The Kosovo precedent and the rhetorical deployment of former Yugoslav analogies in the cases of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Nielsen, Christian

doi:10.1080/14683850902723595

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests that the international community's tying of state recognition to the status of victim of mass violence in the case of Kosovo coincides with a well-established preference for the avoidance of unilateral attempts at gaining independence. But rather than seeing the MASS VIOLENCE AND THE RECOGNITION OF KOSOVO 869 international community's arguments in the case of Kosovo as an attempt to limit unilateral secessionist claims to those situations where the physical existence of a minority group is threatened by the state, some scholars argue that they reinforce secessionist demands in Kosovo's neighbourhood and more generally in Central and Eastern Europe (Nielsen 2009;Berg 2009;Bardos 2008;Bandow 2009;Corten 2008). For these scholars, the recognition of Kosovo's independence on the basis of the violence suffered at the hands of the Serbian state opens a Pandora's box of similar claims by revisionist groups, particularly in other fragile Balkan states and in the Caucasus.…”

Section: Conclusion: Kosovo and The Prospects For State Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Mass Violence and the Recognition of Kosovo: Suffering and Recognition

Roseberry

2013

Europe-Asia Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Conclusion: Kosovo and The Prospects For State Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Mass Violence and the Recognition of Kosovo: Suffering and Recognition

Roseberry

2013

Europe-Asia Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The difficulties in defining the ‘people’ that should be granted ‘ self-determination’ may lead to inconsistent interpretation and opportunistic intervention by the international community. In this respect, a comparative look at the secession of Serbia’s Kosovo, Georgia’s Abkhazia and South-Ossetia and Ukraine’s Crimea is revealing (Hehir 2009 , Nielsen 2009 , Paech 2019 , 93).…”

Section: Federalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Perspectives

Linder

Mueller

2021

Swiss Democracy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter develops three comparative perspectives. Beginning with direct democracy, enhancing the direct participation of people as in Switzerland—considered revolutionary in the nineteenth century—may still be regarded a progressive form of democracy. But are increased political rights, offering the people not only a voice in electing their representatives but also a chance to decide major decisions directly, really an efficient way to improve democracy? The second perspective deals with federalism. Traditionally understood as a means for the vertical division of power within states, can it also play a role for the supranational division of power and the participation of minorities? The last section places political power-sharing in a context of conflict resolution, especially in multicultural societies. The chapter ends by stressing that power-sharing is not just an institutional arrangement, but that it also has to be based on the specific culture of a society that intends to practice it.

show abstract

“…Most of the emphasis is instead placed on geopolitics, the issue of state recognition, or conflict resolution (e.g. Nielsen 2009;Ellison 2011;Coppieters 2012). This article, therefore, aims to better understand these dynamics and how they interact with, and are influenced by, their respective relationships with the Russian Federation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The architecture of annexation? Russia's bilateral agreements with South Ossetia and Abkhazia

Ambrosio

Lange

2016

Natl. pap.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following the August War of 2008, Russia recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states. Both territories remain dependent upon Moscow for their security and economic survival, and they remain dominated militarily, economically, and even politically by their northern patron. These relationships are structured, in part, by a series of bilateral agreements signed since September 2008, which have created a comprehensive legal architecture which, in turn, deeply affects the state- and nation-building processes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This article examines 78 agreements signed between Russia and these territories between 2008 and 2015 in order to better understand these processes and how they interact with and are influenced by their respective relationships with the Russian Federation. It groups these agreements into three categories: the 2008 “friendship” agreements which created the initial baseline for the bilateral relationship; the numerous, more narrowly defined documents which fleshed-out this relationship; and the “alliance” and “integration” agreements signed with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, respectively, through which Moscow sought to take its relations with these territories to a qualitatively new level. Of particular focus is the degree to which these territories exhibited signs of independent agency and formal autonomy, as well as the differences between them.

show abstract

The Kosovo precedent and the rhetorical deployment of former Yugoslav analogies in the cases of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Cited by 14 publications

References 15 publications

Mass Violence and the Recognition of Kosovo: Suffering and Recognition

Mass Violence and the Recognition of Kosovo: Suffering and Recognition

Comparative Perspectives

The architecture of annexation? Russia's bilateral agreements with South Ossetia and Abkhazia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About