Number of results to display per page
Search Results
42. Crimea: Its Politics, Economy, and Resources
- Author:
- Yulia Tyshchenko
- Publication Date:
- 05-2015
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies
- Abstract:
- This article examines certain questions and challenges pertaining to the Russian Federation’s illegal annexation of Crimea in the domains of security and the violation of both property rights and human rights, abuses of which are systemic in the region. The issues I will discuss, pertaining to the illegal nationalization of private and state property in the annexed region of Ukraine, are problems that entangle the Russian Federation in complex land relations, which have the potential to fuel conflict. This article examines human rights violations linked with the annexation of the Crimea. Problems have arisen concerning the persecution of different ethnic and national groups—namely, Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians—by Crimean and Russian authorities. Currently, both Ukraine and the international community lack significant opportunities to influence Crimea’s politics and economy.
- Topic:
- Political Violence, Human Rights, International Political Economy, and International Security
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea
43. OSCE Principles in Practice: Testing Their Effect on Security Through the Work of Max van der Stoel, First High Commissioner on National Minorities 1993–2001
- Author:
- Marianna M. Yamamoto
- Publication Date:
- 01-2015
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
- Abstract:
- This monograph tests the OSCE approach to security. The OSCE approach to security encompasses all areas that can cause tensions and conflict between States, and is the result of a sustained effort by almost all of the world’s democracies on how to achieve both security and individual freedom. An important basis of the OSCE security concept is that international security cannot be achieved without the protection and promotion of individual rights and freedoms. The study first extracts from official OSCE documents a set of principles designed to achieve international security, and then uses the work of the first OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM), Max van der Stoel, to test the effectiveness of the principles in practice. From 1993 to 2001, HCNM Max van der Stoel applied OSCE principles in cases involving minority tensions with a high potential for international conflict, and this experience provided the means to assess the practical effects on security when OSCE principles are implemented. The study examined three cases that involved potential conflict: Ukraine and separatism in Crimea; Estonia and tensions regarding the Russian minority; and Macedonia and tensions regarding the Albanian minority. The study found that in each of the three cases, the implementation of OSCE principles reduced national and international tensions involving minority issues, and increased security. The increase in security was seen within each State, between States, and in the region, and reduced the potential for conflict within and between OSCE States. The results were particularly significant in view of the instability, conflicts, and tensions of the post–Cold War period; the OSCE’s ongoing institutionalization during the period; and the limited resources and tools available to the OSCE and the HCNM. The study identified and articulated twenty OSCE security principles that addressed national and international security. The principles addressed the rights and responsibilities of State sovereignty; a comprehensive, cooperative, and common security approach; the prevention of security threats and the peaceful resolution of issues; the protection and promotion of individual rights and freedoms through democracy, the rule of law, and the market economy; rights and responsibilities pertaining to national minorities; the development and advancement of shared values; and processes and mechanisms. The monograph extended the research on the OSCE principles to express an OSCE security concept. The OSCE security concept is a security framework based on the idea that security depends on the development and implementation of principles guiding three areas: how States deal with each other and resolve problems; the protection and promotion of individual rights within States; and the processes and mechanisms to review and advance values, principles, and commitments. The study showed that the implementation of OSCE principles in Ukraine, Estonia, and Macedonia significantly increased security in those three countries and the OSCE region. The study found that the OSCE principles and the OSCE security concept constitute a significant body of thought and practice regarding security, and respect for the individual. The OSCE principles, the OSCE security concept, and the work of the High Commissioner on National Minorities merit further examination, development, and application to national security policy and practice. The application to national security policy and practice is relevant to all security threats and problems.
- Topic:
- Security, Cold War, International Cooperation, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Estonia, Macedonia, and Crimea
44. Lauri Mälksoo. Russian Approaches to International Law
- Author:
- Angelika Nussberger
- Publication Date:
- 07-2015
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Abstract:
- Modern international law of the 21st century seems to be characterized by a farewell to the Westphalian understanding of state sovereignty, by the empowerment of the individual and by transnational solutions to common problems in a globalized world. This overview, however, is not true for Russian international law. The ‘powerful idea of Russia’s civilizational distinctness from the West’ is underlying the post-Soviet practice in international law (at 190). This is the main thesis of Lauri Mälksoo’s study on ‘Russian approaches to international law’. Russia was different, Russia is different and Russia is proud of being different.
- Topic:
- International Law, Sovereignty, United Nations, History, and Intellectual History
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, and Crimea
45. The Modern Practice of Intervention by Invitation in Africa and Its Implications for the Prohibition of the Use of Force
- Author:
- Erika de Wet
- Publication Date:
- 10-2015
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Abstract:
- This article examines how two prominent criteria for permissible military intervention by invitation as developed in doctrine are currently implemented by states as well as how this impacts the prohibition of the use of force. Controversies concern, in particular, the determination of the authority entitled to extend the invitation, as recently illustrated by the Russian claim that its military intervention in the Crimea was based on the invitation of (former) President Yanukovych. Does the inviting authority need to enjoy democratic legitimacy and/or be in de facto control of a state’s territory? Furthermore, it remains highly contentious whether an invitation for forcible intervention may be extended during a civil war. By analysing modern state practice in Africa – where most of the contemporary invitations for military assistance occur – and comparing it with recent developments in other regions, the author concludes that effective control rather than democratic legitimacy is (still) the point of departure for determining the legitimate government of a state. Once recognized, incumbent governments enjoy a large discretion when inviting military assistance from foreign governments. They seem to retain the right to military assistance even in situations of civil war and while exercising limited control over the territory.
- Topic:
- International Law, Sovereignty, United Nations, and Military Intervention
- Political Geography:
- Africa, Russia, Europe, and Crimea
46. The Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Current Situation, Consequences, Prospects
- Author:
- Valeriya Klymenko and Hanna Pashkova
- Publication Date:
- 01-2014
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- National Security and Defence
- Institution:
- Razumkov Centre
- Abstract:
- On 27 January 2015 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the Resolution “On the Appeal of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to the United Nations, European Parliament, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, NATO Parliamentary Assembly, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, GUAM Parliamentary Assembly and national parliaments of the countries of the world on the recognition of the Russian Federation as an aggressor state”. It is stated in the document that “Ukraine remains the target of military aggression by the Russian Federation, which the latter carries out, among other things, by supporting, and providing supplies for large-scale terrorist attacks. … taking into account the provisions of the UN Charter and UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 ‘Definition of Aggression’ dated 14 December 1974, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine recognises the Russian Federation as an Aggressor State…”.1 This Appeal defines the current situation and character of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, the reason and source for which is Russia’s expansionist policy in the post-Soviet area, which the Russian Federation, represented by its current leadership, considers its “zone of privileged interests”. This forms the basis for Russia’s hard pressure on Ukraine to integrate into Eurasian alliances under the auspices of the Russian Federation (RF), and blocking Kyiv’s course towards European and Euro-Atlantic integration. Such policy, as implemented by Russia since the beginning of 2000, did not involve establishing real partner relations between Moscow and Kyiv on the basis of parity and equality, – its goal was to turn Ukraine into a controlled state, which would operate in the framework of Russia’s policy. Russia’s geopolitical plans regarding Ukraine were ruined in February 2014. In return, Putin’s regime resorted to outright aggression against Ukraine – in March 2014 Crimea was annexed, later began the military expansion in Eastern Ukraine. This “undeclared” or “hybrid” war of Russia against Ukraine has now lasted for almost a year; during this war Ukraine has suffered large-scale human, territorial and economic losses. A critical outcome of this war is mutual estrangement of both countries’ societies. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is not a “local”, “peripheral” event, – it has regional and global dimension, and contains challenges and threats to the global security system. Annexation of Crimea, the situation in Eastern Ukraine are turning into a large-scale “frozen conflict”, which is a threat to security and stability not only on the European continent, but in the world at large. Leading Western countries and international organisations have not recognised the annexation of Crimea, thus, demonstrating political and diplomatic solidarity with Ukraine; have supported Ukraine in its battle against Russian aggression in Donbas. Ukraine has received considerable external financial and material-technical support. “Restraining” sanctions against Russia have been implemented. Currently, Ukraine is in the epicentre of critical West-Russia confrontation, which is characterised by an unprecedented loss of mutual trust. Ukraine-Russia relations are in a critical and unpredictable state. The political and diplomatic confrontation is ongoing; fundamental agreements and arrangements have been violated; the system of institutional interstate relations has been practically shattered; confrontation in the sphere of economy and energy sector is exacerbating, informational aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine continues. In general, current events give no reason to expect changes for the better in Russia’s policy towards Ukraine in the foreseeable future. Thus, the current state of Kyiv-Moscow relations demands creating fundamentally different conceptual and strategic approaches to co-existence with Putin’s Russia, a review of international contacts system, introduction of specific measures towards Russia.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Geopolitics, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and Crimea
47. What do the Crimean Tatars face in Crimea?
- Author:
- Alexander Osipov
- Publication Date:
- 04-2014
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI)
- Abstract:
- The Issue Brief concerns further developments which the Crimean Tatars may experience after the Russian annexation of Crimea. The Crimean Tatars are the second largest minority in the Crimean peninsula, and they are represented by politically active movements with far-reaching claims concerning the status of Crimean Tatars and territorial self-determination. Within less than one month these people as well as their homeland have been transferred to another country with different political and legal systems and potentially a less friendly social environment. Since the contours of the future legal and institutional framework for the accommodation of Crimean Tatars are not fully clear, one can project the major organizational setups and patterns of Russian ethno-politics onto Crimea and tentatively assess their applicability. We can conclude that in a formal sense the Russian rule does not promise the Crimean Tatars much more than they already had in Ukraine, but puts them at risk of a strict police control and pressure. Such arrangements as territorial and non-territorial autonomy, power-sharing, 'rehabilitation' of the Crimean Tatars as victims of the past repressions may take place but they would have limited practical sense. Cultural programmes and recruitment of Crimean Tatars to the regional administration are unlikely to be legally guaranteed and will be fully dependent on the discretion of Russian and Crimean authorities.
- Topic:
- Culture, Minorities, Ethnicity, Conflict, and Identity
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and Crimea
48. What next for Moldova's Minorities after Crimea?
- Author:
- Federica Prina
- Publication Date:
- 07-2014
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI)
- Abstract:
- This Issue Brief examines the possible consequences of Russia's annexation of Crimea on Moldova and its national minorities. It further reflects on the factors that hinder greater integration of persons belonging to minorities, and the expression of minority identity in Moldova/Transnistria. The Issue Brief argues there are two indirect consequences of the annexation of Crimea by Russia. First, the annexation deepens the polarization between the pro-Russia and pro-EU camps in Moldova, which manifests itself in multiple ruptures within Moldovan society. Second, such a polarization furthers a tendency to marginalize (non-Russian) minorities, which implies a reduction of the spaces for the articulation of minority concerns and the expression of minority identity.
- Topic:
- Minorities, Ethnicity, Discrimination, Conflict, and Identity
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Ukraine, Moldova, and Crimea
49. Soft Power, Regionalism and Common Neighborhoods: Russia's Potential in a Competitive Environment
- Author:
- Andrey Makarychev
- Publication Date:
- 03-2013
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- BILGESAM (Wise Men Center for Strategic Studies)
- Abstract:
- This paper argues that soft power becomes an indispensable component of Russia’s policies toward its southern neighbors. The author addresses the conceptual and practical dimensions of soft power instrumentalization by the Russian diplomacy. He claims that soft power can be applied not only within bilateral relations between Russia and its individual partners, but also as a tool of more regionally-oriented policies. In this context such regional frameworks with different degrees of institutionalization as the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea regions, Central Asia and the Caucasus are discussed. The paper concludes by stating that Russia’s soft power projection inevitably develops in competition with soft power projects launched by other major actors in Eurasia, including Turkey and the European Union.
- Topic:
- Environment, Regional Cooperation, Soft Power, Regionalism, and Strategic Competition
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Central Asia, Eurasia, Turkey, and Crimea
50. Social Capital Development in Multiethnic Crimea: Global, Regional and Local Constraints and Opportunities
- Author:
- Milana V. Nikolko and David B. Carment
- Publication Date:
- 09-2010
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Caucasian Review of International Affairs
- Institution:
- The Caucasian Review of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- This article analyses social capital in Ukraine, using the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) as a case study. To understand how a multiethnic society like Crimea can build and strengthen social capital in the face of economic and political challenges, we focus on the relationship between global, regional and local politics; the subsequent impact on people's work and private lives; and the actions which can be undertaken by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), international organizations and the state in order to avoid the detrimental trends the region is currently experiencing. Regarding social capital, Ukraine provides an enigmatic example as the country has myriad civil society actors who should, theoretically, constitute the cornerstone of social capital formation and interethnic cooperation. Our findings suggest, however, that there is still a long way to go before trust and shared values become a basis for political and economic growth in Ukraine. An integral element for improving public trust in Ukraine, specifically in Crimea, can be found by examining the impact of global and regional processes on interethnic cooperation within local groups, their specific initiatives and the ways in which they have developed mechanisms for avoiding unresolved conflict.
- Topic:
- Civil Society and Development
- Political Geography:
- Ukraine and Crimea