Engaging Without Recognizing? Western Approaches to the Eurasian De Facto States

From being a relatively neglected field, the study of de facto states has developed rapidly in recent years. As the break-up of the Soviet Union produced seven de facto states – four that still exist to this day (Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transnistria) and three that are now defunct (Chechnya, the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic) – scholars from this region have contributed greatly to the development of this field. Russian scholars have been particularly active, with Russia serving as the patron state of three of the extant entities (having reintegrated/absorbed the three defunct ones), as well as of the patron of Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia. But Western scholars have also made a sizeable contribution, although often working in relative isolation from “local” research. Whereas local researchers excel in in-depth knowledge of the history and culture of the region, their Western colleagues add to the comparative and theoretical approaches. And just as Russian researchers naturally focus on the relations of the Eurasian de facto states with their Russian patron, their Western counterparts often analyse the policies of their own countries towards these entities. Thus, we argue, two separate “ecosystems” of research into Eurasian de facto states have gradually developed: a “local” one and a “Western” one, each with its own peculiarities. In this article, we survey the “Western” literature on de facto states, noting the various assessments of the possibilities for US and EU engagement with the Eurasian de facto states. The scholarly literature discussing Western engagement emerges as partly analytical, explaining what Western states are doing and not doing and why, and partly normative, offering policy recommendations on how best to engage. Implicit in the concept of “engagement,” however, is the understanding that engagement is preferable to “ignoring” or “sanctioning.” According to this view, Western cooperation with de facto state authorities is inevitable.

1. Blakkisrud, Helge, Tamta Gelashvili, Nino Kemoklidze, and Pål Kolstø. “Navigating De facto Statehood: Trade, Trust, and Agency in Abkhazia’s External Economic Relations.” Eurasian Geography and Economics 62, no. 3 (2021): 347–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2020.1861957.

2. Berg, Eiki, and Martin Mölder. “Who is Entitled to ‘Earn Sovereignty’? Legitimacy and Regime Support in Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh.” Nations and Nationalism 18, no. 3 (2012): 527–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8129.2011.00527.x.

3. Berg, Eiki, and Scott Pegg. “Scrutinizing a Policy of ‘Engagement without Recognition’: US Requests for Diplomatic Actions with De facto States.” Foreign Policy Analysis 14, no. 3 (2018): 388–407. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orw044.

4. Berg, Eiki, and Raul Toomla. “Forms of Normalization in the Quest for De facto Statehood.” The International Spectator 44, no. 4 (2009): 27–45. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03932720903351104.

5. Berg, Eiki, and Kristel Vits. “Quest for Survival and Recognition: Insights into the Foreign Policy Endeavours of the Post-Soviet De facto States.” Ethnopolitics 17, no. 4 (2018): 390–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2018.1495359.

6. Bouchet, Nicolas. “Donbas and the Democracy Dilemma in De facto States.” Policy Perspectives 4, no. 6 (2016): 1–4.

7. Broers, Laurence. “Recognizing Politics in Unrecognised States: 20 Years of Enquiry into the De facto States of the South Caucasus.” Caucasus Survey 1, no. 1 (2013): 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761199.2013.11417283.

8. Caspersen, Nina. “Playing the Recognition Game: External Actors and De facto States.” The International Spectator 44, no. 4 (2009): 47–60. https://doi. org/10.1080/03932720903351146.

9. Caspersen, Nina. “Democracy, Nationalism and (Lack of) Sovereignty: The Complex Dynamics of Democratisation in Unrecognised States.” Nations and Nationalism 17, no. 2 (2011): 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8129.2010.00471.x.

10. Caspersen, Nina. “Recognition, Status Quo or Reintegration: Engagement with De facto States.” Ethnopolitics 17, no. 4 (2018): 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2018.1495360.

11. Cooley, Alexander, and Lincoln A. Mitchell. “Engagement without Recognition: A New Strategy toward Abkhazia and Eurasia’s Unrecognized States.” The Washington Quarterly 33, no. 4 (2010): 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2010.516183.

12. Coppieters, Bruno. “‘Statehood’, ‘De facto Authorities’ and ‘Occupation’: Contested Concepts and the EU’s Engagement in its European Neighbourhood.” Ethnopolitics 17, no. 4 (2018): 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2018.1495361.

13. Dembinska, Magdalena, and Aurélie Campana. “Frozen Conflicts and Internal Dynamics of De facto States.” International Studies Review 19, no. 2 (2017):254–278. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/vix010.

14. De Waal, Thomas. Uncertain Ground: Engaging with Europe’s De facto States and Breakaway Territories. Washington, DC.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2018.

15. De Waal, Thomas, and Sabine von Löwis. ZOIS Report no. 2: Higher Education in Europe’s Unrecognised Territories: Challenges and Opportunities. Berlin: ZOiS, 2020.

16. Fischer, Sabine. The EU’s Non-recognition and Engagement Policy towards Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Brussels: European Union Institute for Security Studies, 2010.

17. Fischer, Sabine. SWP Research Paper no. 5: The Donbas Conflict: Opposing Interests and Narratives, Difficult Peace Process. Berlin: SWP, 2019. https://doi.org/10.18449/2019RP05.

18. Florea, Adrian. “Rebel Governance in De facto States.” European Journal of International Relations 26, no. 4 (2020): 1004–1031. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120919481.

19. Harzl, Benedikt. The Law and Politics of Engaging De facto States: Injecting New Ideas for an Enhanced EU Role. Washington, DC.: Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2018.

20. Hoch, Tomáš. “EU Strategy towards Post-Soviet De facto States.” Contemporary European Studies 6, no. 2 (2011): 69–85.

21. Kemoklidze, Nino, and Stefan Wolff. “Trade as a Confidence-Building Measure in Protracted Conflicts: The Cases of Georgia and Moldova Compared.” Eurasian Geography and Economics 61, no. 3 (2020): 305–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2019.1702567.

22. Ker-Lindsay, James. “Preventing the Emergence of Self-Determination as a Norm of Secession: An Assessment of the Kosovo ‘Unique Case’ Argument.”

23. Europe–Asia Studies 65, no. 5 (2013): 837–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2013.805962.

24. Ker-Lindsay, James. “Engagement Without Recognition: The Limits of Diplomatic Interaction with Contested States.” International Affairs 91, no. 2 (2015): 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12234

25. Ker-Lindsay, James. “The Stigmatisation of De facto States: Disapproval and ‘Engagement without Recognition’.” Ethnopolitics 17, no. 4 (2018): 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2018.1495363.

26. Ker-Lindsay, James, and Eiki Berg. “Introduction: A Conceptual Framework for Engagement with De facto States.” Ethnopolitics 17, no. 4 (2018): 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2018.1495362.

27. Klosek, Kamil Christoph, Vojtěch Bahenský, Michal Smetana, and Jan Ludvík. “Frozen Conflicts in World Politics: A New Dataset.” Journal of Peace Research 58, no. 4 (2021): 849–858. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433209297.

28. Kolarz, Stefania. EU Diplomacy Paper 8: The European Union’s Engagement with the “De-Facto States” in the Eastern Partnership. Bruges: College of Europe, 2020.

29. 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.

30. Kopeček, Vincenc, Tomáš Hoch, and Vladimír Baar. “De facto States and Democracy: The Case of Abkhazia.” Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series, no. 32 (2016): 85–104. http://doi.org/10.1515/bog-2016-0017.

31. Lynch, Dov. Engaging Eurasia’s Separatist States: Unresolved Conflicts and De facto States. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2004.

32. Marandici, Ion, and Alexandru Leșanu. “The Political Economy of the Post-Soviet De facto States: A Paired Comparison of Transnistria and the Donetsk People’s Republic.” Problems of Post-Communism 68, no. 4 (2021): 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2020.1785317.

33. Newman, Edward, and Gëzim Visoka. “The European Union’s Practice of State Recognition: Between Norms and Interests.” Review of International Studies 44, no. 4 (2018): 760–786. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210518000104.

34. Özpek, Burak Bilgehan. “The Role of Democracy in the Recognition of De facto States: An Empirical Assessment.” Global Governance 20, no. 4 (2014): 585–599. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02004007.

35. Pegg, Scott. International Society and the De facto State. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998.

36. Pegg, Scott. “Twenty Years of De facto State Studies: Progress, Problems, and Prospects.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.516.

37. Pegg, Scott, and Eiki Berg. “Lost and Found: The WikiLeaks of De facto State–Great Power Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 17, no. 3 (2016): 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/insp.12078.

38. Relitz, Sebastian. “The Stabilisation Dilemma: Conceptualising International Responses to Secession and De facto States.” East European Politics 35, no. 3 (2019): 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2019.1580191.

39. Relitz, Sebastian. Conflict Resolution in De facto States: The Practice of Engagement without Recognition. Milton Park: Routledge, 2023.

40. Sabou, Alexandra. “The EU ‘Engagement Without Recognition’ Policy in Its Eastern Neighborhood De facto States: The Case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” Studia Europaea 62, no. 1 (2017): 127–139.

41. Yemelianova, Galina M. “Western Academic Discourse on the Post-Soviet De facto State Phenomenon.” Caucasus Survey 3, no. 3 (2015): 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761199.2015.1086572.