Suchergebnisse

In this article author analyzes the influence of the Russian-Georgiancrisis of August 2008 on the security and energy situation in the BlackSea region. The main threats and risks due to the Russian-Georgiancrisis 2008 in the Black Sea region may be considered as activation ofthe situation in the separatist regions of Moldova and Azerbaijan, securityof the transport routes, pipelines, energy resources supply fromthe Caspian basin. For Ukraine – complication of the relations withRussian Federation, aggravation of the Black Sea Fleet status problem,possibility to use South Ossetia Scenario in the Crimea, difficulties forthe realization of the "White Stream" Project. Author also considerspositions of the third parties in particularly the EU, Turkey, Armenia,Belarus and other CIS states and how the conflict touches their interestsand relations with parties to conflict. Events of August 2008demonstrated which mechanisms the Russian Federation is ready touse to prevent post-soviet states from the Euroatlantic integration.And the same time the conflict has demonstrated how six days crisis insuch interconnected and important region as the Wider Black Sea caninfluence and impact not only on the regional players and neighborsbut on the common European security and stability.

Abstract
The article analyses the security transformation in the Black Sea region through the prism of threats and approaches flux, making an additional focus on the osce role in the regional security affairs. It comes from the assumption that whereas security threats have been evolving, demonstrating its fluidity in terms of the soft and hard power perspective, the osce remained with the realm of 1975 in terms of its approaches towards the Black Sea security. The main research questions are: How has security perception changed in the Black Sea region for the last three decades? Whether the osce is a security actor in the Black Sea region? Can resilience-building be a smart security response to the current challenges?

For the past two years, there have been constant discussions about the possible 'Bosnianisation' of Ukrainian conflict management and peacebuilding, meaning both the Dayton process mechanism's implementation and the possible 'federalisation' of Ukraine due to the Minsk agreements. While the two conflicts have significant differences in terms of roots, reasons and development, attempts at their resolution, as well as possible outcomes of the peace processes, have certain similarities. In this article, based on the constructivist approach and method of induction, the author compares the outcomes of the agreements reached in Dayton in 1995 and in Minsk in 2015 and analyses securitisation of state-building, 'federalisation' and identity issues during the peace negotiations, along with a state structure imposed by the external actors. Hereby we argue that the Dayton scenario in terms of the state-building is significantly different from what has happened in Ukraine due to their respective historical and ethnic backgrounds. Moreover, a peace agreement per se is not able to form a federal state if there are not sufficient preconditions for substantial decentralisation of the state.

While many of the European Union (EU) member states have been actively involved in conflict resolution around the world as single states, the EU itself does not have a sufficient experience in this sphere, among others due to the concentration on confidence-building as the main instrument of involvement and also due to the absence of a consensus in foreign and security policy, especially in the conflict settlement sphere. The situation started changing in 2008, because of the Russian-Georgian conflict, whereas the Ukrainian crisis of 2014 brought a serious challenge for the EU. Against this backdrop, this article seeks to answer the following questions: Is the EU a reliable partner in peacekeeping and mediation activities in the European conflicts and what are its strengths and weaknesses? This paper argues that despite years of involvement, it is still difficult to name the European Union a reliable mediator and a possible peacekeeper in the Eastern Partnership region. The article also insists against calling the EU a mediator in the Ukrainian crisis, since its involvement in peacekeeping is low.

1. Introduction: Regional Diversity, Decentralization and Conflict in Ukraine (Maryna Rabinovych and Hanna Shelest) -- Part I. Regional Diversity in Ukraine and its Accommodation in Government Policies -- 2. Regionalism in Ukraine: Historic Evolution, Regional Claim-Making and Center-Periphery Conflict Resolution (Oksana Myshlovska) -- 3. Navigating Ethnopolitical Disputes: Ukraine's Constitutional Court in the Tug-of-War over Language (Andrii Nekoliak and Vello Pettai) -- 4. Crimean Tatars and the Question of National and Ethnic Belonging in Ukraine (Alina Zubkovych) -- Part II. The "Crisis In and Around Ukraine", Occupied Territories and their Reintegration: the Legal Dimension -- 5. The Reintegration of Donbas into Ukraine Exercised Through the Means of Post-Violence Reconstruction and Accountability. An International Law Perspective (Tomasz Lachowski) -- 6. The Domestic Dimension of Defining Occupied Territories and its Value for Conflict Transformation in Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine (Maryna Rabinovych) -- Part III. Federalization/Decentralization as a Means of Conflict Resolution. Discursive and Foreign Policy Perspectives -- 7. Three Faces of Federalism in Foreign Policy. Russian and German Approaches to the "Ukraine Crisis" (Nadiia Koval) -- 8. The Dark Side of the Decentralization Reform in Ukraine: Deterring or Facilitating Russia-Sponsored Federalism (Jaroslava Barbieri) -- Part IV. Decentralization, its Perceptions and the Linkage to Democratization, Modernization and European Integration of Ukraine -- 9. Signs of Progress: Local Democracy Developments in Ukrainian Cities (Aadne Aasland and Oleksii Lyska) -- 10. Decentralization and a Risk of Local Elite Capture in Ukraine (Max Bader) -- 11. Decentralization Reform: An Effective Vehicle for Modernization and Democratization in Ukraine? (Olga Oleinikova) -- 12. Decentralization in Ukraine and "Bottom Up" European Integration (Anne Pintsch) -- 13. Conclusion (Maryna Rabinovych and Hanna Shelest).

The article presents an analysis of Ukrainian strategic documents and the results of expert interviews and expert surveys regarding Ukrainian perceptions and visions of Black Sea security, and current challenges and opportunities for cooperation between Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine. Despite certain differences in policy priorities, Baku, Tbilisi, and Kyiv could contribute to strengthening security in the wider Black Sea region by enhancing mutual practical cooperation in the defence sector, resistance to hybrid threats, and joint energy projects. An increase in NATO presence in the Black Sea is considered necessary for strengthening regional security, as well as greater cooperation with the UK, the US, Turkey and Romania.