Received 29.08.2021. Revised 14.03.2022. Accepted 04.04.2022.
Abstract. The article is devoted to the analysis of forms of interaction with de facto states and tools for establishing direct ties with them. Special attention is paid to the practice of “involvement without recognition” introduced by the European Union, which is actively used today in Transdniestria and the South Caucasus. Basing on the example of the unrecognized states of the post-Soviet space, the author shows the evolution and expansion of their limited international legal personality, as well as the fact that the scope of legal personality is of great importance for partial recognition. The article concludes that the scope and content of external interaction largely determines not only the breadth of de facto recognition, but also promotes the inclusion of de facto states on the international agenda, ensures their status and, thereby, fixes a new quality of legal personality of unrecognized entities. According to the author, in matters of recognition, the geopolitical approach prevails over the normative one. Based on the evolving practice of interaction with de facto states in the post-Soviet space, the author identifies two levels of cooperation: the first is peace processes to resolve conflicts, which have led to the formation of these de facto states, and the second is international relations in the humanitarian, trade and economic fields. New realities make it possible for unrecognized entities to demonstrate to the world community their ability to fully participate in international relations, which, combined with the strengthening of internal sovereignty, qualitatively expands their compliance with the generally recognized formal characteristics of a state. Such orderly and, in some cases, legitimately regulated relations with de facto states form new rules, which, as a result of ongoing scientific and practical search, can also lead to clarification of the criteria for recognition and evolution of relevant international legal norms. Such new criteria may be: the ability to independently represent itself in multilateral international negotiation processes, participate in the achievement and implementation of international agreements, fulfil the obligations arising from them and have extensive experience of direct interaction with full-fledged subjects of international relations.
Keywords: de facto states, engagement without recognition, unrecognized entities, international legal personality, diplomatic recognition
1. Bolshakov A.G. Unrecognized states of the European periphery and borderlands. International processes, 2007, no. 3, pp. 83-88. (In Russ.)
2. Berg E., Pegg S. Scrutinizing a Policy of “Engagement Without Recognition”: US Requests for Diplomatic Actions with De Facto States. Foreign Policy Analysis, 2018, vol. 14, iss. 3, pp. 388-407. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orw044 (accessed 11.12.2021).
3. Coppieters B. Statehood, De Facto Authorities and Occupation: Contested Concepts and the EU’s Engagement in Its European Neighbourhood. Ethnopolitics, 2018, vol. 17, iss. 4, pp. 343-361. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2018.1495361
4. Ker-Lindsay J. Engagement without Recognition: The Limits of Diplomatic Interaction with Contested States. International Affairs, 2015, vol. 91, iss. 2, pp. 267-285. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12234
5. Broers L. The policy of non-recognition and democratization. The limits of the capabilities of the leaders of the elite and society in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. London, 2005, pp. 70-73. (In Russ.)
6. 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, iss. 3, pp. 347-371. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2020.1861957
7. Kemoklidze N., Wolff S. Trade as a confidence-building measure in protracted conflicts: the cases of Georgia and Moldova compared. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 2020, vol. 61, iss. 3. pp. 305-332. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2019.1702567
8. De Facto States in Eurasia. Hoch T., Kopecek V., eds. London, Routledge, 2020. 324 p.
9. Tokarev A., Margoev A., Prikhodchenko A. The statehood of Eurasia’s de facto states: an empirical model of engagement by great powers and patrons. Caucasus Survey, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 93-119. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23761199.2020.1870076
10. Markedonov S. Post-Soviet de facto states: trajectories of the struggle for sovereignty. World Economy and International Relations, 2021, vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 79-89. (In Russ.) Available at: https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2021-65-12-79-89
11. Pegg S. Twenty Years of De Facto State Studies: Progress, Problems, and Prospects. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Empirical International Relations Theory, Thompson W. R. et al., eds. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 1-30. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.516
12. Ilyin M.V. Alternative forms of sovereign statehood. Comparative Politics Russia, 2011, vol. 2, no. 3 (5), pp. 11-19. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.18611/2221-3279-2011-2-3(5)-11-19
13. Kholina E.A. Forms and criteria of recognition of states. Gaps in Russian legislation. Law Journal, 2012, no. 3, pp. 218-222. (In Russ.)
14. Thomas Hammarberg on the work of the authorities: “Many steps have already been taken. The level of understanding has become much higher.” News of Transnistria, 19.02.2005. (In Russ.) Available at: https://novostipmr.com/ru/news/19-02-05/tomas-hammarberg-o-rabote-vlastey-mnogie-shagi-uzhe-predprinyaty (accessed 11.12.2021).
15. Markedonov S. De facto formation of the post-Soviet space: twenty years of state construction. Analytical Reports of the Caucasus Institute, no. 5, 2012. Iskandaryan A., ed. Yerevan, Caucasus Institute, 2012. 180 p. (In Russ.)
16. Golunov S.V. The terrorist “Caliphate” as a quasi-state: the problem of conceptualization. iologii politiki “Politiya. Analiz. Hronika. Prognoz”, 2020, no. 2 (97), pp. 87-103 (In Russ.) DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2020-97-2-87-103
17. Kazimirov V.N. Peace to Karabakh. Mediation of Russia in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Moscow, International relationships, 2009. 456 p. (In Russ.)
18. Babayan D. Unrecognized, semi-recognized and de facto independent states in the geopolitical agenda of the PRC. 21st CENTURy, 2012, no. 4 (24), pp. 129-150 (In Russ.). Available at: http://www.intelros.ru/pdf/21_vek/2012_4/7.pdf (accessed 11.12.2021).
19. Bruno P., Wilmont F., Wernick O. International law and the independence of Transdniestria. Bendery, 2007. 67 p. (In Russ.) Available at: https://be.convdocs.org/docs/index-77755.html (accessed 11.12.2021).
20. De Waal Th. Uncertain Ground: Engaging with Europe’s De Facto States and Breakaway Territories. Washington, D.C., Carnegie Europe, 2018. 98 p. Available at: https://carnegieendowment.org/files/deWaal_UncertainGround_final.pdf (accessed 11.12.2021).
21. Kereselidze N. The engagement policies of the European Union, Georgia and Russia towards Abkhazia. Caucasus Survey, 2015, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1-14. DOI: 10.1080/23761199.2015.1102451
22. Berki E., Pegg S. Scrutinizing a Policy of “Engagement Without Recognition”: US Requests for Diplomatic Actions with De Facto States. Foreign Policy Analysis, 2018, vol. 14, iss. 3, pp. 388-407. DOI: 10.1093/fpa/orw044
23. Caspersen N. Recognition, Status Quo or Reintegration: Engagement with de facto States. Ethnopolitics, 2018, vol. 17, iss. 4, pp. 373-389. DOI: 10.1080/17449057.2018.1495360
24. De Waal T. Enhancing the EU’s Engagement with Separatist Territories. Carnegie Europe, 17.01.2017. Available at: https://carnegie.ru/2017/01/17/ru-pub-68650 (accessed 11.12.2021).
25. Cristescu R., Matveev D. Peacebuilding and Conflict Prevention in Moldova: the role of the EU. Paper prepared in the framework of the Civil Society Dialogue Network (CSDN). Brussels, European Peacebuilding Liaison Office, 2011. 30 p. Available at: https://eplo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/EPLO_CSDN_Background-doc_Study_Moldova.pdf (accessed 11.12.2021).
26. Caspersen N. The Pursuit of International Recognition after Kosovo. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 2015, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 393-412. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/i24526248 (accessed 11.12.2021).
27. Berg E., Vits K. Quest for Survival and Recognition: Insights into the Foreign Policy Endeavours of the Post-Soviet de facto States. Ethnopolitics, 2018, vol. 17, iss. 4, pp. 390-407. DOI: 10.1080/17449057.2018.1495359
28. Ker-Lindsay J., Berg E. Introduction: A Conceptual Framework for Engagement with de facto States. Ethnopolitics, 2018, vol. 17, iss. 4, pp. 335-342. DOI: 10.1080/17449057.2018.1495362
1. The Agreement on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic and the Republic of Abkhazia. 29.09.2017. 6 p. (In Russ.) Available at: http://abkhazia-pmr.org/files/Dogovr2017.pdf (accessed 11.12.2021).
2. The Agreement on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic and the Republic of South Ossetia. September 20.09.2016. 6 p. (In Russ.) Available at: https://mfa-pmr.org/sites/default/files/doc/2016/09/dogovorodruzhbesotrudnichestveipartnerstvemezhdupridnestrovskoymoldavskoyrespublikoyirespublikoyyuzh_0.pdf (accessed 11.12.2021).
3. The Foreign Ministry assessed the possibility of recognizing the Taliban by the Afghan authorities. RIA News, 23.08.2021. (In Russ.) Available at: https://ria.ru/20210823/afganistan-1746794218.html (accessed 11.12.2021).
4. Topical issues of the foreign policy of Pridnestrovie (2012–2013). Iss. 1. Shtanski N., ed. Bendery, Polygraphist, 2014. 142 p. (In Russ.)
5. Principles and procedures for conducting negotiations within the framework of the “Permanent Meeting on on the Transdniestrian settlement”. 18.04.2012. 3 p. (In Russ.) Available at: https://mfa-pmr.org/ru/node/7244 (accessed 11.12.2021).
6. China is angry about the treaty between Japan and Taiwan. BBC.com, 02.04.2013. (In Russ.) Available at: https://www.bbc.com/russian/international/2013/04/130402_china_disputed_island (accessed 11.12.2021).
7. The United States and Taiwan signed the first agreement since the beginning of Biden’s presidency. TASS, 26.03.2021. (In Russ.) Available at: https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/10999901?utm_source=google.com&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=google.com&utm_referrer=google.com (accessed 11.12.2021).
8. Memorandum on the basics of normalization of relations between the Republic of Moldova and Pridnestrovie. Moscow, 8 May 1997. 4 p. (In Russ.) Available at: https://mfa-pmr.org/node/7244 (accessed 11.12.2021).
9. Protocol on the results of the working meeting of the Deputy Chairman of the Government of the Russia A. Zhukov with the President of Pridnestrovie I. Smirnov. Moscow, May 23, 2006. (In Russ.) Available at: https://novostipmr.com/old/2006/ol131-05-06.html (accessed 11.12.2021).
10. Protocol on the results of the working meeting of Deputy Prime Minister of the Russia D. Rogozin and President of Pridnestrovie E. Shevchuk. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. 25.10.2013. (In Russ.) Available at: https://mfa-pmr.org/ru/pps (accessed 11.12.2021).
11. In the development of the Rogozin–Shevchuk Protocol, seven memorandums of cooperation were signed between the authorities of Russia and Pridnestrovie. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pridnestrovie, 02.07.2014. (In Russ.) Available at: https://mfa-pmr.org/ru/LCz (accessed 11.12.2021).
12. Protocol on mutual recognition of the validity on the Territory of Pridnestrovie and the Republic of Moldova of documents issued by the competent authorities of the Parties. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Tiraspol, 16.05.2001. (In Russ.) Available at: https://mfa-pmr.org/ru/JNc (accessed 11.12.2021).
13. Letter of the MFA of the Russia “On the Recognition of Legal Acts and Legal Actions of Unrecognized State Entities” no. 8349, 02.07.2007. (In Russ.)
14. Letter of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation No. 06/86999-MT, 26.09.2014 “On the possibility of Acceptance by Russian Notaries of Documents Originating from state Entities Not Recognized by the Russian Federation as Independent Subjects of International Law”. (In Russ.) Available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_173134/ (accessed 11.12.2021).
15. Joint statement of the mediators from the OSCE, the Russian Federation and Ukraine in the negotiation process on the political settlement of the Transnistrian problem. 18.01.2005. 1 p. (In Russ.) Available at: https://mfa-pmr.org/node/7244 (accessed 11.12.2021).
Registered in System SCIENCE INDEX