Content
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………3
1. Relationship between the principle of territorial integrity and the principle of self-determination of peoples and nations …………………………………………5
2. Right toOssetia’s self determination ………………………………………….11
3. Statehood ofSouth Ossetiaunder International Law…………………………..16
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………25
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….28
Introduction
It is of doubt that the Georgian nation would say that they are all Georgians. Within the former Soviet nation ofGeorgiathere are some other, of not Georgian origin ethnic groups, including the Ossetians and Russians of South Ossetia. As countries such asFranceand theNetherlandsstruggle to assimilate new ethnic groups into their societies and within their borders, ethnic groups in former Soviet-bloc nations are struggling to avoid assimilation into countries whose borders were defined during the Cold War or earlier.
At the end of the Second World War, nations united “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…” It may seem that defining political borders based on the geographic location of ethnic groups is the easiest path toward saving succeeding generations from constant fighting. However, defining those borders is no easy task, and asSouth Ossetiahas shown, attempting to do so through unilateral declarations of independence is no savior from the scourge of war.
Indeed, when independence means freedom from working with others of different ethnic backgrounds, the very concept of independence undermines the intent of the United Nations to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations even they are large or small. Conflict must be managed not only between people and between states, but between people and states.
The people-state conflict arises when the right of nations to maintain their recognized borders clashes-or is believed to clash-with the right of citizens within those borders to exercise self-determination.
The case of South Ossetia provides two opportunities for the community of nations to reconcile the rights ofGeorgiawith the rights of the peoples within their borders. Instead of doing so, other countries used this case for ideological and political posturing and continued to do so as of the end of 2008. This research will reviewSouth Ossetiaand attempt to take the politics out of an inherently political decision-whether or not to recognize it as independent state.
Subchapter I of this research will review how the United Nations has approached the issues of autonomy, borders, secession, and minorities. It will also provide background on the doctrines of self-determination and the rights of states.
Subchapter II will set out the facts-as they are generally accepted-ofSouth Ossetiaand consider the differing opinions regarding independence of the area.
Subchapter III will review those opinions in light of the goals and doctrines of the United Nations and how it has approached these issues in the past and will search the answer to the question about the statehood ofSouth Ossetia.
The research concludes that recognition of independence of the states should be driven by legal arguments rather than political or social alliances and that the goals of the United Nations are best served by being steadfast in promoting multi-ethnicity within political entities; South Ossetia should be recognized as autonomous region withinGeorgia, respectively.
The research also concludes that domestic as well as international legal structures must be in place to make autonomy workable.