Search results

1

Ethiopian foreign policy in the Horn of Africa: Informal relations with Somaliland and their possible future development

100%

Rudincová K.

Politeja : Pismo Wydziału Studiów Miedzynarodowych i Politycznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego

|

2016

|

issue 42

213-226

EN

The paper deals with the foreign policy of Ethiopia toward Somalia and issues connected to the informal relations with Somaliland and its possible international recognition in particular. Somaliland is de facto state which declared its independence unilaterally as a response to the outbreak of the Somali civil war in 1991. Even though it managed to promote peace and stability in its territory, it has not been recognized by any state of international community yet. However, it has developed strategic partnerships and relations with European and African countries. The most important ally or partner of Somaliland in the Horn of Africa is Ethiopia. It cooperates with Somaliland in the field of economy, politics and security. However, due to certain political and geopolitical factors, Ethiopia is not willing to recognize Somaliland de iure and is dedicated to the idea of united Somalia. Therefore, the strategies Ethiopia uses when dealing with this de facto state and also the geopolitical factors why Ethiopia is still not willing to recognize Somaliland de jure will be analysed in this paper. The possibilities of future development of Ethiopia‑Somaliland relations will be evaluated considering geopolitical and political factors.

2

Vznik a vývoj bucharského de facto státu

100%

Horák S.

Slovanský přehled: historická revue pro dějiny střední, východní a jihovýchodní Evropy (Slavonic Review: Review for Central, Eastern and Southeastern European history)

|

2018

|

vol. 104

|

issue 1

73-93

EN

In the years 1920-1924, the Bukharan People’s Republic was considered by the Russian Bolshevist leadership as a transitional state in a stage between the fall of the emirate and incorporation into Soviet Russia (later, the Soviet Union). However, if we look at the developments in Bukhara (and later, also in Khorezm) from a Bukharan domestic political perspective, we see that this was also a matter of fulfilling one of the goals of the Jadid movement: founding a modern republic. This state effectuated its own domestic and foreign policies and was even recognized de facto (although only provisionally) by Russia (RSFSR), Afghanistan, and other states to a certain extent. The Bukharan Republic thus fulfilled many of the criteria for de facto states (although the concept was constructed later). The text compares the different perceptions of this state from the perspective of its domestic elite and the patron state of Bolshevist Russia, and it shows the main reasons for the demise of this configuration. It argues that, with regard for the domestic situation (the Soviet decision about national delimitation), the Jadid ideal of the modern state was transformed into the later Uzbek SSR, and thus became the antecedent of today’s Uzbekistan. The process of national delimitation took place at the level of Central Asian territorial commissions, in which Bukharans led by Fayzulla Khodzhayev had significant influence. It was actually the personal change of Khodzhayev’s opinion that serves as a further argument to explain the Bukharan Republic’s transformation into the Uzbek SSR, which took over a critical part of today’s Central Asia, including the most important political, economic and social centers of the time.

3

Russia’s role in the official peace process in South Ossetia

88%

Hoch T., Souleimanov E., Baranec T.

Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series

|

2014

|

vol. 23

|

issue 23

53-71

EN

The aim of this article is to analyse the role of Russia in the transformation of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict and analyse this important period in the history of the Caucasus, where Georgia and its secessionist region of South Ossetia have been trying to find a peaceful solution to their post-war situation. Major milestones of the official peace process are set in the context of Russian-Georgian relations. We then proceed to the analysis of the internal changes within the Russian Federation at the turn of the millennium and try to find a connection between this internal transformation of Russia and the transformation of the conflict in South Ossetia. The most important factors behind the more assertive approach by the Russian Federation towards Georgia in the last decade are considered: internal centralisation of power and economic growth of the Russian Federation, the reinforcement of the importance of the South Caucasus as part of the geopolitical discourse within the Russian Federation, the deterioration in Russian-Georgian relations, and the suppression of the fear of the spill-over effect since the end of Second Chechen War.

4

Wykorzystanie quasi-państw w polityce zagranicznej Federacji Rosyjskiej

75%

Legucka A.

Roczniki Nauk Społecznych

|

2016

|

vol. 8(44)

|

issue 1

11-29

PL

Celem niniejszego artykułu jest odpowiedź na pytanie, w jakim celu Rosja wykorzystuje quasi-państwa w swojej polityce zagranicznej. W teorii polityki zagranicznej państwa dążą do realizacji czterech podstawowych celów: 1. wzrostu bezpieczeństwa państwa, 2. wzrostu prestiżu i pozycji międzynarodowej, 3. wzrostu siły państwa, 4. optymalizacji reguł funkcjonowania środowiska międzynarodowego. Rosja pomaga przetrwać quasi-państwom takim, jak: Abchazja, Osetia Południowa, Naddniestrze i (za pośrednictwem Armenii) Górskiego Karabachu, gdyż dzięki nim kontroluje strefę swoich wpływów w regionie b. ZSRR. Od 2014 r. w Doniecku i Ługańsku na Ukrainie budowane są nowe quasi-państwa, co potwierdza tezę o efektywności tego instrumentu w polityce zagranicznej Federacji Rosyjskiej.

EN

The aim of this article is to address the question: how is Russia using the quasi-states in its Foreign Policy? Generally, country’s foreign policy is focused to achieve four main goals 1) to increase its security; 2) to increase its international position and prestige; 3) to enhance its strength; and 4) to optimize the rules in the international environment. Russia helps to survive such quasi-states as Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and (through Armenia) also the Nagorno-Karabakh because thanks to them Russia controls its sphere of influence in the post-Soviet area. Since 2014 in Donetsk and Lugansk (Ukraine) Russia is creating another quasi-states, what confirms the effectiveness of the quasi-states as an instrument in the Russia’s foreign policy.

5

Vnitropolitický vývoj Gagauzské republiky v letech 1991–1995 jako de-facto státu

75%

Horák S.

Slovanský přehled: historická revue pro dějiny střední, východní a jihovýchodní Evropy (Slavonic Review: Review for Central, Eastern and Southeastern European history)

|

2017

|

vol. 103

|

issue 2

373-393

EN

Gagauzia is among the exceptional cases of relatively well-resolved conflicts in the territory of the former Soviet Union. Most foreign researchers, however, have focused on the negotiations between Comrat and Kishinev, and often, the influence of the domestic situation itself within Gagauzia is overlooked, even though it contributed to a fair extent to the resolution of the problem. In the analysis of this aspect, it is possible to analyze the concept of the de facto state, because in its first phase developments in Gagauzia took on similar features as other conflicts in the Soviet, or post-Soviet area – establishment of its own government, escalation of demands for self-determination in areas ranging from cultural autonomy to political separatism, and the proclamation of an independent republic. Unlike other cases where a de facto state has arisen, however, for Gagauzia the achievement of this status represented the apex of its independent existence. Maintaining the independent republic has proven to be unfeasible, which is also due to a significant extent to internal conflicts within the Gagauzian elite as well as the failure to resolve the economic crisis in the region.

6

De facto states and their socio-economic structures in the post-Soviet space after the annexation of Crimea

38%

Baar V., Baarová B.

Studia z Geografii Politycznej i Historycznej

|

2017

|

vol. 6

267-303

PL

Artykuł koncentruje się na problemach ekonomicznych państw de facto w przestrzeni postsowieckiej po aneksji Krymu przez Rosję w 2014 r., utworzeniu Eurazjatyckiej Unii Gospodarczej w 2015 r. oraz podpisaniu pogłębionej i kompleksowej umowy o wolnym handlu między UE a Gruzją i Mołdawią wchodzącej w życie od 2016 r. Poddaje analizie długoterminowe strategie gospodarcze Naddniestrza, Górskiego Arcachu, Południowej Osetii-Alanii i Abchazji w kontekście tych zmian. Bazując na danych statystycznych i innych informacjach poddaje analizie ich problemy gospodarcze, które są ściśle związane z rozwojem sytuacji w Rosji i jej geopolitycznymi interesami.

EN

The paper is focused on the economic problems of de facto states in the post-Soviet space after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, creation of the Eurasian Economic Union in 2015 and the signing of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement between the EU and Georgia and Moldova with effect from 2016. It analyzes long-term economic strategies of Transnistria, Nagorno-Artsakh, South Ossetia-Alania and Abkhazia in the context of such changes. On the basis of statistical analyzes their economic problems, which are closely connected with developments in Russia and its geopolitical interests.

Refine search results

2 Slovanský přehled: historická revue pro dějiny střední, východní a jihovýchodní Evropy (Slavonic Review: Review for Central, Eastern and Southeastern European history)

1 Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series

1 Politeja : Pismo Wydziału Studiów Miedzynarodowych i Politycznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego

1 Roczniki Nauk Społecznych

1 Studia z Geografii Politycznej i Historycznej

2 Horák S.

1 Baar V.

1 Baarová B.

1 Baranec T.

1 Hoch T.

1 Legucka A.

1 Rudincová K.

1 Souleimanov E.

1 2018

2 2017