“YOU CAN’T BUILD A TOWER OUT OF TEARS!”: IRREDENTA AND STRUGGLES FOR INDEPENDENCE IN THE (POST) SOVIET SOUTH CAUCASUS

Abstract

This article examines Soviet administrative and nationality policies in the South Caucasus, using the examples of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. From the perspective of Georgia, which was doubly affected, these policies were guided by the imperial principle of “divide and conquer”; from the perspective of the affected ethnic groups—Abkhazians, (South) Ossetians, and Karabakh Armenians—they were characterized by the violation of the right to national self-determination. The latter, along with the right to secession and the principle of territorial integrity, were enshrined in all Soviet constitutions (1918, 1924, 1936, and 1977), yet in late- and post-Soviet reality, they constituted irreconcilable principles of international law.

The independence and irredentist aspirations of the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, located on the border with the Russian Federation, received economic, financial and military support from Russia, enabling them to escape Georgian control since the 1990s and, at the latest, since 2008. In the conflict between Azerbaijan and the irredentist movement of Nagorno-Karabakh as well as the Republic of Armenia, however, Russia remained passive or dashed Armenian hopes, not least due to energy policy considerations and in opposition to the pro-Western course of the current Armenian government, whose prime minister has endorsed Azerbaijan's claims to Karabakh since October 2022. The Azerbaijani starvation blockade and deportation of the Armenian population in 2023 were classified as genocide by international and national human rights organizations and marked the end of the De Facto Republic of Artsakh.

The last part of this article addresses inconsistencies in international law regarding separatism and irredentism. Using the European examples of Kosovo, Catalonia, and Scotland, the inconsistent approval or rejection of such separatism is explained, and the respective motives are examined. In the concluding discussion, we take as our starting point the assertion by political scientist Stephen Krasner, who speaks of “organized hypocrisy”: states profess adherence to norms of international law but apply them in a highly selective manner.