Acknowledgements. The reported study is funded by MGIMO-University, project number is 1921-01-05.
Abstract. The de-facto statehood is a multi-faceted phenomenon of the international politics. They are key elements of the ethno-political conflicts in the contexts of collapse of multi-ethnic federations, empires as well as processes of decolonization. In spite of growing scientific interest to this phenomenon de-facto states’ studies face a clear lack of interdisciplinary research. Most of papers are devoted to the conflict dynamics, issues of theory and international law issues or cover some particular country cases. The topical perspectives of de-facto states are often studied with no special attention to their historical background. The offered article examines the trajectories of the struggle for the sovereignty of Post-Soviet de facto entities. The author provides a comprehensive analysis of their evolution in the last years of the existence of the Soviet Union and in the period after of the USSR dissolution. The article offers a typology of de facto states. From the author’s point of view, we can talk about two generations of such formations. If the first generation was a result of the once single state collapse as well as growing fight for revisiting statuses of former union and autonomous entities, the second one was a consequence of the crisis of nation-building in the newly independent states and the growing competition between Russia and the West for influence in Eurasia. The article presents the evolution of the trajectories of the de facto states struggle for sovereignty in the context of three successive Post-Soviet regional orders. According to the author, all the Post-Soviet unrecognized republics were formed in the conditions of the destruction of the constitutional consensus of 1977–1978. However, then the trajectories of asserting and protecting the sovereignty of the de facto entities diverged significantly. The author evaluates the general and special features of these processes. In his view, this dynamic has depended on the regional context changes (revision of “the Belavezha order”) but at the same time, changes within de facto states seriously influenced the international environment.
Keywords: de-facto states, the USSR dissolution, Post-Soviet space, ethno-political conflicts, nation-building, sovereignty, independence, autonomy, self-determination, state-patron
1. Florea A. De Facto States: Survival and Disappearance (1945–2011). International Studies Quarterly, 2017, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 337-351.
2. Kazantsev A., Rutland P., Safranchuk I., Medvedeva S. Russia’s policy in the “frozen conflicts” of the Post-Soviet space: from ethno-politics to geopolitics. Caucasus Survey, 2020, no. 2, pp. 142-162.
3. O’Loughlin J., Kolossov V., Toal G. Inside the Post-Soviet de facto states: A comparison of attitudes in Abkhazia, Nagorny Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Transnistria. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 2014, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 423-456.
4. Silaev N. Russia and its Allies in Three Strategic Environments. Europe-Asia Studies, 2021. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09668136.2021.1887087 (accessed 14.07.2021).
5. Kutlay M., Oniş Z. Turkish foreign policy in a post-western order: strategic autonomy or new forms of dependence? International Affairs, 2021, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 1085-1104.
6. Berg E., Molder M. Who is entitled to “earn sovereignty”? Legitimacy and regime support in Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Nations and Nationalism, 2012, no. 18 (3), pp. 527-545.
7. Isachenko D.V. Double Standards of International Recognition: Right vs. Might? Journal of International Analytics, 2020, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 22-34.
8. Pegg S. Twenty Years of de facto State Studies: Progress, Problems, and Prospects. 2017. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319043563_Twenty_Years_of_de_facto_State_Studies_Progress_Problems_and_Prospects (accessed 10.07.2021).
9. Lynch D. Separatist States and Post-Soviet Conflicts. International Affairs, 2002, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 831-848.
10. Ilyin M.V., Meleshkina E.Yu., Mel’vil’ A.Yu. Formation of new states: internal and external factors of consolidation. Polis. Political Studies, 2010, no. 3, pp. 26-39. (In Russ.) Available at: https://www.politstudies.ru/article/4277 (accessed 10.07.2021).
11. Broers L., Iskandaryan A., Minasyan S., eds. The unrecognized politics of de facto states in the Post-Soviet space. Yerevan, Caucasus Institute and International Association for the Study of the Caucasus, 2015. 240 p.
12. Tokarev A.A. Comparative analysis of secession: quantification of influencing factors. Polis. Political Studies, 2017, no. 4, pp. 106-117. (In Russ.) Available at: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.04.08
13. Meleshkina E.Yu. State-building and institutional transplantation in post-communist countries. Political Science, 2016, no. 4, pp. 186-213. (In Russ.)
14. Yagya V.S., Antonova I.A. States with Limited Recognition in Russian Foreign Policy: Comparative Analysis of Key Features. Sravnitel’naya politika, 2020, no. 4, pp. 92-105. (In Russ.)
15. King Ch. Eurasia’s Nonstate States. East European Constitutional Review, 2001, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 4-15.
16. Tamas G. Ethnarchy and Ethno-Anarchism. Social Research, 1996, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 147-190.
17. Dobronravin N.A. Unrecognized states in the “grey zone” of world politics: foundations for survival and rules of sovereignization. St. Petersburg, European University at Saint Petersburg, 2011. 56 p. (In Russ.)
18. O’Beachain D., Comai G., Tsurtsumia-Zurabashvili A. The Secret Lives of Unrecognized States: Internal Dynamics, External Relations, and Counter-recognition Strategies. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 2016, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 440-466.
19. Kopecek V., Hoch T., Baar V. Conflict transformation and civil society: The case of Nagorno-Karabakh. Europe-Asia Studies, 2016, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 441-459.
20. Blakkisrud H., Kemoklidze N., Gelashvili T., Kolsto P. Navigating de facto statehood: trade, trust, and agency in Abkhazia’s external economic relations. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 2021, vol. 62, no. 3. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15387216.2020.1861957
21. Frear T. The foreign policy options of a small unrecognized state: the case of Abkhazia. Caucasus Survey, 2014, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 83-107.
22. Rytovuori-Apunen H. Power and Conflict in Russia’s Borderlands: The Post-Soviet Geopolitics of Dispute Resolution. London, I. B. Tauris, 2019. 344 p.
23. Ilyin M.V. The state recognition in the context of the world system evolution. International trends, 2012, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 18-27. (In Russ.)
24. O’ Beachain D. The dynamics of electoral politics in Abkhazia. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 2012, vol. 45, pp. 165-174.
25. Caspersen N. Unrecognized States: The Struggle for Sovereignty in the Modern International System. Cambridge, Polity Press, 2012. 210 p.
26. Yannis A. The Concept of Suspended Sovereignty in International Law and Its Implications in International Politics. European Journal of International Law, 2002, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1037-1052.
27. Lapidus G. Contested Sovereignty: The Tragedy of Chechnya. International Security, 1998, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 5-49.
28. Tsutsiyev A.A. Territories of problematic sovereignty. Scientific Papers of the Institute of Eastern Europe, 2006, iss. 1, pp. 15-30. (In Russ.)
29. Kudelia S., Van Zyl J. In My Name: The Impact of Regional Identity on Civilian Attitudes in the Armed Conflict in Donbas. Nationalities Papers, 2019, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 801-821.
30. Wendt A. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999. 430 p.
31. Hobsbawm E., Ranger T., eds. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983. 324 p.
32. Gellner E. Nations and nationalism. Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1983. 150 p.
33. Harzl B. International Conflicts and International Law. Journal of International Analytics, 2020, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 11-21.
34. Bourdieu P. Social space and symbolic power. Thesis, 1993, iss. 2, pp. 137-150. (In Russ.)
35. Achkasov V. A. The Concept of “SecurityDilemma” in the Study of the Dynamics of ethno-political Conflicts. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University, Ser. 6. Political science. International Relations, 2016, iss. 2, pp. 24-30. (In Russ.)
36. Zubkova E.Yu. Power and development of ethno-conflict situation in the USSR. 1953–1985. Otechestvennaya istoriya, 2004, no. 4, pp. 3-32. (In Russ.)
37. Galstyan A. S. The Karabakh turns in the US foreign policy. The International Affairs, 2016. (In Russ.) Available at: https://interaffairs.ru/news/show/15177 (accessed 02.07.2021)
38. Shaw M. The Heritage of States: The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris Today. British Yearbook of International Law, 1996, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 75-154.
39. Lakoba S. Z. Abkhazia de-facto or Georgia de-jure. On the Russian politics in Abkhazia in the Post-Soviet period, 1991–2001. Sapporo, Hokkaido University Slavic Research Center, 2001. 111 p. (In Russ.)
40. Platonova M.A. De-facto independent states of the Caucasus: reassessment of terminology. Bulletin of Volgograd State University. Ser. 4: History. Regional Studies. International Relations, 2012, no. 1, pp. 98-101. (In Russ.)
41. Has K., Kaleji V., Markedonov S. The Breakdown of the Status Quo and the International Dimension of the Nagorno-Karabakh Crisis. Moscow, Valdai Discussion Club Report, 2020. 31 p.
Registered in System SCIENCE INDEX