Suchergebnisse

In this article I analyse how Georgia, as a political entity, coped with the de facto loss of two of its territories: Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The process by which Georgia lost these territories started in early 1990 and reached its final phase in 2008 after the Georgian-Russian war. This article explores how Georgia adjusted to these losses without ever acknowledging its loss of the two territories, demonstrating a perfect example on how the normative territorial structure of an international system works. The analysis focuses on the crucial role of time in the process of the de facto territorial changes and examines how Georgia, in adapting to territorial losses and through its own actions, actually strengthened its separation from Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

In this article I analyse how Georgia, as a political entity, coped with the de facto loss of two of its territories: Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The process by which Georgia lost these territories started in early 1990 and reached its final phase in 2008 after the Georgian-Russian war. This article explores how Georgia adjusted to these losses without ever acknowledging its loss of the two territories, demonstrating a perfect example on how the normative territorial structure of an international system works. The analysis focuses on the crucial role of time in the process of the de facto territorial changes and examines how Georgia, in adapting to territorial losses and through its own actions, actually strengthened its separation from Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Šio straipsnio empirinis kontekstas yra "įšaldytų" konfliktų Rytų Eu­ropoje egzistavimas teritoriškai padalytame pripažintų suverenių valstybių pasaulyje, o pagrindinė keliama problema – nevalstybinių teritorinių darinių egzistavimo (ne)galimumo sąlygos. Straipsnyje klausiama, kaip erdvės, teri­torijos ir sienų sampratos bei teritorialumo ir valstybingumo santykis šiuolai­kinių tarptautinių santykių praktikoje ir teorijoje leidžia suprasti šių darinių situaciją. Tad šio straipsnio tikslas yra, išanalizavus teritorialumo ir sienų sampratų tyrimus, įvertinti galimybes pritaikyti juos minimų atvejų grupei ir rasti naujų "įšaldytų" konfliktų situaciją probleminančių klausimų, leidžian­čių daryti tolesnę analizę, kreipiančią dėmesį į darinių subjektiškumo sąlygas ir praktikas bei leidžiančią suprasti, kaip tokie teritoriniai dariniai randa ir apibrėžia savo veikimo būdus ir strategijas, kaip įvyksta tokių reiškinių sta­bilizacija ir normalizacija. Straipsnyje atliekama trijų sąvokų – erdvės, teri­torijos ir sienų – analizė, keliant tris klausimus: a) ką pasako ar ko nepasako apie socialinę realybę ir tarptautinę politiką kiekviena iš šių sąvokų; b) kur slypi sąvokų problemiškumas / produktyvumas; c) kaip jos leidžia suprasti šiuolaikines tarptautinių santykių praktikas ir įvertinti marginalaus subjekto, norinčio įveikti savo marginalumą, veikimo galimybes.

The "frozen" territorial conflicts in Eastern Europe, which exist in the territorially divided world of sovereign states, provide the empirical context for this article in order to develop theoretical arguments. The main problem raised is the (im)possibility of the existence of the unrecognised territorial entities. The article questions how the concepts of space, territory and borders and the relationship between the territoriality and statehood in the current international relations practice and theory allow for understanding the situation in these entities. Thus, the goal is to evaluate the theoretical discussions on territoriality and borders regarding their applicability for the analysis of the "frozen" conflicts. Namely, to understand the subjectivity conditions of these entities and to comprehend how such analysis provides any new problematisations of the situation, how it gives framework to explain their strategies, behavior and the tendencies of normalisation. Three concepts (space, territory, and borders) are analysed in the article by raising three questions: a) how each of the concepts define (and constrain) the social reality and international politics; b) how such concepts are problematised; c) how such concepts help and can be used to understand the situation and possibilities of the marginal subject, which tries to overcome its own marginality, in contemporary international relations. The analysis of space demonstrates the social construction and production of space and the possibilities to find the different ways of being in the world. On the other hand, the analysis of territoriality emphasises the impossibility of the other (non-state based) subjectivity in modern international relations. This impossibility is revealed with the "traps" metaphor: they are the assumptions about the statehood and international relations. The border analysis is devoted to the analysis of the mechanisms and technologies that allow (or can allow) to move closer towards this "trap" (as looking from the perspective of the unrecognised territorial entities). The concepts are analysed from the constructivist position, treating the social facts as if they are historical. The current model of the space control divides it into closed, exclusionary, political units, defined by supposedly clear lines – borders. In this system, it is (almost) impossible to imagine any alternative ways to organise the life of the communities. This system does not imply absolute rigidity, it has breaks and inconsistencies, it is questioned and challenged. The existence of "frozen" territorial entities is also an example of some break in the system. However, the more important question is what gets treated as an ideal, as a norm, an acceptable way of organising relations. Thus, the analysis of the normalisation strategies provides a way to understanding the stability of the system. By beginning with the conceptualisations of space and territory, we allow ourselves to change the perspective in the conflict analysis and treat them not as the clash of the interests and interactions, or even identities, but as a particular space control strategy formulated through the territoriality lense. This strategy not only makes the territorially-divided world understandable and reified, but also creates the conditions for the entities which ideally should not exist. Their existence, though, is based on more or less successfully applying the sometimes repressive territorial and bordering practices. Which strategies and practices are chosen, how successful they might be and what effects they create are the tasks of the specific empirical analyses. ; Šio straipsnio empirinis kontekstas yra "įšaldytų" konfliktų Rytų Eu­ropoje egzistavimas teritoriškai padalytame pripažintų suverenių valstybių pasaulyje, o pagrindinė keliama problema – nevalstybinių teritorinių darinių egzistavimo (ne)galimumo sąlygos. Straipsnyje klausiama, kaip erdvės, teri­torijos ir sienų sampratos bei teritorialumo ir valstybingumo santykis šiuolai­kinių tarptautinių santykių praktikoje ir teorijoje leidžia suprasti šių darinių situaciją. Tad šio straipsnio tikslas yra, išanalizavus teritorialumo ir sienų sampratų tyrimus, įvertinti galimybes pritaikyti juos minimų atvejų grupei ir rasti naujų "įšaldytų" konfliktų situaciją probleminančių klausimų, leidžian­čių daryti tolesnę analizę, kreipiančią dėmesį į darinių subjektiškumo sąlygas ir praktikas bei leidžiančią suprasti, kaip tokie teritoriniai dariniai randa ir apibrėžia savo veikimo būdus ir strategijas, kaip įvyksta tokių reiškinių sta­bilizacija ir normalizacija. Straipsnyje atliekama trijų sąvokų – erdvės, teri­torijos ir sienų – analizė, keliant tris klausimus: a) ką pasako ar ko nepasako apie socialinę realybę ir tarptautinę politiką kiekviena iš šių sąvokų; b) kur slypi sąvokų problemiškumas / produktyvumas; c) kaip jos leidžia suprasti šiuolaikines tarptautinių santykių praktikas ir įvertinti marginalaus subjekto, norinčio įveikti savo marginalumą, veikimo galimybes.

The "frozen" territorial conflicts in Eastern Europe, which exist in the territorially divided world of sovereign states, provide the empirical context for this article in order to develop theoretical arguments. The main problem raised is the (im)possibility of the existence of the unrecognised territorial entities. The article questions how the concepts of space, territory and borders and the relationship between the territoriality and statehood in the current international relations practice and theory allow for understanding the situation in these entities. Thus, the goal is to evaluate the theoretical discussions on territoriality and borders regarding their applicability for the analysis of the "frozen" conflicts. Namely, to understand the subjectivity conditions of these entities and to comprehend how such analysis provides any new problematisations of the situation, how it gives framework to explain their strategies, behavior and the tendencies of normalisation. Three concepts (space, territory, and borders) are analysed in the article by raising three questions: a) how each of the concepts define (and constrain) the social reality and international politics; b) how such concepts are problematised; c) how such concepts help and can be used to understand the situation and possibilities of the marginal subject, which tries to overcome its own marginality, in contemporary international relations.

The "frozen" territorial conflicts in Eastern Europe, which exist in the territorially divided world of sovereign states, provide the empirical context for this article in order to develop theoretical arguments. The main problem raised is the (im)possibility of the existence of the unrecognised territorial entities. The article questions how the concepts of space, territory and borders and the relationship between the territoriality and statehood in the current international relations practice and theory allow for understanding the situation in these entities. Thus, the goal is to evaluate the theoretical discussions on territoriality and borders regarding their applicability for the analysis of the "frozen" conflicts. Namely, to understand the subjectivity conditions of these entities and to comprehend how such analysis provides any new problematisations of the situation, how it gives framework to explain their strategies, behavior and the tendencies of normalisation. Three concepts (space, territory, and borders) are analysed in the article by raising three questions: a) how each of the concepts define (and constrain) the social reality and international politics; b) how such concepts are problematised; c) how such concepts help and can be used to understand the situation and possibilities of the marginal subject, which tries to overcome its own marginality, in contemporary international relations.

The "frozen" territorial conflicts in Eastern Europe, which exist in the territorially divided world of sovereign states, provide the empirical context for this article in order to develop theoretical arguments. The main problem raised is the (im)possibility of the existence of the unrecognised territorial entities. The article questions how the concepts of space, territory and borders and the relationship between the territoriality and statehood in the current international relations practice and theory allow for understanding the situation in these entities. Thus, the goal is to evaluate the theoretical discussions on territoriality and borders regarding their applicability for the analysis of the "frozen" conflicts. Namely, to understand the subjectivity conditions of these entities and to comprehend how such analysis provides any new problematisations of the situation, how it gives framework to explain their strategies, behavior and the tendencies of normalisation. Three concepts (space, territory, and borders) are analysed in the article by raising three questions: a) how each of the concepts define (and constrain) the social reality and international politics; b) how such concepts are problematised; c) how such concepts help and can be used to understand the situation and possibilities of the marginal subject, which tries to overcome its own marginality, in contemporary international relations.

The "frozen" territorial conflicts in Eastern Europe, which exist in the territorially divided world of sovereign states, provide the empirical context for this article in order to develop theoretical arguments. The main problem raised is the (im)possibility of the existence of the unrecognised territorial entities. The article questions how the concepts of space, territory and borders and the relationship between the territoriality and statehood in the current international relations practice and theory allow for understanding the situation in these entities. Thus, the goal is to evaluate the theoretical discussions on territoriality and borders regarding their applicability for the analysis of the "frozen" conflicts. Namely, to understand the subjectivity conditions of these entities and to comprehend how such analysis provides any new problematisations of the situation, how it gives framework to explain their strategies, behavior and the tendencies of normalisation. Three concepts (space, territory, and borders) are analysed in the article by raising three questions: a) how each of the concepts define (and constrain) the social reality and international politics; b) how such concepts are problematised; c) how such concepts help and can be used to understand the situation and possibilities of the marginal subject, which tries to overcome its own marginality, in contemporary international relations.

In this article, Lithuania's relations with Russia from 2004 to 2014 are examined. This analysis is not much of a challenge in itself: there have been no significant changes in the overall quality of the two countries' relations, no new issues of disagreement, and the countries' approaches to each other have also remained unchanged. This analysis is significant in a different way—relations with Russia motivate and induce Lithuania's entire foreign policy arena, from its strategies to the country's everyday debates. Understanding Lithuania's relations with Russia leads to insights regarding Lithuania's geopolitical thinking and how Lithuania represents itself. Therefore, in this article, the goal is to demonstrate that an analysis of Lithuanian-Russian relations since 2004 not only explains Lithuanian foreign policy, but also reveals an enduring and negative stability in bilateral relations notwithstanding constant turbulence and quarrels.

In this article, Lithuania's relations with Russia from 2004 to 2014 are examined. This analysis is not much of a challenge in itself: there have been no significant changes in the overall quality of the two countries' relations, no new issues of disagreement, and the countries' approaches to each other have also remained unchanged. This analysis is significant in a different way—relations with Russia motivate and induce Lithuania's entire foreign policy arena, from its strategies to the country's everyday debates. Understanding Lithuania's relations with Russia leads to insights regarding Lithuania's geopolitical thinking and how Lithuania represents itself. Therefore, in this article, the goal is to demonstrate that an analysis of Lithuanian-Russian relations since 2004 not only explains Lithuanian foreign policy, but also reveals an enduring and negative stability in bilateral relations notwithstanding constant turbulence and quarrels.

In this article, Lithuania's relations with Russia from 2004 to 2014 are examined. This analysis is not much of a challenge in itself: there have been no significant changes in the overall quality of the two countries' relations, no new issues of disagreement, and the countries' approaches to each other have also remained unchanged. This analysis is significant in a different way—relations with Russia motivate and induce Lithuania's entire foreign policy arena, from its strategies to the country's everyday debates. Understanding Lithuania's relations with Russia leads to insights regarding Lithuania's geopolitical thinking and how Lithuania represents itself. Therefore, in this article, the goal is to demonstrate that an analysis of Lithuanian-Russian relations since 2004 not only explains Lithuanian foreign policy, but also reveals an enduring and negative stability in bilateral relations notwithstanding constant turbulence and quarrels.

In this article, Lithuania's relations with Russia from 2004 to 2014 are examined. This analysis is not much of a challenge in itself: there have been no significant changes in the overall quality of the two countries' relations, no new issues of disagreement, and the countries' approaches to each other have also remained unchanged. This analysis is significant in a different way—relations with Russia motivate and induce Lithuania's entire foreign policy arena, from its strategies to the country's everyday debates. Understanding Lithuania's relations with Russia leads to insights regarding Lithuania's geopolitical thinking and how Lithuania represents itself. Therefore, in this article, the goal is to demonstrate that an analysis of Lithuanian-Russian relations since 2004 not only explains Lithuanian foreign policy, but also reveals an enduring and negative stability in bilateral relations notwithstanding constant turbulence and quarrels.