All this inspires the world expert community to more deeply study the world processes and nature of the phenomenon of so-called “unrecognized” states in the global context.
It should be noted that the core of the “unrecognized” state problem is a conflict of governance, which has a pluricausal basis: economic, ideological, socio-cultural, historical, symbolic, etc. The essence of this conflict is in the struggle for real power in the territory of “unrecognized” state: what capital will have it – Kishinev or Teraspol, Tbilisi and Sukhumi, etc.
The analysis of negotiations shows that it is impossible to find an option, in which the states striving for restoration of thir territorial integrity on the one side, and the republics de-facto existing for many years but unrecognized diplomatically on the other side would come to a mutually acceptable compromise. All talks within the framework of compromise projects, e.g. Plan of Victor Yuschenko 2006, fail when the parties start discussing who will exercise the real sovereignty over the given territory.
In so doing, the population of these territories already decided this problem establishing the de-facto sovereign states with their own republican authorities, legal, economic, educational and other backbone institutions.
The conflict between the social reality of the self-determined internally legitimized state and formal rules required for its official diplomatic recognition is the core of the “unrecognized” state phenomenon.
The problem of external legitimization of “unrecognized” states consists in the conflict of two basic principles of the international law: territorial integrity and right for self-determination.
Such conflict reveals crisis trends in the international law as a social institute that is unable in the current situation to fulfill its key regulatory function.
Recollect history. The contemporary international law and key international organizations, such as the United Nations, OSCE, etc. were established after WWII on the basis of Yalta and later Helsinki agreements. In the opinion of certain experts, for example, famous American sociologist and geopolitician Immanuel Wallerstain relationships between the United States and Soviet Union became a basis of the international law when the USA concluded a geopolotical deal with the Soviet Union. In accordance with these agreements the world was divided into zones of influence, which boundaries were strictly observed in spite of ideological confrontation and Cold War between two world systems. This political balance was ensured by compliance with the principles and norm of the international law, which provided for equality of rights and peaceful coexistence of the states with different social systems pursuant to the UN Charter. In such historical conditions the established system of international law effectively reflected the social realities that existed that time, and was based primarily on a prerequisite that sovereign states voluntarily complied with the mutually established rules of conduct in their foreign policy.
When after the collapse of the bipolar world the situation started changing radically, the interests and models of conduct of states in the international relations changed respectively. If in the mid and late XX century it was pragmatic and beneficial for the interests of the states to comply with the international law as a reference standard for maintaining the peace and stability in the epoch of nuclear weapon, then in the period of comprehensive world transformation it became pragmatic to achieve own objectives by any means. An illustrative example of unconditional priority of such own definition of objectives over any other constraints including norms of the international law is the American military operations in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, in the post-Soviet space and with respect to Iran.
In this context, the “double standard” concept referred to by politicians and mass media when analyzing the Western policy is rather illustrative. The very semantic form – “double standard” is contradictory.
The standard cannot be double because per definition it is a measure, benchmark, or template. For a certain class of empiric phenomena existence of two different and sometimes opposite theoretical approaches confirms lack of any standard rather than existence of a double standard. It is possible to make a conclusion that there are no regulatory norms for those social phenomena, to which term “double standard” is applicable.
In terms of the law itself such situation manifests itself in the loss of such key characteristics of the given institutions as generality, obligatoriness, clearness and specificity of instructions, application of equal scale to different social subjects in similar situations.
Determination of Kosovo status is on the one side universal as an explicit indicator of former international law system collapse, and on the other side unique – in the context of political problem solution.
In such conditions, it is logical to study the problem of self-proclaimed state legitimatization in the post-Soviet space based on civilizational, geoeconomic, geopolitical, military and other aspects of Realpolitik, i.e. actual progress of conflicts and negotiations.
The analysis of political developments in the GUAM states (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) and “Democratic Choice” states (Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Rumania, Macedonia, Slovenia and Georgia) shows that they were distinguished with assumption of power by pro-Western “democracies”, adoption of policy towards membership in EC and NATO and active anti-Russia behavior.
The NATO expansion eastwards including to the territory of the CIS and Baltic countries, EC enlargement, deployment of new weapon systems and military bases in Poland, Czech Republic, Rumania, Bulgaria, etc. are ideologically represented as strengthening of democratic development security in these countries, and inclusion of these states in the family of so-called “civilized” nations.
Simultaneously, in the conditions of potential confrontation of the USA and European states with Iran and Russia Georgia is a convenient bridgehead in the NATO collective security system that provides for a possibility to exercise control over the Caucasus, Southern Europe, Central Asia, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. To this end, it is necessary to convert the Georgian territory into “a NATO aircraft carrier” , deploy ABM and AD systems here and install US Army forward presence bases as it is done in Bulgaria and Rumania. They will be guarded and supported by the Georgian Armed Forces upgraded to the NATO standards.
In the geoeconomic aspect Georgia is interesting for the USA and European countries primarily as a territory of transit (together with Azerbaijan) to transport Caspian oil and gas by-passing Russia and Iran.
Russia objectively is very much interested in maintaining the peace and status quo in the Caucasus vice versa the political situation in Dagestan, Chechnya, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Adygeya and in south Russia in general may be destabilized. It may result in fundamental political changes in the Black-Sea-Caspian Region that will have grave geopolitical consequences.
As for Moldova and Transdniestria, the policy of the USA, Great Britain, other European countries, NATO and EC primarily is aimed at driving of Russia out of South-Eastern Europe, and liquidation of Transdniestria as a pro-Russian enclave.
It is possible to forecast for certain that Moldova will not keep its “neutral” status provided Transdniestria is controlled by Kishinev.
From the positive point of view, the decision on diplomatic recognition of the self-determined countries should base on both Realpolitik factors and fundamental conceptual blocks determining the decision on recognition of new states. The key parameters are the following:
- availability of territory, power and population;
- economic self-sufficiency;
- effective state authorities;
- observance of democratic election procedures;
- availability of up-to-date legal and political systems inclusive of civil society institutions;
- provision of security for the outer world;
- observance of up-to-date ecological standards;
- availability of up-to-date educational system;
- information openness of the society;
- other parameters.
These parameters may be easily studied objectively provided this study is performed not by partisan observers.
For example, in September 2004, a public opinion survey was conducted in the Transdniestria to identify attitude of the Trandniestrian population to its Republic that is an indicator of Transdniestrian statehood legitimacy, and attitude of the Transdniestrian people to the Republic of Moldova and settlement process mediators: Russia, Ukraine and OSCE. Totally 821 respondents of 7 Republican districts participated in the survey.
The survey showed that the respondents answered the questions on their attitude to their state as follows:
57.7% supported the statement that Tiraspol may be regarded as a capital of the first Transdniestrian statehood;
56.81% supported the statement that the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic may be regarded as the second Transdniestrian statehood;
66.50% determined themselves as patriots of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic;
59.06% expressed their readiness to defend their Republic in case of a military aggression;
71.23% supported the idea of full independence of Transdniestria as a sovereign state;
73.53% supported the idea to conduct a referendum in Transdniestria to finally determine the PMR state status.
The percentage of replies made it possible to isolate a modal (dominating) group and social tendency towards active support by the Transdniestrian people of their statehood.
It is quite logical that at the referendum of September 1, 2006 97.1% of people voted for and 2.3% voted against the policy towards independence of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic and subsequent voluntary joining of Transdniestria with the Russian Federation.
94.6% of people voted against and 3.4% voted for possible abandoning of PMR independence and subsequent joining with the Republic of Moldova.
International observes made a conclusion that the referendum was held in strict compliance with the international law and legislation of the PMR.
It seems that the aforesaid approaches basing on the Realpolitik analysis, criteria of sustainability and internal legitimacy of the state, are quite correct in the methodological sense to make a decision on recognition of the Republic of Abkhazia, Republic of Southern Ossetia, Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (Transdniestria) and Nagorny-Karabakh Republic by the Russian Federation.
