Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The current conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh began in the second half of the 1980s, but its roots are deeper, reaching back at least to the first quarter of the 20th century. The aim of this article is to place these problematic aspects of mutual Armenian-Azerbaijani relations in their historical context and to link them with the current conflict. This article also identifies the factors that underlay the initial stages of the conflict and its subsequent escalation. The ethno-political mobilization of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, but subsequently also of Armenians in the Armenian SSR and Azerbaijanis in the Azerbaijan SSR, was driven by specific conditions that emerged during the collapse of the Soviet state. The gradual ethno-political mobilization in both union republics, as well as in Nagorno-Karabakh itself, was a by-product of Soviet nationality policy, and was enabled by the policy of glasnost. This article identifies the following key factors that created suitable conditions for the escalation of the conflict: Armenians' dissatisfaction with the autonomous status of Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan (fueled by the perception of numerous historic injustices), the legal and social chaos brought by the disintegration of the USSR, and the political and economic weakness of the newly emerging states.

Independence or unification with Russia? That is a question that is constantly present in the South Ossetian public space. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, two referendums have been held in South Ossetia on the issue of state sovereignty (in 1992 and 2006). Since 2015, many proclamations have been made by South Ossetian politicians about preparations for another referendum on the subject. In the case of South Ossetia, what one would think as dichotomous ideas – independence and unification with Russia – are in fact overlapping concepts. The aim of this paper is to contribute to a closer understanding of the puzzling current reality in South Ossetia in terms of the debate on unification versus independence. On the one hand, South Ossetia seeks independence, but on the other, it is constantly seeking to join Russia. The second goal of the paper is to identify the factors, which underlie the South Ossetian discourse supporting the idea of unification with the Russian Federation. As a result of the analysis, the author concludes that the issue of security and the idea of a divided nation play a crucial role in this discourse. These topics frequently appear in the statements of the South Ossetian political elite as the main arguments in favour of accession to Russia. In addition, there are several other important variables, which can explain this prevailing South Ossetian narrative: the lack of human and natural resources for a viable state, the fatigue of the South Ossetian population in the face of the incompetence of local elites, and their aspiration for Russian centralisation. Finally, because a fuzzy independence narrative has also been documented in other de facto states, the author seeks an answer to a more general question: Why does this overlap in the narrative of independence versus unification arise in de facto states?

Independence or unification with Russia? That is a question that is constantly present in the South Ossetian public space. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, two referendums have been held in South Ossetia on the issue of state sovereignty (in 1992 and 2006). Since 2015, many proclamations have been made by South Ossetian politicians about preparations for another referendum on the subject. In the case of South Ossetia, what one would think as dichotomous ideas -independence and unification with Russia- are in fact overlapping concepts. The aim of this paper is to contribute to a closer understanding of the puzzling current reality in South Ossetia in terms of the debate on unification versus independence. On the one hand, South Ossetia seeks independence, but on the other, it is constantly seeking to join Russia. The second goal of the paper is to identify the factors, which underlie the South Ossetian discourse supporting the idea of unification with the Russian Federation. As a result of the analysis, the author concludes that the issue of security and the idea of a divided nation play a crucial role in this discourse. These topics frequently appear in the statements of the South Ossetian political elite as the main arguments in favour of accession to Russia. In addition, there are several other important variables, which can explain this prevailing South Ossetian narrative: the lack of human and natural resources for a viable state, the fatigue of the South Ossetian population in the face of the incompetence of local elites, and their aspiration for Russian centralisation. Finally, because a fuzzy independence narrative has also been documented in other de facto states, the author seeks an answer to a more general question: Why does this overlap in the narrative of independence versus unification arise in de facto states?

In many respects, de facto states play a highly specific role as actors within the international system of sovereign states. The lack of international recognition has tangible political and economic impacts on the functioning of such states, and so the attempt to persuade domestic actors and the international community of the legitimacy of their claims to independence ranks among the most important components of these states' policy—not only in foreign policy, but also in domestic policy. The aim of this text is to contribute to our understanding of how internal legitimization strategies for Abkhazian statehood are constructed and how they impact upon the foreign policy of this de facto state. Field research was carried out via interviews with important official state representatives of Abkhazia and important non-state actors—including journalists and representatives of nonprofit organizations, universities, the Church and other key institutions, which influence public opinion within and beyond this de facto state.

De facto statehood: understanding the concept -- Russian territorial expansion and de facto states in the first half of 20th century -- The emergence of de facto states -- How de facto states are sustained and instrumentalized -- Why de facto states fail.

Abstract
This study explores the problems related to university teaching and academic research within de facto states in the context of their non-recognition via an analysis of the current situation in the higher education sector of Northern Cyprus. It reveals that although Northern Cyprus is a world leader in terms of the number of universities per capita, as well as the proportion of international students and the proportion of higher education students in its population, its higher education system nevertheless faces numerous problems. Among the most serious of these are the inconsistent and often very low quality of Northern Cyprus's universities, the politicisation of and lack of confidence in the accreditation authorities responsible for the quality and sustainability of the higher education system, and the unregulated activities of "agents" who recruit new students.

De-facto states constitute an interesting and important anomaly in the international system of sovereign states. No matter how successful and efficient in the administration of their territories they are, they fail to achieve international recognition. In the past, their claims for independence were based primarily on the right to national self-determination, historical continuity and claim for a remedial right to secession, based on alleged human-rights violations. Since 2005, official representatives of several de facto states have repeatedly emphasised the importance of democracy promotion in their political entities. A possible explanation of this phenomenon dwells in the belief that those states which have demonstrated their economic viability and promote the organization of a democratic state should gain their sovereignty. This article demonstrates the so called "democracy-for-recognition strategy" in the case study of Abkhazia. On the basis of the field research in Abkhazia we identify factors that promote, as well as those that obstruct the democratisation process in the country.

De-facto states constitute an interesting and important anomaly in the international system of sovereign states. No matter how successful and efficient in the administration of their territories they are, they fail to achieve international recognition. In the past, their claims for independence were based primarily on the right to national self-determination, historical continuity and claim for a remedial right to secession, based on alleged human-rights violations. Since 2005, official representatives of several de facto states have repeatedly emphasised the importance of democracy promotion in their political entities. A possible explanation of this phenomenon dwells in the belief that those states which have demonstrated their economic viability and promote the organization of a democratic state should gain their sovereignty. This article demonstrates the so called "democracy-for-recognition strategy" in the case study of Abkhazia. On the basis of the field research in Abkhazia we identify factors that promote, as well as those that obstruct the democratisation process in the country.