Tweet
Kosovo Ruling `Pandora's Box' for Caucasus
States and self-declared republics divided by international court
ruling that Kosovo's declaration of independence was legal.
By Karine Ohanian, Shahin Rzayev, Anaid Gogoryan, Nino Kharadze - Caucasus
CRS Issue 552,
30 Jul 10
Politicians in the South Caucasus were stunned by a ruling by the
International Court of Justice, ICJ, that Kosovo's declaration of
independence was legal, with one observer saying it opened a Pandora's
box for the troubled region.
The South Caucasus, according to most maps, consists of just three
countries. But there are in addition three self-declared states - all
of them largely or entirely unrecognised by outside powers.
The ICJ in The Hague had been asked by the United Nations Security
Council, acting on a request from Serbia, to decide whether "Is the
declaration of independence by Kosovo's provisional government in 2008
was in accordance with international law. The court ruled on July 22
that the declaration `did not violate general international law".
The ruling delighted the governments of Abkhazia and South Ossetia,
which claim independence from Georgia, and that of Nagorny Karabakh,
the Armenian-controlled territory which according to international law
is still part of Azerbaijan.
Like Serbia, which insists that Kosovo legally remains part of its
territory, Georgia and Azerbaijan were far from pleased.
`I would not say the principle of territorial integrity retreats into
second place following the decision by the Hague, but it's a fact that
the decision has opened a Pandora's box,' Rasim Musabekov, an
influential political analyst and columnist in Azerbaijan, said. `Now
separatists of all kinds will leech off this decision.'
The ICJ specifically stated that its ruling addressed only Kosovo's
declaration of independence, not the question of independence itself,
and also that it applied only to the former Serbian province, not to
other regions of the world.
However, the reaction in Karabakh, which broke free of Baku's rule in
a bloody post-Soviet war, more than confirmed Musabekov's concerns.
`This decision is of the utmost legal, political and moral
significance, as well as serving as a precedent,' a statement from
Karabakh's foreign ministry said. `It cannot be limited only to
Kosovo.'
Bako Sahakyan, president of the republic, confirmed this belief that
the precedent should apply to Karabakh, saying, `We will continue our
efforts to obtain international recognition of the Nagorny Karabakh
Republic, but now in a new political situation, and there will be new
developments in our lives.'
The situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Separatist forces in the
two entities defeated Georgian troops in the early post-Soviet years
and declared independence. Their aspirations to sovereignty were
largely ignored until 2008, when Russia intervened to block a Georgian
attempt to regain control of South Ossetia, and then surprised the
world by recognising both as independent states.
Only three countries have followed Moscow's lead. United States
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton last month upheld the Georgian
position by referring to Abkhazia and South Ossetia as `occupied'.
Now the governments of the two republics are hoping the ICJ ruling
will prompt more countries to recognise them.
Abkhazian prime minister Sergei Shamba concedes, however, that the
precedent might not be accepted internationally.
`In view of the double-standard policies pursued in the West, if
Abkhazia appealed to The Hague, I couldn't be certain that a similar
decision would be reached,' he said. `And this is despite the fact
that we have no fewer - if not more, in fact - historical, legal and
moral grounds and arguments in favour of recognition.'
The ICJ's decision will now go to the UN General Assembly for
discussion. Politicians in South Ossetia hope their own claims to
independence will be raised in the same forum.
`Although the international court's decision is only consultative in
nature, it has created a relevant precedent in international law,'
deputy foreign minister Kazbulat Tskhovrebov told the South Ossetian
state news agency Res.
`In my opinion, such a decision can be seen as indirect recognition of
Kosovo's independence, and will prompt other countries to recognise
it. I would like to hope that the declarations of independence by
South Ossetia and Abkhazia will also be examined within the walls of
the United Nations, and that we too will have a chance to show that
South Ossetia's declaration of independence does not violate the
standards of international law.'
In Tbilisi, politicians ruled this prospect out completely, saying the
situation in Kosovo and in their own breakaway territories had nothing
in common. They insisted that the hundreds of thousands of Georgians
expelled from Abkhazia and South Ossetia must be given the right to go
home before the disputes could be resolved.
According to Akaki Minashvili, chairman of the Georgian parliament's
foreign relations committee, `These are diametrically opposed
situations. In Kosovo, the international community intervened to stop
ethnic cleansing committed by the Milosevic regime against the
Albanians. In our case, the Russian Federation and occupying armed
forces committed ethnic cleansing against the Georgians.'
Minashvili noted that the ICJ ruling said that when the UN Security
Council had condemned other declarations of independence in the past,
it was because they resulted from the unlawful use of armed force or
other grave violations of international law.
`Russia recognised the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia so
as to legitimise ethnic cleansing and the alteration of borders,' he
said.
If Caucasian leaders took clear stances on the ICJ ruling - hailing it
as a precedent or denying its relevance to them, according to which
side they were on - Moscow appeared to be placed in a difficult
situation.
On the one hand, Russia has generally upheld the principle of
territorial integrity, citing this as justification both for its own
wars in Chechnya and also for backing its ally Serbia's claims on
Kosovo. On the other, it has recognised the right of Abkhazia and
South Ossetia to secede from Georgia.
A carefully-worded statement from the Russian foreign ministry avoided
mentioning Abkhazia and South Ossetia, saying only that `our position
on the recognition of Kosovo remains unchanged'.
The statement argued that the ICJ ruling covered only the legality of
Kosovo's declaration of independence, and that it `stated specifically
that it did not consider the wider question of the right of Kosovo to
separate from Serbia unilaterally'.
In the circumstances, perhaps the most realistic assessment of the
significance of the ICJ ruling came from Alfred Grigoryan, a
68-year-old taxi driver in Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorny
Karabakh. He expressed a clear-eyed recognition of the differences
between the South Caucasus and the Balkans.
`If we were located in Europe, then they'd recognise us as well,' he
said. `But as things are, we are the only ones interested in our
conflict, and we must fight for international recognition of our
independence, just as we fought for independence itself.'
Karine Ohanyan is a freelancer in Stepanakert, Shahin Rzayev is IWPR
country director in Azerbaijan, Anaid Gogoryan is a correspondent for
Chegemskaya Pravda in Sukhum, and Nino Kharadze is a reporter for
Radio Liberty in Tbilisi.
http://www.iwpr.net/report-news/kosovo-ruling-%E2%80%9Cpandora%E2%80%99s-box%E2%80%9D-caucasus
From: A. Papazian
States and self-declared republics divided by international court
ruling that Kosovo's declaration of independence was legal.
By Karine Ohanian, Shahin Rzayev, Anaid Gogoryan, Nino Kharadze - Caucasus
CRS Issue 552,
30 Jul 10
Politicians in the South Caucasus were stunned by a ruling by the
International Court of Justice, ICJ, that Kosovo's declaration of
independence was legal, with one observer saying it opened a Pandora's
box for the troubled region.
The South Caucasus, according to most maps, consists of just three
countries. But there are in addition three self-declared states - all
of them largely or entirely unrecognised by outside powers.
The ICJ in The Hague had been asked by the United Nations Security
Council, acting on a request from Serbia, to decide whether "Is the
declaration of independence by Kosovo's provisional government in 2008
was in accordance with international law. The court ruled on July 22
that the declaration `did not violate general international law".
The ruling delighted the governments of Abkhazia and South Ossetia,
which claim independence from Georgia, and that of Nagorny Karabakh,
the Armenian-controlled territory which according to international law
is still part of Azerbaijan.
Like Serbia, which insists that Kosovo legally remains part of its
territory, Georgia and Azerbaijan were far from pleased.
`I would not say the principle of territorial integrity retreats into
second place following the decision by the Hague, but it's a fact that
the decision has opened a Pandora's box,' Rasim Musabekov, an
influential political analyst and columnist in Azerbaijan, said. `Now
separatists of all kinds will leech off this decision.'
The ICJ specifically stated that its ruling addressed only Kosovo's
declaration of independence, not the question of independence itself,
and also that it applied only to the former Serbian province, not to
other regions of the world.
However, the reaction in Karabakh, which broke free of Baku's rule in
a bloody post-Soviet war, more than confirmed Musabekov's concerns.
`This decision is of the utmost legal, political and moral
significance, as well as serving as a precedent,' a statement from
Karabakh's foreign ministry said. `It cannot be limited only to
Kosovo.'
Bako Sahakyan, president of the republic, confirmed this belief that
the precedent should apply to Karabakh, saying, `We will continue our
efforts to obtain international recognition of the Nagorny Karabakh
Republic, but now in a new political situation, and there will be new
developments in our lives.'
The situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Separatist forces in the
two entities defeated Georgian troops in the early post-Soviet years
and declared independence. Their aspirations to sovereignty were
largely ignored until 2008, when Russia intervened to block a Georgian
attempt to regain control of South Ossetia, and then surprised the
world by recognising both as independent states.
Only three countries have followed Moscow's lead. United States
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton last month upheld the Georgian
position by referring to Abkhazia and South Ossetia as `occupied'.
Now the governments of the two republics are hoping the ICJ ruling
will prompt more countries to recognise them.
Abkhazian prime minister Sergei Shamba concedes, however, that the
precedent might not be accepted internationally.
`In view of the double-standard policies pursued in the West, if
Abkhazia appealed to The Hague, I couldn't be certain that a similar
decision would be reached,' he said. `And this is despite the fact
that we have no fewer - if not more, in fact - historical, legal and
moral grounds and arguments in favour of recognition.'
The ICJ's decision will now go to the UN General Assembly for
discussion. Politicians in South Ossetia hope their own claims to
independence will be raised in the same forum.
`Although the international court's decision is only consultative in
nature, it has created a relevant precedent in international law,'
deputy foreign minister Kazbulat Tskhovrebov told the South Ossetian
state news agency Res.
`In my opinion, such a decision can be seen as indirect recognition of
Kosovo's independence, and will prompt other countries to recognise
it. I would like to hope that the declarations of independence by
South Ossetia and Abkhazia will also be examined within the walls of
the United Nations, and that we too will have a chance to show that
South Ossetia's declaration of independence does not violate the
standards of international law.'
In Tbilisi, politicians ruled this prospect out completely, saying the
situation in Kosovo and in their own breakaway territories had nothing
in common. They insisted that the hundreds of thousands of Georgians
expelled from Abkhazia and South Ossetia must be given the right to go
home before the disputes could be resolved.
According to Akaki Minashvili, chairman of the Georgian parliament's
foreign relations committee, `These are diametrically opposed
situations. In Kosovo, the international community intervened to stop
ethnic cleansing committed by the Milosevic regime against the
Albanians. In our case, the Russian Federation and occupying armed
forces committed ethnic cleansing against the Georgians.'
Minashvili noted that the ICJ ruling said that when the UN Security
Council had condemned other declarations of independence in the past,
it was because they resulted from the unlawful use of armed force or
other grave violations of international law.
`Russia recognised the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia so
as to legitimise ethnic cleansing and the alteration of borders,' he
said.
If Caucasian leaders took clear stances on the ICJ ruling - hailing it
as a precedent or denying its relevance to them, according to which
side they were on - Moscow appeared to be placed in a difficult
situation.
On the one hand, Russia has generally upheld the principle of
territorial integrity, citing this as justification both for its own
wars in Chechnya and also for backing its ally Serbia's claims on
Kosovo. On the other, it has recognised the right of Abkhazia and
South Ossetia to secede from Georgia.
A carefully-worded statement from the Russian foreign ministry avoided
mentioning Abkhazia and South Ossetia, saying only that `our position
on the recognition of Kosovo remains unchanged'.
The statement argued that the ICJ ruling covered only the legality of
Kosovo's declaration of independence, and that it `stated specifically
that it did not consider the wider question of the right of Kosovo to
separate from Serbia unilaterally'.
In the circumstances, perhaps the most realistic assessment of the
significance of the ICJ ruling came from Alfred Grigoryan, a
68-year-old taxi driver in Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorny
Karabakh. He expressed a clear-eyed recognition of the differences
between the South Caucasus and the Balkans.
`If we were located in Europe, then they'd recognise us as well,' he
said. `But as things are, we are the only ones interested in our
conflict, and we must fight for international recognition of our
independence, just as we fought for independence itself.'
Karine Ohanyan is a freelancer in Stepanakert, Shahin Rzayev is IWPR
country director in Azerbaijan, Anaid Gogoryan is a correspondent for
Chegemskaya Pravda in Sukhum, and Nino Kharadze is a reporter for
Radio Liberty in Tbilisi.
http://www.iwpr.net/report-news/kosovo-ruling-%E2%80%9Cpandora%E2%80%99s-box%E2%80%9D-caucasus
From: A. Papazian