Abkhazia, Russia and Georgia: Ethnic

Abkhazia, Russia and Georgia: Ethnic Tensions in the Post Cold War Environment

On the surface, the conflict between Russia and the former Soviet state, Georgia, concerns the ethnic enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where distinct movements for independence from the Georgian government would prompt Russian intervention on behalf of the separatist movements, largely undermining Georgian sovereignty in a region formerly occupied by ethnic Georgians. The discussion here considers the legal challenges facing all sides as they attempt to find a temporary end to hostilities. Primarily, the legal issue centers on the declaratory approach to sovereignty taken by Abkhazia and endorsed by Russia as this diverges from the constitutive approach in which recognition on a broad international level must first occur to validate a state's legal right to existence.

Before proceeding into a discussion on the legal implications of the current dispute, it is appropriate to offer a profile of the territory's ethnic makeup as this is a direct contributor to its ongoing conflict. Accordingly, we address Zakareishvili's (1996) discussion on Russian colonizing during the Cold War as this effects the current circumstance. Accordingly, Zakareishvili tells that "for the strengthening of its' influence the Russian Empire used to re-settle some religious and military communities from Russia to Georgia (the Dukhobors and Cossacks). This trend was maintained after the sovietization of Georgia. The peculiarity of this period was that the new-comers were mainly settling in the towns and there were not appearing their new compact settlements." (Zakareishvili, p. 1)

The result would be a displacement of ethnic Georgians from Abkhazia and the initiation of an ongoing international rights struggle. Though the ethnic conflict concerns the desire of ethnic Georgians to return to Abkhazia and, simultaneously, the desire of Abkhazia for self-determination, the broader international legal dispute centers on the notion of the Law of State Recognition. This denotes that there are differentiating perspectives on that which determines statehood and that which entitles a region to challenge sovereignty. Here, we consult Fabry (2007), who warns that matters of state recognition have become particularly convoluted following the end of the Cold War. Here, Fabry remarks that in many cases of newly achieved territorial sovereignty, "only the claimants deemed to have the right to self-determination in international law. However, as in the aftermath of decolonization, the boundaries of self-determination set in international law have not led to a disappearance of claims of statehood that stand outside of them. Groups that feel unhappy within the states they belong to have continued to make demands for independence irrespective of the fact that they may not have any international right to it." (Fabry, p. 1)

This underscores the core distinction between declaratory and constitutive theory regarding statehood. This denotes that in accordance with the Montevideo Convention of 1933, the International Court of Justice will allow the declaratory approach to the extent that a nation will not require international recognition to at least be regarded as an entity with rights by the United Nations. (Worster, p. 1) Still, to a much larger extent that we will see applies to Abkhazia, the constitutive view is seen as much more valid and valuable to the international community. Here, we consider the case history offered by the statehood of Croatia and Bosnia/Herzegovina. According to Worster, "the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Court of Justice's neighbor in the Hague is also supportive of the constitutive theory. In the ?elebi-i case, the I.C.T.Y. held that the conflict within the former Yugoslavia was only of an international nature after international recognition of the independent statehood of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina." (Worster, p. 1)

Though there would be dissenting opinion on this stance within the International Courts, it does hold that at present, there is no obligation on the part of Georgia to recognize the statehood of Abkhazia. Moreover, it is clear that an assertion on the part of Russia that such recognition is necessary would be considered an act intended to undermine Georgian sovereignty. This underscores the need for efforts at humanitarian repair in the region without the demand for preconditions concerning state recognition on either side such as exemplified by the long-standing presence of the United Nations in the region. According to Shaw (2009), "the UN Observer Mission in Georgia has since 1993 been trying to resolve the Abkhaz conflict in Georgia. Its mandate has been expanded and extended since that time." (Shaw, p. 1114) Still, it seems likely that if other nations are to recognize Abkhazia, the ethnic conflicts that keep this region embattled must be resolved.