COMMENTS ON PART I

Kjell-Åke Nordquist

Kjell-Åke NORDQUIST, professor, Uppsala University (Sweden).

The current conflict between Russia and Chechnya may seem to be at a stage in which a discussion on agreements, and details of agreements, seems irrelevant to the immediate future. However, any discussion on how the Chechnya conflict can be brought to an end has to include the issue of the future legal and political status of Chechnya. This makes a comparative perspective on the developments of sovereignty arrangements useful, and hopefully relevant for the theme of the panel on ‘Possible Russian strategies for peace and stability in Chechnya’.

Here I discuss some recent developments in the field of ‘sovereignty arrangements’ relevant to the conflict between Chechnya and Russia. The basic assumption is that Chechnya will not become an internationally recognized sovereign state, but will have to negotiate a special relationship with Russia. This is a relationship which in its turn can be internationally recognized, if the parties so want, but would be part of the solution, rather than a pre-condition.

Finding a structure for settlement

The concept of ‘autonomy’ has been used to describe various forms of local self-government in the past century. These developments were mostly made within a Cold War paradigm. For that reason, ‘autonomy’ often gives ‘old associations’. But a change has been under way since the end of the Cold War. An increasing flexibility both from states and local and regional political leaders can be seen, and it has created a situation in which effective arrangements in sovereignty matters can be produced within areas not hitherto covered by such arrangements. The past decade has seen what are sometimes called ‘sovereignty arrangements’, covering areas which were previously not touched by such arrangements. We now find cases in which territories act without interference from a central state in such fields as international trade, currency, cultural, economic and other international agreements, as well as in security matters.

I will here discuss two increasingly important dimensions for parties negotiating the settlement of sovereignty issues: (a) the form of international representation of the disputed region, and (b) the degree to which international matters are included in its competencies.

The question of international representation is sensitive. This issue broke up the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905, when Norway a few years earlier had wanted its own diplomatic service. As a special arrangement in the Olympic Games in Sydney 2000, it is being considered whether East Timor—now under UN administration and with statehood in sight in a few years’ time—may be represented or not. It is suggested that under a white, ‘non-denominational’ emblem, this should be possible.

For Russia and Chechnya, it has to be agreed under which conditions Chechnya can be represented abroad in its own capacity—if at all—and when this is to be done in combination with other arrangements by Russia. Of course, the type of event, the degree of permanence, as well as the substance of the matters treated, are all aspects that need to be included here. The three main categories of ‘no’ single representation, of ‘joint,’ or of ‘independent’ Chechen representation in certain cases, are among the most delicate in an agreement. There are however possibilities here for finding a mix that meets the basic interests of the two sides.

The degree of internal Chechen sovereignty is the other dimension. Here too there area number of possibilities. Assuming that matters of an international character, such as scientific and cultural exchange, migration and economic dealings (trade, tourism, etc.) will be part of Chechnya’s internal powers, these matters—all or some of them—can be elevated to the CIS level, while others remain only with Russia and a third category become global relations under Chechnya’s control. Here too there are a large number of possibilities that are likely to meet the basic interests of the parties.

What I have described so far can be summarized in a table, as shown below.

International Representation

No Joint Independent

Chechen powers include:

• Internal matters only, or

• Internal + certain international matters on either

  • CIS level, or
  • global level concerning inter alia
    • culture/tourism
    • social/health
    • trade/industry/natural resources
    • economy/currency
    • security/police

migration/customs, etc.
 
UP - ÂÂÅÐÕ E-MAIL