Since submission
Bibliography
Maps
Index

Since Submission
"I believe that the next 18 months will prove to be a defining moment in the negotiations. Either a settlement will be reached during this period or such may never be reached. It is a sad fact of life that, after a certain period, the will/desire to 'confront' the same faces disappears, discussion is exhausted and courtesy, inevitably, becomes strained after so many false dawns. The international community should, I think, pause and consider such an 'eventuality'. Cyprus has demonstrated that the 'antagonists' eventually drift apart. I feel, therefore, that if solutions are to be found there needs to be a lot of very specific and direct negotiations over this coming period. Boldness will be required. For those who choose to concentrate on minutiae, instead of the central issues, will fair (from Chapter 9)

The passage of time can never cease to surprise. When I completed my work, at the end of August 1998, I anticipated that Boris Yeltsin would 'limp' on to the end of his term, I can't remember if I was really aware of someone called Vladimir Putin; I assumed the 'peace process' would stumble on, of course unsuccessfully, in Chechnya; and that the Balkans would, very slowly and with a few hiccups along the way, stabilise - I knew of the problems in Kosovo, but I would never have imagined that they would erupt so suddenly and with such ferocity. Now, just over 18 months later, I am asked to reflect on both events (since) and my own thoughts on the matters covered in my work.
I confess that the current position is actually more difficult to approach today than it was when I was writing the work (from the autumn of 1997 on ...). The emphasis on Karabakh, during this period, has, undoubtedly, retarded the negotiation process in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. So, I fear that this final chapter will appear a little disjunctive. So much of the discussions are now kept secret. This makes it a lot harder to be sure whether one is quite up-to-date on what is now no longer unchallenged, before even coming on to questions of veracity. Finally, the time I am writing is not opportune. Armenia is much weakened (not that Azerbaijan and Georgia have necessarily strengthened); Russia has a new President and, by the time you read this, America will probably have just elected its own new (and 42nd) president. We are entering changed and interesting times.
The material that follows covers the period from 1 September 1998 to 30 April 2000.

NAGORNO-KARABAKH
Between 9-11 November 1998, new proposals were presented to the parties by the co-Chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group [1]. Most important among them was the introduction, to the process, of the notion of the 'common state'. It is this set of proposals which, broadly speaking, continue to provide the basis for the talks today.
Surprisingly little has leaked out concerning the contents of the 'common state' idea. First, the future status of Karabakh will be decided. However, it is uncertain whether a 'common state' of Azerbaijan would be created or whether Karabakh would, 'de facto', be incorporated into the existing Republic of Azerbaijan. The status of the territory having been denned, the liberation of six districts around Nagorno-Karabakh would proceed, Lachin being excluded. Shusha and Lachin would remain under the control of the authorities in Stepanakert, with the attendant right, later, of Azeri 'refugees' to return [2]. This would be coupled with the establishment of a security zone on the territory of Armenia's Megri District along the railway line formerly linking Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan [3]. Azerbaijan would not be able to deploy its armed forces in the territory liberated from the 'Armenian' armed forces: only lightly-armed police units being allowed [4]. The new Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh would have its own monetary and financial system, currency, flag, state emblem [5], parliament, justice system, law-enforcement agencies and (of course) armed forces. It has been alleged that Karabakh would, 'similar' to the Cook Islands, have the right to 'liquidate', at any given time, their constitutional relationship with Baku, to which Baku would not have the opportunity to contest [6]. I am unclear as to the veracity of this latter point, however.
These (new) proposals, once again, met resistance; albeit, on this occasion, from a different quarter. Stepanakert formally announced its approval on 26 November 1998, noting, initially, that such 'original initiatives' could provide a basis for talks [7]. Yerevan reciprocated later that day [8]. However, these 'acceptances' had been qualified by the formal rejection of the proposals, generally, and the notion of the 'common state' by the Foreign Ministry in Baku on the 20, itself 'ready to continue holding talks on the conflict proceeding from the plan released by the OSCE Minsk Group on 12 September 1997' (following on from the Lisbon summit) [9]. Then State Advisor to the Azerbaijani President, Vafa Guluzade, in an interview with the Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo, published on 21 November 1998, proclaimed that the co-Chairmen had 'chosen the wrong path' [10].
Despite objections from Baku, the 'common state proposals' have proved to be remarkably resilient. The ambassador of France to Armenia, Michel Legras, while recognising that the mediators would be prepared to drop the phrase 'common state', has added that it was essential that a plan for settling the conflict maintained that 'Karabakh will be part of Azerbaijan, but beyond its borders' [11]. Of course, there has been no particular reliance on the phrase 'common state'. Armenian Foreign Minister, Vardan Oskanyan has noted that Armenia (at least) was ready to agree to such terms as 'free association' or 'confederation' [12]. The substance, he termed the 'golden mean', was of greatest importance [13].
In order to facilitate the prospect of, at the very least, an interim accord being reached, a series of, 'US-led', face-to-face meetings between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan was instituted. To date the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents have met face-to-face, as part of this process, on eight occasions; most recently at the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on 28 January 2000 [14]. There had been some hope/expectation that a joint Armenian-Azerbaijani document, endorsing the principles of a settlement, would be signed at the OSCE summit in Istanbul (18-19 November 1999) [15]. However, such was, in a moment, swept away by the events in the Armenian Parliament on Wednesday, 27 October 1999 when the Armenian Prime Minister (Vazgen Sarkisyan), Parliament Speaker (Karen Demirchian) and 6 others were killed [16].
Memory of the 27 October should not serve to occlude events in Baku only a couple of days earlier, with the resignation of Foreign Minister Tofig Zulfugarov, at a sitting of the Azerbaijani Security Council, in Baku, on 24 October 1999. This resignation, coupled with the similar resignations of Eldar Namazov, head of the presidential secretariat (also on the 24) [17] and foreign policy adviser, Vafa Guluzade (a little earlier, on 8 October), serve only to illustrate the pressures in Baku at that time (and to this day) also. All three resignations, allegedly, on account of disagreement with President Heydar Aliyev's approach to the resolution of the Karabakh question.
The extent of the US initiative 'bolstered' earlier 'reservations' in Moscow. Originally, in March 1999, in a written message to Azerbaijan President, Heydar Aliyev, at that time Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, touching on the issue of Karabakh, noted that 'getting far away from the fact that Nagornyy Karabakh is an essential part of Azerbaijan, in line with the principles of the Lisbon summit, does not hasten but removes the solution of this issue'. Yeltsin further emphasised that 'taking into account Heydar Aliyev's negative attitude towards the principle of the 'common state', Russia does not insist on its acceptance' [18]. Thus, on 2 September 1999, during talks with President Aliyev, Russian Foreign Minister, Ivan Ivanov assured Aliyev that Russia 'has no intentions of settling the conflict in Karabakh in the interests of one or another side'. According to him the Minsk Group and Russia were rejecting the idea of settling the conflict by forming a common state. He added, rather tersely: 'We are dropping the proposal, because Azerbaijan does not accept it' [19].
While Azerbaijan remains committed to granting Stepanakert a broad level of self-government [20], Stepanakert, at least, remains committed to an ultimate status for Nagorno-Karabakh clearly above that of autonomy and, crucially, separate from it. Karabakh Foreign Minister, Naira Melkumyan has spoken of their unwillingness to 'hold negotiations between autonomy and a common state. We are going to hold negotiations between independence and a common state' [21]. However in Baku, still, the fundamental objection to the very notion of a 'common state' remains. According to Vilayet Guliyev, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister (appointed on 26 October 1999): 'The implementation of this principle would actually mean the establishment of another Armenian state within Azerbaijan, which is absolutely unacceptable for Baku' [22].
Current co-Chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group: Carey Cavanaugh (United States), Nikolay Gribkov (Russian Federation) and Jean-Jacques Gaillarde (France).

ABKHAZIA
While discussions have continued generally as part of the, so-called, Geneva process. Little or no progress has been made on any substantive issue, including status. Indeed, a good share of the talks have had to focus, instead, on preventing (when sometimes it appeared imminent) a resumption in hostilities.
As far as Sukhumi is concerned, the matter of status is now settled. This, they would argue, was re-confirmed with the conducting, on 3 October 1999, of a referendum on 'independence'. Here the (current) Abkhazian electorate were faced with the rather oblique question: 'Do you support the constitution of the Republic of Abkhazia adopted on 26 November 1994, which proclaims Abkhazia a sovereign and democratic country, which respects the law and is an entity in international law?' Ninety-seven per cent answered in the affirmative, voter turnout totalling 87.7% [23].
Beyond the expected Georgian condemnation, these elections received the opprobrium of a range of international actors [24]. Then OSCE Chairman (Norwegian Foreign Minister), Knut Vollebaek, simply, summed up the general view, on 6 October 1999, calling them 'unacceptable and illegitimate', adding: 'the international community acknowledges Abkhazia as an integral part of Georgia' [25]. Such criticism did not scratch Sukhumi: with the Abkhazian parliament 'officially' declaring independence for the 'Republic', through the unanimous adoption of a state independence act, signed by President Vladislav Ardzinba, on 12 October 1999. Interestingly however, and simultaneously, President Ardzinba noted that this had not changed the official stance on talks with Georgia. These would be continued in keeping with the 1994 'statement on measures for a political settlement of the bilateral conflict' [26].
Confidence-building talks had taken place in Athens, between 16-18 October 1998 [27], and Istanbul, between 7-9 June 1999 [28], but the mood at the time had prevented discussion focussing on key issues to any appreciable extent. They served, instead, as a very useful forum for bringing together, from the two sides, a wider, opinion-forming, constituency than customarily possible under the structure of the talks. However, with the appointment of Dieter Boden, former head of the OSCE mission in Georgia, as Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General in Georgia (from 24 November 1999) [29], the Geneva process activated noticeably. This culminated in a re-convening of the Coordinating Council on 18-19 January 2000 in Tbilisi (for its ninth session). This was the first time the Council had met (then for its eighth session) since 29 April 1999, some nine months prior.
Even so, the main-sticking point to the re-activated process has remained (even discussion of) the future status of Abkhazia [30]. Sukhumi maintains its refusal to consider anything below the 'equality of Abkhazia and Georgia' [31], to the point where, in the words of President Ardzinba, Abkhazia's leadership will not hold talks on constitutional power-sharing with Georgia under any circumstances' [32]. Sukhumi prefers, instead, that attention, in the interim, should be devoted to signing the long-awaited peace agreement - covering, inter alia, the non-resumption of hostilities [33]. Tbilisi, meanwhile, remains willing, only, to approve a level of high autonomy for the region.
Three other matters warrant attention:
The mandate of the CIS peacekeeping force, which had expired on 30 June 1998, was not renewed, at a session of the Georgian National Security Council, until 29 August 1999 [34]. While Ukraine remains willing, at least in principle, to take part in an internationalised peacekeeping force [35], provided the unit were comprised of an 'international contingent' [36], Sukhumi would appear, publicly, increasingly against such [37].
Tbilisi would appear to be considering the possibility of neutral status. During an interview with ITAR-TASS, on 14 February 2000, Georgian Foreign Minister, Irakli Menagharishvili alluded to such an 'option' not having been ruled out by Georgia. He said: There have to be specific conditions in place for such a policy to be effective, so that the principle of neutrality can enable a country to develop safely'. However, any such determination would ultimately depend 'first and foremost on the will of the people' [38].
The Russian military may prove to be in the early stages of withdrawing from Georgia. Contained within the Final Act of the Conference of State Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (17 November 1999 at Istanbul), under Annex 14, 'Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and Georgia', it is provided, inter alia, that:

'The Russian military bases at Gudauta and Vaziani will be disbanded and withdrawn by 1 July 2001.
The issue of the utilisation, including the joint utilisation, of the military facilities and infrastructure of the disbanded Russian military bases remaining at those locations will be resolved within the same time frame ...
'During the year 2000 the two sides will complete negotiations regarding the duration and modalities of the functioning of the Russian military bases at Batumi and Akhalkalaki and the Russian military facilities within the territory of Georgia' [39].

Naturally, the prospect of Georgian neutrality is substantially boosted by any downscaling of the Russian military presence in the country.
For the Record
(1) Georgia was admitted as the 41st member of the Council of Europe on 27 April 1999.
(2) Since 21 June 1999, with the handing over of the last among the seven checkpoints (Tsandripshi), Abkhazia's coastal waters have been fully under the control of the authorities in Sukhumi [40]. Tbilisi remains unwilling to press Sukhumi on this issue (see footnote [64] to Chapter 6), content to patrol strips of the Abkhaz-section of Georgia's coastal boundary from neutral waters [41].

SOUTH OSSETIA
South Ossetia continues to lag behind the other two in international attention. This has become graphically obvious during the above period. Following high-level talks, held in Tskhinvali, on 9 January 1999, between Georgian Minister of State, Vazha Lortkipanidze and Merab Chigoyev, 'Chairman of the Ossetian Government', Tbilisi Radio (on 10 January) spoke for the staleness of the process when it reported: 'It became evident during talks between Georgian and Ossetian government delegations ... that the Tskhinvali authorities are not ready to discuss the main political status of the area' [42]. Little appears to have changed since.
Parliamentary elections were held in the region on 12 May 1999. Again, these were condemned by the Georgian Parliament [43]. Interestingly, just prior to this, Georgian Parliament deputy and chairman of the interim commission on the 'Tskhinvali region', Giorgi Lazarishvili, in the course of an article published (in its edition of 25 March 1999) in the Georgian newspaper Sakartvelos Respublika, revealingly spoke of the difficulties faced by the ethnic Georgian population living in the region. He said: 'They live in very hard conditions. They have not received pensions and benefits for several months. Employment, health care and education problems have not been resolved. There is no confidence in the security of ethnic Georgian residents of the Tskhinvali region' [44].
A rotation of Russian troops, as part of the tripartite peacekeeping force, occurred in June 1999. The smaller force (of 478) deployed (from 700 previously) is, itself, testament to the substantially improved security situation in the region and, as a corollary to this, evidenced by a reduction in the number of checkpoints - from 14 down to 3. Equally, at the time of the rotation, only four out of 24 Ossetian checkpoints were operational and three out of 18 Georgian ones [45].

PEACE IN THE CAUCASUS
The period has been marked by an activisation of discussions about the utility of a 'Caucasus security pact'. There would appear, now, to be broad agreement as to the need for such relevant structures, but a certain level of disagreement as to the detail [46]. Armenian President, Robert Kocharyan, for example, favours a '3, 3, 2' structure [47]. Discussions remain in their early stages, however.

COMMENT
Allow me to reflect, briefly, on just two points, both concerning Karabakh.
Generally, one surely must welcome the 'latest' proposals of the Minsk Group and the important, bilateral, discussions between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan. However, as a part of this, I do, sincerely, feel the phrase 'common state' to be a little unfortunate. I believe that the content of the proposals, rather than the headline terminology (such never tend to be very helpful), would have been far easier for Baku to 'swallow' if such a phrase had not been ventured. In my opinion, any proposals should concentrate on the 'self-governing' status of Karabakh instead. We should also be guarded against any Cook Islands-type formula. While, of course, we can never legislate against Karabakh's future decision to form, dejure, an independent republic, nor, even, unify with Armenia, I do not believe that the environment in the south Caucasus will assist/be assisted by such equivalences which, anyway, do not provide an equivalent. In seeking to build a 'Peaceful Caucasus', let us concentrate on the present, rather than the hypothetical future.
The status of Lachin, inevitably, spawns argument for a 'corridor' for Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan. While it might appear just and equitable for Azerbaijan, therefore, in return, to be granted a portion of Armenian territory, I fear that such a possibility could entirely derail any prospect of any settlement. The suggestion, which is not new, that Baku be given Megri District is not particularly helpful. What is important for Baku is the ability to have secure and secured a transportation link 're-connecting' Azerbaijan with its exclave of Nakhichevan. Emphasis should be placed on the means whereby such a corridor could be made secure and secured. However, even this can give rise to sensitive questions, such as whether Azerbaijani troops/police would be able to patrol it. I would counsel that members of the Azerbaijani police could be stationed, indefinitely, along the 'corridor' but alongside an equivalent contingent of Armenian police. Such a force could be administratively separate from either national force and jointly (and funded also) under the authority of the Armenian and Azerbaijani Internal Affairs Ministries.
Finally, for the Record
(1) BRCKO: on 5 March 1999, it was announced that the town of Brcko, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, would be placed under the joint administration of the Republika Srpska and Bosnian Federation as a neutral district.
(2) ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL (to the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation): entered into force, 1 December 1998.
(3) Following the codification of the constitutional laws of Finland, a new consolidated constitution of Finland entered into force on 1 March 2000. For references to the Sami, see ss. 17(3) and 121 (4). For text see: http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/law/fi00000_.phpl

NOTES
[1] First presented in Baku on 9 November. (Moscow, ITAR-TASS, in English, 1724 gmt, 9 Nov. 1998) (FBIS-SOV-98-313, 13 Nov. 1998) Second, in Yerevan on 10 November. (Yerevan, Snark, in Russian, 1400 gmt, 10 Nov. 1998) (FBIS-SOV-98-314, 13 Nov. 1998) Finally, in Stepanakert on 11 November. (Yerevan, Respublika Armeniya, in Russian, 11 Nov. 1998, p. 1) (FBIS-SOV-98-324, 23 Nov. 1998).
[2] Armenian Foreign Minister, Vardan Oskanyan, during an interview with Turan published on 31 August 1998, noted that the co-Chairmen had proposed three options for deciding on Lachin: a long-term lease, handover to control by international forces and exchange of territories. Interestingly, in reply to a question as to whether the rejection of Karabakh's being an enclave implied the actual annexation of territory, Oskanyan stated that in exchange for Lachin, Stepanakert could give up an 'equivalent part of its own territory'. (Baku, Turan, in Russian, 1100 gmt, 31 Aug. 1998) (FBIS-SOV-98-268, 29 Sept. 1998).
While it has been suggested that the physical link would be little more than a transport corridor, including, one must assume, the town of Lachin itself, and, thereby, that the former Lachinskiy rayon, more generally would be returned to Azerbaijan, bearing in mind the extent to which the villages in Lachinskiy rayon 'feed' (on/)offthe road linking Goris (in Armenia) with Shusha/Stepanakert (in Nagorno-Karabakh), there can be little accuracy in this assertion. See, for example: (Baku, Turan, in Russian, 1225 gmt, 26 August 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-0827, 30 August 1999).
[3] Leader of the National Independence Party of Azerbaijan, Etibar Mammadov, at the party's sixth congress on 30 October 1999, suggested that the proposed Baku-Ceyhan pipeline would be laid along this line. (Baku, Turan, in Russian, 1130 AM, 30 Oct. 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-1102, 20 Nov. 1999).
Concerning the railroad, it has been suggested, as a preliminary step towards restoring bilateral relations between Baku and Yerevan, that such be re-opened even before a settlement is reached. According to Vardan Oskanyan, Yerevan, in conveying its support for the idea, proposed the creation of a security zone three to five kilometres wide along the railroad to ensure that the train service was uninterrupted. However, speaking on 20 October 1999, Oskanyan claimed that Baku 'rejected this initiative, demanding a withdrawal of Armenian troops from three Azerbaijani districts (Fizuli, Dzhebrail and Zangelan) south of Nagorny Karabakh, which the railroad crosses'. (Moscow, ITAR-TASS, in English, 0933 gmt, 20 Oct. 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-1020, 21 Oct. 1999).
[4] In order to guarantee the 'safety of the Nagornyy Karabakh population'. See: (Baku, Azadlyg, in Azeri, 7 August 1999, pp. 1,4) (FBIS-SOV-1999-0807, 9 August 1999).
[5] Consider the interesting remark of Chairman of the Social Democratic Party of Azerbaijan, Zardusht Alizade in this context; as contained in an article in Zerkalo in its edition of 7 August 1999. He said: 'Giving Karabakh state status should not be a topic for discussion. Cities, political parties, sports societies and dynasties can have their coat of arms and banners. Nagornyy Karabakh can also have these things'. However, he added, these attributes should only be within an autonomous structure functioning within Azerbaijan. (Baku, Zerkalo, in Russian, 7 August 1999, p.7) (FBIS-SOV-1999-0807, 9 August 1999).
[6] Claimed by the Baku newspaper Azadlyg, in its edition of 7 August 1999. (Baku, Azadlyg, in Azeri, 7 August 1999, pp. 1,4) (FBIS-SOV-1999-0807, 9 August 1999).
[7] (Moscow, Interfax, in English, 1200 gmt, 26 Nov. 1998) (FBIS-SOV-98-330, 30 Nov. 1998).
[8] (Yerevan, Snark, in Russian, 1500 gmt, 26 Nov. 1998) (FBIS-SOV-98-330, 30 Nov. 1998).
[9] (Moscow, Interfax, in English, 1638 gmt, 20 Nov. 1998) (FBIS-SOV-98-324, 23 Nov. 1998).
[10] Having alluded to the fact that the idea had, originally, been proposed in order to resolve the Dnestr dispute in Moldova, he added later in the interview: 'I am sure that these proposals were not drawn up either in the United States or the French Foreign Ministries. They are the fruits of the work of Russia alone, to which, for unknown reasons, the two other remaining cochairmen automatically agree'. (Baku, Zerkalo, in Russian, 21 Nov. 1998, pp. 10, 12) (FBIS-SOV-98-326, 24 Nov. 1998).
[11] (Yerevan, Snark news agency, in Russian, 0956 gmt, 15 July 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-0715, 16 July 1999).
[12] In respect of the concept of 'free association' consider the approach of Vardan Oskanyan during an interview with the Yerevan newspaper Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, in its edition of 4 April 1999. Having noted that the 'common state' 'has no precedent in international practice', he continued: 'As for the question of a precedent, it is true that a precedent may not exist, but we had a historic opportunity to create one. If Azerbaijan does not have the creative potential or the political will to create such a precedent there are also other options which have precedents in international practice. Today the relationship between New Zealand and its neighbouring islands and between the United States and Micronesia are based on the principle of free association. Although the principle of free association has precedents, it is also unconventional and has the potential to lead to a settlement based on mutual compromise'. (Yerevan, Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, in Armenian, 4 April 1999, pp. 1, 2) (FBIS-SOV-1999-0426, 27 April 1999). Although note the words of President Arkadiy Gukasyan, on 20 October 1998, following a meeting with Armenian President, Robert Kocharyan in Yerevan: T can't see any precedents of status that can be applied to Karabakh'. (Moscow, Interfax, in English, 1755 gmt, 20 Oct. 1998) (FBIS-SOV-98-294, 22 Oct. 1998).
[13] See, for example: (Yerevan, Snark news agency, in Russian, 0956 gmt, 15 July 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-0715, 16 July 1999).
[14] Their earlier meetings: (first) Moscow, 1 April 1999; (second) Washington, 26 April 1999 (following the NATO 50 anniversary summit, 23-25 April); (third) Geneva, 16 July 1999; (fourth) Geneva, 22 August 1999; (fifth) Yalta, (Crimea) Ukraine, 10 September 1999 (during the summit of Baltic and Black sea countries, 10-11 September); (sixth) Sadarak, (Nakhichevan) Azerbaijan, 11 October 1999; and (seventh) Moscow, 24 January 2000. Remember, however, that their first meeting, on 28 April 1998, was in Moscow in the course of the CIS summit of Heads of State.
[15] Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister, in an interview with Turan released on 26 October 1999, indicated that such an agreement would form 'a continuation of the peace process and could relate to elements of the peace process'. (Baku, Turan, in Russian, 1125 gmt, 26 Oct. 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-1026, 27 Oct. 1999).
[16] They were: Leonard Petrosyan (Urgent Issues Minister), Yuriy Bakhshyan and Ruben Miroyan (parliamentary deputy speakers), and (MPs) Genrikh Abramyan, Armenak Armenakyan and Mikayel Kotanyan. Thus, 'instead', the Istanbul Summit Declaration, of 19 November 1999, merely states, at paragraph 20:

'We received the report of the Co-Chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group on the evolving situation and recent developments connected with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and commend their efforts. We applaud in particular the intensified dialogue between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, whose regular contacts have created opportunities to dynamise the process of finding a lasting and comprehensive solution to the problem. We firmly support this dialogue and encourage its continuation, with the hope of resuming negotiations within the OSCE Minsk Group. We also confirm that the OSCE and its Minsk Group, which remains the most appropriate format for finding a solution, stand ready to further advance the peace process and its future implementation, including by providing all necessary assistance to the parties'. For text see: http://www.osce.org/docs/english/1990-1999/summits/istadecl99e.php
[17] Turan, referring to Eldar Namazov's resignation, in a report on 25 October (which had also announced the resignation of the Foreign Minister), asserted: 'The resignation of Namazov, who is one of the closest men to President Aliyev, represents a serious crisis in the highest echelon of power of Azerbaijan'. (Baku, Turan, in Russian, 1105 gmt, 25 Oct. 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-1025, 26 Oct. 1999).
[18] (Baku, Turan, in Russian, 1210 gmt, 25 March 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-0327, 29 March 1999).
[19] (Moscow, Interfax, in English, 1457 gmt, 2 Sept. 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-0903, 7 Sept. 1999).
'Compare this' with the alleged position of Turkey, outlined in a Snark (Armenian news agency) report of 18 November 1999:
'Nevertheless, Snark's Moscow correspondent has learnt from well-informed sources that official Ankara supports the option for resolving the problem of the Nagornyy Karabakh status on the basis of establishing confederative relations between Stepanakert and Baku ... The confederative nature of mutual relations between Baku and Stepanakert, according to information from various diplomatic sources, implies the declared retention of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and de facto full independence for Nagorno Karabakh'. (Yerevan, Snark, in Russian, 1615 gmt, 18 Nov. 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-1118, 22 Nov. 1999).
[20] See, for example, the remarks of head of the Azerbaijani presidential staff's political department, Ali Hasanov, on 1 and 16 November 1999: 'broad self-government rights' (Moscow, Interfax, in English, 1751 gmt, 1 Nov. 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-1101, 20 Nov. 1999); 'a supreme degree of self-governance'. (Moscow, Interfax, in English, 1701 gmt, 16 Nov. 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-1116, 21 Nov. 1999).
[21] During her interview with the Armenian news agency Snark, she added: 'Generally today autonomies are not viable institutions, events occurring in the Balkans prove this. Autonomy as an international notion is a reality of yesterday, which proposes subordinating relations between nations, which is not accepted by the world community. It contradicts the principles of the democratic world. We will speak only about the extent to which we can restrict our independence to achieve peace in the region'. (Yerevan, Snark, in Russian, 0500 gmt, 20 July 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-0722, 23 July 1999).
[22] (Moscow, Interfax, in English, 1835 gmt, 9 Feb. 2000) (FBIS-SOV-2000-0209, 10 Feb. 2000).
[23] The referendum was held simultaneously with elections for the president of the republic, to which the incumbent, Vladislav Ardzinba, was the only candidate and was duly re-elected with 99% support. (Interfax news agency, Moscow, in Russian, 0607 gmt, 4 Oct. 1999) (SU/3658 F/l, 6 Oct. 1999).
Note, on 5 March 1999, the Abkhazian parliament adopted a law on the presidency providing that only an ethnic Abkhaz can be elected president of Abkhazia. The law further stipulates, inter alia, that, to stand, any candidate must know the Abkhaz language and have lived in Abkhazia for the previous five years. (Prime-News news agency, Tbilisi, in Georgian, 1750 gmt, 5 March 1999) (SU/3479 F/l, 10 March 1999); for further details see: (Kavkasia-Press news agency, Tbilisi, in Georgian, 1200 gmt, 1 June 1999) (SU/3551 F/4, 3 June 1999).
[24] Walter Schwimmer, Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, on 8 October, remarked that the 'kind of public opinion poll held in Abkhazia makes it difficult to resolve the conflict, ignores the will of thousands of people who are currently forced to live as refugees far from their homes in Abkhazia'. See also the remarks of Chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly, Lord Russell Johnson and particularly his, expressed, disappointment at the participation of (five) observers from the Russian State Duma (led by Chairman of the Committee for CIS Affairs, Georgiy Tikhonov); although Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov had earlier sought to dispel any fears of official backing, on the 3, by confirming: 'Russia strictly abides by its recognition of Georgia's territorial integrity and regards Abkhazia as Georgia's integral part. Consequently, Russia as well as the entire world community does not recognise Abkhazia's independence proclaimed in a constitution adopted in November 1994 ...' (Kavkasia-Press news agency, Tbilisi, in Georgian, 1030 gmt, 8 Oct. 1999) (SU/3663 F/3, 12 Oct. 1999) and (for Ivanov) (ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English, 0818 gmt, 3 Oct. 1999) (SU/3658 F/l, 6 Oct. 1999).
[25] (Interfax news agency, Moscow, in English, 1601 gmt, 6 Oct. 1999) (SU/3660 F/3, 8 Oct. 1999).
[26] (Interfax news agency, Moscow, in English, 1004 gmt, 12 Oct. 1999) (SU/3665 F/3, 14 Oct. 1999) The official title of the cited 'statement' is the 'Declaration on Measures for a Political Settlement of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict', of 4 April 1994.
See also, most recently, President Ardzinba's letter to the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan (3 April 2000): (Interfax news agency, Moscow, in English, 1037 gmt, 3 April 2000) (SU/3807 F/2, 5 April 2000).
[27] See: S/1998/1012 (29 October 1998), paras. 10 and 11.
[28] See: S/1999/805 (20 July 1999), paras. 6 and 7.
[29] Liviu Bota, the former Special Representative, had vacated the position on 31 July 1999.
[30] This was despite agreements being reached, at the ninth session of the Coordinating Council, on: (a) a protocol establishing a mechanism for joint investigation of violations of the Moscow Agreement on a Ceasefire and Separation of Forces, of 14 May 1994 and other violent incidents in the zone of conflict; (b) the disinterring and reburial of Georgian remains buried near Sukhumi and assistance from the Georgian side in locating the buried remains of Abkhaz killed during the war; and (c) further steps for the rehabilitation and use of the Inguri dam and power station. See: (Georgian Television, Tbilisi, in Georgian, 1600 gmt, 18 Jan. 2000) (SU/3743 F/l, 21 Jan. 2000) and (Prime-News news agency, Tbilisi, in Georgian, 0935 and 1000 gmt, 19 Jan. 2000) (SU/3743 F/2, 21 Jan. 2000).
[31] See: (Prime-News news agency, Tbilisi, in Georgian, 1830 gmt, 29 Nov. 1999) (SU/ 3706 F/2, 1 Dec. 1999).
[32] (Interfax news agency, Moscow, in English, 1559 gmt, 2 Dec. 1999) (SU/3709 F/3, 4 Dec. 1999); see also: (Prime-News news agency, Tbilisi, in Georgian, 1210 gmt, 20 Dec. 1999) (SU/3724 F/l, 22 Dec. 1999) These remarks, in addition, should be read in the context of the ongoing preparation of the draft 'basic principles for the distribution of constitutional competences between Tbilisi and Sukhumi', yet to be presented to the sides.
[33] (Interfax news agency, Moscow, in English, 1559 gmt, 2 Dec. 1999) (SU/3709 F/3, 4 Dec. 1999).
The 'Agreement on peace and guarantees for the prevention of armed confrontation' had been originally presented, in draft form, as a single text, covering, also, the return of refugees to Gali District and measures for the economic rehabilitation of Abkhazia, at the Athens confidence-building meeting of (16-18) October 1998. Today a separate text covers these latter two issues: the 'Protocol on the return of refugees to the Gali District and measures for economic rehabilitation'.
[34] (Interfax news agency, Moscow, in Russian, 1720 gmt, 29 August 1999) (SU/3628 F/l, 1 Sept. 1999).
[35] President Shevardnadze, speaking at a news conference in Tbilisi, on 22 February 1999, while reiterating that 'Ukraine has expressed readiness to help', added - The involvement of Central Asian states in the peace process is not ruled out either'. (Prime-News news agency, Tbilisi, in Georgian, 1330 gmt, 22 Feb. 1999) (SU/3468 F/2, 25 Feb. 1999) On 8 March 1999, Georgian Minister of State, Vazha Lortkipanidze, speaking at a meeting of 'protesters' near the Inguri River bridge, indicated that subunits of Kazakstan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and 'other states of the CIS' might be invited to join the 'collective forces' currently deployed in Abkhazia. (Prime-News news agency, Tbilisi, in Georgian, 1100 gmt, 9 March 1999) (SU/3480 F/l, 11 March 1999).
[36] See: (Kavkasia-Press news agency, Tbilisi, in Georgian, 2110 gmt, 15 March 2000) Speaking at a joint (presidential) news conference, during an official visit to Tbilisi, Ukrainian President, Leonid Kuchma, on 15 March 2000, noted: T am not ruling out this, however, I believe it is early days to discuss this issue at this stage'. Note, Ukraine is the sixth and most recent (since December 1999) addition to the Group of Friends.
[37] See, in the light of the above (see [25]), the parallel responses, respectively, of Abkhaz Foreign Minister, Sergey Shamba, to Prime-News, on 23 February 1999; and, Abkhaz Presidential aide, Astamur Tania, on 9 March 1999. Astamur Tania added that without the consent of Sukhumi, 'which is ruled out, the involvement of an additional contingent is unrealistic'. (Prime-News news agency, Tbilisi, in Georgian, 1155 gmt, 23 Feb. 1999) (SU/3468 F/2, 25 Feb. 1999) and (Prime-News news agency, Tbilisi, in Georgian, 1100 gmt, 9 March 1999) (SU/3480 F/l, 11 March 1999). 
[38] (ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in Russian, 0742 gmt, 14 Feb. 2000) (SU/3764 F/l, 15 Feb. 2000).
[39] For text see: http://www.osce.org/docs/english/1990-1999/cfe/cfefinact99e.php The first Georgian-Russian talks were held, in Moscow, on 20-21 April 2000. See: (Prime-News news agency, Tbilisi, in Georgian, 1130 gmt, 22 April 2000) (SU/3823F/2, 25 April 2000).
[40] Formerly all checkpoints, including Tsandripshi, had been controlled by the Sukhumi unit of the North Caucasus regional directorate of the Russian Federal Border Guard.
[41] See: (Iprinda news agency, Tbilisi, in Georgian, 0850 gmt, 9 July 1999) (SU/3584F/l, 12 July 1999).
[42] (Tbilisi, Radio Tbilisi Network, in Georgian, 0700 gmt, 10 Jan. 1999) (FBIS-SOV-99-010, 12 Jan. 1999). Consider, also, the bulk of a rather oblique Interfax report of 9 December 1998: 'Georgia has unveiled a proposal for incorporating breakaway South Ossetia as a territorial entity within a unified Georgia, a Georgian official working on the conflict settlement told Interfax Wednesday. 'Georgia had refrained from making public the proposal, expecting South Ossetian leaders to recall their proposal for seceding from Georgia and founding a sovereign state, Georgian presidential representative for conflict settlement Irakli Machavariani told Interfax Wednesday. 'We hoped the talks on the status could begin without the presentation of the most radical claims to each other, but these hopes did not come true and we had to work out a separate version, Machavariani said'. (Moscow, Interfax, in English, 1126 gmt, 9 Dec. 1998) (FBIS-SOV-98-343, 11 Dec. 1998).
[43] For example: (Tbilisi, Iprinda, in Georgian, 1630 gmt, 12 May 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-0512, 13 May 1999).
[44] (Tbilisi, Sakartvelos Respublika, in Georgian, 25 March 1999, p.2) (FBIS-SOV-1999-0404, 5 April 1999). [45] (Tbilisi, Iprinda, in Georgian, 1125 gmt, 30 June 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-0630, 1 July 1999). [46] See, for example, the remarks of Naira Melkumyan, on 22 November 1999: (Yerevan, Snark, in Russian, 4:43:00 pm, 22 Nov. 1999) (FBIS-SOV-1999-1127, 29 Nov. 1999). [47] (Yerevan, Noyan Tapan, in Russian, 1509 gmt, 5 April 2000) (FBIS-SOV-2000-0405, 7 April 2000).

Bibliography
T. Abkhazian, 'Literature on Abkhazia and the Abkhazian-Abazinians', Caucasian Review, 7(1958) 125.
Y. Alexander and R. Friedlander (eds.), Self-Determination: National, Regional and Global Dimensions, Boulder, Westview, 1980.
G. Alfredsson, 'Greenland and the Right to Self-Determination', Nordisk Tidsskrift for International Ret, 51 (1982) 38.
A.L.Altstadt, 'Azerbaijani Turks' Response to Russian Conquest', Studies in Comparative Communism, 19 (1986) 267.
A.L. Altstadt, 'Nagorno-Karabakh - 'Apple of Discord' in the Azerbaijan SSR', Central Asian Survey, 7(1988)63. A.L. Altstadt, The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity Under Russian Rule, Stanford, Hoover Institution Press, c 1992.
Anonymous Note, 'The Logic of Secession', The Yale Law Journal, 89 (1979/1980) 820. A.A. Aslanyan et al., Soviet Armenia, Moscow, Progress, 1971.
J. Aves, Paths to National Independence in Georgia, 1987-1990, London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London, 1991.
J. Aves, Post-Soviet Transcaucasia, London, Royal Institute for International Affairs, 1993.
B. Bagwell, 'Yugoslavian Constitutional Questions: Self-Determination and Secession of Member Republics', Georgian Journal of International Law, 21 (1991) 489.
M. Bala, 'Soviet Colonisation Policy in Azerbaidzhan', Caucasian Review, 2 (1955) 34.
S. Benet, Abkhazians: The Long-Living People of the Caucasus, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974.
E. Benvenisti, 'The Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles: A Framework for Future Settlement', European Journal of International Law, 4 (1993) 542.
R. Bieber, 'European Community Recognition of Eastern European States: A New Perspective for International Law', Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 86 (1992) 374.
J. Birch, 'Border Disputes and Disputed Borders in the Soviet Federal System', Nationality Papers, 1 (1987) 43.
S. Blank, 'The Soviet Conquest of Georgia', Central Asian Survey, 12 (1993) 33.
S. Blank, The Transcaucasian Federation and the Origins of the Soviet Union, 1921-22', Central Asian Survey, 9 (1990) 29.
S. Bloembergen, 'The Union Republics: How Much Autonomy?', Problems of Communism, 16 (Sept.-Oct. 1967) 27.
M.J. Bossuyt, Guide to the 'Travaux Preparatoires' of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dordrecht, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff, 1987.
G.A. Bournoutian, A History of the Armenian People: Pre-History to 1500, vol. 1, Costa Mesa, Mazda Publishers, 1993.
G.A. Bournoutian, A History of the Armenian People: 1500 to Present Day, vol. 2, Costa Mesa, Mazda Publishers, 1993.
N. Bovay, 'The Russian Armed Intervention in Chechnya and its Human Rights Implications', The Review of the International Commission of Jurists, 54 (1995) 29.
L. Brilmayer, 'Secession and Self-Determination: A Territorial Interpretation', Yale Journal of International Law, 16(1991) 177.
S. Brook, Claws of the Crab: Georgia and Armenia in Crisis, London, Sinclair-Stevenson, 1992.
R. Brubaker, Nationalism Refrained. Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe, Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
G. Brunner, Nationality Problems and Minority Rights in Eastern Europe, Gutersloh, Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers, 1996.
L.C. Buchheit, Secession, The Legitimacy of Self-Determination, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1978.
T. Buergenthal (ed.), Human Rights, International Law and the Helsinki Accord, New York, Universe Books, 1977.
A. Cassese, 'Political Self-Determination - Old Concepts and New Developments', in A.Cassese (ed.), UN Law/Fundamental Rights: Two Topics in International Law, Alphenaan den Rijn, Sijthoffand Noordhoff, 1979.
A. Cassese, The Israeli-PLO Agreement and Self-Determination', European Journal of International Law, 4 (1993) 564.
A. Cassese, 'The Self-Determination of Peoples', in L. Henkin (ed.), The International Bill of Rights, The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, Columbia University Press, 1981,92.
R. Chafibekov and E. Dailey, 'Eminent Scholar Interprets Nagorno-Karabakh Dispute', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 34 (1989) 26.
N. Chandrhasan, 'Minorities, Autonomy and the Intervention of Third States - A droit de ragard', Israel Yearbook of Human Rights, 23 (1993) 129.
L-C. Chen, 'Self-Determination: An Important Dimension of the Demand for Freedom', Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 75 (1981) 89.
S. Chervonraya, Conflict in the Caucasus: Abkhazia, Georgia and the Russian Shadow, Glastonbury, Somerset, Gothic Image, 1994.
L. Chorbajian, P. Donabedian and C. Mutafian, The Caucasian Knot, The History and Geopolitics of Nagorno-Karabagh, London, Zed Books, 1994.
S.R. Chowdhury, The Status and Norms of Self-Determination in Contemporary International Law', Netherlands International Law Review, 24 (1977) 72.
A. Cobban, National Self-Determination, London, Oxford University Press, 1945. A. Cobban, The Nation State and National Self-Determination, London, Collins, revised edition, 1969.
B. Coppieters (ed.), Contested Borders in the Caucasus, Brussels, Vub Press, 1996. C. Cox and J. Eibner, Ethnic Cleansing in Progress: War in Nagorno-Karabakh, Zurich, Institute for Religious Minorities in the Islamic World, 1993.
A. Critescu, The Right to Self-Determination: History and Current Developments on the Basis of United Nations Instruments, New York, United Nations, 1981.
M.P. Croissant, The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict, Westport, Conneticut, Praeger, 1998.
V.N. Dadrian, 'Signs of Armenian Unrest', Problems of Communism, 16 (Sep.-Oct. 1967) 70.
C. Dale, Turmoil in Abkhazia: Russian Responses', RFE/RL Research Bulletin, 27 August 1993, 48.
F.F. Davitaya (ed.), Soviet Georgia, Moscow, Progress, 1972. K. Dawisha and B. Parrott (ed.), Conflict, Cleavage, and Change in Central Asia and the Caucasus, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Y. Dinstein (ed.), Models of Autonomy, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Transaction Press, c 1981. F. Domb, The Gaza and Jericho: Autonomy and Human Rights', Israel Yearbook of Human Rights, 25 (1996) 21.
L. Drobezheva et al. (ed.), Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Soviet World, Armonk, M.E. Sharpe Inc., 1996.
W.R. Duncan and G.P. Holman Jr. (ed.), Ethnic Nationalism and Regional Conflict, The Former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, Boulder, Westview Press, 1994.
V. van Dyke, Human Rights, Ethnicity and Discrimination, Westport, Conneticut, Greenwood Press, c!985.
V. van Dyke, 'Self-Determination and Minority Rights', International Studies Quarterly 13(1969)343.
C. Eagleton, 'Excesses of Self-Determination', Foreign Affairs, 31 (1952) 593.
C. Eagleton, 'Self-Determination in the United Nations', American Journal of International Law, 47 (1953) 88.
A. Eide, Possible Ways and Means of Facilitating the Peaceful and Constructive Solution of Problems Involving Minorities, UN Doc. No. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/34.
R. Emerson, 'Self-Determination', American Journal of International Law, 65 (1971) 459.
T.M. Franck and P. Hoffman, The Right of Self-Determination in Very Small Places', New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 8 (1976) 331.
S. French and A. Gutman, The Principle of National Self-Determination', in V. Held, S. Morgenbesser and T. Nagel (eds.), Philosophy, Morality and International Affairs, New York, Oxford University Press, 1974, 138.
J.A. Frowein, The Reunification of Germany', American Journal of International Law, 86(1992) 152.
F. Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, New York, Free Press, 1992.
E. Fuller, 'Abkhaz-Georgian Relations Remain Strained', RFE/RL, Report on the USSR, no. 10(1989)25.
E. Fuller, 'Abkhazia on the Brink of Civil War?', RFE/RL Research Bulletin, 4 September 1992, 1.
E. Fuller, 'Armenia - From Apathy to Violence', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 23 (1990) 19.
E. Fuller, 'Armenians Demonstrate for Return of Territories from Azerbaijan', RFE/RL Research Bulletin, RL 441/87, 20 October 1987, 1.
E. Fuller, Azerbaijan at the Crossroads, London, Royal Institute for International Affairs, 1994. E. Fuller, 'Azerbaijan Rediscovers its Vanished Minorities', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 52 (1990). E. Fuller, 'Caucasus: The Lezgin Campaign for Autonomy', RFE/RL Research Bulletin, 16 October 1992, 30.
E. Fuller and A. Bohr, 'Chronology of Ethnic Disturbances in Transcaucasia and Central Asia', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 1 (1989) 17.
E. Fuller, 'Georgia, Abkhazia and Checheno-Ingushetia', RFE/RL Research Bulletin, 1 February 1992, 3.
E. Fuller, 'Georgian Parliament Votes to Abolish Ossetian Autonomy', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 51 (1990)8.
E. Fuller, 'Georgian Prosecutor Accused of Inciting Interethnic Hatred', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 17 (1990) 12.
E. Fuller, 'Georgian Writers' Union Issues Secession Ultimatum', Report on the USSR, no. 29(1989)28.
E. Fuller, 'Gorbachev's Dilemma in Azerbaijan', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 5 (1990) 14.
E. Fuller, 'Islam in Adzharia', RFE/RL Research Bulletin, RL 221/86, 4 June 1986, 1.
E. Fuller, 'Kurdish Demands for Autonomy Complicate Karabakh Equation', RFE/RL Research Bulletin, 5 June 1992, 12.
E. Fuller, 'Moscow Attempts New Solution to Nagorno-Karabakh Impasse', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 49 (1989) 12.
E. Fuller, 'Moscow Rejects Azerbaijani Law on Sovereignty: A Moral Victory for Armenia?', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 48 (1989) 16.
E. Fuller, 'Nagorno-Karabakh and the Rail Blockade', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 41 (1989) 23.
E. Fuller, 'Nagorno-Karabakh: Can Turkey Remain Neutral?', RFE/RL Research Bulletin, 3 April 1992, 36. E. Fuller, 'Nagorno-Karabakh: Internal Conflict Becomes International', RFE/RL Research Bulletin, 13 March 1992, 1.
E. Fuller, 'New Abkhaz Campaign for Secession from the Georgian SSR', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 14 (1989) 27.
E. Fuller, 'South Ossetia: Analysis of a Permanent Crisis', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 7(1991).
E. Fuller, 'The Azeris in Georgia and the Ingilos: Ethnic Minorities in the Limelight', Central Asian Survey, 3 (1984) 75.
E. Fuller, 'The Republics in 1989: Georgia', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 52 (1989) 18.
E. Fuller, 'The Republics in 1989: Nagorno-Karabakh', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 52(1989) 16.
E. Fuller, The South Ossetian Campaign for Unification', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 49(1989)17.
E. Fuller, Transcaucasia: Ethnic Strife Threatens Democratisation', RFE/RL Research Bulletin, 1 January 1993, 17.
E. Fuller, 'Will Azerbaijan Be the Next 'Domino'?', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 2 (1990) 17.
E. Fuller, 'Zviad Gamsakhurdia Proposes Abolition of Adzhar Autonomy', RFE/RL Report on the USSR, no. 48 (1990) 13.
L. Punch and H. Krag, North Caucasus, London, Minority Rights Group, 1994.
E. Gayim, The Eritrean Question - The Conflict Between the Right of Self-Determination and the Interests of States, Uppsala, lustas Forlag, 1993.
T. Gazzini, 'Considerations on the Conflict in Chechnya', Human Rights Law Journal, 17 (1996) 93.
B. Geiger et al., Peoples and Languages of the Caucasus, The Hague, Mouton, 1959.
J.B. Gidney, A Mandate for Armenia, Kent, Ohio, Kent University Press, 1967.
K. Ginther and H. Isak (eds.), Self-Determination in Europe, Proceedings of an International Workshop, 5-6 July 1989, Wien, Bohlau, 1991.
S. Goldenberg, Pride of Small Nations: The Caucasus and Post-Soviet Disorder, London, Zed Books, 1994.
T. Goltz, Azerbaijan Diary: A Rogue Reporter's Adventures in an Oil-rich, War-torn Post-Soviet Republic, Armonk, M.E. Sharpe Inc., 1998.
H. Gros Espiell, 77?? Right to Self-Determination: Implementation of United Nations Resolutions, UN doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/405/Rev.l, 1980.
M.H. Halperin and D.J. Scheffer, with P.L. Small, Self-Determination in the New World Order (Washington DC, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, c!992).
L. Hannikainen and F. Horn (eds.), Autonomy and Demilitarisation in International Law: The Aland Islands in a Changing Europe, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 1997.
L. Hannikainen, Cultural, Linguistic and Educational Rights in the Aland Islands, Helsinki, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1993.
L. Hannikainen, Peremptory Norms (Jus Cogens) in International Law: Historical Development, Criteria, Present Status, Helsinki, Finnish Lawyers' Publishing Company, 1988.

H. Hannum (ed.), Autonomy, Sovereignty and Self-Determination - The Accommodation of Conflicting Rights, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, Revised Edition, 1996.
H. Hannum, Documents on Autonomy and Minority Rights, Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff, 1993.
H. Hannum and R.B. Lillich, The Concept of Autonomy in International Law', American Journal of International Law, 74 (1980) 858.
F. Harhoff, 'Constitutional and International Legal Aspects of Aboriginal Rights', Nordic Journal of International Law, 57 (1988) 289.
R. Hauser, The International Protection of Minorities and the Right of Self-Determination', Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1 (1972) 92.
G. Hewitt (ed.), Caucasian Perspectives, Unterschleissheim, Munchen, Lincom Europa, 1992.
R. Hovanissian, Armenia on the Road to Independence, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1967.
R.Hovanissian, The Armeno-Azerbaijani Conflict Over Mountainous Karabagh, 1918-1919', Armenian Review, 24 (1971) 3.
R. Hovanissian, The Republic of Armenia, vol. 1, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1971.
R. Hovanissian, The Republic of Armenia, vol. 2, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1982.
R.E. Howard, The National Question in Canada: Quebec', Human Rights Quarterly, 13 (1991)412. Human Rights Watch, Azerbaijan, Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, New York, Human Rights Watch, 1994. Human Rights Watch, Bloodshed in the Caucasus: Escalation of the Armed Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, New York, Human Rights Watch, 1992. Human Rights Watch, Bloodshed in the Caucasus: Violations of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Georgia-South Ossetia Conflict, New York, Human Rights Watch, 1992.
ST. Hunter, The Transcaucasus in Transition: Nation-Building and Conflict, Washington DC, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1994.
R.F. Iglar, The Constitutional Crisis in Yugoslavia and the International Law of Self-Determination: Slovenia and Croatia's Right to Secede', Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 15 (1992) 213. International Colloquium, Lausanne, 25-27 April 1996, Local Self-Government, Territorial Integrity and Protection of Minorities, Zurich, Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag, 1996.
H.S. Johnson, Self-Determination within the Community of Nations, Leyden, A.W. Sijthoff, 1967.
K. Kandelaki, 'Soviet Nationality Policy in the Caucasus', Caucasian Review, 2 (1956) 7.
G.B. Katakdjian and A. Papisca, Rights of Peoples (1991).
F. Kazemzadeh, The Struggle for Transcaucasia, 1917-1921, New York, George Ronald, 1951.
R. Khakimov, 'Prospects of Federalism in Russia: A View from Tatarstan', Security Dialogue, 27 (1996)69.
B. Kingsbury, 'Claims by Non-State Groups in International Law', Cornell International Law Journal, 25 (1992) 481.
B. Kingsbury, 'Self-Determination of Peoples and Polities', Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 86 (1992) 369.
A.C. Kiss, The People's Right to Self-Determination', Human Rights Law Journal, 1 (1986) 165.
D.B. Knight and M. Davies, Self-Determination: An Annotated Interdisciplinary Bibliography, New York, Garland, 1987.
R. Krys, 'The Right of Peoples to Self-Determination', Revue de Droit International, 63 (1985)291.
D.M. Lang, A Modern History of Soviet Georgia, New York, Grove Press, 1962.
D.M. Lang, Armenia: Cradle of Civilisation, London, George Alien and Unwin, 1970.
D.M. Lang and C.J. Walker, The Armenians, London, Minority Rights Group, Revised Edition, 1987.
D.M. Lang, The Georgians, London, Thames and Hudson and Praeger, 1966.
R. Lapidoth, 'Autonomy: Potential and Limitations', International Journal of Group Rights, 1 (1994) 269.
G. Lapidus and V. Zaslavsky, From Union to Commonwealth: Nationalism and Separatism in the Soviet Republics, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1992.
A.H. Leibowitz, Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations, Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff, 1989.
N. Lerner, Group Rights and Discrimination in International Law, Dordrecht, London, Martinus Nijhoff, c 1991.
G.J. Libaridian (ed.), Armenia at the Crossroads: Democracy and Nationhood in the Post-Soviet Era, Watertown, Massachusetts, Blue Crane Books, 1991.
G.J. Libaridian, The Challenge to Statehood: Armenian Political Thinking Since Independence (Human Rights and Democracy), Watertown, Massachusetts, Blue Crane Books, 1999.
G.J. Libaridian, The Karabagh File, Documents and Facts on the Region of Mountainous Karabagh, Cambridge, Zoryan Institute, 1988.
L. Lyck (ed.), Constitutional and Economic Space of the Small Nordic Jurisdictions, Stockholm, Nordiska Institutet for Regionalpolitisk Forskning, 1996.
L. Lyck, 'Lessons to be Learned on Autonomy and on Human Rights from the Faeroese Situation Since 1992', Nordic Journal of International Law, 64 (1995) 481.
N. MacDermot, 'Self-Determination and the 'Independent Bantustans", in Y. Hang-artner and S. Trechsel (eds.), Volkerrecht im Dienste des Menschen. Festschrift fur Hans Haug, Bern, Haupt, 1986, 149.
M. Malkasian, Gha-Ra-Bagh: The Emergence of the National Democratic Movement in Armenia, Detroit, Wayne State University Press, 1996.
G. Marchildon and E. Maxwell, 'Quebec's Right of Secession under Canadian and International Law', Virginia Journal of International Law, 32 (1992) 583.
J.B. Marie, 'Relations Between Peoples, Rights and Human Rights: Semantic and Methodological Distinctions', Human Rights Law Journal, 1 (1986) 195.
R. Martin, Interethnic Conflict in Soviet Azerbaijan, London, Thames Polytechnic School of Social Sciences, 1990.
M.A.K. Matossian, 'The Armenians', Problems of Communism, 16 (Sep-Oct.1967) 65.
M.A.K. Matossian, The Impact of Soviet Policies in Armenia, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1962.
M. Mautner, 'The West Bank and Gaza: The Case for Associate Statehood', Yale Studies in World Public Order, 6 (1980) 297.
R. McQorquodale, 'Self-Determination Beyond the Colonial Context and its Political Impact on Africa', African Journal of International and Comparative Law, 4 (1992) 592.
P.K. Menon, 'The Right to Self-Determination: An Historical Appraisal', Revue de Droit International, 53 (1975) 183.
M. Mesbahi (ed.), Central Asia and the Caucasus after the Soviet Union: Domestic and
International Dynamics, Gainesville, University Press of Florida, 1994. I. Modnov (ed.), The Turbulent Years in the Caucasus: On the Sources of National Contradictions in Nagorny Karabakh, Moscow, Novosti, 1988. B. Nahaylo and C.J. Peters, The Ukrainians and Georgians, London, Minority Rights Group, 1981. V. Nanda, 'Self-Determination under International Law: Validity of Claims to Secede', Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 13 (1981) 257. P. Nasmyth, Georgia: Rebel in the Caucasus, Cassell, 1992. V. Naumkin (ed.), Central Asia and Transcaucasia, Ethnicity and Conflict (London, Greenwood Press, 1994). K. Nayar, 'Self-Determination Beyond the Colonial Context: Biafra in Retrospect', Texas International Law Journal, 10(1975) 321. B. Neuberger, National Self-Determination in Post-Colonial Africa, Boulder, L. Rienner Publishers, 1986. No Author, 'On the Historical Symbolism of the State Flag of the Republic of Abkhazia', Central Asian Survey, 13 (1994) 435. I. Nolyain, 'Moscow Initiation of the Azeri-Armenian Conflict', Central Asian Survey, 13(1994)541.
M. Nuttall, 'Greenland: Emergence of an Inuit Homeland', in Minority Rights Group (ed.), Polar Peoples, London, Minority Rights Group, 1994.
A. Olafsson, 'International Status of the Faroe Islands', Nordisk Tidsskrift for International Ret, 51 (1982)29.
Sir A. Parsons, 'Hammering out an Article', The European, 22-25 October 1992, 9. A. Pellet, 'The Opinions of the Badinter Commission - A Second Breath for the Self-Determination of Peoples', European Journal of International Law, 3 (1992) 178. M. Pomerance, Self-Determination in Law and Practice, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1982. M. Pomerance, 'The United States and Self-Determination: Perspectives on the Wilsonian Conception', American Journal of International Law, 70 (1976) 1. F. Przetacznik, The Basic Collective Human Right to Self-Determination of Peoples and Nations as a Prerequisite for Peace: Its Philosophical Background and Practical Application', Revue de Droit International, 69 (1991) 259.
B.G. Ramcharan, 'Peoples Rights and Minorities' Rights', Nordic Journal of International Law, 56 (1987)9. L.A. Rehof, 'Human Rights and Self-Government for Indigenous Peoples', Nordic Journal of International Law, 61/62 (1994) 19. A. Rigo Sureda, The Evolution of the Right of Self-Determination, A Study of United
Nations Practice, Leiden, Sijthoff, 1973.
A-A. Rorlich, 'Not by History Alone: The Retrieval of the Past Among the Tatars and the Azeris', Central Asian Survey, 3 (1984) 87. A. Rosas and J. Helgesen (eds.), Human Rights in a Changing East-West Perspective, London, Pinter, 1990.
A. Rosas and J. Helgesen (eds.), The Strengths of Diversity: Human Rights and Pluralist Democracy, Dordrecht, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff, 1992.
A. Rosas, 'Whither Sovereignty', Sartryck ur Juridisk Tidskrift, no. 2 (1994-95) 312. R. Rosenstock, The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations: A Survey', American Journal of International Law, 65 (1971) 713. K. Rupesinghe (ed.), Ethnic Conflicts, Autonomy and Devolution of Power in Multi-Ethnic States, London, Macmillan, 1993. D. Sanders, 'Collective Rights', Human Rights Quarterly, 13 (1991) 368.
D. Sanders, 'Is Autonomy a Principle of International Law?', Nordic Journal of International Law, 55 (1986) 17.
H.O. Schoenberg, 'Limits of Self-Determination', Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 6 (1976)91.
C. Schreuer, 'The Waning of the Sovereign State: Towards a New Paradigm for International Law?', European Journal of International Law, 4 (1993) 447.
F. Seyersted, The Aland Autonomy and International Law', Nordisk Tidsskrift for International Ret, 51 (1982) 23. A. Sheehy, 'Recent Events in Abkhazia Mirror the Complexities of National Relations in the USSR', Radio Liberty Research, RL 141/78, 26 June 1978.
D. Shelton, 'Subsidiarity, Democracy and Human Rights', in D. Gomien (ed.), Broadening the Frontiers of Human Rights, Oslo, Scandinavian University Press, 1993, 43.
V. Socor, 'Gagauz Autonomy in Moldova: A Precedent for Eastern Europe?', RFE/RL Research Bulletin, 26 August 1994, 20.
L.B. Sohn, 'The Concept of Autonomy in International Law and the Practice of the United Nations', Israel Law Review, 15 (1980) 180.
S.L. Solnick, 'Federal Bargaining in Russia', East European Constitutional Review, 4 (1995)52.
R.Stavenhagen, The Ethnic Question, Conflicts, Development and Human Rights, Tokyo, United Nations University Press, 1990.
H.J. Steiner, 'Ideals and Counter Ideals in the Struggle over Autonomy Regimes for Minorities', Noire Dame Law Review, 66 (1991) 1539.
M. Suksi (ed.), Autonomy: Applications and Implications, London, Kluwer Law International, 1998.
R.G. Suny, Armenia in the Twentieth Century, Chico, California Scholars Press, 1983.
R.G. Suny, 'Georgia and Soviet Nationality Policy', in S.F. Cohen, A. Rabinowitch and R. Sharlet (eds.), The Soviet Union Since Stalin, London, Macmillan, 1980, 200.
R.G. Suny, The Baku Commune 1917-1918, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1972.
R.G. Suny (ed.), Transcaucasia: Nationalism and Social Change. Essays in the History of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, Ann Arbor, Michigan Slavic Publications, 1983.
T. Swietochowski, Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920, The Shaping of National Identity in a Muslim Community, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985.
R. Szporluk (ed.), National Identity and Ethnicity in Russia and the New States of Eurasia, New York, M.E. Sharpe Inc., 1994.
P. Thornberry, 'Self-Determination, Minorities, Human Rights: A Review of International Instruments', International Comparative Law Quarterly, 38 (1989) 867.
D. Thurer, 'Self-Determination', Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, 8 (1985) 470.
V. Tishkov, Ethnicity, Nationalism and Conflict in and after the Soviet Union, London, PRIO, UNRISD and Saga Publications, 1996.
C. Tomuschat, Modern Law of Self-Determination, London, Martinus Nijhoff, 1993.
C. Tomuschat, 'Rights of Peoples: Some Preliminary Observations', in Y. Hangartner and S. Trechsel (eds.), Volkerrecht im Dienste des Menschen Festschrift fur Hans Haug, Bern, Haupt, 1986, 337.
S. Torossian, 'Soviet Policy in the Armenian Question', Caucasian Review, 4 (1955) 9.
T. Trilati, 'Literature on Ossetia and the Ossetians', Caucasian Review, 6 (1958) 107. UNESCO (ed.), Violations of Human Rights, Possible Rights of Recourse and Forms of Resistance, Paris, UNESCO, 1984. Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation, Report of a UNPO Coordinated Human Rights Mission to Abkhazia and Georgia, The Hague, UNPO Publications, 1993.
Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation, Report of a UNPO Mission to Abkhazia, Georgia and the Northern Caucasus, The Hague, UNPO Publications, 1992.
United Nations Centre for Human Rights, Needs Assessment Mission to Georgia Report Geneva, UNHCR, 1995.
C.J. Walker, Armenia and the Karabagh: The Struggle for Unity, London Minority Rights Group, 1991.
C.J. Walker, Armenia, The Survival of a Nation, London, Routledge Revised Edition 1990.
M. Weller, The International Response to the Dissolution of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia', American Journal of International Law, 86 (1992) 569.
R.C.A. White, 'Self-Determination: Time for a Re-Assessment?', Netherlands International Law Review, 28 (1980) 147.


MAPS

Map A: Nagorno-Karabakh
Map B: Abkhazia
Map C: South Ossetia
Map D: Ajaria and Armenian-populated districts of Georgia
Map E: Azerbaijani-populated districts of Georgia
Map F: Security Zone and Restricted Weapons Zone of Abkhazia and Zugdidi District

Map 'A' reproduced from Nagorno-Karabakh: A White Paper (Yerevan, Armenian Center for National and International Studies, 1997).

Map 'B' to 'E' reproduced from my own personal copy of the Map of Georgia (Tbilisi, 1995).
Map T' reproduced from (SU/2022, Special Supplement, 15 June 1994).

Pages | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |