How Post-Soviet Secessions Appear: Factors Contributing to and Hindering Exit
https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2022-13-4-19-42
Abstract
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).
About the Author
A. A. Tokarev
Institute of International Research, Moscow State Institute of International Relations MFA RF (MGIMO-university)
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Alexey A. Tokarev, Doctor of Political Sciences, Leading Research Fellow, Institute of International Research
119454, Moscow, Prospect Vernadskogo 76
Competing Interests:
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
References
1. Akhmedov, S. Konflikty v Tadzhikistane: prichiny i posledstviya. Moskva: Ves’ mir, 1997 [In Russian].
2. Budaragina, L. “Status nepriznannykh gosudarstv.” Pravo i sovremennye gosudarstva, no. 3 (2016): 44–49 [In Russian].
3. 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].
4. Ilyashevich, M.V., Khakhina, A.A. “On the International Legal Recognition of States.” RUDN Journal of Law, no. 1 (2014): 236–244 [In Russian].
5. 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].
6. Markedonov, S. De-fakto obrazovaniya postsovetskogo prostranstva: dvadtsat’ let gosudarstvennogo stroitel’stva. Analiticheskie doklady Instituta Kavkaza №5. Erevan: Institut Kavkaza, 2012 [In Russian].
7. Melville, A.Yu. Faktory rezhimnykh transformatsii i tipy gosudarstvennoi sostoyatel’nosti v postkommunisticheskikh stranakh. Moskva: Izd.dom «Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki», 2011 [In Russian].
8. 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].
9. 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].
10. Tokarev, A.A. “The Conceptualization and Operationalization of the Concept of Statehood.” MGIMO Review of International Relations, no. 4 (2012): 247–254 [In Russian].
11. 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].
12. Trever, K.A., Yakubovskiy, A.Yu., Voronets, M.E. Istoriya narodov Uzbekistana. Tashkent: Izd-vo AN UzSSR, 1950 [In Russian].
13. Holina, E. “Formy i kriterii priznaniya gosudarstv.” Probely v rossiiskom zakonodatel'stve. Yuridicheskii zhurnal, no. 3 (2012): 218–223 [In Russian].
14. Tsivinskaya, N. “Evolyutsiya instituta priznaniya gosudarstva v mezhdunarodnom prave.” Istoriya i sovremennost’, no. 2 (2014): 147–161 [In Russian].
15. 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].
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Fukuyama, Francis. “Building Democracy After Conflict: ‘Stateness’ First”. Journal of Democracy 16, no. 1 (January 2005): 84–88.
21. Fukuyama, Francis. “The Imperative of State-Building.” Journal of Democracy 15, no. 2 (April 2004): 17–31.
22. Gachechiladze, Revaz. “Geopolitics in the South Caucasus: Local and External Players.” Geopolitics 7, no. 1 (2002): 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/714000896.
23. 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.
24. Hoch, Tomáš, and Vincenc Kopeček. De facto States in Eurasia. Routledge Contemporary Russia and Eastern Europe Series, 2019.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
Review
For citations:
Tokarev A.A. How Post-Soviet Secessions Appear: Factors Contributing to and Hindering Exit. Journal of International Analytics. 2022;13(4):19-42. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2022-13-4-19-42
Views:
1116
Email this article 