together stakeholders from Tbilisi and Sokhumi on a number of occasions to contribute to cooperation and confidence building. GRASS has been a strong advocate of applying a status-neutral approach to the humanitarian and security issues with Abkhazia, which has been reflected in the Government’s 2018 Peace Initiatives - “A Step to a Better Future”. GRASS has built solid contacts in Sokhumi with relevant stakeholders and organized Tack 1.5 discussions with their participation on trade, education and healthcare issues. Disclaimer This is a working paper and hence, it represents research still in progress.
    [Show full text]
  • Nato Mw Report 2004-2005
    Final Report - Manfred Wörner Fellowship 2004 / 2005 Prospects For Regional Cooperation on NATO’s South Eastern Border Developing a Turkish-Russian Cooperation in South Caucasus Submitted on 30 June 2005 By Dr. Burcu Gültekin Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris Turkish-Armenian Business Development Council In consultation with the Economy & Conflict Research Group of South Caucasus (ECRG) / International Alert 1 Acknowledgments This report has been possible thanks to NATO’s Manfred Wörner fellowship. I am profoundly grateful to the Public Diplomacy Division at NATO Headquarters, notably to Deputy Assistant Secretary General for External Relations Dr. Jamie Shea and to Dr. Stefanie Babst, Head of NATO Countries Section. My special thanks go to Despina Afentouli, Information Officer Greece and responsible for South Caucasus, whose friendly support has been particularly valuable throughout all the research process, and to Ioanna Synadino. I have benefited from conversations with Robert Simmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Security Cooperation and Partnership and with Amb. Daniel Speckhard, Director of Policy Planning at the Office of the Secretary General. My deep thanks go to Ünal Çeviköz, Ambassador of Turkey to Bagdat, who has actively supported my work on the South Caucasus for many years and to Ertan Tezgör, Ambassador of Turkey to Tbilisi for his continuous help and multiple in-depth discussions during my research in Tbilisi. Brigadier General Muzaffer Çarpan, Turkish Armed Forces Attaché at the Turkish Embassy in Tbilisi, David Sikarulidze, Deputy Minister of Defense of Georgia and General Melkunian from the Ministry of Defense of Armenia have been gracious with their time and insights. I am grateful to Henry Cuny, Ambassador of France to Yerevan for his valuable support to my Turkish-Armenian initiatives, and to Amb.
    [Show full text]
  • Abkhazia for the Integration of the Black Sea
    ABKHAZIA FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THE BLACK SEA Background Paper December 2009 © 2009 Content of this report is copyrighted to TEPAV-ORSAM. Except reasonable and partial quotation and exploitation under the Act No. 5846,Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works, via proper citation, may not be used or re-published without prior permission by TEPAV-ORSAM. Assess- ments expressed in this report reflect only the opinions of its authors and do not epresent the institutional opinion of TEPAV-ORSAM. TEPAV The Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV) is an independent, non-governmental and non- partisan think-tank, established in October 2004. A “trust fund” has been formed through the generous support of The Union of Chambers of Turkey (TOBB) to finance TEPAV. This financial set up is being applied for the first time in Turkey and guarantees the non-partisan structure and independence of the foundation. TEPAV intends to increase the knowledge content of policy discussions in Turkey. The goal of TEPAV research is to remove the gap between academic research and policy implementation. To this end, scholarly research conducted at TEPAV will lead to concrete policy proposals. The foundation has three research institutes: Economic Policy Research Institute - EPRI Economic Stability Institute - ESI International Policy Research Institute - IPRI Those institutes represent the inter-disciplinary nature of TEPAV research. TEPAV makes its findings and analysis generally available through its publications. It also contributes to the develop- ment of the policy discussions with its events. Güven Sak, the Director of TEPAV is a professor of Public Economics. The main author of this background paper, Burcu Gültekin Punsmann is a foreign policy analyst at TEPAV.
    [Show full text]
  • Levan Alexidze the Failure of the Un Security Council In
    LEVAN ALEXIDZE THE FAILURE OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL IN SETTLEMENT OF THE CONFLICT IN ABKHAZIA, GEORGIA, UNDERMINES THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER (AGGRESSIVE SEPARATISM VS. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY) At last, the secret of Polichinelle has been disclosed – Russia revealed its face, which had been hidden very ca- refully manner for many years, notwithstanding of perennial participation of its regular and irregular troops in the conflict and endless financial and economic support by the Moscow authorities rendered to the separatist authorities in Abkhazia, inalienable part of Georgia, recognized to be such by the entire international community of states – UN, OSCE, EU, Council of Europe and even the CIS. Under the pretense of a facilitator the Russian Federation did everything to prepare a direct annexation of Abkhazia. Having initiated an aggressive war against Georgia in the so called region of South Ossetia and Abkhazia (Kodori Gorge) and consequently occupied these regions, the Russian Federation recognized the independence of these “republics” and after ultimately entering in military agreements with them, began to transform them into the springboards of its armed forces violating all the norms of international law. It is high time to once again make conclusions about Georgia’s long-lasting struggle within the framework of the UN for restoration of its territorial integrity and the role of this organization in a full-scale settlement of this conflict. … Approximately twenty years have passed since breking out a military insurgence by hostile leaders of one of the regions of Georgia – Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, in order to separate this one if the ancient regions of Geor- gia from the country.
    [Show full text]