imiМеждународная аналитикаJournal of International Analytics2587-84762541-9633MGIMO University10.46272/2587-8476-2022-13-4-19-42imi-450Research ArticleИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКИЕ СТАТЬИRESEARCH ARTICLESКак появляются постсоветские сецессии: факторы, способствующие и препятствующие выходуHow Post-Soviet Secessions Appear: Factors Contributing to and Hindering ExitТокаревА. А.TokarevA. A.

Токарев Алексей Александрович, д.полит.н., в.н.с.

119454, Москва, Проспект Вернадского 76

Alexey A. Tokarev, Doctor of Political Sciences, Leading Research Fellow, Institute of International Research

119454, Moscow, Prospect Vernadskogo 76

a.tokarev@inno.mgimo.ruИМИ МГИМО МИД РоссииРоссияInstitute of International Research, Moscow State Institute of International Relations MFA RF (MGIMO-university)Russian Federation2022110120231341942Copyright © Токарев А.А., 20222022Токарев А.А.Tokarev A.A.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.interanalytics.org/jour/article/view/450

В статье рассматриваются «сложные» случаи территориального развития после распада СССР: сецессии, автономизации, серые зоны государственности во всех постсоветских республиках. Учитывая и реалистические, и конструктивистские основания сецесссий, автор перечисляет основные факторы (географические, исторические, политические, социологические, культурные, лингвистические, военные), влияющие на процессы автономизации и выхода территориальных политий из состава материнских государств, постулируя, что ни один из них не повторяется во всех 20 исследуемых случаях. Это означает, что никакой фактор не является детерминирующим, хотя западные источники таковым часто называют российский патронаж на постсоветском пространстве. Самые популярные факторы: функционирование государства-сегмента, в пределах которого оформляется сецессия, и наличие у сепаратистов политической организации (17 случаев из 20).

The article deals with “complex” cases of territorial development after the collapse of the USSR: secession, autonomization, gray zones of statehood in all post-Soviet republics. Taking into account both realistic and constructivist grounds of secession, the author lists the main factors (geographical, historical, political, sociological, cultural, linguistic, military) that affect the processes of autonomy and the withdrawal of territorial polities from the parent states, postulating that none of them is repeated in all 20 cases studied. This means that no factor is determinative, although Western sources often refer to Russian patronage in the post-Soviet space as such. The most popular factors are the functioning of the state -the segment within which the secession is being formed, and the presence of a political organization among the separatists (17 cases out of 20).

сецессиясепаратизмавтономизмирредентизмпостсоветское пространствораспад СССРsecessionseparatismautonomismirredentismpost-Soviet spacecollapse of the USSRReferencesАхмедов, С. Конфликты в Таджикистане: причины и последствия. – Москва: Весь мир, 1997.Akhmedov, S. Konflikty v Tadzhikistane: prichiny i posledstviya. Moskva: Ves’ mir, 1997 [In Russian].Бударагина, Л. Статус непризнанных государств // Право и современные государства. – 2016. – № 3. – С. 44–49.Budaragina, L. “Status nepriznannykh gosudarstv.” Pravo i sovremennye gosudarstva, no. 3 (2016): 44–49 [In Russian].Ильин, М., Мелешкина, Е., Мельвиль, А. Формирование новых государств: внешние и внутренние факторы консолидации // Полис. Политические исследования. – 2010. – № 3. – С. 26–39.Ilyin, M., Meleshkina, Ye., Melville, A. “Formation of the New States: Domestic and External Factors of Consolidation.” Polis. Political Studies, no. 3 (2010): 26–39 [In Russian].Ильяшевич, М., Хахина, А. К вопросу o международно-правовом признании государств // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Юридические науки. – 2014. – № 1. – С. 236– 244.Ilyashevich, M.V., Khakhina, A.A. “On the International Legal Recognition of States.” RUDN Journal of Law, no. 1 (2014): 236–244 [In Russian].Маркедонов, С. Де-факто государства: политический феномен постсоветского пространства // Вестник РГГУ. Серия: Политология. История. Международные отношения. – 2018. – № 1. – С. 24–40. https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6339-2018-1-24-40.Markedonov, S.M. “De-facto States: the Post-Soviet Political Phenomenon.” RSUH/RGGU Bulletin Series “Political Science. History. International Relations,” no. 1 (2018): 24–40 [In Russian].Маркедонов, С. Де-факто образования постсоветского пространства: двадцать лет государственного строительства // Аналитические доклады Института Кавказа № 5 / Науч.ред.: Александр Искандарян. – Ереван: Институт Кавказа, 2012. – 180 с.Markedonov, S. De-fakto obrazovaniya postsovetskogo prostranstva: dvadtsat’ let gosudarstvennogo stroitel’stva. Analiticheskie doklady Instituta Kavkaza №5. Erevan: Institut Kavkaza, 2012 [In Russian].Мельвиль, А.Ю. Факторы режимных трансформаций и типы государственной состоятельности в посткоммунистических странах / А.Ю. Мельвиль, Д.К. Стукал, М.Г. Миронюк. – Москва: Изд.дом «Высшей школы экономики», 2011.Melville, A.Yu. Faktory rezhimnykh transformatsii i tipy gosudarstvennoi sostoyatel’nosti v postkommunisticheskikh stranakh. Moskva: Izd.dom «Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki», 2011 [In Russian].Платонова, М. Де-факто независимые государства Кавказа: переосмысление терминологии // Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Серия 4: История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. – 2012. – № 1. – С. 98–101.Platonova, M. “De-Facto Independent States of the Caucasus: Redefining the Terminology.” Science Journal of Volgograd State University. History. Area Studies. International Relations, no. 1 (2012): 98–101 [In Russian].Сергеева, Л. Проблема понятийнокатегориального аппарата при классификации типов непризнанных (частично-признанных) государств постсоветского пространства // Исторические, философские, политические и юридические науки, культурология и искусстроведение. Вопросы теории и практики. – 2014. – № 5. – С. 169–172.Sergeeva, L. “Problem of Conceptual-Categorial Apparatus when Classifying Types of Unrecognized and Partially Recognized States of the Post-Soviet Space.” Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i yuridicheskie nauki, kul’turologiya i iskusstrovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, no. 5 (2014): 169–172 [In Russian].Токарев, А.А. Концептуализация и операционализация понятия государственность // Вестник МГИМОУниверситета. – 2012. – № 4. – С. 247–254. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2012-4-25-247-254.Tokarev, A.A. “The Conceptualization and Operationalization of the Concept of Statehood.” MGIMO Review of International Relations, no. 4 (2012): 247–254 [In Russian].Токарев, А.А. Сравнительный анализ сецессий на посткоммунистическом пространстве: квантификация факторов влияния // Полис. Политические исследования. – 2017. – № 4. – С. 106–117. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.04.08.Tokarev, A.A. “Comparative Analysis of the PostCommunist Secessions: The Prognostic Attempt of Quantification of the Factors’ Impact on Secession.” Polis. Political Studies, no. 4 (2017): 106–117 [In Russian].Тревер, К.А., Якубовский, А.Ю., Воронец, М.Э. История народов Узбекистана. – Ташкент: Изд-во АН УзССР, 1950. – С. 188–193.Trever, K.A., Yakubovskiy, A.Yu., Voronets, M.E. Istoriya narodov Uzbekistana. Tashkent: Izd-vo AN UzSSR, 1950 [In Russian].Холина, Е. Формы и критерии признания государств // Пробелы в российском законодательстве. Юридический журнал. – 2012. – № 3. – С. 218–223.Holina, E. “Formy i kriterii priznaniya gosudarstv.” Probely v rossiiskom zakonodatel'stve. Yuridicheskii zhurnal, no. 3 (2012): 218–223 [In Russian].Цвицинская, Н. Эволюция института признания государства в международном праве // История и современность. – 2014. – № 2. – С. 147–161.Tsivinskaya, N. “Evolyutsiya instituta priznaniya gosudarstva v mezhdunarodnom prave.” Istoriya i sovremennost’, no. 2 (2014): 147–161 [In Russian].Цховребов, К.И. Проблемы статуса непризнанных и частично признанных государств в современном мире // Вестник Северо-Осетинского государственного университета имени К.Л. Хетагурова. – 2013. – № 3. С. 186–189.Tskhovrebov, K. “Problems of the Status of Unrecognized and Partially Recognized States in the Modern World,” Vestnik Severoosetinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni K.L. Hetagurova, no. 3 (2013): 186–189 [In Russian].Balmaceda, Margarita M. “Privatization and Elite Defection in De facto States: The Case of Transnistria, 1991–2012.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 46, no. 4 (2013): 445–454. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48610313.Balmaceda, Margarita M. “Privatization and Elite Defection in De facto States: The Case of Transnistria, 1991–2012.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 46, no. 4 (2013): 445–454. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48610313.Broers, Laurence, Iskandaryan, Alexander , and Sergey Minasyan. “The Unrecognized Politics of De facto States in the Post-Soviet Space.” Caucasus Survey 3, no. (3) (2015): 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761199.2015.1086566.Broers, Laurence, Iskandaryan, Alexander , and Sergey Minasyan. “The Unrecognized Politics of De facto States in the Post-Soviet Space.” Caucasus Survey 3, no. (3) (2015): 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761199.2015.1086566.Cornell, Svante E., and Niklas Nilsson. “Georgian Politics since the August 2008 War.” Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization 17, no. 3 (2009): 251–268. https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.17.3.251-268.Cornell, Svante E., and Niklas Nilsson. “Georgian Politics since the August 2008 War.” Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization 17, no. 3 (2009): 251–268. https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.17.3.251-268.Dembinska, Magdalena, and Aurélie Campana. “Frozen Conflicts and Internal Dynamics of De facto States: Perspectives and Directions for Research.” International Studies Review 19, no. 2 (2017): 254–278. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/vix010.Dembinska, Magdalena, and Aurélie Campana. “Frozen Conflicts and Internal Dynamics of De facto States: Perspectives and Directions for Research.” International Studies Review 19, no. 2 (2017): 254–278. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/vix010.Fukuyama, Francis. “Building Democracy After Conflict: ‘Stateness’ First”. Journal of Democracy 16, no. 1 (January 2005): 84–88.Fukuyama, Francis. “Building Democracy After Conflict: ‘Stateness’ First”. Journal of Democracy 16, no. 1 (January 2005): 84–88.Fukuyama, Francis. “The Imperative of State-Building.” Journal of Democracy 15, no. 2 (April 2004): 17–31.Fukuyama, Francis. “The Imperative of State-Building.” Journal of Democracy 15, no. 2 (April 2004): 17–31.Gachechiladze, Revaz. “Geopolitics in the South Caucasus: Local and External Players.” Geopolitics 7, no. 1 (2002): 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/714000896.Gachechiladze, Revaz. “Geopolitics in the South Caucasus: Local and External Players.” Geopolitics 7, no. 1 (2002): 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/714000896.Guretski, Voitsekh. “The Question of Javakheti.” Caucasian Regional Studies 3, no. 1 (1998). https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/crs/crs_1998/crs98_guv01.html.Guretski, Voitsekh. “The Question of Javakheti.” Caucasian Regional Studies 3, no. 1 (1998). https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/crs/crs_1998/crs98_guv01.html.Hoch, Tomáš, and Vincenc Kopeček. De facto States in Eurasia. Routledge Contemporary Russia and Eastern Europe Series, 2019.Hoch, Tomáš, and Vincenc Kopeček. De facto States in Eurasia. Routledge Contemporary Russia and Eastern Europe Series, 2019.Kolstø, Pål, and Helge Blakkisrud. “De Facto States and Democracy: The Case of Nagorno-Karabakh.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 45, no. 1–2 (2012): 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2012.03.004.Kolstø, Pål, and Helge Blakkisrud. “De Facto States and Democracy: The Case of NagornoKarabakh.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 45, no. 1–2 (2012): 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2012.03.004.Kopeček, Vincenc, Hoch, Tomáš, and Vladimir Baar. “De facto States and Democracy: The Case of Abkhazia.” Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series 32, no. 32 (2016): 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1515/bog-2016-0017.Kopeček, Vincenc, Hoch, Tomáš, and Vladimir Baar. “De facto States and Democracy: The Case of Abkhazia.” Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series 32, no. 32 (2016): 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1515/bog-2016-0017.Kopeček, Vincenc. “Political Institutions in the Post-Soviet De facto States in Comparison: Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh.” ALPPI Annual of Language & Politics and Politics of Identity, no. 10 (2016): 73–99.Kopeček, Vincenc. “Political Institutions in the PostSoviet De facto States in Comparison: Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh.” ALPPI Annual of Language & Politics and Politics of Identity, no. 10 (2016): 73–99.Malek, Martin. “State Failure in the South Caucasus: Proposals for an Analytical Framework.” Transition Studies Review 13, no. 2 (2006): 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11300-006-0106-z.Malek, Martin. “State Failure in the South Caucasus: Proposals for an Analytical Framework.” Transition Studies Review 13, no. 2 (2006): 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11300-006-0106-z.O’Loughlin, John, and Vladimir Kolosov. “After the Wars in the South Caucasus State of Georgia: Economic Insecurities and Migration in the “De facto ” States of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Eurasian Geography and Economics 52, no. 5 (2011): 631–654. https://doi.org/10.2747/1539-7216.52.5.631.O’Loughlin, John, and Vladimir Kolosov. “After the Wars in the South Caucasus State of Georgia: Economic Insecurities and Migration in the “De facto ” States of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Eurasian Geography and Economics 52, no. 5 (2011): 631–654. https://doi.org/10.2747/1539-7216.52.5.631.O’Loughlin, John, and Vladimir Kolosov. “Building Identities in Post-Soviet “De facto States”: Cultural and Political Icons in Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Transdniestria, and Abkhazia.” Eurasian Geography and Economics 58, no. 6 (2017): 691–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2018.1468793.O’Loughlin, John, and Vladimir Kolosov. “Building Identities in Post-Soviet “De facto States”: Cultural and Political Icons in Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Transdniestria, and Abkhazia.” Eurasian Geography and Economics 58, no. 6 (2017): 691–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2018.1468793.Øverland, Indra. “The Closure of the Russian Military Base at Akhalkalaki: Challenges for the Local Energy Elite, the Informal Economy and Stability.” The Journal of Power Institutions in Post-Soviet Societies, no. 10 (2009). https://doi.org/10.4000/pipss.3717.Øverland, Indra. “The Closure of the Russian Military Base at Akhalkalaki: Challenges for the Local Energy Elite, the Informal Economy and Stability.” The Journal of Power Institutions in Post-Soviet Societies, no. 10 (2009). https://doi.org/10.4000/pipss.3717.Relitz, Sebastian. “De facto States in the European Neighborhood: Between Russian Domination and European (Dis)Engagement. The Case of Abkhazia.” Eurint, no. 1 (2016): 96–113.Relitz, Sebastian. “De facto States in the European Neighborhood: Between Russian Domination and European (Dis)Engagement. The Case of Abkhazia.” Eurint, no. 1 (2016): 96–113.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.