Jump to content

Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jagiellon (talk | contribs) at 00:45, 19 September 2008 (→‎"Intent to recognize" section: a go). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

1921 Constitution

As per this change [1] the claim that Georgian constitution did not offer Abkhazia a formal status is false. In the book by Russian scholar Svetlana Chervonnaya, Conflict in the Caucasus: Georgia, Abkhazia and the Russian Shadow, p 143 we find the following: On February 21 1921, The Constitution Assembly of Georgia adopted the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Georgia and ratified the Provision on the recognition of Abkhazia as an autonomous part of Georgia." Iberieli (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informations from sources which can be seen say that although there are vague clauses, there were never put into practice due to the Red Army invasion of Georgia. As we have sources which we can see, is there any possibility of providing a web source so that we can all see, and also possibly quote verbatim the relevant passages of the book (in Russian I am guessing it is) so that we can all see this. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
your claim are false as your alleged "references." The scholarly book was quoted and you bluntly removed it because it did not suit your bias. This is unacceptable for Wikipedia, i think you forget that this is not ITAR-TASS. Iberieli (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not Rustavi 2 either. What was asked was for documented evidence, as in a direct quote; I have shown 2 direct sources which state that Abkhazia had no formal status under the 1921 constitution. Another source states: "...and re-instated the Constitution of February 21, 1921, in which Abkhazia is not specifed as a subject of state-legal relations...To overcome the legal vacuum in relations between the two republics, on July 23, 1992, the Supreme Soviet of Abkhazia resolved to re-instate the Constitution of Abkhazia of 1925. Abkhazia at that time was united with Georgia by a ‘special Union treaty’." Another source states: "The Georgian constitution of 1921 includes a vague clause allowing for Abkhaz autonomy but the Bolsheviks overthrow the Mensheviks in Georgia before a precise agreement on relations is reached." and "The Abkhaz Supreme Soviet (in the continuing absence of its Georgian deputies) reinstates the Abkhaz constitution of 1925, arguing that there is no provision for Abkhazia in the Georgian Constitution of 1921." Another source states: "In fact, the key move on the Georgian side was probably the decision in February 1992 to return to Georgia's 1921 constitution, which did not specifically mention Abkhazia at all, and therefore had no provision for Abkhazian autonomy." Another source states: "In February 1992, following the collapse of the USSR, the Provisional Military Council of Georgia which had seized power in a coup d"etat took a decision concerning the adoption of the constitution of the Georgian Democratic Republic of 1921, in which relations with Abkhazia were not defined." Another source states: "But Georgia received its own independence, and when its parliament reinstated the 1921 constitution, with no specific mention of Abkhazia, violent conflict returned." Another source states: "In other words, the nature of the relationship was never specified in the crucial 1921 constitution, and although Abkhazia has been military annexed by General Mazniev (Mazniashvili) on behalf of the Menshevik regime in 1918, its status under international law was indeterminate." Another source states: "Despite the remark about the status of Abkhazia, the February 21, 1921 Constitution did not guarantee Abkhazia's statehood, since Abkhazia had been occupied by Georgian troops at that time. The declaration of the Military Council overlooked the Abkhaz position." Another source states: "reinstated its 1921 Constitution on 21 February 1992. These steps effectively abolished the autonomous status of Abkhazia which it enjoyed within the Soviet Union." Another source states: "New power restored the 1918-1921 constitution under which Abkhazia had no autonomy." Another source states: "eorgia returned to its 1921 constitution, wherein Abkhazia was not mentioned at all. Considering that, Abkhazia offered Georgia to sign an agreement founding a federation." Another source states: "By reverting in 1992 to the Constitution of Abkhazian Republic of 1925, in which relations between Abkhazia and Georgia were based on a special Treaty of Union, Abkhazia was attempting to overcome a constitutional vacuum in its relations with Georgia after the abolition by the Georgian Military Council of all constitutional acts adopted in Georgia during Soviet times, and after its return to the Constitution of the Georgian Democratic Republic of 1921, in which the autonomous status of Abkhazia was not defined." Another source states: "The new State Council, brought under the leadership of Shevardnadze, abolished the 1978 Georgian Constitution and replaced it with the pre-Soviet Constitution of 1921, in which the autonomous status of Abkhazia was mentioned but not legally specified." Another source states: "When Georgia reinstated the Constitution of the 1918-1921 Democratic Republic of Georgia in 1992, it implicitly stripped Abkhazia of its autonomous status (and reminded Abkhazians how they had been invaded and annexed by Georgia during that period)." And there's more. Unless there are multiple sources which state specifically what you have inserted, sources which we can see, I believe I have met WP:BURDEN for including "no formal status" into the article. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Chapter XI –Autonomous Administration
A r t i c l e 107.
Abkhasie (district of Soukhoum), Georgia Musulmane (district of Batum), and Zakhatala (district of Zakhatala), which are integral parts of the Georgian Republic, enjoy autonomy in the administration of their affairs."
CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA (ADOPTED BY THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY (February 21, 1921) --KoberTalk 17:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please note the archaic spelling of the placenames. This proves that the translation is contemporanous (probably from a French copy of the constitution), dating to February 1921.--KoberTalk 17:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but, as one of the sources I linked above says:

After Gamsakhurdia's flight into exile, the Military Council of Georgia, which had come into power by a military coup, abrogated Georgia's 1978 constitution in February 1992 and reinstated the constitution of 22 February 1921 which had been introduced by the independent Menshevik-led government. Clause 107 of that constitution states that "Abkhasie (district of Soukhoum), Georgia Musulmane (district of Batum), and Zakhathala (district of Zakhatala), which are integral parts of the Georgian Republic, enjoy an autonomy in the administration of their affairs."
Clause 108 states: "The statute concerning the autonomy of the districts mentioned in the previous article will be the object of special legislation." In other words, the nature of the relationship was never specified in the crucial 1921 constitution, and although Abkhazia had been militarily annexed by General Maznie (Mazniashvili) on behalf of the Menshevik regime in 1918, its status under international was indeterminate."

Given this source, and other sources which do not require us to interpret the constitution, the edit that I had made, i.e. Abkhazia had no formal status under the 1921 constitution, is actually quite correct. I would suggest that we rewrite that part to state:

On 21 February 1992, Georgia abolished the Soviet-era constitution and restored the Democratic Republic of Georgia under the 1921 Constitution, in which autonomy of Abkhazia was suggested, but legal status was not formally granted

.
This is not OR on our part, and it provides was reliable sources state. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Abkhazia was granted autonomy two years before the constitution was adopted. See this act adopted by the People's Council of Abkhazia in 1919. The 1921 constituion (adopted four days before Tbilisi fell to the Soviet invasion) promised to determine the final constitutional status of Abkhazia within Georgia.--KoberTalk 18:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can't engage in original research. I am well aware that Tbilisi fell 4 days after the adoption of the constitution, but that fact can't change the fact that autonomy under the 1921 constitution was never formally granted because we have reliable sources which state otherwise. Can you at least agree that we change to the suggestion that I made, or expand on it, to come up with a variation which can be agreed on, for both this article, and the Abkhazia article. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As there has been no other comment, I've gone ahead and made the changes. --Tovarishch Komissar Dialogue Stalk me 18:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara and Morroco: Intent to recognize

This article http://www.regnum.ru/english/1053372.html says Western Sahara (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, SADR) is going to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia this year. Since there is not currently a section for Intent to Recognize, perhaps the appropriate place to put a mention would be in "Other entities and states > Positive views on recognition". Curiously, the same source also says that Russia expects Morocco to recognize Abkhazia but there is no direct quote from Morocco which could be used for our article. Jagiellon (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it could be added to the article, however, the Morocco position is somewhat more unreliable as I can't find anything on mid.ru relating to Morocco, so perhaps the SADR could be added to the article (in same section as Kosovo). --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 02:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syria

In this diff I have removed Syria, as the comments are in relation to the actual war, not on recognition; evident that the articles are pre-26 August 2008. If the Syrian position has been publicised, then this needs to be done with sources which directly refer to recognition; will they? won't they? This is the information which is directly needed for the article. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 02:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a topic that needs to be discussed seeing as it has caused a great deal of edit warring. Understand that anyone found edit warring over the material will be blocked. Tiptoety talk 03:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been discussed previously, and this is International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia which occurred on 26 August, comments from 25 August can't be in relation to this article. A note has been left for the editor advising them as to why I removed it, which I feel is a bit more productive than a simple warning about edit warring. --Tovarishch Komissar Dialogue Stalk me 18:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it has been discussed previously, please link to where the discussion is in the archives. Saying it has been discussed, without pointing folks to where it has been discussed does not help much. —— nixeagle 15:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Syria did not recognize yet the secessionists, and I belive it not so importent. So much energy for this article for nothing. It is no encyclopedic and motivate only from politic reason. for example we have no article about International recognition of France International recognition of Syria International recognition of Russia ect. That because thiere is no need. Geagea (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Krajina

I have removed Serbian Krajina from the list of de facto sovereign states or governments. Serbian Krajina is just a self proclaimed government in exile, in Belgrad. Please, pay attention to the titles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Intent to recognize" section

Shouldn't we have a section for "States that intend to recognise". Belarus is they only country which fits fits this criteria currently, but may not be the only one in the future. I propose we add "States that intend to recognise" to the article. Ijanderson (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. It is the same way it is being done in the Kosovo article. It also makes sense from a practical perspective: As even Nicaragua showed, there is sometimes a period between announcing intent and formalizing recognition. Jagiellon (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It used to be on here. I re-added it but I was reverted by User:Elysander. There is no legit reason not to have the section. --Tocino 17:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Let us safely add it back as it used to be (and as the somewhat similar Kosovo article has it). The section header could be "Intent to recognize" and inclusion criteria would be express intent to recognize as stated by a President, high government official or diplomat. Mere expressions of support for South Ossetia and for Abkhazia would not suffice. Jagiellon (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one seems to object I would like to go ahead and reinstate the "intent to recognize" section. I would also like to restore the opening line to its previous stable version which was developed through general consensus. Jagiellon (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Entities?

It seems that there's a discrepancy here; in the International reaction to Kosovo's 2008 independence declaration article we have Abkhazia and South Ossetia (among others) listed as "Non-UN member states." However, on this very article, we have Kosovo, a state with much wider recognition listed as 'Other Entities.' The double standard here is obvious. A state with 2 recognitions is referred to as 'Non-UN member state' in one article (South Ossetia/Abkhazia), while a state with 46 recognitions is listed under 'Other Entities' (Kosovo). I don't think that's an accurate description. --alchaemia (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read carefully. The title of the section is "Other entities (de facto states or governments)" I see no difference between such title and 'Non-UN member state'. Especially if you appreciate the fact that all UN members are listed above this section in our article. I see no double standards in the title of the section. Please, read the article before commenting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you should not compare different articles without deep analysis of each of them. Please, appreciate the fact that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are also listed in this very article in the section "Other entities (de facto states or governments)". The international statuses of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kosovo are very similar (i.e. partially recognized states), and it is not directly dependent on the definite number of UN states, that recognise these countries. It is dependend on other facts, such as whether this states have UN admission, or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a clear difference between a 'de facto state' and a 'Non-UN member state.' Switzerland was a Non-UN member state until it became a member of the UN a couple of years ago. Now, if we assume and decide that Non-UN member state is any state, with partial recognition, which is not a member of the UN, then I think Kosovo should be defined as such in this article, exactly as South Ossetia and Abkhazia are defined in the Kosovo article.

1. Change Kosovo (this article) from 'Other Entities' to 'Non-UN member states'

or

2. Change South Ossetia/Abkhazia/etc., (in the Kosovo article) from Non-UN member states to 'Other entities.' --alchaemia (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be CAREFUL! Switzerland became a UN member state not "a couple of years ago", but in 2002, 6 years ago. Nowdays membership in UN is just a synonym of full international recognition! I will never allow to put Kosovo and Abkhazia or S.O. in different sections, because actually the statuses of these states are the similar. We have 192 member states in UN, and all countries without recognition at least a half of them are partially recognized states! This is just a Wikipedia, not a political forum! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk • contribs)
Please understand, it's not your place or anyone else's to never allow anything. None of us own any articles here, or even our own user pages. Rather, they are all community property, and we attempt to decide things by seeking a rough consensus. Andrewa (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rough consensus of international community (and common sense) is that Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are partially recognized states! So, they should be placed in the same section. If someone will place these countries in different sections, it will be definitely a disruption, so I will do everything I can to do not allow such disruption to be made. You can rename the titles of the sections (if you think that this is very necessary to adhere Kosovo article strictly), but you have to preserve the entirety of the section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the best thing you can do to foster sympathy for your cause here is to abide by Wikipedia's policies, especially if the consensus here goes against you on particular editorial issues. Wikipedia uses the terms consensus and disruption in particular ways that help to define what is acceptable behaviour here. If on the other hand you attempt to enforce unilateral decisions, however meritorious they may be, you risk discrediting your cause, perhaps unfairly. Andrewa (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus here doesn't go against me (I think that the majority of users agrees with me, see, for example User:Tocino, and User:Ijanderson977) so, if somebody will take unilateral decision and disrupt the article - it will be definitely a disruption, and I will revert such changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles don't have to follow each other exactly. They are two different situations. --Tocino 17:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tocino Ijanderson (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you'd say that Tocino, as it was more than likely you (or Avala) who listed Kosovo under 'Other Entities' and SO/Abkhazia under 'Non-UN states' in that Kosovo article. Of course you'd say "they are different situations..." but just for curiosity, would you mind telling us what's so different about these two situations? --alchaemia (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind telling us why you have some pretensions to this very article instead of Kosovo article? If you do not like Kosovo article - you can use the respectible talk page instead of this page. These are different articles in Wikipedia, and I really do not understand why one article has to adhere another strictly. This is the talk page only for article "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia", and please do not discuss Kosovo article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the title of the section, so I think that our issue is settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the war

There seems to be a lot of emphasis given to the 'Kosovo precedent' but there is very little mention of the actual war. No one will deny that the war was much more important in determining events than the recognition of Kosovo, yet this article would have one believe otherwise. Kislorod (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea

Can we include, either in the Ukraine reaction or in the other entities section the following:

The Parliament of Crimea called on Ukraine to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia, saying it backed their right to self-determination and appreciated Russia's actions there. [1]

AndrewRT(Talk) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this should probably be added within the Ukraine entry rather than under other entities. Jagiellon (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela / Cuba

Two new sources within the past 24 hours claim Venezuela recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia (and one included Cuba). But I have been unable to find any official confirmation of this so far, or even a recent quote from a high government official. First, from http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1009/42/371058.htm = "Nicaragua recently joined Chavez and Cuba in recognizing the breakaway Georgian regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia" and second, from http://www.coha.org/2008/09/venezuela%E2%80%99s-military-in-the-hugo-chavez-era/ = "Venezuela has gone to great lengths to establish close ties with the Russian government, not only through military purchases involving billions of dollars, but also with diplomatic initiatives like recognizing the Georgian breakaway enclaves of South Ossetia." True? False? Jagiellon (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Recognise Georgian regions says Ukraine's Crimea, Kyiv Post, 2008-09-17
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia&oldid=239418273"