docSecurity, Democracy aND DevelopmeNt iN the SoutherN caucaSuS
download 
Şikayet Transkript
Security, Democracy aND DevelopmeNt iN the SoutherN caucaSuS
1 AN INITIATIVE OF GEBERT RÜF STIFTUNG IN COOPERATION WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG 11 – 13 October 2012, Istanbul Security, Democracy AND Development in the Southern Caucasus AND the Black Sea Region An international conference organized by the Academic Swiss Caucasus Net (ASCN) in cooperation with Kadir Has University CONTENT List of Participants 2 Conference Scientific Committee 6 Keynote Speakers 7 Charles King: Thinking about the Black Sea World: Why Good Scholarship Makes Good Policy 7 H.E. Yaşar Yakıs ¸ : Geostrategic Importance of the Black Sea And the Caucasus 7 Roundtable 1: Quo Vadis Turkey? 8 Roundtable 2: Obstacles for Conflict Resolution in the Southern Caucasus 9 Roundtable 3: The Southern Caucasus in the Twenty-First Century: Risks and Likely Changes 10 Special Session on Publishing11 Biographical Statements of Discussants (by Panel)13 Abstracts & Biographical Statements – Participants (by Panel)17 Panel 1 Governance: Achievements, Obstacles, Incentives and the Limits of Conditionality 17 Panel 2 Political Discourses and Identity Configurations; Transformations of Political and Social Identities 20 Panel 3 Ethnic Communities and Networks, Transnationalism and Security Panel 4 Conflicts: Strategies for Conflict Management, the Role of International Organisations; Changing Drivers of Conflicts, Unrecognised Conflicts Panel 5 Democracy, Political Structure, Regime and State Composition 24 29 33 Panel 6 Understandings of Security: Regime Security, Human Security, Regional Security 38 Panel 7 Regionalism and Multilateral Engagement: Subregional Processes; Black Sea Synergy; other EU Programmes 42 Panel 8 Regional Powers and the Geopolitical Context to Transformation; Turkey’s New Regional Role; Impact of Events in the Middle East 47 Panel 9 Resources and Development Strategies: Energy Policy, Energy Dependence and External Relationships 51 About ASCN 57 Contact57 2 List of Participants Kadir Has University/ Sinem Akgül Açikmeşe, Ms. Turkey Journal of International Relations [email protected] University of Oxford Roy Allison, Mr. UK [email protected] Journal of Southeast European Ioannis Armakolas, Mr. Greece and Black Sea Studies [email protected] Izmir University of Economics Ozan Arslan, Mr. Turkey [email protected] Kadir Has University Mustafa Aydin, Mr. Turkey [email protected] Freie Universität Berlin Nelli Babayan, Ms. Armenia [email protected] Ilia State University, Tbilisi Giorgi Babunashvili, Mr. Georgia [email protected] University of Bremen Lusine Samvel Badalyan, Ms. Armenia [email protected] Pavel Baev, Mr. Russia/ Norway Peace Research Institute, Oslo [email protected] Izmir University of Economics Itir Bagdadi, Mr. Turkey [email protected] Glasgow Caledonian University Simone Baglioni, Mr. Italy [email protected] Harvard University Boris Barkanov, Mr. USA [email protected] Matej Bel University, Slovakia Olexaia Basarab, Ms. Ukraine [email protected] Centre D’Etudes et de Recherches Adeline Braux, Ms. France Internationales, Paris [email protected] University of Delaware Serkan Bulut, Mr. Turkey [email protected] Leiden University Fernando Casal Bertoa, Mr. Spain [email protected] Kadir Has University Mitat Çelikpala, Mr. Turkey [email protected] Berlin Graduate School of Mariya Chelova, Ms. Ukraine Social Sciences [email protected] RFE/RL,Armenia Branch Elina Chilingaryan, Ms. Armenia [email protected] University of Glasgow/ Terry Cox, Mr. UK Journal: Europe-Asia Studies [email protected] University of Ljubljana Saša Čvrljak, Mr. Croatia [email protected] ASCN Programme Manager/ Denis Dafflon, Mr. Switzerland University of Fribourg [email protected] Higher School of Economics, Lilli Di Puppo, Ms. France Moscow [email protected] Bucharest University Radu Dudau, Mr. Romania [email protected] Marmara University Emre Ersen Mr. Turkey [email protected] Armenian National Academy Lia Evoyan, Ms. Armenia of Sciences [email protected] Queen Mary, University of London/ Adam Fagan, Mr. UK Journal: East European Politics [email protected] 3 Maroussia Ferry, Ms. Ecole des Hautes Etudes France [email protected] en Science-Sociales Sabine Freizer, Ms. International Crisis Group Belgium /USA [email protected] Yevgeniya Gaber, Ms. Odessa National Mechnikov Ukraine [email protected] University Revaz Gachechiladze, Mr. Tbilisi State University Georgia [email protected] Paula Ganga, Ms. Georgetown University Romania [email protected] Julie George, Ms. Queens College, the City USA [email protected] University of New York Salpi Ghazarian, Ms. Civilitas Foundation Armenia [email protected] Jonas Grätz, Mr. Center for Security Studies Germany [email protected] (CSS) – Zurich Farid Guliyev, Mr. Jacobs University Bremen Azerbaijan [email protected] Mukhtar Hajizada, Mr. University of Leicester Azerbaijan [email protected] Benedikt Harzl, Mr. EURAC Austria [email protected] Benedikt Hauser, Mr. State Secretariat for Education Switzerland [email protected] and Research SER Nicolas Hayoz, Mr. ASCN Director, University Switzerland [email protected] of Fribourg Zurab Iashvili, Mr. Ilia State University, Tbilisi Georgia [email protected] Delia Imboden, Ms. ASCN Project Assistant/ Switzerland [email protected] University of Fribourg Fabio Indeo, Mr. University of Camerino, Italy Italy [email protected] Emre Iseri, Mr. Kadir Has University Turkey [email protected] Alexander Iskandaryan, Mr. Caucasus Institute - Yerevan Armenia [email protected] Eldar Ismailov, Mr. Institute of Strategic Studies of Azerbaijan [email protected] the Caucasus (Baku)/ Journal: Central Asia and the Caucasus Raphael Jacquet, Mr. SOAS - University of London/ UK [email protected] Journal: Central Asian Survey Lala Jumayeva, Ms. University of Birmingham Azerbaijan [email protected] Peter Kabachnik, Mr. The City University of New York USA [email protected] Fuat Keyman, Mr. Istanbul Policy Center, Turkey [email protected] Sabanci University Charles King, Mr. Georgetown University USA [email protected] Ana Kirvalidze, Ms. Ilia State University, Tbilisi Georgia [email protected] Alda Kokallaj, Ms. Albania/Canada Carleton University, Canada [email protected] Hrant Kostanyan, Mr. CEPS - Centre for European Policy Belgium [email protected] Studies, Brussels Nadiya Kravets, Ms. Harvard University Ukraine/USA [email protected] 4 Okan University Turkey ¸Sule Kut, Ms. [email protected] Fyodor Lukyanov, Mr. Russia in Global Affairs Russia [email protected] Minna Lundgren, Ms. Mid Sweden University Sweden [email protected] Neil Macfarlane, Mr. University of Oxford UK [email protected] Aleksei Malashenko, Mr. Carnegie Moscow Center Russia [email protected] Ana Mangas, Ms. Foreign Policy Magazine – Spain Spain [email protected] Panagiota Manoli, Ms. Department of Mediterranean Studies, Greece [email protected] University of the Aegean David Matsaberidze, Mr. Tbilisi State University Georgia [email protected] Marcy E. McCullaugh, Ms. University of California USA [email protected] Irakli Menagharishvili, Mr. Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia – Georgia/ Strategic Research Center Sergey Minasyan, Mr. Caucasus Institute - Yerevan Armenia [email protected] Teodor Lucian, Moga Mr. Romanian Academy Romania [email protected] Lucia Najšlová, Ms. EUROPEUM - Institute for European Slovakia Policy, Czech Republic [email protected] Ghia Nodia, Mr. Ilia State University - Tbilisi Georgia [email protected] Kevork Oskanian, Mr. University of Westminster Belgium/UK [email protected] Vartan Oskanian, Mr. Civilitas Foundation Armenia – Gencer Özcan, Mr. Istanbul Bilgi University Turkey [email protected] Ulla Pape, Ms. Ruhr-Universität Bochum Germany ulla.pape@rub de Plamen Petrov, Mr. St. Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia Bulgaria [email protected] Kristina Poghosyan, Ms. University of Erfurt Armenia [email protected] Oana Poianǎ, Ms. Babes-Bolyai University, Romania) Romania [email protected] Giulia Prelz Oltramonti, Ms. Université Libre, Brussels Italy [email protected] Jean, Radvanyi, Mr. INALCO (Institut National des Langues France [email protected] et Civilisations Orientales)/CREE (Research Center on Europe-Eurasia) Anvar, Rahmetov, Mr. IMT-Lucca Institute for Advanced Uzbekistan [email protected] Studies, Italy Slawomir Raszewski, Mr. University of Leeds Poland [email protected] Philip Robins, Mr. University of Oxford UK [email protected] Thijs Rommens, Mr. University of Leuven Belgium [email protected] Alexander Rondeli, Mr. Georgian Foundation For Strategic and Georgia [email protected] International Studies 5 Mihaela, Ruxanda, Ms. University of Bucharest Romania [email protected] Sebastiano Sali, Mr. Kingʼs College London/CIES Kadir Italy [email protected] Has Universitesi Hande Selimoglu, Ms. Kadir Has University Turkey [email protected] Peter Semneby, Mr. Swedish Ambassador to Afghanistan Sweden – Hanna Shelest, Ms. National Institute for Strategic Ukraine [email protected] Studies, Ukraine David Sichinava, Mr. Tbilisi State University Georgia [email protected] Christoph Stefes, Mr. University of Colorado/Social Science Germany [email protected] Research Center Berlin (WZB) Nikoloz Sumbadze, Mr. Tbilisi State University Georgia [email protected] Ronald Suny, Mr. University of Michigan / University USA [email protected] of Chicago Oleksandr Svyetlov, Mr. Heinrich Heine University, German Ukraine [email protected] David Szakony, Mr. Columbia University USA [email protected] Bogdan Alexandru Teodor, Mr. Mihai Viteazul National Intelligence Romania [email protected] Academy, Romania Dimitrios Triantaphyllou, Mr. Kadir Has University Greece [email protected] Zennonas Tziarras, Mr. University of Warwick Cyprus [email protected] Syuzanna Vasilyan, Ms. American University of Armenia Armenia [email protected] Marina Vorotnyuk, Ms. National Institute for Strategic Ukraine [email protected] Studies, Ukraine Sybilla Wege, Ms. University of Mannheim Germany [email protected] Jonathan Wheatley, Mr. Centre for Democracy Studies (ZDA) UK [email protected] Yaşar Yakış, Mr. Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Turkey – of Turkey Yuliya G. Zabyelina Ms. University of Trento, Italy Ukraine [email protected] Julien Zarifian, Mr. University of Cergy-Pontoise, France France [email protected] Giga Zedania, Mr. Ilia State University Georgia [email protected] Povilas Žielys, Mr. Vilnius University Lithuania [email protected] 6 Conference Scientific Committee Roy Allison Oxford University Pavel Baev Peace Research Institute Oslo Nicolas Hayoz ASCN Director, University of Fribourg Ghia Nodia Ilia State University Dimitrios Triantaphyllou Kadir Has University 7 Keynote Speakers Charles King Thinking about the Black Sea World: Why Good Scholarship Makes Good Policy Charles King is Professor of International Affairs and Government at Georgetown University. He lectures widely on international affairs, social violence, and ethnic politics, and has worked with major broadcast media such as CNN, National Public Radio, the BBC, the History Channel, and MTV. He previously served as chairman of the faculty of Georgetown’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. He is the author of five books, including Odessa: Genius and Death in a City of Dreams, The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus, and The Black Sea: A History, and his work has been translated into more than ten languages. King’s articles and commentary have appeared in magazines and newspapers such as Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and The Times Literary Supplement, as well as in leading academic journals. In many areas of the social sciences, scholarship and policymaking are often placed in opposition. Scholars see themselves as dispassionate analysts interested in general theory-building; they often see policymakers as interested mainly in short-term developments or, worse, as biased advocates of a certain policy position. Policymakers, in turn, frequently think of academic work as vague, overly specialized, and of little help in the day-to-day work of government. But around the Black Sea, the distinctions between these two enterprises are not nearly so stark. Scholarly work is frequently marshalled, for good or ill, to justify a specific policy position – from the use of tendentious history-writing to justify the claims of a secessionist movement to the way in which debates over historical tragedies remain a matter of interstate relations. This talk will examine the many intersections of scholarship and policymaking and argue, in the end, that rigorous scholarly approaches – in international relations, history, sociology, political science, and other fields – can actually have a positive effect on the regional politics of the Black Sea zone. H.E. Yaşar Yakıs ¸ Geostrategic Importance of the Black Sea And the Caucasus H.E. Yaşar Yakış joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey in 1962. He served as an ambassador to the UN Office in Vienna, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. He is a founding member of AK Party and has been the Deputy Chairman of the Justice and Development Party (AK Parti) in charge of international relations from the date of its foundation until the November 2002 elections and member of the governing board of the party until the general congress of the party in 2005. In 2002 he was elected Member of Parliament from the province of Düzce and became the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 58th government. He served as the Chairman of the EU Committee of the Turkish parliament during the 22nd parliamentary term. The Caucasus and the Black Sea constitute an important single region from the geostrategic standpoint. Several factors contribute to its importance. One of them is geography. The Black Sea maritime space is the only sea way for all of the riparian and also many non riparian countries. The second is the rich ethnic mosaic. This mosaic is the result of the topography of the Caucasus mountain chain that is divided by deep valleys and high peaks. Peoples living in such a compartmented topography developed different languages and cultures. The third factor is the geopolitics. The Caucasus is located at the crossroad of three important power centres, namely Rus- 8 sia, Iran and Anatolia. This feature made the region the bone of contention of three neighbouring major power centres namely Russia, Iran and the Ottoman Empire. The fourth is that the region hosts four frozen conflicts, namely South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria and Nagorno Karabagh. Last but not the least is that the region is located between the richest oil and gas producing basins of the world, namely the Caspian Sea and Gulf basins, and the biggest energy consuming bloc namely Europe. When all these factors are put together the stability of the region becomes important for several countries in the region and also important for global actors that have geopolitical interests in the region. One of the frozen conflicts, Nagorno Karabagh, is still hanging as a sword of Damocles, threatening the stability in the region. The Arab Spring is an additional complicating factor because it takes place in the immediate neighbourhood but the countries of the region have little common features with the Arab Spring countries. However if the fragile stability in the region comes to an end, its consequences are difficult to guess. Roundtable 1 Quo Vadis Turkey? Moderation: Dimitrios Triantaphyllou is Professor of International Relations at Kadir Has University and director of the Center for International and European Studies (CIES). He holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. He was previously Special Advisor at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic (2004 – 2006), Senior Research Fellow at the Hellenic Observatory of the European Institute at the LSE (2003 – 2004), Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Security Studies of the European Union, Paris (2001 – 2003) and Research Fellow at the Institute for Security Studies of the Western European Union, Paris (1999 – 2001). He has been a member of the Advisory Panel of the International Center for Black Sea Studies (Athens) since 2010 and co-convener and co-rapporteur of the Commission on the Black Sea since 2009. He has written and edited a number of books and articles pertaining to foreign policy and international relations. He is also Associate Editor of the Journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, a member of the Greek-Turkish Forum and a member of the Governing Board of the European Studies Institute which is based in Moscow. Speakers: Mustafa Aydın graduated from the Department of International Relations, Ankara University, in 1988. He obtained his M.A. in International Relations and Strategic Studies (1991) and his Ph.D. in Political Sciences and International Relations (1994) from Lancaster University, UK. He later joined Ankara University’s Faculty of Political Sciences in 1995 as an assistant professor. He became associate professor in 1999 and full professor in 2005. He was the founding head of the Global and Regional Studies Program. Between 2005 and 2009, he worked for the University of Economics and Technology as the Head of the Department of International Relations. He was also member of the same University’s Senate and Governing Board Member of both Faculty of Administrative and Economic Sciences and the Graduate School. Professor Aydın was appointed Rector of Kadir Has University in February 2010. E. Fuat Keyman is a professor of International Relations at Sabanci University and director of the Istanbul Policy Center (IPC). He regularly contributes to Radikal newspaper and has a TV program during which he makes political commentary and analyses on Turkish and global politics. He works on democratization, globalization, international relations, civil society and Turkey-EU relations. Keyman also produced 9 many books and articles, both in English and in Turkish, on these topics. Among his salient texts are the following: Symbiotic Antagonisms: Contending Discourses of Nationalism in Turkey (University of Utah Pres, 2011, with Ayşe Kadıoğlu); Remaking Turkey (Lexington, Oxford, 2008); Turkish Politics in a Changing World: Global Dynamics, Domestic Transformations (Bilgi University Publications, 2007, with Ziya Öniş). Şule Kut holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the State University of New York in Binghamton. She was a professor at the Department of International Relations in Istanbul Bilgi University until 2010, where she also served as Vice-Rector of the university (2000 – 2007) and Dean of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences (2005 – 2008). şule Kut’s teaching and research interests include foreign policy analysis, Turkish foreign policy with emphasis on the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Turkish-EU and Turkish-US relations, as well as Balkan politics. She is the author of four books and more than thirty articles in English and Turkish on Turkish foreign policy and Balkan politics. She serves on the editorial board of several academic journals in Turkey and abroad. She has been active in various initiatives promoting academic and civic cooperation between Turkey and its neighbors since early 1990s. Philip Robins is Reader in Middle East Politics and Faculty Fellow, St Antony’s College, University of Oxford. His professional career spans journalism, policy studies, consultancy and academia. His engagement with the Middle East dates from 1976, when he lived and worked in Israel. He was later based in Jordan, working for the BBC and The Guardian. His connection with the Economist Intelligence Unit dates back to 1983. Philip Robins undertook his doctoral research in the Politics Department at the University of Exeter, under Tim Niblock. Philip Robins joined Chatham House in 1987, where he later founded the Middle East Programme. 1994 – 5 Philip Robins became a visiting professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Bosphorus University in Istanbul, 1994/5. He came to Oxford to take up his current post in 1995. In 2009/2010, Dr Robins held the post of Junior Proctor within the University. He has recently been elected as the Sub-Warden of St Antony’s College. Roundtable 2 Obstacles for Conflict Resolution in the Southern Caucasus Moderation: Sabine Freizer is the Istanbul-based Director of the Europe programme of the International Crisis Group. In this role, Sabine oversees projects covering the Caucasus (North and South), Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Turkey and Cyprus. Before joining Crisis Group in 2004, she served as Political Officer in the OSCE Election Observation Missions in Azerbaijan and Georgia from 2003 to 2004, as Human Dimensions/ Legal Expert to the OSCE Central Asia Liaison Office in Tashkent from 1999 to 2000 and Democratization Officer in the OSCE Mission to Bosnia in 1996 – 1998. She has a PhD from the London School of Economics, and a Masters from the College of Europe (Bruges, Belgium) which she obtained as a Fulbright Scholar. Speakers: Aleksei Malashenko is the co-chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Religion, Society and Security Program and a Professor of Political Science. He taught at the Higher School of Economics from 2007 to 2008 and at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations from 2000 to 2006. He is a member of the RIA Novosti advisory council, as well as the journals Central Asia and the Caucasus and Acta 10 Eurasica and the newsletter Russia and the Muslim World editorial boards. He is also a board member of the International Federation for Peace and Conciliation. Aleksei Malashenko is the author and editor of about twenty books in Russian, English, French, and Arabic. Alexander Rondeli is President of the Georgian Foundation For Strategic and International Studies. He holds a Ph.D. in Geography from Tbilisi State University (1974). From 1997 to 2001 he served as a Director of the Foreign Policy Research and Analysis Center at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia. Prior to this, in 1991 – 1996, Alexander Rondeli was a Chair of the International Relations Department at Tbilisi State University. H. E. Peter Semneby is the Swedish Ambassador to Afghanistan. He served as an EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus from 2006 to 2011, concentrating on the protracted conflicts, political reform, human rights issues and crisis management. Semneby was previously Head of the OSCE Mission to Croatia from 2002 – 2005 and Head of the OSCE Mission to Latvia between 2000 and 2002. In Croatia, Peter Semneby and his staff assisted Croatia in its post-conflict rehabilitation and reconciliation. His work in Latvia focused on citizenship and language issues. He has been responsible for the European Security and Defense Policy in the Swedish Foreign Ministry and has also served in the Swedish embassies in Germany, Ukraine and the USSR. Between 2011 and 2012, Semneby was a Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He has been educated at the Stockholm School of Economics, the University of Uppsala, the University of Stockholm and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Ronald Grigor Suny is Charles Tilly Collegiate Professor of Social and Political History at the University of Michigan and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Chicago. A graduate of Swarthmore College and Columbia University, he taught at Oberlin College (1968 – 1981), as visiting professor of history at the University of California, Irvine (1987), and Stanford University (1995 – 1996). He was the first holder of the Alex Manoogian Chair in Modern Armenian History at the University of Michigan (1981 – 1995), where he founded and directed the Armenian Studies Program. He is the author of numerous books on the South Caucasus and has served as chairman of the Society for Armenian Studies and on the editorial boards of Slavic Review, International Labor and Working-Class History, International Journal of Middle East Studies, The Armenian Review, Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, and Armenian Forum. Professor Suny’s intellectual interests have centered on the non-Russian nationalities of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, particularly those of the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia). Roundtable 3 The Southern Caucasus in the Twenty-First Century: Risks and Likely Changes Moderator: Roy Allison holds a DPhil in International Relations from the University of Oxford and is University Lecturer in the International Relations of Russia, Eastern Europe and Eurasia at St Antony’s College, University of Oxford. Previously he was Reader in International Relations at the London School of Economics (2009– 2011). Dr Allison’s research focuses in particular on the international relations, foreign and security policies of Russia, Ukraine, Central Asia and the South Caucasus. His broader interests cover regional conflicts, regionalism, international norms and 11 foreign policy analysis. He is currently completing a book on Russia and military intervention. Ghia Nodia is professor of political science and the director of the International School of Caucasus Studies at Ilia State University in Tbilisi, Georgia. He is also a founder of the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development (CIPDD), an independent public policy think tank based in Tbilisi, which he has led (with a short interruption) since 1992. He has published extensively on two sets of topics: regional security, state-building and democratization in the Caucasus, and theories of nationalism and democratic transition in the post-cold-War context. He has been involved in pro-democracy advocacy efforts in Georgia and internationally, and has been frequent participant of international congresses and conferences on the related topics. Speakers: Fyodor Lukyanov is Editor-in-Chief of Russia in Global Affairs, a journal published in Russian and English with the participation of Foreign Affairs. The journal is Russia’s most authoritative source of expert opinion on global development issues. He is also a regular contributor to different international media. He is an experienced journalist and political analyst who has worked in the past for different Russian newspapers, TV and radio stations. Fyodor Lukyanov is a member of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, as well as a member of Russian Foreign Affairs Council. Neil MacFarlane is a specialist on the regional dynamics of the former Soviet Union, with particular reference to that region’s southern tier. He is also interested in the impact of international organisations in the management and resolution of civil conflicts and also in the political and economic transitions of former communist states. After a career in the United States and in Canada, he moved to Oxford in 1996 as the first Lester B. Pearson Professor of International Relations. From 2005 to 2010 he was Head of the Department of Politics and International Relations. From 2008 to 2010 he was Deputy Head of the Social Sciences Division at Oxford. He is currently a visiting professor at the Centre for Social Sciences (Tbilisi State University, Georgia), and has a strong interest in higher education reform in the former Soviet Union. Irakli Menagarishvili is a Georgian politician and diplomat. He graduated from Tbilisi State Medical Institute in 1974. From 1993 to 1995 he served as Deputy Prime-Minister of the Republic of Georgia and was subsequently Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia. Irakli Menagarishvili is the Director of the Strategic Research Center and Senior Advisor to the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies (GFSIS).He is also a Board Member of the of the Atlantic Council of Georgia and Georgian Institute for Russian Studies (GIRS). Vartan Oskanian, Armenia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1998 until April 2008, is the founder of the Yerevan-based Civilitas Foundation. Beginning soon after independence, Mr. Oskanian served as a diplomat in Armenia’s Foreign Service. He received his higher education in Massachusetts at the Tufts University Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, at Harvard University in Government Studies and in Yerevan at the Polytechnic University. Special Session on Publishing Moderator: Sinem Akgül AçıkmeŞE is an Associate Professor of International Relations at Kadir Has University, Istanbul/Turkey. Her research interests include Security Studies, European 12 security, EU foreign policy, European integration and enlargement as well as Turkey-EU relations, and she publishes extensively on these topics. She is the Assistant Editor of Journal of International Relations, published in Turkey since 2004. Speakers: Ioannis Armakolas is a lecturer at the Department of Balkan, Slavic and Oriental Studies, University of Macedonia (Thessaloniki) and teaches at the University of Athens’ MA Programme in SE European Studies. He is also ‘Stavros Costopoulos’ Research Fellow at the Hellenic Foundation for European & Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP) and Head of the Foundation’s SEE Programme. He has also been awarded the John Burton Prize (1998). Ioannis Armakolas holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge, an MA in International Relations from the University of Kent and a first degree in International Studies and Political Science from Panteion University in Athens. He has extensive experience as a governance consultant with USAID and DFID projects in the Western Balkans Bosnia. He is the Managing Editor of the Journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. Terry Cox is Professor of Central and East European Studies at the University of Glasgow and Editor of Europe-Asia Studies. He is Past-President of the British Association of Slavonic and East European Studies (BASEES) and is currently a member of the Area Studies sub-panel of the UK funding councils’ Research Excellence Framework (REF). His current research interests are in the political sociology of post-communist transformations, with a special focus on civil society, interest group politics, governance and welfare regimes. He is the author or editor of twelve books and various other publications. Adam Fagan is Professor of European Politics at Queen Mary, University of London and Research Associate at the London School of Economics. He is the author of Europe’s Balkan Dilemma: Paths to Civil Society or State-building? (I B Tauris) and has published extensively on the impact of EU assistance and intervention in the Western Balkans. He is Editor of East European Politics (formerly Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics). Eldar Ismailov is the Director of the Institute of Strategic Studies of the Caucasus (ISSC). He is Chairman of the Editorial Councils of Central Asia and Caucasus, The Caucasus & Globalization journals, and Central Eurasia analytical annual. Eldar Ismailov is a foreign member of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences. His main areas of expertise are the geopolitics and geo-economics of Central Eurasia, macroeconomics, state management and finance. He is the author, co-author or editor of 10 books in Russian, English, Azerbaijani and Georgian. Raphaël Jacquet is Editorial Manager at SOAS, University of London, and is responsible for the editing and production of Central Asian Survey, The China Quarterly and the Journal of African Law. Prior to his current position, he was the co-founder and editor of Perspectives chinoises and China Perspectives (Hong Kong, 1990 – 1999), as well as the managing editor of Cahiers d’études africaines (Paris, 2000 – 2005). 13 Biographical Statements of Discussants (by Panel) Panel 1: Governance: Achievements, Obstacles, Incentives and the Limits of Conditionality Simone Baglioni is a lecturer in Politics at Glasgow Caledonian University (UK) and Research Director of the Italian case in the European research project YOUNEX (7th Framework program) affiliated to Bocconi University in Milan, Italy. Prior to this, he worked as a researcher and lecturer in various universities (Florence, Geneva and Neuchatel) and was involved in several European-funded projects, such as the UNEMPOL (The Contentious Politics of Unemployment in Europe), the TSEP (Third Sector European Policy) and the CID (Citizenship, Involvement and Democracy). His areas of interest include unemployment politics, collective action, social exclusion, civil society and social capital. Giga Zedania is a professor and Director of the Institute for Modernity Studies at Ilia State University, Georgia. Since 2010, he has also been the Local Coordinator for the research promotion program Academic Swiss Caucasus Net (ASCN) in the South Caucasus (Georgia). He has edited volumes and published articles on societal values in Georgia, the political elites, nationalism, secularization and theories of modernity. His research interests include social and political theory as well as studies of social transformation in Georgia. Panel 2: Political Discourses and Identity Configurations; Transformations of Political and Social Identities Julie A. George is an associate professor of political science at Queens College, the City University of New York. Her research interests include ethnicity, conflict, and state-building in post-Communist space. Her recent work examines the intersection of state reform, democratization, and secession in the Caucasus and the Balkans. She is the author of the book, The Politics of Ethnic Separatism in Russia and Georgia and has published in several journals, including Post-Soviet Affairs, Europe-Asia Studies, European Security, and Central Asian Survey. Jonathan Wheatley holds a PhD in Social and Political Sciences from the European University Institute in Florence. Subsequently, he was a Research Fellow at the Osteuropa Institut, Free University Berlin. He is now Regional Director at the Centre for Democracy in Aarau (Switzerland) with responsibilities for the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Western Balkans region. In addition to publishing a number of scholarly articles, His academic interests include political regimes and state-building in the former Soviet space; the pre-conditions for direct democracy in the post-communist states of the Balkans and the former Soviet Union; comparative studies in democratisation involving the successor states of the Soviet Union as well as states of Latin America and West Africa; political and economic participation of ethnic and national minorities in Europe. Panel 3: Ethnic Communities and Networks, Transnationalism and Security Revaz Gachechiladze is a Full Professor of Human Geography at Tbilisi State University (Georgia) and visiting professor at Oxford University (UK). He is a Corresponding Member of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences and Foreign Corresponding Member of the Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British 14 Geographers). He also served as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Georgia to the State of Israel and the Republic of Armenia. His scholarly interests cover geography, geopolitics, history and the demography of the South Caucasus and Middle East, of which Gachechiladze has addressed in approximately twenty books and multiple articles written in Georgian, Russian, English and Croatian. Jean Radvanyi is a professor at the INALCO (Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales) in Paris and Co-Chair of the CREE (Research Center on EuropeEurasia). He is also a former director of the French-Russian Research Center in Moscow. He is specialised in geographical and geopolitical studies on Post-Soviet Space, especially in Russia and the Caucasus. Jean Radvanyi is the author and editor of several books and atlases on the Caucasus, Russia and Post-Soviet States. Panel 4: Conflicts: Strategies for Conflict Management, the Role of International Organisations; Changing Drivers of Conflicts, Unrecognised Conflicts Pavel Baev is a research professor at the Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) and non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe (CUSE) at the Brookings Institution. Before joining PRIO in 1992, Pavel Baev worked at the Institute of Europe in Moscow. His current research includes Russian military reform, Russia’s conflict management in the Caucasus and Central Asia, energy interests in Russia’s foreign and security policy, and Russia’s relations with Europe and NATO. Alexander Iskandaryan is a political analyst and Director of the Yerevan-based Caucasus Institute. His areas of study are ethnopolitical conflicts, post-Communist transformations and nation building in the former USSR in general and in the Caucasus in particular. Since the early 1990s, he has specialized on conflicts in the South and Northern Caucasus, elections in a transition setting, and the building of post-Soviet identities. He has also conducted and supervised research on migration, regional integration, media development and the formation of public discourses. Panel 5: Democracy, Political Structure, Regime and State Composition Nicolas Hayoz is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Interdisciplinary Institute of Central and Eastern Europe (ICEE) at the Université de Fribourg, Switzerland. Since 2007, he has held the position of Programme Director for the Regional Research Promotion Program – Western Balkans (RRPP). Nicolas Hayoz has also been directing the Academic Swiss Caucasus Net (ASCN) since its creation in 2009. Hayoz has published articles on politics and state reform in Eastern Europe and has conducted research projects in Russia and Georgia within the SCOPES framework (Scientific Cooperation between Eastern Europe and Switzerland). His research interests include transition studies in Eastern Europe, particularly transformation processes in Russia, political sociology and political theory. Christoph Stefes is Associate Professor for Comparative European & Post-Soviet Studies at the University of Colorado. Presently on sabbatical/academic leave, he has joined a research group at the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (Social Science Research Center Berlin) that investigates the conditions of stability of autocratic regimes. He is an expert on the Caucasian and Central Asian post-Soviet Union states. His research focuses on governance and the detrimental consequences of corruption in this region. In addition, he currently serves as a Senior Fellow at the Ecologic Institute Berlin, analyzing societal conflicts that are caused by climate change. 15 Panel 6: Understandings of Security: Regime Security, Human Security, Regional Security Ghia Nodia is professor of political science and the director of the International School of Caucasus Studies at Ilia State University in Tbilisi, Georgia. He is also a founder of the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development (CIPDD), an independent public policy think tank based in Tbilisi, which he has led (with a short interruption) since 1992. He has published extensively on two sets of topics: regional security, state-building and democratization in the Caucasus, and theories of nationalism and democratic transition in the post-cold-War context. He has been involved in pro-democracy advocacy efforts in Georgia and internationally, and has been frequent participant of international congresses and conferences on the related topics. Sergey Minasyan has headed the Yerevan-based Caucasus Institute Political Studies Department since March 2006. He is a political scientist and holds a PhD in History. His numerous publications focus on regional security and conflicts in the South Caucasus. In 2002, he defended his PhD thesis on the military history of Armenia at the Institute of History, National Academy of Sciences of Armenia. Since 2002, Sergey Minasyan has lectured on international relations theory and regional security at various institutes and universities of Armenia. Between 2003 – 2006, he headed the Scientific Research Centre for South Caucasus Security and Integration Studies. Since 2011, he has also held the position of Local Coordinator in Armenia for the research promotion program ASCN (Academic Swiss Caucasus Net). Panel 7: Regionalism and Multilateral Engagement: Subregional Processes; Black Sea Synergy; other EU Programmes Roy Allison holds a DPhil in International Relations from the University of Oxford and is University Lecturer in the International Relations of Russia, Eastern Europe and Eurasia at St Antony’s College, University of Oxford. Previously he was Reader in International Relations at the London School of Economics (2009 – 2011). Dr Allison’s research focuses in particular on the international relations, foreign and security policies of Russia, Ukraine, Central Asia and the South Caucasus. His broader interests cover regional conflicts, regionalism, international norms and foreign policy analysis. He is currently completing a book on Russia and military intervention. Panagiota Manoli is Lecturer in Political Economy of International Relations at the Department of Mediterranean Studies, University of the Aegean (Greece). She has been Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Southeast Europe Project), Washington D.C. (2010), Director of Studies and Research at the International Center for Black Sea Studies (ICBSS, Athens, 2005 – 2009), Secretary of the Economic Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of Black Sea Economic Cooperation (Istanbul, 2000 – 2004). She is an Associate Editor of the Journal Southeast European and Black Sea Studies (Routledge/Taylor and Francis-ELIAMEP) and Research Associate of ELIAMEP. Her research interests and publications focus on comparative regionalism, European Neighborhood and Black Sea politics. She is the author of The Dynamics of Black Sea Sub-Regionalism (Ashgate, 2012). Panel 8: Regional Powers and the Geopolitical Context to Transformation; Turkey’s New Regional Role; Impact of Events in the Middle East Mitat Çelikpala is the Chair of International Relations at Kadir Has University, Istanbul, where he teaches graduate and undergraduate courses on Eurasian Security, 16 Turkish Foreign Policy, Caucasus politics, security and history, for which he also supervises doctoral dissertations. His areas of expertise are the Caucasus and Black Sea regions, energy security and Turkish-Russian relations. In addition to his work at Kadir Has University, he is lecturing in Turkish War Colleges and Turkish National Security and military academies on Turkish foreign policy, politics, history and security in the Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as Turkish political structure and life. He has a number of published academic articles, several instances of media coverage and analyses on the aforementioned areas. Mitat Çelikpala is serving as an Academic Adviser to NATO’s Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism (NATO COE DAT) in Ankara, Turkey. He is also the managing editor of The Journal of International Relations. Gencer Özcan graduated from Ankara University’s Faculty of Political Sciences and received his Ph.D. from Bosphorus University. Özcan worked in Marmara University (1983 – 1999) and Yıldız Technical (1999 – 2009). He currently works in the Department of International Relations of Istanbul Bilgi University. His research interests are diplomatic history, Turkey’s foreign policy making process, the military’s role in the making of Turkey’s foreign policy decisions, Turkey’s policy towards the Middle East, and Turkish-Israeli bilateral relations. His recent publications include “Facing Its Waterloo in Diplomacy: Turkey’s Military in Foreign Policy –making Process”, New Perspectives on Turkey, No. 40 (Spring 2009) s.83 – 102; “Der deustche Einfluss auf die türkische Armee,” Bernhard Chiari ve Gerhard P. Gross, eds., Am Rande Europas? Der Balkan -Raum und Bevölkerung als Wirkungsfelder militarischer Gewalt, Münih: R. Oldenbourg, 2009, p. 241 – 258; “Türkiye’de Milli Güvenlik Kavramının Gelişimi”, [Development of National Security Concept in Turkey], in Evren Balta Paker ve İsmet Akça, (eds.) Türkiye’de Ordu, Devlet ve Güvenlik Siyaseti, İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi University Press, 2010, p.307 – 349; with Soli Özel, “Do New Democracies Support Democracy? Turkey’s Dilemmas”, Journal of Democracy, 22: 4 (October 2011), p.124 – 138. Panel 9: Resources and Development Strategies: Energy Policy, Energy Dependence and External Relationships Radu Dudau is an associate professor of international relations at the Bucharest University. From 2006 to 2010 he was a deputy director and head of research at the Romanian Diplomatic Institute. He is currently the executive director of Romania Energy Center, a think tank specializing in energy policy analysis. He teaches Theory of International Relations, Ethics in International Relations, and Political Philosophy. His policy-oriented research focuses on international energy politics, with a special emphasis on energy security issues in the Wider Black Sea Region. Jonas GrÄtz is a researcher at the Center for Security Studies (CSS) at ETH Zürich. He studied Political Science, Public Law and Slavonic Studies at the Goethe University Frankfurt/M, St. Petersburg State University and University of Greifswald. Prior to joining the CSS, he was a doctoral fellow and researcher in the Russia/CIS Research Division at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) and a visiting researcher at the Norwegian Institute for Defense Studies (IFS). Jonas Grätz specializes in energy policy and energy security. His PhD thesis was on the internationalization strategies of Russian oil and gas companies. 17 Abstracts & Biographical Statements – Participants (by Panel) Panel 1 Governance: Achievements, Obstacles, Incentives and the Limits of Conditionality 1.2Thijs Rommens University of Leuven Spreading Democratic Governance? NGOs in the Eastern Partnership, the Case of Georgia Thijs Rommens is a research fellow at the Institute for International and European Policy at the University of Leuven, Belgium. He is currently working on his PhD on The Eastern Partnership as an opportunity for Georgian NGOs. Through the introduction of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and the subsequent Eastern Partnership (EaP) the European Union has attempted to strengthen and rationalize its policy towards its Eastern neighbours. Amongst a wide array of objectives in the fields of politics, economy and security these policies aim to strengthen democracy in the countries concerned. Lacking the instrument of conditionality through membership perspective, a mechanism extensively used during former rounds of enlargement, the EU has less clout to induce democratisation in its neighbourhood. However, this does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that the EU has no other tools or facilities at its disposal to do so. This article applies an external governance approach to the prospects of the EU’s democracy support and considers the ENP and EaP as ways for the EU to expand its characteristic model of governance outside its own borders. This system of governance is characterised by multilevel and multi‐actor constellations. As a sui generis polity, the EU cannot rely on traditional representative channels of democracy alone; one of the key elements in the EU’s claims to effective and democratic governance comes from the inclusion of non-state actors such as NGOs. This paper focuses on the case of Georgia and analyzes how and to which extent Georgian NGOs have been integrated in the EU’s external policies. Subsequently, it enquires whether the formal inclusion of NGOs in different EU policies and institutions does not run counter to the very fundament of the autonomous character of the third sector. Finally, the paper addresses whether NGO inclusion into the EaP ultimately has led to increased democratic governance both on the level of relations with the EU and on the Georgian domestic level. 1.3Fernando Casal Bértoa Leiden University Getting it Right at Last! Sources of Party System (Under-) Institutionalization in the Black Sea Region Fernando Casal Bérota is a Post-doctoral Fellow at the University of Leiden working on Prof. Ingrid van Biezen’s led large-scale research project on the “Legal Regulation of Political Parties in Post-war Europe” (funded by the European Research Council – ERC). He studied Law and Political Science at the University of Pamplona and the University of Salamanca, respectively. Party system institutionalization has been traditionally viewed as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the healthy functioning of democracy, yet the question of why some of these competitive party systems managed to institutionalize while others do 18 not, has not received the necessary attention in the literature. In a forthcoming article in East European Politics, Casal Bértoa found that party system institutionalization in East Central Europe had been enhanced by both supportive institutional structures and strong cleavage structuration. In particular, he found that while party institutionalization, low parliamentary fragmentation (supported by disproportional electoral systems), parliamentarism and cleavage cumulation had allowed Hungarian and Czech party systems to achieve levels of institutionalization similar to some of their Western European counterparts, in both Slovakia and Poland party systems had remained under-institutionalized due to their continuous party turnover, high levels of parliamentary fractionalization, cleavage cross-cuttingness as well as the adoption of semi-presidential regimes. Taking into consideration such point of departure, the current paper attempts to analyse to what extent party system development in the Black Sea Region are determined by those same sources. In other words, the paper will try to discover what have been the “causal mechanisms” explaining the higher levels of stability in the patterns of interparty competition observed in Turkey, Romania and Moldova, as well as the low levels of systemic institutionalization in Bulgaria, Ukraine, Russia or Georgia. If, as scholars have repeatedly maintained, the institutionalization of party systems is so important for the security, development and democratic process in the region, then it is essential to get to know what is that stabilizes party systems in the first place, so democracy in the region may improve and reach East Central European levels, to say the least. 1.4Mihaela Ruxanda University of Bucharest After European Integration: New Perspectives of Defining Local Governance in Post-Communist States Mihela Ruxanda is a PhD Student at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Political Science. She is currently working on her PhD Thesis “Local Post-communist Elites: Ramnicu Valcea Municipality and Vaideeni Village”. Her research interests include Europeanization, Post-communism, Local, Regional and European Governance. In the context of European integration, the environment in which local governments operate continues to face rapid change. Such an environment has been very unstable, placing a premium on governments to be innovative, flexible and to “reinvent” themselves, or to move away from local government towards local governance. The present research will explore the European Union’s influence on the level of the Romanian local government and local governance. The European principles of subsidiary – as a central concept for the EU approach to the politics and policy interventions – and the good governance – a principle encouraging a close administration-citizen relationship, both place the local government in the centre of the European government. We define local government as the process of taking and implementing decisions for the local communities, process taking place in the framework of public institutions, different from the national state, legitimate for the local communities through direct elections, producing general applicable norms for their communities, under the conditions to observe the national law. The globalizing context in which world history is found nowadays introduces a „government” with multiple meanings and levels, creating paradoxically the conditions of development for glocalisation (Hong and Song, 2010). Acknowledging this situation, actors from different spheres of life forged a new term „governance”. Local governance defines the mechanisms of the connection authoritycitizens at a geographically space with reduced dimensions, subnational level. Therefore, the research aims to deepen the scientific knowledge in the field of local governance in Romania, in the context of European integration. In order to understand this perspective, the present research will combine the tools of comparative approaches, studies on Europeanization and political elite’s theories and focuses on the intertwined relationship between elites’ behaviour, trajectories and attitudes and 19 the institutional arrangements in order to emphasize the overall configuration of local governance. Because of the large area of investigation, we will focus on two particular cases, representing rural-urban areas, one village and one city from Romania. 1.5Marcy E. McCullaugh University of California, Berkeley Typical Tin-pots: Wealth Without Welfare in Azerbaijan Marcy E. McCullaugh is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation examines variation in welfare expenditure levels in three post-Soviet states that are rich in hydrocarbons: Russia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. In the early 2000s, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan began to accrue large budgetary revenues from petroleum exports. As a result, these countries have had significant resources available to them to reinvigorate welfare spending and address the lingering social ills that emerged amidst wrenching economic and institutional crises in the 1990s. From 2000 – 2011, however, health, education and social security expenditure levels among these non-democratic post-Soviet countries have diverged markedly. Of the five cases, Azerbaijan exhibits the lowest spending levels across all three welfare sectors. Combined health, education and social security spending has averaged just 6 percent of GDP between 2000 – 2011 (compared to 18 percent in Russia and 11 percent in Kazakhstan). Why is there no evidence of desire on the part of the Azerbaijani government to redistribute resource wealth through high social spending? This paper develops a theory of redistribution in mineral-rich authoritarian regimes by analyzing the political pressures that affect autocrats’ welfare spending decisions. In sum, I highlight the role that elite cohesion plays in shaping redistributive social policies. Different degrees of unity and conflict among ruling and business elites, which I identify as high officials in the regime and wealthy capitalists, affect the autocrat’s perceived level of threat about his position. Using the case of Azerbaijan, I trace the causal link between a unified elite and low welfare expenditures from 2000 – present under Heidar (d. 2003) and Ilham Aliev. My argument demonstrates that when elites are unified, the autocrat’s perceived level of threat is low. In the absence of potential challenges from within the elite, autocrats do not need to buy off the larger citizenry and rely on popular support to remain in power. Instead, they siphon off the proceeds from petroleum exports for themselves and their narrow support base at the expense of delivering goods to citizens. 1.6Lili Di Puppo Higher School of Economics, Moscow Marketing Reforms: the Dimension of Narratives in Georgia’s Fight Against Corruption Lili Di Puppo has received her PhD in Cultural Studies at the European University Viadrina, Germany, in 2011. She has written her thesis on “The elusive question of success in the fight against corruption: An analysis of the anti-corruption field in Georgia”. She was a research fellow at the Institute for Security and Development Policy in Stockholm in 2009 – 2010. The paper will focus on the dimension of narratives and of the construction of success in Georgia’s anti-corruption reforms after the Rose Revolution of November 2003. A major characteristic of Georgia’s fight against corruption is not only the apparent success of the government in eradicating street-level corruption and the speed in 20 which wide-ranging reforms were implemented after the revolution, but also the way the government has been “successful in constructing success” by marketing these reforms to an international audience and transforming the country’s image. In particular, it has widely used two “success stories” to promote Georgia’s image change from one of the most corrupt countries in the world to a “moderniser and reformer”. These two stories are the police reform and Georgia’s labelling as a “world’s top reformer” by the World Bank in 2007. These two examples and other notable reforms in the education, energy and tax sectors show how the Georgian government has consciously targeted reform sectors not only where corruption could be tangibly reduced, but most importantly where the “success” of these reforms could be most easily marketed and communicated to a domestic and international audience. Indeed, these sectors were targeted as a priority where corruption was the most visible and the results of the anti-corruption campaign could be felt almost immediately. Further, reforms were conducted in 2004 – 2007 that could help the country achieve a dramatic ascension in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Index, thus earning Georgia wide international attention. The country’s efforts to use marketing and public relations strategies to advertise its success are visible in a latest initiative aiming at establishing a state agency Georgia Reforms and Partnership Enterprise (GRAPE) to promote and share the country’s reforms worldwide. Georgia’s experience illustrates the increasing importance of the “power of narratives” in global politics and the role of perceptions in shaping “success” and a country’s image on a domestic and global level. It shows how a transition country such as Georgia pro-actively seeks to shape these narratives by translating its reforms into “success stories” that can be marketed and even turned into a brand. Panel 2 Political Discourses and Identity Configurations; Transformations of Political and Social Identities 2.1 David Matsaberidze Tbilisi State University An Institutional Approach to the Post-Soviet Conflicts – How Does it Help? A Theoretical Sketch David Matsaberidze is an assistant professor at the Department of International Relations, Iv.Javakishvili Tbilisi State University, Georgia. He is currently working on his PhD on Conflict over Abkhazia: Interaction of Georgian-Abkhazian Nationalisms (1989 – 2012) - The Role of Institutions and Institutional Actors in the Post-Soviet Developments. The present paper aims to argue that the institutional approach might be the convenient theoretical framework for the analysis of the post-Soviet conflicts. Drawing the conflict over Abkhazia as the case study for this purpose, it claims that the research should take the Soviet time inherited institutions as the main cornerstone of analysis for the understanding of the post- Soviet developments around the region. After the brief introduction of those properties of institutions which help the understanding of the interaction of actors in the post-Soviet processes, the study highlights those methodological novelties which are brought by the [new] institutionalism to the understanding of the [ethnic] conflicts in general, and the case of conflict over Abkhazia, in particular. 21 And last, but not least, the present research introduces the concept of conflict space as the appropriate tool for linking institutions and actors in the reflection of [ethnic] conflicts. The political basis of the confrontation between the authorities of the Abkhazian Autonomous Republic and the central government of Georgia was inherited from the Soviet time institutions, and through the political rights, which were guaranteed to the autonomous region by its constitutions. As the claims of the Abkhazian elite ran through the political rights, linguistic rights, various issues of education and sovereignty, etc., these aspects should be assembled and interrelated, as they mutually influenced each-other, forming and maintaining the conflict between the two ethnic groups. Similarly, they significantly influenced the post-Soviet regional developments after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In this respect, institutions should be perceived in terms of their central role for mediation and aggregation between structural factors on the one hand, and individuals and interest groups, on the other. That is the main rationale for looking at the post-Soviet Abkhazian problem through the lens of institutionalism. 2.2Marina Vorotnyuk National Institute for Strategic Studies, Ukraine Political Discourse and Security Identities within the Black Sea Region: The Case of Russia, Ukraine and Turkey Marina Vorotnyuk is a senior research fellow of Odessa Branch of the National Institute for Strategic Studies under the Secretariat of the President of Ukraine, as well as a research fellow of the Center for International Studies of Odessa Mechnikov National University. Her primary sphere of research is related to conflict and peace studies, theory of international relations, security in the Black Sea region and Turkish foreign policy. Her PhD project is concerned with the application of the critical security theories to the foreign policy of Turkey. The Black Sea region is a battle ground between two competitive security visions, traditionally labeled as modernist and post-modernist. The main divergence in security visions is due to the security identities of the actors. Analysis of Ukrainian, Russian and Turkish security policies may bring to the conclusion that these actors represent different security orders. So far, in lot of cases the security identities of parties are founded on mutually-exclusive premises and provide for only a situational cooperation. In order to analyze the security constellations within the Black Sea region the concept of security identity might be a useful tool. The concept of security identity implies that identity construction is influenced by certain security settings. It is a kind of collective identity that is based on responses relevant actor (group, society, state) makes in relation to its internal and external security environment. The discourse employed by the Black Sea states is not supportive of a common identity construction, and in certain cases contributes to the further fragmentation of the region. In our presentation the author will try to single out the constructing features of the security identities of such Black Sea states as Russia, Ukraine and Turkey and their vision for the Black Sea region. We make the following conclusions. It is quite unlikely, that the gap between the different security orders might be bridged in the near future. One cannot but notice the different security practices on the opposite sides of the sea. On one side there is European Union with “its hegemonic practices of peace – i.e. the extension of its pattern of order to the rest of the continent”. On the other there is Russia with its 22 reliance on militaristic understanding of security. Turkey is in a provisional position – its security identity in some way reflects the desire of the country not only “to consume” the security, but also to produce (and project) it while spreading its “pattern of order”, by analogy with the EU. Moreover, Turkish identity has been profoundly shaped by the Europeanization process it is undergoing. And last, Ukraine (and to certain extent, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) holds a distinct position striving to reassure its actorness in contrast to being considered as a buffer zone. 2.3Ana Kirvalidze Ilia State University, Tbilisi A Common Feature and a Common Identity? The Transformation Process of Political and Social Identities in South Caucasus Countries Ana Kirvalidze is an assistant professor of sociology at the Ilia State University, Georgia. Her scholarly research focuses on: macro and comparative sociology as well as micro sociology, globalization and transformation, development and social change, national Identity formation process in post-soviet Georgia. One of the most popular perspectives by reflecting the case of South Caucasus is the lack a common identity. The main argumentation is the following: culturally diverse regions with old-fashioned, ethnically exclusive nationalism. From this point of view a particular importance is acquired to the formation process of the European identity in South Caucasus region. Such an Identity can be work as a catalyst for bringing this region together. This identity could be considered as based on much more than just interests, but fundamentally based on common values. The comprehensive integration in the south Caucasus, thus, can be achieved through the formulation and acceptance of a common political identity based on the interests of the Caucasian states and their citizens. The main question this study tries to answer is how people in South Caucasus countries identify themselves in terms of European Identity? The analysis is increasingly important at both the micro and the macro levels. In this paper I examine the population’s attitudes in the three South Caucasus states Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan towards Western culture, states and organizations, drawing on opinion polls conducted by the Caucasus Research Resource Center. I seek to analyze the attitudes toward the West in the South Caucasus on macro as well as on micro level. I seek to provide a much-needed analysis for decision-making, based on empirical data that helps understand public opinion towards the European Union in South Caucasus countries and can contribute to the refinement of integration strategies. 2.4Ozan Arslan Izmir University of Economics Clash of Collective Identities in Post-Soviet Azerbaijan: A Security-motivated Rediscovery of the Turkic Identity? Ozan Arslan is a full-time lecturer of Diplomatic History at the Department of International Relations and the EU of Izmir University of Economics since 2004 and an alumnus of the universities of Bologna (MA, 2001) and Montpellier (DEA, 2003 ; PhD, 2011). His research interests include late Ottoman diplomatic, military and naval history, history of Turkish foreign policy as well as the history of the Caucasus. The Soviet Union provided a sense of supra-national collective identity for its citizens throughout its lifespan. Its demise led to possibilities for peoples of former soviet 23 socialist republics to redefine their identities, as citizens of these new nation-states were open to many new ideologies in this identity vacuum. This is where the ethnic, religious and post-Soviet identities of Azerbaijan collided. Within the last two centuries the effects of four separate empires – the Ottoman, Persian, Russian and Soviet – can be seen. Azerbaijanis share with Anatolian Turks certain sets of values, worldviews and linguistic association that they do not share to the same extent with Russians, yet Azerbaijan was never a part of Turkey’s territory but of Russia for nearly two centuries in modern times. This Transcaucasian country shares the same Shi’ite sect of the Islamic religion with Iran and was a vassal land of the Persian Empire in the ages preceding the Russian dominance in the isthmus. However, the Russian and Soviet empire experience limited the effects of Islam on Azerbaijan’s identity due to the secular policies of these former overlords. Among these competing collective identities, the nascent Azerbaijan Democratic Republic chose to articulate its Turkic identity when it proclaimed its independence at the end of WW I. The post-Soviet Azerbaijani state started to follow the same path shortly after the disintegration of the USSR in 1991. This paper will examine whether this question of transformation of political and social identities can be explained only by instrumentalist, institutionalist and/or primordialist theories on the rise of nationalism in the last years of the Soviet Union and in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of this latter. It will also question the role of the interactive nature of national identities and nationalisms in different periods of time in the Ottoman Empire/Turkey and in Azerbaijan – as well as of the security concerns of Azerbaijan - in this shift to a Turkic collective identity in two occasions in the same century. 2.5Giorgi Babunashvili Ilia State University, Tbilisi Legacy of Party-State System Phenomena in Structuring the Political Identification in Post-Communist Georgia Giorgi Babunashvili is a researcher at Caucasus Research Resource Centers in Georgia and a PhD student at Ilia State University in Tbilisi, Georgia. His PhD thesis is about party-state system legacy in Georgia’s contemporary political system. The focus of the paper is on the legacy of Party-State system phenomena over formation of political identities of voters in post-communist Georgia. The research examines how voters structure their support towards the political parties, in order to determine the differences/similarities between structuring attitudes towards the political actors and state institutions. Factor analysis method is used identify factors of variables that have impact over voters choices and trust towards government institutions. Despite 20 years of emerging multi-partism in post-Soviet Georgia, Georgian political party system is still far from being consolidated. One of the major differences from consolidated western party systems lies in a way parties position themselves along political agendas and ideas. While in consolidated party systems each party is trying to win support of certain segments of constituencies, post-authoritarian political party systems sometimes tend to produce catch-all type parties that are oriented on a wide mixture of ideologies and political standing. These types of parties when being come to power strive to identify themselves with the whole state, rather than a specified social class. Psychological legacy of communist system determines that citizens see parties as society’s political vanguard, not separated from the state as a whole. Thus, parties do not feel necessity of building a wide organizational network and building a string representative links with their voters for their effective functioning. Success 24 of parties in such environment depends solely on how they can seize and maintain power and how long citizens will perceive such regime as legitimate. If parties do not suggest clear political identification to their voters and at the same time they are merged with the state, it becomes difficult for voters to distinguish between the ruling political party and state institutions and distrust towards governing party leads to distrust towards the state institutions as well. 2.6Zurab Iashvili Ilia State University, Tbilisi Political Elites and Patterns of Democratization in the Former Soviet Union Zurab Iashvili is a researcher at the College of Arts and Sciences and Lecturer in Politics at Ilia State University, Georgia. My paper explores different trajectories of democratization in post-Soviet countries and tries to explain different outcomes by testing “Elite-centric approach” on empirical cases of the region. Study attempts to identify the ideational factors influencing governing elites and establish causal linkage between actor’s identity and their interests and behavior related to democratization. Questions addressed are as follows: How are local governing elites essential for success or failure of democratic developments in post-Soviet countries? What role does the governing elite’s identity play in determining democratization agendas and what are the prospects of elite-driven democratization attempts in the region? Data collected through the research will allow writing an academic article and generate new knowledge, questions and research agendas in relatively unexplored field of post-Soviet identities. As an empirical ground for such a research, I compare post-Soviet countries which have commonly experienced so called Velvet Revolutions but, nevertheless are on different stages of democratization, as suggested by authoritative Freedom House democracy Index. Panel 3 Ethnic Communities and Networks, Transnationalism and Security 3.1Peter Kabachnik The City University of New York Using the Displaced to Claim Place: Politicizing Displacement in Georgia Peter Kabachnik is a recent Ph.D. graduate (in Geography from UCLA in 2007) and he is currently an Assistant Professor of Geography at the College of Staten Island-City University of New York (CUNY). He recently collaborated on a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded interdisciplinary project (led by Drs. Joanna Regulska of Rutgers University and Beth Mitchneck of Arizona State University) examining internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the Republic of Georgia. Internally displaced persons (IDPs) are highly politicized. In the Republic of Georgia, there are over 200,000 IDPs who have been displaced from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two separatist regions that are now de facto independent, in three separate waves (1991 – 1993; 1998; 2008). Whether it is invoking inflated numbers of IDPs, failing to integrate them, or harassing informal returnees, the Georgian government’s actions point to their using of IDPs as a political weapon. IDPs become one of 25 the main ways through which the government is able to stoke nationalist sentiment domestically and foster international sympathy and put pressure on the separatist territories. Even with the Rose Revolution, when there was more talk of possible local integration, the regaining of territories was still the central goal. While IDPs in Georgia overwhelmingly want to return, this desire is in part manufactured through constant government rhetoric about territorial integrity and government policy that reinforces this nationalist territorialization of space. This paper will provide an overview of Georgian governmental policy and discourse on IDPs, delineating the various changes, and documenting the differences and similarities between those displaced from Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I will focus on several elements that serve as evidence of a lack of a coherent integration policy as well as the politicization of IDPs, including: voting law denying their voting in local elections; no clear policy on IDPs until 2007; no support of informal returnees to Gali, coupled with intimidation; separate IDP schools; the Abkhaz government-in-exile; and the My House program. These issues are particularly salient as IDPs remain displaced, with many still living in precarious conditions, and tensions remain with occasional threats, real and imagined, that can possibly lead to further violence and displacement between Georgia and Abkhazia and/or South Ossetia. Thus, how IDPs are utilized politically plays an integral role in the progress or forestalling of conflict resolution. 3.2Minna Lundgren Mid Sweden University Crossing the Border – an Intergenerational Study on Belonging and Temporary Return among IDPs from Abkhazia Minna Lundgren is a doctoral student at the Department of Social Work, Mid Sweden University, Sweden. She is currently working on her PhD on the consequences of protracted displacement for IDPs in Georgia. Within the international community, “home” is often seen as something natural and absolute, and the return to a “home country” by refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) is considered an important component in peace processes. But “home” is not a straightforward concept. “Home” is intimately linked to identity and memory and prior studies show that the wish to return home can differ between people of different generations. “Home” can be remembered but also re-made. In Georgia, armed ethnic conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the 1990s and the Georgian-Russian war in 2008, led to the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. Today nearly 250 000 people are displaced within the borders of the country. At least one fifth of the internally displaced in Georgia are children and adolescents below 18 years of age. Many of them were born after their parents were forced to leave their homes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and many have never seen the homes their parents want to return to. How do young people, who were born in displacement, understand “home” and what do they think about returning to a home that they have never seen? How are adolescents’ views on “home” affected by relations between IDP and “local” youth? The purpose of this research report is to explore differences in attitudes towards “home” and sense of belonging between adolescents and their parents, and to explore how these views affect social and ethnic identification. The study of intergenerational value discrepancies among IDPs in Georgia is based on group interviews conducted in February 2012, with parents (n=19) and adolescents (n=41) living in collective centers in the Samegrelo region. 26 3.3Ulla Pape Ruhr-Universität Bochum The Impact of International Humanitarian Organisations on IDP Protection in the Southern Caucasus Ulla Pape is a research fellow and academic coordinator of the international MA Programme in Humanitarian Action at the Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict (IFHV) at Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany. She completed a PhD on civil society and the politics of HIV/AIDS in Russia at the Department of International Relations at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands, and is currently starting a research project on human rights and IDP protection in the South Caucasus. As a result of violent conflict, all three countries of the Southern Caucasus have been confronted by forced internal displacement. As of December 2011, there are about 599,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) living in Azerbaijan; at least 257,000 IDPs in Georgia, and up to 8,400 IDPs in Armenia (Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, 2011). The situation of the internally displaced populations constitutes a contested political issue in the three countries of the Southern Caucasus, as it is both linked to human rights and social justice as well as to the overall process of conflict settlement in which the unresolved question of IDP return and/or integration remains a major obstacle. In the political management of internal displacement the governments of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia have taken different positions. This can be explained by the domestic political context and the impact of international humanitarian actors, e.g. UN agencies, international organisations and NGOs which are concerned with IDP protection. This paper aims to analyze the role of these organisations and their interaction with political authorities in the improvement of IDP protection in the three countries. IDP protection thereby refers to all activities aimed at obtaining full respect for the rights of the affected individuals. By following a comparative approach, the paper seeks to identify the strengths and weaknesses of international humanitarian actors in different political contexts. It addresses two main questions: (1) what have international humanitarian organisations done to improve the situation of IDPs in the Southern Caucasus, and (2) what strategies have they employed in order to strengthen IDP protection in their interaction with political authorities in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. From a theoretical perspective, the paper aims to contribute to the debate on the impact of international organisations in shaping domestic policies. 3.4 Sebastiano Sali King’s College London/CIES Kadir Has University Discourse of Security: ‘Official’ Diaspora vs ‘Unofficial’ Transnationalism Sebastiano Sali is a PhD candidate at the Department of War Studies at Kingʼs College London. His research project aims to investigate the process of construction of Turkeyʼs multiple identities and how multiple identities are influencing the current diverging Turkish foreign policies. Can states move towards a well-working democratic regime without allowing the development of fully independent and autonomous civil society organisations (CSOs)? The emergence transnational networks that act independently from the state seems to be a particularly sensitive issue especially in young/weak democracies like many states in the Caucasian and Black Sea area. On one hand, the state apparatus engage to create links and establish networks with their own citizens or migrants living abroad; the attempt is that of creating a stronger advocacy community for theʻofficialʼgoals of the country. On the other 27 hand, CSOs, mostly based on ethnic links especially in the Caucasus and Black Sea region, struggle for the creation of transnational networks centred on the pursue of narrower and issue-specific targets, most of the time gathering kinsmen and supporter in general to gain stronger visibility in the eyes of third parties (such as the EU/US or international organisations), in the purse of goals often alternative when not contrasting with the ʻofficialʼ ones set up by the government. Therefore, the competition between state-sponsored and independent ethnic-based networks leads towards potential political conflict, not always necessarily violent, that can nevertheless undermine the security of the same country and citizens both the different sets of groups claim to advocate for. Conceiving security in more than strict hard-terms, such a competition can provoke on a domestic level a general lack of democracy, such as limitations to individual liberties and rights, and corruption; on an international level can instead put in danger the sovereignty of the state allowing other countries to intrude in its policy exploiting the tension between different links of domestic international networks. This paper aims to investigate the tension between the two levels of international networks that have emerged in the Caucasus with a particular focus on the case of Georgia. The goal of the paper is to analyse the discourses on migrants, community, citizenship, identity and history that the two sets of groups construct in order to create their idea of non-territorial homeland. Also, the paper points at highlighting for what purposes some discourses are employed and through what processes they are implemented. Finally, the comparison of discourses (ideas) and processes (practices) set up by the two different groups of actors will enable a further comprehension of how these groups operates and which operates more successfully than others contributing to improve the level of democracy and security of the country. 3.5Adeline Braux Centre D’Etudes et de Recherches Internationales, Paris Migration Issues in the Wider Black Sea Region: An Overview of Post-Soviet Migrations in Turkey Adeline Braux received her PhD in political science from Sciences Po-Paris in October 2011. Her PhD is entitled “Migrations, Transnationalism and New Diasporas in the Post-Soviet Area: South-Caucasian Immigrants in Russia”. She is currently working on the issue of post-Soviet migrations in Turkey. The proposed paper aims to contribute to the study of migration within the space consisting of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, South Caucasian states and Turkey, which all have incommon to be member states of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) although they do not all border the Black Sea. Once symbols of the Cold War and of the separation between the forces of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the borders between Turkey and the former Soviet Union were opened after 1991, generating flows that were as heterogeneous as they were difficult to quantify. The most obvious expression of this was in the 1990s, the flood of tchelnoki, suitcase traders or ‘commuters’ from the former Soviet republics, in particular Russia and the Caucasus, who are responsible for the creation or unprecedented expansion of certain retail markets in Turkey, and especially in Istanbul. The Turkish context is marked by strong pressure from the European Union on the Turkish authorities to curb illegal migration, devoted mostly to ending their journey in an EU country. We have chosen to focus in particular on the migration of former Soviets to Turkey, taking the examples of Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Georgians, Rus- 28 sians and Ukrainians. Such an approach seems to capture the relevant articulations and logic governing the migration in this vast area which has experienced major geopolitical changes since the early 1990s. This phenomenon reflects the place now occupied by Turkey in the Eurasian space, hinge between Western Europe, the former USSR and the Middle East. Beyond the regional impacts related to this issue, we hypothesize that this type of migration is symptomatic of grassroots globalization and contributes to the emergence of new transnational networks. 3.6Maroussia Ferry Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales Georgian Migrants in Turkey: The Reshuffling of Gender Relations and Identities Maroussia Ferry is pursuing a Ph.D in socio-anthropology at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences-Sociales (Paris) financed by the Institut National d’Etudes Démographique. Since her Master thesis, about the inter-Caucasians relationships in France, she specialized on migrations from Caucasus. With her Ph.D thesis about Georgian migrants in Turkey, she focuses on the gendered aspect of this phenomenon. In a context of an increasing complexity of international migration, the special case of mobilities from Georgia to Turkey significantly exemplifies some important sociodemographic worldwide evolutions, especially the increasing feminization of labor migration. The demise of the USSR both made these migrations possible by the opening of borders and made it necessary by the impoverishment of societies. Apart from Russia, Georgians primarily go to Turkey which appears now as a receiving country for migration. The Black see region, between Caucasus and Turkey appears to be now a circulatory territory. One estimates that 22.9% 1 of Georgians live out of their country, including 60 to 70% of women. Women in Georgian society have recently undergone a mutation that increasingly leads them to assume responsibility for family maintenance. The demise of the USSR led to a deterioration of most families’ social status. While unemployment rates have soared to 50%, alcoholism and drug addiction have become a mass phenomenon, and an almost exclusively masculine one. Often being in charge of securing their family’s income, women are more naturally prompted to migrate into areas where wages are higher. Most of the time, they are migrating without their children. In Turkey, they are mostly domestic workers. I am therefore studying how migration alters the role and status of women and observing how Georgian migrants, in Istanbul and in the Turkish-Georgian border area, throughout their sociability, root in their settlement locations while initiating reconstructions in their place of origin, through renegotiation of identity and gender identifications. Economic activities, money circulation, marital and parental trajectories are as many ways to approach these reorganizations. Following recent upheavals in Georgian societies, then, family units are being restructured on women’s initiative. These are in the necessity of leading migratory projects and of inventing innovative parenthood forms, which, in turn, affect their societies of origin. The point at issue is to allow for a complex set of relationships between gender and migration patterns. Drawing on my fieldwork investigations, I wish to suggest that migration is not only the indicator of a restructuring in gender relations, but that these two phenomena, articulated to Caucasian social changes and complex ethnic and religious identity politics, engender each other constantly to create a process of its own. 29 Panel 4 Conflicts: Strategies for Conflict Management, the Role of International Organisations; Changing Drivers of Conflicts, Unrecognised Conflicts 4.1Giulia Prelz Oltramonti Université Libre, Brussels War Economies and Protracted Conflicts: the Cases of Abkhazia and South Ossetia Giulia Prelz Oltramonti is enrolled in a doctoral program in the Department of Political Science at the Université libre de Bruxelles, where she works as a teaching and research assistant. She holds a MA in Conflict, Security and Development from King’s College London and a BA in European Social and Political Studies from University College London. When we look at the Abkhaz and south Ossetian conflicts and decide to explore the timeframe between the cease fire agreements of the early 1990s and the resumption of a full-scale conflict in 2008, we are immediately confronted with a stumbling block. The very definition of this decade and a half is problematic, given the state of relative war and relative peace that characterised it. Indeed, both cases are protracted conflicts that cannot be considered as resolved for lack of peace agreements, but where little full-intensity confrontation occurred. The question that we ask here {What was the role of the war economies in the protraction of the Abkhaz and South Ossetian conflicts?) touches upon the dynamics that sustained this state of affairs. In order to comprehensively elucidate the dynamics of a conflict, we need to look at causes while taking into account mobilisation strategies. The two are closely intertwined, as causal factors lead to, contribute to, or support mobilisation strategies, while mobilization and organisation allow for motivations to be expressed through collective violence, instead of nonviolent engagement. We address the cases of the prolonged conflicts of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in relation to the existing theoretical framework on the political economies of war. After an initial review of the literature, stakeholders for the war economies and for the processes of boundary activation are identified. We then proceed to address the role of these stakeholders as violence entrepreneurs showing that, although the interests embedded in the political economies of the protracted conflicts were geared against a resolution of the stalemate itself, they were also, for the most part, against a resumption of high scale violence. 4.2Kristina Poghosyan University of Erfurt Nagorno-Karabakh: A Frozen Conflict? Causes and Possible Solutions of the Rigid Constellation of Circumstances Kristina Poghosyan is a PhD student of political sciences at the Erfurt University where she also work as an academic assistant since April 2012. She is doing her research on the mechanisms of non-violent settlement of Karabakh conflict. She particularly focuses on deeply rooted identity dimension of the conflict as well as on the role of civil society actors-grassroots and middle-range leadership- who have the capacity to contribute to reduction of prejudice and hostility between conflicting parties and to influence the social structures that underlie the conflict. The Caucasus , unlike any other region in the post-Soviet area, has suffered from unsolved conflicts following the fall of the soviet system. These protracted, intrastate, ethno political conflicts – which are defined also as a “identity conflicts” (Friberg 1992) - have been carried out more brutally and present a big threat to the 30 stability and security in the region. It can be explained by the fact that these conflicts are perpetuated by political interests and are based in deep-seated psychosocial identity. (Ropers 1995) On the one hand already troubled relations between the conflicting parties, reciprocal animosity, perception of enmity mostly based on direct experiences of violence or/and on “chosen traumas” (Volkan 1999), on the one hand the manipulation and use of these dynamics by political leaders in order to sustain their positions of power hinder constructive communication about factual issues as well as peace process. In order to understand the patterns and long-standing character of intrastate conflicts it is therefore essential to explore different factors contributing to and sustaining them, including the accentuation of deeply rooted identity dimension. In view of the complexity and multidimensionality of these conflicts “no one process, level, organisation or state actor is capable of birthing and sustaining the movement from violence to constructive change on its own” (Lederach 2011). The strategies of settlement of Karabakh conflict are restricted to international mediation, conversation rounds within the scope of Minsk Group and to Armenian-Azerbaijani presidential summits. Given the modest achievements of these actors and processes to date, a comprehensive approach that goes beyond state-based negotiations and embraces Track-2-diplomacy in conflict transformation and peace building process is currently needed. In my research project I am analysing the mechanisms of transformation of Karabakh conflict with particular focus on the role of civil society actors in this process. With this background I would like to contribute to the International Conference “Security, Democracy and Development in the Southern Caucasus and the Black Sea Region” by participating and discussing the role of civil society in conflict transformation in the context of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. 4.3Lala Jumayeva University of Birmingham The Role of Institutions in Conflict Transformation Lala Jumayeva is a Doctoral Researcher in International Politics/Con2lict Resolution at the University of Birmingham, England. She pursued her MA degree in International Relations at the University of Nottingham, UK and upon her return to Azerbaijan she taught “Political Systems and Institutions”, “Introduction to Economics” modules at Khazar University in 2010‐2011 academic year., Mrs. Jumayeva’s research area focuses on ethnic conflicts, conflict management and mediation. She is also a recipient of Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy Faculty Development Scholarship and Open Society Foundation’s GSGP Scholarship. The concept of Conflict Transformation has been widely debated while tackling the Post-Cold War conflicts during the last two decades. Advocates of this theory claim that due to the complex structure of contemporary conflicts, it is impossible to resolve them instantly, but rather that it is necessary to transform gradually. Scholars argue that it is possible to settle a dispute by transforming the attitudes, relationships, interests, and, if necessary, the very constitution of society supporting the violent conflict. However, in its primary focus on actors and their attitudes, this school of thought lacks empirical evidence supporting its utility as a feasible approach to conflict management. In my paper I will argue that this shortcoming can be addressed by considering more closely the role of institutions in shaping actor behaviour. 31 My argument develops in three steps. First, I analyse the concept of conflict transformation by examining its theoretical appeal and empirical weakness. The second part of the paper considers the role of institutions, designed to manage a dispute, as a preliminary condition for a conflict’s successful transformation. I argue that by designing the ‘right’ institutions actors will be enabled to manage their disputes by non-violent ways and gradually change their behaviour in more fundamental ways allowing for a transformation of the conflict which in turn will strengthen these very institutions and create conditions for sustainable conflict settlement. Third, I will offer empirical evidence in support my argument by drawing examples from a number of cases. In conclusion, my paper will point out directions for future research. 4.4Paula Ganga Georgetown University Russian Peacekeeping Approach to the 1992 Moldovan Conflict Paula Ganga pursued a master’s degree in Global Governance and Diplomacy from Oxford University, St. Antony’s College where she was funded through a Chevening Scholarship from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Her current research at Georgetown University explores the Russian peacekeeping operation in Moldova and is in the preliminary stages of a doctoral project dealing with the broader Russian approaches to peacekeeping and conflict management. In 1992 the young Republic of Moldova fought a short but violent war against itself when the left bank of the Dniester River declared independence from the newly formed state. On March 2nd 2012 Moldova passed the twenty year mark since the start of this conflict and the creation of the de facto state of Transnistria (or Pridnestrovye) yet the resolution of the situation is nowhere in sight. This research focuses on the role played by the Russian military presence to the establishment of the current status quo. The duality of the Russian military presence in the conflict in Moldova – its transition from active combatants to peacekeepers – encapsulates a defining feature of the Russian approach to conflict resolution and a specific understanding of peacekeeping that Moscow has visibly applied to other instances in the “near abroad” such as Georgia and Tajikistan. This paper hypothesizes that Moldova represents a foundational case in studying how Russian approaches to peacekeeping have emerged at the confluence of the foreign policy doctrine developed in Moscow in the early 1990s and the situation on the Dniester. The paper argues that Moldova is a foundational case as the current approach to peacekeeping espoused by Moscow – and seen in cases as recent as 2008 Georgia – was crystallized in the domestic battle of influence between the liberals in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the conservative forces present especially in the Ministry of Defense; battle which had the conflict in Moldova as both the catalyst for the debate and the defining force shaping this debate. In trying to answer the question “What does it mean to be a Russian peacekeeper?” this paper will not only shed much needed light into the past and present of the conflict in Transnistria, but it will illuminate how Russian foreign policy was articulated in the early 1990s and how the reshaping of Russian interests in the former Soviet space took place. 4.5Hanna Shelest National Institute for Strategic Studies, Ukraine Foreign Policy Particularities of the Unrecognized States in the Black Sea Region Hanna Shelest is a Senior Researcher at the National Institute for Strategic Studies, Odessa Branch, Ukraine. She holds an MA Degree in International Relations (2003). Her PhD thesis topic was “Institute of Mediation in the Process of the Peace Settle- 32 ment of Military Conflicts: - Defense 10 of April 2012. Her main research interests are conflicts resolution and security in the Wider Black Sea Region and the Middle East, foreign policy of Ukraine; unrecognized states. There are a lot of examples in the history, when different separatists’ movements or ethnic groups proclaimed independence. Most of them led either to war or to the full sovereignty of the country. There are just few examples when proclamation resulted in a specific situation, when there have been no war already but created de-facto states, which are not recognized but are operating their internal policy and formulate independent foreign policy still being in the negotiations on their final status. There are four separatists regions in the Black Sea area which on different stages of their conflicts developments have proclaimed independence – Transnistria, NagornoKarabakh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But only in 2008 after Russian-Georgian conflict, Russian Federation recognized independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, declining this possibility for Transnistria. Within three years only four countries recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia – Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru. And all these four separatists regions have recognized independence of each other. Existence of two main theories on state recognition in the international law: declaratory and constitutive, and absence of the internationally legitimized and unilaterally agreed terms for being considered as a fully-fledged state bring additional nuances to this situation. In this article we will analyze the mechanisms and particularities of the diplomatic relations of the unrecognized states in the Black Sea region. We will pay special attention to the instruments they use to be recognized as equal partners in negotiation even despite the non-recognized independence. Also we will be interested in how they interact with third states and does the recognition of four states add legitimacy to the foreign policy of ex-Georgian regions. Is it any differences between their and other Black Sea region’s unrecognized states diplomacy. Moreover we will study the question as can other states and international organizations deal with these unrecognized states by traditional diplomatic means, norms and standards or whether they need a new diplomatic approach towards them. 4.6Olexaia Basarab Matej Bel University, Slovakia Visegrad Group Foreign Policy Cooperation on Transnistrian Conflict Resolution Olexia Basarab is a Research Director at the Strategic and Security Studies Group, Ukraine. She is currently working on her PhD on the Visegrad countries foreign policy cooperation on the Eastern Partnership. The proposed paper is focused on the Visegrad Group (V4) countries’ foreign policy activities in the area of Transnistrian conflict resolution. The paper is designed to study the role of V4 joint activities in the region and diplomacy (both on external and intra-EU) aimed on the conflict resolution. Regional formations between countries in modern Europe play an important role in its foreign policy decision making process, and the role played by the V4 countries is an exemplar of success. In the enlarged EU there is more space and demand for practical cooperation in smaller circles, in particular in the area conflict resolution through Europeanization. Direct involvement of the EU in conflict resolution in the studied region started enough late, in the year 2003: in February a visa ban on the Transnistrian leadership was imposed; in March the EU initiated and mediated negotiations between Moldova and Ukraine on customs and border agreements; in spring 2003 the internal discussions over possibility of the EU-led peace consolidation operation started; and in November the EU High Representative Javier Solana advised Moldova against accepting the ‘Kozak memorandum’. The European Neighbourhood Policy development in 2003 33 and further Eastern Partnership adoption in 2009 have significantly increased the EU opportunities to invest in the region stabilization, in particular while opening more space for the V4 countries. Having in mind mentioned background, in the paper author will look for the answers for the following core questions: What is the impact of V4 countries on the EU policy regarding the region influenced by Transnistrian frozen conflict? How mediation efforts by EU and international organization influenced the region’s perspectives of European integration? What are the ways for further Europeanization of the resolution process and the role and mutual interests of V4 countries? Panel 5 Democracy, Political Structure, Regime and State Composition 5.1 David Sichinava Tbilisi State University Cleavage Theory and the Electoral Geographies of Georgia David Sichinava is a second-year doctoral student at the department of Human Geography, faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Tbilisi State University. He also works for the Caucasus Research Resources Centers Georgia as GIS and database analyst. A proposed article will argue whether the cleavage theory originally suggested by Seymour M. Lipset and Stein Rokkan would be applied to the case of Georgian elections. It examines the results of voting of the 2008 two national elections; aims to identify emerged general political cleavages and assess the role of cleavage theory in the formation of spatial patterns of Georgian elections as well as identify additional important aspects of voting behavior. There are several political cleavages which could be described as the result of 2008 presidential and parliamentary elections. Rural-urban and center-periphery dimensions of voting are important for the discussed elections and bear distinct spatial differences. A center-periphery paradigm emerges when looking at the voting patterns of well-off and former industrial suburbs inside Tbilisi, Georgia’s capital city. However, none of those options could be explained by the cleavage theory as the ideological basis for party formation in Georgia and consequently, the mobilization of voters are not based on the social cleavages. The preferences of voters are more based on personalities and populist political programs rather than political affiliation. The cleavages are present; however, proposed theory does not give an explanation of the existing pattern. There is clear evidence that spatial patterns of voting in Georgia have distinct regional characteristics. Historical regions of the country share the same features of voting behavior. The article will also argue that the belonging to the particular historical province could be an important determinant of the voting pattern. 5.2Povilas Žielys Vilnius University Guarding or Retarding? US Democracy Assistance Programs in Post-Rose Revolution Georgia Povilas Žielys is a member of the International Relations Department at the Institute of International Relations and Political Science of Vilnius University. His research 34 focuses on Central and Eastern European studies, with a particular emphasis on democratization processes in the post-Soviet space. The US government has been often criticized for not applying the principle of democratic conditionality in its relations with foreign governments that are judged to be aligned with US security interests. Such instances in US foreign policy could be described as the inconsistency of US democracy promotion at the diplomatic level. Far less attention, however, has been devoted to studying US-funded democracy assistance programs, or what one could call US democracy promotion at the programmatic level. Some limited previous research has indicated that US democracy assistance programs can also be affected by US security policies. The aim of this paper is to investigate US democracy assistance programs and test the hypothesis which assumes the distorting impact of US security interests. The research focuses on the following programs implemented in Georgia in 2003-2008: constitutional assistance, electoral aid, political party building, NGO building and media strengthening. The analysis draws on the series of expert interviews with US democracy assistance providers and recipients, as well as on available statistical data and media reporting. The findings of this paper reveal many inconsistencies in all US democracy assistance programs except for electoral aid. The US support for electoral process in Georgia was driven solely by democratization goals and remained politically unbiased. The implementation of the rest of programs was somewhat contradictory. After the Rose Revolution, US donors directed their support to the US-friendly government. They ignored developments on the ground and deprived the Georgian opposition and civil society of resources necessary to level the playing field and ensure the control over the government. The paper concludes that US security calculations resulted in the democracy assistance strategy which was skewed in favor of the Georgian government and failed to enable its opposition and civil society. 5.3Itir Bagdadi Izmir University of Economics State-Building in Azerbaijan and Armenia: The Use of Capital and Coercion to Capture the State Itir Bagdadi is a full-time Lecturer of Political Science at the Izmir University of Economics in Turkey and she is currently writing her PhD dissertation entitled “Coercion and Capital in State-Building: The Case of State Formation and Centralization in the Former Soviet Union States of Azerbaijan and Armenia” at the City University of New York Graduate Center. Her research interests include Post-Soviet politics, state-building theories, alternative armed forces, nationalism and ethnic conflict, and gender studies. How and by what means are alternative power holders that challenge the state coopted and incorporated into the state? The aim of this paper is two-fold: to analyze the micro-processes of state-building in post-Soviet states and to investigate how alternative power holders that challenge the state are co-opted and incorporated into state structures. I qualify my theoretical contribution by stating that it is situated in the former Soviet Union and, in line with scholars like Valerie Bunce, I argue that this makes the transition of these states quite distinct and different from previous transitions. The story of how alternative power holders rose out of Soviet and later post-Soviet states is a product of the Soviet system which necessarily differentiates the initial starting point and the content of the transitions. 35 The study will focus on a comparison of Azerbaijan and Armenia, two states that were engaged in war over the territory of Nagorno Karabakh – a region legally belonging to Azerbaijan but with a predominantly Armenian population. I will analyze the state capture strategies of the different actors involved in the war and try to assess how they were incorporated into the state. I will argue that the coercion and capital at the disposal of elites and counter-elites (the alternative power holders) has decisive effects on who will control the state and how the other group will be coopted. Azerbaijan and Armenia make two interesting case studies because they both transitioned from the same system (the Soviet state) but fought on different sides in a war. Different groups acquired power in each case and the underlying reasons behind this should be analyzed to contribute to the literature on state-building and state-centralization (in other words, co-optation of alternative power contenders). 5.4Farid Guliyev Jacobs University Bremen Oil and Political Stability in Azerbaijan Farid Guliyev is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at Jacobs University Bremen, Germany. In his PhD thesis he examines the relationship between oil revenues and regime stability in a comparative perspective. In this paper I aim to examine the effects of oil revenues on the stability of the political regime in Azerbaijan. It is thought that oil windfalls exert both stabilizing and destabilizing effects on regime stability. On the one hand, leaders can use oil revenue to buy off the loyalty of key supporters and to strengthen the internal security and military apparatuses. On the other hand, oil export dependence entails potential macroeconomic and political instability. Its adverse effects include fiscal revenue volatility, inflation, real exchange appreciation and crowding out of the non-oil industries (“Dutch disease”). Recent theoretical work suggests that the adverse effects of oil revenues especially test the ability of regimes to survive. In this paper I undertake a case study of Azerbaijan to examine these effects. The analysis will take into account important contextual variables such as regime genesis and consolidation, the timing of the oil boom and of resource depletion, the type of authoritarian rule, state strength, and societal and political opposition. The main research question is: What can explain the Azerbaijani regime’s ability to withstand the destabilizing effects of oil during the boom years (since 2003) and in the wake of the 2008 global economic (commodity) crisis?! 5.5 David Szakonyi Columbia University De Facto Democratization: Institutions and External Threats to the Political Regime in Unrecognized States David Szakonyi is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at Columbia University. He is currently working on several projects, included the political economy of state ownership in autocracy and how autocrats manipulate and win fraudulent elections. Why does democracy take hold in some unrecognized states and not in others? The emphasis in the literature has been on the importance of non-recognition in spurring democratization to show foreign governments progress in achieving statehood and an ‘earned’ right to self-determination. In this view, ruling elites thus choose to uphold democratic principles to both earn sovereignty in eyes of the international community and to bolster 36 legitimacy at home. Such a reading however makes strong assumptions about preferences of newly empowered elites as well as their uniform desire to fight for recognition and independence. The frozen conflicts themselves as well as internal institutions are also left completely out of the analysis. Building on previous literature on existential threats, this work instead places the security environment as the primary variable for explaining political outcomes. Political dynamics are profoundly shaped by institutional choices made during the post-conflict constitution-making process. These decisions are not made in a vacuum and reflect both the surrounding security context and the preferences of early de facto leaders. When states fear for their survival, they choose institutions that intentionally limit democratic development. Once the risk of state death is lessened, elites can no longer point to security threats to justify the lack of free competition. Conflicts between elites and opposition groups can rise to the surface, because the state is too weak and political institutions too underdeveloped. Democratization thus sets in not by intention, but because of an interaction of an improving security environment and a vulnerable elite coalition at the top. To illustrate this theory, I examine two cases of unrecognized states, Abkhazia and Transdniestria. Both states have similar origins and legacies, but exhibit variation in the timing and level of democratization following de facto independence. I argue that differences in security environment and the ability of ruling elites to manipulate perceptions best explain these outcomes. Several unique sources of information are drawn upon as evidence. The analysis of Abkhazia uses over 50 in-country, semi-structured interviews with cabinet ministers, de facto parliament deputies, opposition leaders, civil society activists, and journalists. Trips were conducted in December 2007 and in August 2010. These first-hand sources will be integrated alongside an in-depth analysis of primary and secondary source material on Transdniestria to complete the comparative case study exercise. This paper thus makes an original contribution to the study of the internal politics of unrecognized states by offering a fresh look at the preferences and external constraints behind democratic development. 5.6Oleksandr Svyetlov Heinrich Heine University, Germany What Makes Post-Soviet Authoritarian Regimes Endure? Ukraine´s Path Dependent Transition: Lessons for the Broader Region Oleksandr Svyetlov is a PhD Student at the Institute for German and International Political Party Law and Research (PRuF), Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany. During the “four transformations” of the 1990s, Ukraine managed to build only initial stages of market democracy due to Soviet legacies. It established a balance between the “delegative democracy” and the heavily regulated transformation economy. As a result, the low-level equilibrium between incomplete democracy and imperfect market economy emerged. The driving force behind the creation and steady growth of divisions lied not only in the nature of political power but also in the temporal transition path to “capitalism”, “post-Soviet democracy” with state capture, clientalism/paternalism, corruption, rent-seeking, permanent societal division and political crisis as Ukrainian elite´s modus vivendi. Growing authoritarianism and corporatism were a consequence of Soviet legacies – weak national integration, fluid identity, lack of institutions. “Partial retrenchment” (being stuck between totalitarianism and market economy) led to the “hybrid regime” (as a result of failure to provide economic and social benefits to the electorate) with amorphous centrism of political parties. Ukraine was not only archetypal “delegative democracy” with passive electorate between elections, which “justified” authoritarian corporatism but it was also “electoral democracy” with managed elections as legitimacy for otherwise authoritarian regime. 37 The elites were not interested in transparency, spread of information and people’s involvement in the market economy as competitive actors. They managed to preserve the system of networks that was shaped during the Communist period, and developed legislation that helped to gain maximum benefits. These were quite in line with the inheritance of the Soviet past and may substantially be explained by the path dependency theory. The public nostalgia for the past economic stability and social welfare systems that had been guaranteed by Communist governments led to electoral support of post-Soviet authoritarian rulers. The elite that emerged in independent Ukraine came out of the old Soviet-era nomenklatura bred in a neopatrimonial culture. However, the Communist Party, which was an important instrument for elite cohesion, disappeared from the scene, leaving a power vacuum, which contributed to new authoritarianism. Political patronage developed in Soviet times as a crucial mechanism for elite mobility, and was not checked by other mechanisms, such as meritocratic selection procedures. 5.7Mariya Chelova Berlin Graduate School of Social Sciences Between The Rock And The Hard Place: Exploring Endurance Of Hybrid Regimes In Georgia, Moldova And Ukraine Mariya Chelova is a Berlin-based researcher, analyst and writer focusing on the countries of the former Soviet Union, their politics, economies, cultures and societies. She received her PhD in Political Science from Humboldt University Berlin. Two decades into independent statehood of the fifteen former Soviet Republics the question of their political regimes remains a hotly debated one. While some countries set up genuine democracies, others established quasi-autocracies employing only the façade of democratic institutions. Yet others are rather comfortable of establishing neither. By focusing on hybrids, the regimes that combine democratic and autocratic features this paper investigates the question of what keeps these regimes viable. The paper argues that the incentives generated by an external conditionality to hold free and fair elections, as well as an internal power struggle and the will to remain in power in the settings with different degrees of polarization keeps hybrid regimes endurable. It shows that elites and masses divisiveness on essential issues of statehood and nationhood provides a ground for mobilization of competing interests and prevents a regime from sliding into autocracy. Specifically the paper demonstrates that elites in hybrid regimes pursue two contradictory goals: to stay in power and to keep elections free and fair. The resources used to pursue the two goals are either withdrawn from the national product, reforming of the economy, emergence of the middle class and institutionalization of the rule of law. This ensures the necessary support from both international donors, in the form of windfall revenues and from a sufficient part of population. This argument is demonstrated on a case of competitive hybrid regimes in Moldova and Ukraine as well as on a less competitive instance of Georgia. To support the argument I draw on multiple sources of evidence, such as: archival resources on elections in the pre-Soviet independent republics; policy reforms assessments and the role of influential international players; salience of divisive issues during independence based of Manifesto Project Data; competitiveness of elections and ethnicity-based voter’s support; elections results and conversations with country experts during my fieldwork in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. 38 Panel 6 Understandings of Security: Regime Security, Human Security, Regional Security 6.1Anvar Rahmetov IMT-Lucca Institute for Advanced Studies, Italy Political Economy of Protest: Controversial Elections and Popular Protests in the South Caucasus Anvar Rahmetov is a PhD Candidate at IMT-Lucca Institute of Advanced Studies in Italy and a visiting doctoral fellow at Central European University, Hungary. His dissertation project is on causes and dynamics of ‘color revolutions’ and authoritarian breakdown. The three South Caucasian countries all held highly controversial elections in 2000s, but ended up with very different political succession patterns. While in Georgia electoral irregularities brought to mass protests in November 2003 and the Rose Revolution, in Armenia post-election protests of April 2008 fell short of an Apricot Revolution. In Azerbaijan, there weren’t even any serious protests when Haydar Aliev transferred power to his son Ilham though tightly managed façade elections in October 2003. In the proposed contribution I test well-known theories of color revolutions against these three cases. Also, I utilize a different and novel ‘political economy of protests’ approach which is rooted in the analysis of privatization processes, property ownership patterns and availability of financial and administrative resources for potential regime challengers. It turns out that level of privatization matters to political stability and change through the following three mechanisms. Firstly, in ‘low privatizer countries’ a significant part of population is employed in the public sector and, hence, is available for quick mobilization for pro-power political actions, while not available for opposition actions. Second, in resource-rich and poor countries alike, state controlled economies tend to have larger pool of resources to transfer to security apparatus and repressing dissent. Finally, in low privatizers the majority of economic elites are also members of government, which makes them highly unlikely to go against the regime to which they owe both their fortunes and security of property rights. 6.2Kevork Oskanian University of Westminster Pointing Fingers: Securitisation, State Ideology and Regime (In)Security in the South Caucasus Kevork Oskanian is a former editor of the Millennium Journal of International Studies. He received his PhD in International Relations from the London School of Economics in 2011, where he has also previously taught. He currently leads the International Security Studies course module at the University of Westminster. This paper analyses the intersection between regime security, state ideology and regional security in the South Caucasus during the post-Soviet period. Applying the Copenhagen School’s concept of ‘securitisation’ onto the narratives on security pervading the region’s three universally recognised states, it dissects how varying definitions of national identity have been employed by subsequent governments to enhance their own legitimacy and security, with diverging effects on regional interaction. In Armenia, the narrative of state-building combined with a civic-nationalist identity espoused by the Levon Ter-Petrosyan regime has been displaced by a more ethno-nationalist identity in the decade following the palace coup of 1998, 39 reinforcing the link between regime security/legitimacy and Armenians’ control over the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh. In Azerbaijan, the explicitly pro-Western/anti-Russian pan-Turanist ideology of Abulfaz Elchibey has been replaced by a more pragmatic self-definition of Azerbaijan under the elder and younger Aliyevs; this partial conceptualisation of Azerbaijan as multi-ethnic (as opposed to ‘monoethnic’ Armenia) has, however, been combined with an intense securitisation of the Armenians as an interloping ethnic group, and repeated promises of restored Azeri control over Nagorno-Karabakh that might become relevant to ensuring regime security in the absence of the co-optation of elites and populations through the redistribution of oil wealth. In Georgia, Gamsakhurdia’s early securitisation of ethnic minorities as agents of Russia was already tempered by Shevardnadze’s shifting attitudes towards both Russia and the country’s secessionist entities. Saakashvili’s more explicit re-definition of the state as pro-Western, multi-ethnic and liberal-democratic has not resulted in ‘luring’ Abkhazia and South Ossetia back ‘into the fold’ as expected, and the 2008 war has comprehensively scuppered any prospects of that occurring. As in the past two decades, the continuing dependence of regime security on (continued or re-stored) control over secessionist areas will combine with Russia’s specific interests to ensure continued regional insecurity. 6.3 Nadiya Kravets Harvard University Security Practices in the Wider Black Sea Region Nadiya Kravets received her DPhil at the University of Oxford (Department of Politics and International Relations, St. Antony’s College) in 2012. Her dissertation dealt with the domestic sources of Ukraine’s foreign and security policy since independence and was funded by the IREX Title VIII program and the Open Society Foundation. She is currently on a research fellowship at the Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University, working on a monograph that deals with the determinants of Ukraine’s security policy towards Russia since 1991. With the end of the Cold War and the spread of economic interdependence around the world many governments, especially in Europe, have begun to base their security doctrines not simply on providing traditional form of security through military defense of the state and its borders but moving into the provision of elements of human security such as economic prosperity and social equality even at the expense of national sovereignty (as members of the EU show). This normative shift in the conceptualization of what it means to be secure as a state in the 21st century also increased discussions in the security studies literature about type of security practices that are being employed and should be encouraged in the world by various governments, international and transnational organizations. Today the understanding and practices of security around the world are not uniform, rather they are conditioned by the development of the state, its domestic political structure, and most importantly by its governing elites who decide for what purposes and how the security apparatus of the state will be directed. While the Cold War brought stability to the wider Black Sea region (states between Balkans and the Caspian Sea), with clear dividing lines of control between the US and its allies and the USSR, the end of the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union brought instability and competition to the region over territory, energy routes and resources, and national identities. This paper will examine how security has been understood and practiced by successive governments of the wider Black Sea region since the end of the cold War and what it tells us about the dominant and evolving understandings of security in this space. 40 6.4Teodor Bogdan-Alexandru Mihai Viteazul National Intelligence Academy, Romania A Constructivist Approach on Regional Security in the Eastern Neighborhood of the European Union Teodor Bogdan-Alexandru is a researcher within the National Institute for Intelligence Studies of the “Mihai Viteazul “ National Intelligence Academy. He holds a PhD Degree in History from the “Al. I. Cuza” University. Bogdan-Alexandru is the author of several studies and papers published in collective volumes in fields such as: the Balkans, frozen conflicts, Republic of Moldavia, Black Sea Region, propaganda, Communism, geopolitics. The transformations occurring in the field of international relations at the end of the 20th century - the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of a bi-polar world represented new challenges for the European Union. Becoming an important actor on the international arena required a re-evaluation of the European common objectives in the field of foreign affairs and security. The enlargement process together with the integration of the new members led to a displacement of the organization’s borders to the East, forcing the EU to find solutions for the realities which define the security environment in its Easter Neighborhood - the Black Sea region. This paper starts from the hypothesis that the objective of the European Union is to intensify cooperation with the states situated on its Easter border in order to achieve its objective of creating a common space of stability and security. Consolidating Moldavia’s national security presents an area of interest for the European community, due to its geographical position at the Eastern border of the EU and because the security and stability of this country directly influences regional stability in the Black Sea region. From a methodological perspective, we will employ the constructivist theory developed by the Copenhagen School on the concept of security and its sectors: military, political, societal, economic and environment, in order to address the issue of regional security in the Eastern Neighborhood of the EU. Next we will do a comparative analysis of the proposed strategies in the field of security, as they are reflected in official documents and various academic studies, from the perspective of two actors: the EU and a non-EU state from the Black Sea region, namely the Republic of Moldavia. 6.5 Boris Barkanov Harvard University Understanding Energy Security on the Black Sea: Russian Hard and Soft Power and South Stream Currently a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard University’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Boris Barkanov received his PhD in political science from UC Berkeley in 2011. His research is at the nexus of international relations and comparative politics, and brings together an interest in political economy, political sociology, and research methods. Construction of the South Stream gas pipeline is slated to begin at the end of 2012 and its actualization would contribute to the transformation of the Eurasian gas market in Russia’s favor. That the project is even viable is puzzling given that both Bulgaria (Russia’s eventual accomplice) and Romania (the alternative candidate to host the pipeline) are highly dependent on Russian gas imports, and suffered significant shortfalls in deliveries during the 2009 Russo-Ukrainian gas war. At the same time, both are members of the EU, and Brussels remains highly skeptical of the whole endeavor, supporting the alternative Nabucco pipeline which would decrease dependence on Russian gas in the region. Whether out of a convergence of interest or a coincidence 41 of identity, these states might have presented a united front in negotiations with Russia to prevent a general increase in dependence with respect to this strategically vital good. How was Russia able to successfully promote its pipeline ambitions and what does this tell us about energy security in the region? This paper examines Russia’s energy diplomacy and bilateral relations with Bulgaria and Romania to evaluate three IR realist hypotheses that might explain this outcome. Specifically it asks: Does energy security on the Black Sea reflect a neo-realist world in which asymmetrical power and coercion (hard power) were Russia’s primary instruments? Does it reflect a neo-classical realist world in which the guardians of the national interest within the state were unable to resist pressure from domestic groups that benefit from trade in gas with Russia (soft power)? Or does it reflect a realist constructivist world in which a cognitive consensus emerged that recast the meaning of energy security to make the project seem attractive, rather than menacing (soft power)? By focusing on different forms of power, this approach also promises to help us understand the balance between soft and hard power in Russia’s energy relations in the region. 6.6 Lusine Samvel Badalyan University of Bremen The EU’s Engagement in the South Caucasus Subcomplex: Changing the Securitization Choices of the South Caucasus States Lusine Badalyan is a PhD student at the Research Centre for East European Studies at the University of Bremen, Germany. She is currently working on her doctoral project on The EU’s engagement in the South Caucasus Subcomplex: Changing the Securitization choices of the South Caucasus states. The security dynamics within the South Caucasian regional subcomplex pinpoints towards a combination of developments that represent the power interplay of competing interests and cooperation opportunities between different global and regional actors. In this multifaceted scenario of wide external involvement the European Union is transcending as an important policy maker and an emerging key security actor in the South Caucasian regional milieu. After the EU’s latest enlargement the South Caucasus geographically stands at the eastern edge of Europe, where the EU now is a direct actor sharing a Black Sea maritime with the region. To build ‘ring of friends’ in its neighborhood and thus to foster peace and stability along its boarders has become a direct concern and strategic value for the EU. What is more, with the EU’s growing concern of diversified energy supplies and alternative routes, Caspian energy resources and the geostrategic location of the South Caucasus assume special significance. While the issues of energy supplies security and stability along its boarders give the EU a significant stake in the regional security structures, the EU as a normative power seeks for a substantial engagement in fostering stability and an enhanced cooperation in the regional setting. In fact EU’s serious security strategy for the region, complemented by multilateral institutional engagements, aims to enhance the common perception of security and assure the existence of common frameworks for peace enforcement in the South Caucasus region. Hence as the empirical evidence suggests that the EU’s capacity to implement its profound reform agenda in the region is still limited. The EU’s normative and strategic power to support the stability building and to contribute to the establishment of secure regional subcomplex in the South Caucasus will be the focus of the present project. The project raises the questions of how does the EU as a normative power impact on the securitization choices of the South Caucasus states and what are the respective domestic reactions to the EU’s policies. 42 Moreover, the study aims to map and analyze the matrix of security constellations of South Caucasus subcomplex and to put forward possible future scenarios of how the subcomplex may subsequently unfold in terms of its general power political composition. 6.7 Nelli Babayan Freie Universität Berlin, Eiki Berg University of Tartu Giving Security a Human Face? Revisiting Conflict Settlement in the South Caucasus Nelli Babayan, PhD, is a visiting lecturer at the Institute of Government and Politics/ CEURUS, University of Tartu. She received her PhD in International Studies from the University of Trento, Italy (2012) and an MA in Political Science from the Central European University, Hungary (2005). Her main research interests are in democracy promotion and democratization, EU and US foreign policies, and politics of the South Caucasus. Eiki Berg is Professor of International Relations at the University of Tartu. His research focuses on critical geopolitics, in particular the studies of borders and border regions. Among his recent research activities, studies about territoriality and sovereignty issues in contested states have gained more prominence. He has published widely in leading peer-reviewed journals on bordering practices, identity politics and power-sharing in post-conflict settings. Despite the ceasefire, the Nagorno Karabakh conflict dominates Armenian and Azerbaijani domestic and foreign politics. In addition, the frozen conflict hinders the economic development, endorses an atmosphere of insecurity, and places democracy issues at the bottom of the priorities list, makes conflict resolution and regional cooperation an area to be given priority attention by democracy promoters. The urgency of the peace settlement is underlined by the deteriorating situation over the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, with occasional skirmishes killing dozens a year. Since Russian-brokered ceasefire in 1994, the peace settlement is mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chaired by France, the USA and Russia. The EU has also pledged its commitment to the conflict resolution. This paper argues that to achieve positive results in conflict resolution multi-mediated peace talks need to be conducted within a cooperative framework. However, what are the prospects of such mediation given inherently different and sometimes contradicting motivations of the mediators in the South Caucasus? This paper analyses the outcome and impact of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict mediation from a game-theoretical approach paying close attention to the mutuality of interests and motivations, the shadow of the future, and the number of players. Panel 7 Regionalism and Multilateral Engagement: Subregional Processes; Black Sea Synergy; other EU Programmes 7.1Oana Poianǎ Babes-Bolyai University, Romania Regional Cooperation and National Interests in the Black Sea Region: A Zero Sum Game or the Key to a Successful Model of Cooperation? Oana Poianǎ is a PhD student in International Relations at Babes‐Bolyai University, Faculty of European Studies, Cluj‐Napoca, Romania. She is currently working on 43 her PhD on The Black Sea Region: Geopolitics and Geostrategy at the European Union’s border. The primary objective of the study is to examine whether the last evolutions in the Black Sea Region support the region-building project proposed by the European Union or it asks for a reassessment considering the last issues the Black Sea states were faced with. It also aims to determine how many Black Sea states decided to strengthen their national identities and pursue their national interests instead of actively participating in regional cooperation projects in the last ten years and what are the major reasons behind their actions. To answer these questions the study will utilize a bidimensional graphic which places each country on a different level on the “regionalism cooperation” axe and on the “national interests” one, depending on how their external policies and actions responded to the already established indicators for the two axes. Acknowledging the fact that a higher position on the “national interests” axe does not necessary determine a lower position on the “regional cooperation” one and that this cannot be seen as a 0 sum game, the study will use a bidimensional graph to reflect also the affinity of a country to one direction and in the same time the level of openness to embrace the other. Using manly qualitative research instruments (document and discourse analysis), the study will determine the position of the Black Sea countries on the two axes creating a clear mirror of the current regional state of affairs, emphasizing the major issues the European Union should take into consideration when implementing the regional cooperation project for the Black Sea Region. The successful completion of the study will point out which are the main areas that hamper the cooperation within the region and will help creating a Black Sea strategy adjusted to respond the main problems identified. 7.2Mukhtar Hajizada University of Leicester Europeanisation of the Black Sea (Sub) Regionalism Mukhtar Hajizada is an advanced-level PhD Candidate at the University of Leicester. His main research is focused on regionalization in the wider Black Sea area and the EU’s external policy instruments including Black Sea Synergy and Eastern Partnership. Prior to this, he graduated from Istanbul University and The Academy of Public Administration (Baku). He gained professional experience at the headquarters of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC PERMIS) during the period of the Black Sea Synergy negotiations. The Black Sea regionalisation process is influenced by different core-centres due to the fact that the BSEC is a Turkish initiative in an area which is also considered to be in Russia’s sphere of influence. The EU, which has been bidding for a core role, has also made some attempts to promote regionalisation in its eastern neighbourhood, including the region around the Black Sea. This interest has been possibly deriving from the EU’s self-centric intention to promote a ring of well governed countries, as articulated in the European Security Strategy. The EU’s increasing actorship in its immediate vicinity around the Black Sea has entailed a few programmes or so-called ‘instruments’ which have a complex interrelationship of economic and political dimensions within the partnership. This paper analyses the EU’s relationships with regional actors on a group-to-group as well as core-to-core basis, positing that the European orientation of the regional state actors is a unifying factor for the wider BSEC area as a whole and is the determining factor for their preference towards the EU as the relatively more desired core centre. The geostrategic location is of the Black Sea and so is the regional matter of strategic importance, ranging from security and stability to development. It is thus also necessary to analyse the EU’s policies and intentionality with regard to regionalisation in the area, if indeed the EU has a holistic approach rather than a clash of agendas. 44 This paper discusses the regionalisation process and the role of the core centres, building on, and contributing to, the empirical debate on new regionalism under the general labels of interregionalism and subregionalism. The paper concludes that the Black Sea regionalisation process is centred on the EU, but that Black Sea regionalism offers a rather complex, if not problematic – and therefore unique – archetype of (sub) regionalism. 7.3Lucia Najšlová EUROPEUM - Institute for European Policy, Czech Republic Turkey and the EU in their Common Neighborhood: A Tournament in Missed Opportunities? Lucia Najšlová is a research fellow at Institute for European Policy EUROPEUM in Prague. In 2012 she defended her PhD dissertation: Communication gap or cacophony: the EU in Turkish discourse at Department of European Studies, Comenius University in Bratislava. Her research interests include political communication, external relations of the EU, its transformative power, and perceptions of the Union in its wider neighborhood. This paper explores the factors underlying the lack of cooperation of the European Union and Turkey in Black Sea – region of their joint priority interest. It scrutinizes the EU’s self-portrayal of a ‘multilateral actor’ and argues that its practical conduct in neighborhood policy has been largely unilateral and engagement of regional players mainly declaratory. The EU leaders have frequently underlined importance of Turkey for both its Eastern and Southern neighborhood. In its 2011 ENP Review published in the wake of Arab spring the EU reiterates its commitment to regionalism and building synergies in its neighborhoods. Yet, to this date no institutionalized dialogue/ consultation mechanism with Turkey was established. This puts into question not only the EU’s oft-declared multilateral approach, but constitutes further challenge to future of EU-Turkey relations. The accession negotiations might hit a new low under upcoming Cyprus EU Presidency and although the European Commission has announced ‘positive agenda’ in an attempt to resuscitate the negotiations, the key member states are far from interested in giving the process a new momentum. All in all, the deadlocked negotiations and the limited foreign policy dialogue with Turkey testify to a gap between the EU’s self-presentation as a transformative power in the Black Sea and policy on the ground. It also invites to re-evaluation of EU’s capacity to engage in its neighborhood and participate in non-EU centric regionalism. The paper draws on interviews with policy-makers in EU and Turkey, analysis of foreign policy documents, rhetoric and action. 7.4Teodor Lucian Moga Romanian Academy The EU as a Model of Soft Power in its Eastern Neighbourhood Teodor Lucian Moga has recently completed a PhD in European Studies at the “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iasi (UAIC). He is currently teaching EU Foreign Affairs (postgraduate level) at the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence in European Studies, UAIC. He also works as a post-doctoral researcher at the Romanian Academy (field of research: EU security, foreign affairs and neighbourhood policy). My research will aim at investigating the potential of the European Union (EU) to promote regional stability and security in its Eastern vicinity by seeking to include the Eastern Partnership (EaP) states into a network that shares the same European political, economic and socio-cultural values. By creating solid economic ties with the countries included in the EaP, and through a significant transfer of European 45 ideas, standards and norms, the EU could play an influential role in the area consisting of the six-Post Soviet states: Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. In order to elaborate on these matters, a conceptual structure consisting of a Neo-functionalist perspective together with insights from the Europeanisation literature is employed. Hence, having as a background the integration-security paradigm, the broad research question that this proposal seeks to answer is the following: is the EU able to promote stability and security in the Eastern neighbourhood by including the EaP states into a network that shares the same European norms, values and follows the EU economic principles? To answer this question my paper should: firstly, establish that the overarching goal of the EU in the region is regional stability and security; secondly, underline that the diffusion of European normative frameworks are the most efficient instruments at the EU’s disposal to achieve security and, finally, identify the mechanisms through which the process of stabilisation takes place. 7.5 Saša Čvrljak University of Ljubljana Eastern Partnership: EU’s Strategic Outreach or Business as Usual? Critical Assessment of the 2009-2012 Period Saša Čvrljak holds an MA degree in International Relations and European Studies from the Central European University (CEU) Budapest and since 2011 is enrolled in the PhD progamme in European Studies at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. My research would critically assess major successes and shortcomings of the Eastern Partnership (EaP) as the new EU-driven integrative scheme during the 20092012 period. Essentially, research aims to seek whether the EU has through the EaP, despite staying “membership neutral”, secured transposition of the EU’s norms and policy convergence within the six partner states and has it provoked significant democratic and political transformations in these states. Research would use two basic concepts: the EU’s external governance and the EU as normative power. The first concept being described by Lavenex and Schimmelfennig as “expanding the scope of EU rules beyond EU borders” adheres well to the EaP because EaP aims to secure regulatory approximation of the six countries with the EU through their deeper trade ties and sectoral integration with the acquis in the selected policy domains. Given the fact that external governance has sectoral, policy-specific logic the research would focus here on regulatory convergence among the EaP countries with the EU in three selected policy areas (trade, energy policy and migration management). Second concept, EU as normative power, means that the EU derives its legitimacy through being the value-based Union that sparks democratic and political transformations of its neighbouring countries. Therefore, the research would focus here on EU-driven democratization among the EaP countries focusing on the domains of rule of law and human rights. Research would essentially map out whether the EU has induced a) greater sectoral approximation or b) political transformation among the EaP countries in the framed period and has it secured “added value” compared with the previous ENP framework. It would take into account heterogeneity of the grouping, their different expectations from the EU and existence of another centre of gravity in the region – Russia. However, research profoundly aims to reveal whether the EU has upgraded its position at the ENP’s eastern flank, particularly given its renewed strategic posture in the post-Lisbon era or the EaP just fits into the discourse of “negotiated order” where the EU seeks to find appropriate balance between access/control, exclusiveness/ inclusiveness in tackling the challenges at its outer frontiers. 46 7.6 Syuzanna Vasilyan American University of Armenia The EU’s Eastern Partnership Versus Russia’s Eurasian Union: From Competition to Cooperation Syuzanna Vasilyan is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science and International Affairs, American University of Armenia in Yerevan. She has been a doctoral researcher and lecturer at the Centre for EU Studies, Department of Political Science, Ghent University, Belgium from where she also holds her PhD. Dr. Vasilyan is specialized in international relations theories, international organizations, foreign policy analysis, EU integration, decision making and external relations. The upgrade of the EU’s relations with its eastern neighbors through the Eastern Partnership (EP) initiative has signified the intention to reinvigorate the amorphous dynamics yielded by the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP). While the initiative intends to bolster stability, security and peace, the Union’s more assertive entry into the eastern flank of its neighborhood – a terrain conceived by Russia as its own zone of influence – has been seen as provocative. As a result, the idea of creating the Eurasian Union has been proposed. Despite insisting on the non-competitive rationale driving the latter, Russia has strived for protecting its ‘near abroad’, including not only Eastern European Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus, the South Caucasian Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia but also Central Asia and, thus, sending a message to the West that Russia will not yield its position to others. On these premises, the paper makes two policy recommendations. Firstly, by invoking the vast inventory of the EU’s regional instruments whereby inclusion of Russia is a principal objective it suggests that while placing new issues in regional packages through the EP, the Union should reshape its relations with Russia through the existing ones. While this would single out Russia as an ‘important partner’ as asserted in the Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy, it would also ensure smooth cooperation instead of competition in the shared neighborhood. Secondly, leaning against the fact that the hardships in the Union’s policy towards its Eastern neighbors have stemmed from the dissonance among its member-states the paper advises that the Union speaks in unison in its external relations. This would not only buttress the EU’s posture but would also transmit a credible image both to the neighbors and Russia. Overall, these two attempts could make the EP and the Eurasian Union complementary, rather than contradictory. 7.7Hrant Kostanyan CEPS - Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels The EEAS’ Discretionary Power within the Eastern Partnership: in Search of the Highest Possible Denominator Hrant Kostanyan is an associate research fellow at the EU Foreign Policy unit at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels. He is also a doctoral candidate in political science at the Centre for EU Studies (CEUS) at Ghent University, Belgium. His research focuses on EU foreign policy institutions and decision-making, primarily on the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the EU’s relations with Eastern Neighbourhood and Russia. This study aims to investigate the discretionary power of the newly established European External Action Service (EEAS) in the EU’s Eastern Partnership through the application of the principal-agent model. More specifically, I intend to research the variation of the EEAS’ discretionary power across the four platforms of the Eastern Partnership’s multilateral track, viz. 1) Democracy, good governance and stability, 2) Economic integration and convergence with EU policies, 3) Energy security and 4) Contacts between people. 47 As an alternative to the ‘grand theories’ of European integration, the principal-agent model has already been used to analyse the interaction between the MS and the EU’s supranational institutions in general (Pollack 2003), and EU trade (Kerremans 2004), humanitarian aid (Versluys 2007) and international environmental policies (Delreux 2011) in particular. Following Delreux’s (2011: 3) definition, this study understands discretionary power as “the autonomy, the range of potential independent action or the degree of freedom enjoyed” by the EEAS in Eastern Partnership and not with regard to the results of the EU Eastern Partnership on the partner countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine) as such. The EEAS is expected to have more discretionary power in 2) Economic integration and convergence with EU policies than in 3) Energy security platforms even less in 4) Contacts between people platform. However, in the platform 1) Democracy, good governance and stability, the EEAS will enjoy the highest discretionary power. Panel 8 Regional Powers and the Geopolitical Context to Transformation; Turkey’s New Regional Role; Impact of Events in the Middle East 8.1Emre Ersen Marmara University Turkey’s Role as a “Regional Stability Contributor” in the Southern Caucasus Emre Ersen is a full-time lecturer at Marmara University’s Department of Political Science and International Relations. He received his BA (1998), MA (2002) and PhD (2009) degrees at the same department. He wrote his PhD thesis on Russian Eurasianism and its impacts on Turkish-Russian relations in the post-Cold War period. The concept of “role” has been extensively used since 1930s in sociology, social psychology and anthropology in order to signify an actor’s characteristic patterns of behaviour given a certain position or situation. However, role theory which is based on an analysis of the roles that members play in a society has not been used in the field of international relations for at least four more decades. It was K. J. Holsti who first applied role theory to the foreign policy decisions of various nation-states. His seminal study published in 1970 revealed what he called “national role conceptions” – i.e. a variety of beliefs or images the policymakers held about the identity of their state in international politics – and identified at least 17 major roles expressed by policymakers from various countries. Since then, political scientists have further elaborated on the different roles played by states in the international system. This paper aims to use role theory in the analysis of Turkey’s role as a “regional stability contributor” in Southern Caucasus during the 2000s. For this purpose, it will focus on two projects – Caucasus Stability Pact and Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform – that were developed by Turkish policymakers in 2000 and 2008 respectively to foster peace and cooperation in the region. The major argument of the paper is that these two regional initiatives indicate Turkish policymakers’ conception of their country’s emerging role as a contributor to stability in its neighbourhood. This conception is theoretically based on the “regional-subsystem collaborator” role category that is one of the 17 role categories that Holsti elaborated in his study. The paper will also make reference to other central concepts of role theory (such as role prescriptions and role demands) in relation with the subject matter. 48 8.2 Julien Zarifian University of Cergy-Pontoise, France The US Foreign Policy in the South Caucasus, from President Clinton to President Obama : Coherence and Constancy of a Geopolitical Regional Penetration Julien Zarifian is an associate professor (“Maître de conferences”) in American Civilization at the University of Cergy-Pontoise, France, and Researcher with the CICC (“Civilisations et Identités Culturelles Comparées”), University of Cergy-Pontoise. He received his Ph.D. in Geopolitics from the French Institute of Geopolitics, Paris 8 University, in 2010. His current research involves the geopolitics of the South Caucasus, the US policies in Eurasia, and the role of ethnic lobbies in the making of US foreign policy. Since the fall of the USSR and the independence of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia in 1991, the US has led an active foreign policy in the South Caucasus. Although the US did not have much experience in the region before the mid-1990s, it managed to gain, in a few years, firm political, economic, and military leverages. It did it mostly through the financial assistance it has provided to the three South Caucasian republics (and particularly to Armenia and Georgia), through its geoeconomic policy, through its military assistance to and cooperation with the three republics, and through its diplomatic involvement in regional conflicts resolution. What have been the reasons of this US policy, which has led to what could be considered a real regional breakthrough? How has it been thought, organized, and implemented by the different US administrations since the early 1990s? Has this US foreign policy been made more of continuity or change? What has been the impact on the regional geopolitical equilibriums, in an area where two countries do not share diplomatic relations –Armenia and Azerbaijan, because of the war over the Nagorno Karabakh region– and where the US is far from being the only, and the most experienced, geopolitical player? These are the main questions that I will address in this presentation. In order to do so, I will first focus on the geopolitical significance of the region from an American point of view. Then I will analyze the main policies led by the US in the South Caucasus these past two decades. Finally I will establish the differences and points in common of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama administrations’ South Caucasian policies. 8.3Emre Iseri & Nihat Çelık Kadir Has University Turkish Ideational Constraints on the Revitalization of Armenia-Turkey Relations: A Constructivist Perspective Emre Iseri is a Lecturer at the Department of International Relations, Kadir Has University. His main research interests are Eurasian politics, Energy Security, and Turkey’s Foreign Policy. Nihat Çelık is a PhD student at Kadir Has University International Relations Department. He mainly works on Ottoman & Turkish Politics and Diplomatic History. By considering the Georgia-Russia crisis as an opportunity to enhance peace and stability in the Caucasus, following the latest round of Swiss brokered negotiations, Turkey ignited normalization process with Armenia through “football diplomacy”. While this process culminated with the emergence of two Protocols on the establishment of diplomatic ties, it marked an end with the failure of ratification processes in the Parliaments. Against this backdrop, by leaving aside material factors such as Russia‟s regional strategic interests and Turkey‟s intense energy relations with Azerbaijan and external ideational factors such as Armenian national identity construction on the basis of 1915 events and „Western Armenia‟, this paper aims to put a spot light on Turkish historical narratives as ideational constraints – the Sèvres 49 Syndrome and rhetoric of „Brotherly‟ Azerbaijan – on revitalizing Turkish-Armenian relations. It will be concluded with the assertion that the only way for Turkey to deconstruct this conflict ridden narrative hinges upon its prospects to become a consolidated democracy and serve, to use Huntington‟s term, “demonstrative effect” to the Caucasus at a time of Arab uprisings. 8.4Lia Evoyan Armenian National Academy of Sciences Turkey-Azerbaijan Relations: Factors Affecting the Dynamics of their Development Lia Evoyan is a PhD candidate at Armenian National Academy of Sciences, the founder and the president of the “Club of Young Turkologists” scientific-educational NGO in Yerevan, Armenia. She is currently working on Turkey-Azerbaijan relations from 1990 to 2010. Caucasus, being in a geopolitical important position and having a quite large amount of natural resources, has always played a significant role in Turkey’s foreign policy. The dispute over Nagorno- Karabagh and the collapse of Soviet Union essentially changed the geopolitical order in Eurasia creating an opportunity for Turkey, to become a regional power in Caucasus. Militarily, economically and politically weakened Russia, was unable to keep the former USSR regions in the sphere of its geopolitical influence thus producing a power vacuum in Caucasus and Central Asia. Turkey, from the beginning of Nagorno-Karabagh conflict, relying on the ethnic, linguistic, religious ties with Azerbaijan and taking into consideration Caspian oil and natural gas resources, chose Azerbaijan as a target in its Caucasian policy. The results were the significantly developed bilateral relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan soon after the disintegration of the USSR. However there were several factors, which were affecting their dynamic development. This paper attempts to examine the change of dynamics of Turkey’s policy towards Azerbaijan and the factors affecting the change. 8.5Zenonas Tziarras University of Warwick A “New Wave” in Turkish Foreign Policy? Security Challenges and Revelations Zenonas Tziarras is a PhD Candidate in Politics & International Studies at the University of Warwick, UK, and a Junior Research Scholar at the think tank Strategy International. Provided that the so called “new” doctrine of Turkish foreign policy (TFP) has been the subject of much disagreement, this paper initially proposes that TFP needs to be examined through an alternative lens that would incorporate elements from different approaches and thus try to mitigate the vacuum between the various interpretations of TFP. By employing a Neoclassical Realist theoretical framework, this paper seeks to explore and explain the “new wave” of TFP, which refers mainly to the period since 2011 and the break-out of the Arab Uprisings. Because Turkey’s foreign policy agenda is very broad and because an in-depth analysis is needed, the paper focuses only on one (country) case study – i.e., Israel – rather than on Turkey’s regional foreign policy as a whole. The main argument is that TFP has not entered a “new wave” but rather a period of unexpected regional instability which challenged its strategic planning. The recent crisis prone attitude and the use of coercion diplomacy do not signify a shift but a return to older tactics, out of necessity. For example, although Turkey in the cases of Syria and Libya, adapted, it did so hesitantly and relatively late, showing the challenges that a change in the status quo would pose to its interests. According to the international context and the nature of the threat Turkey’s 50 responses could range from soft power and coercive diplomacy to bandwagoning; Turkey’s recent policy towards Israel illustrates this point well. Taking the argument further, if the period since 2011 constitutes a revelation and not a shift, the TFP of the last decade has also been more of a continuation than a change, albeit pursued with different means than before, because the circumstances of that time period favoured such a tactical – not necessarily strategic - shift. Once the circumstances changed (2011) Turkey faced the new challenges not merely as the pacifist country that has emerged but selectively and, more often than not, as a crisis prone country. 8.6Yevgeniya Gaber Odessa National Mechnikov University The Evolution of the Turkish Regional Strategies: Implications for the Neighbourhood Yevgeniya Gaber is an assistant professor at the International Relations Department at the Odessa National Mechnikov University, Ukraine. She is currently working on her PhD on The Turkish-American Relations in the Post-bipolar Era: political and military dimensions. Her major scientific interests include modern Turkish foreign and security policies. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the erosion of the system of satellite states around its borders caused for a vast geopolitical vacuum in the region of the socalled “Wider Black Sea”. Taking advantage of the current Russian weakness in the early 1990’s Turkey concentrated its foreign policy to a much extent on expanding the Turkish sphere of influence into nearby territories. While the state officials confined themselves to a number of high-level visits to the Central Asian, incl. Caucasian countries, and a couple of “Turkic summits”, the more marginal parties openly promoted the idea of the “Great Turan” that is uniting all “brother nations” around one centre in Ankara. This general neo-Ottomanism conception was reshaped explicitly into two different ideologies – Pan- Turkism and Pan-Islamism which were were often going as far as to calls for neglecting the existing borders and creating some kind of a new political union (like federation or confederation of the Turkic nations). The new era in the Turkish regional policy can be associated with the conception of the “strategic depth” performed in 2001 and implemented throughout the 2000’s. Being a “central country with multiple regional identities” Turkey is claimed to have a privilege of using the “soft power” instruments unfolding cultural and civilizational affinities, reminding about common historical roots and creating economic interdependencies with the bordering states. Obviously, Turkey’s cultural and economic space goes far beyond its political boundaries. This enables it to reach out to people in the region and develop contacts at the inter-societal level thus creating social bonds and extending its influence over the vast geography from Balkans to Caucasus and further while respecting national sovereignty and state borders. The underlying reason of such changes is the dramatic transformation of the Turkish national security strategy and, consequently, the structural changes of its foreign policy instruments. The aim of this conference paper would be, thereby, to give a more detailed comparative analysis of different approaches prevailing in Turkish foreign policy with respect to its neighbours within the recent decades. The author argues that due to the democratization process inside the country its foreign policy has been considerably de-securitized whereas resort to the “soft power” instruments has increased its attractiveness as a partner in relations with neighbouring countries and its credibility as a regional leader in peace-making processes. However, the latest “Arab Spring” developments have showed the limits of Turkey’s “soft power” and the necessity to efficiently combine it with the traditional “hard power” leverages causing for the third wave in the Turkey’s security policies. 51 8.7 Serkan Bulut University of Delaware Making Sense of Turkish Foreign Policy: Understanding Neo-Ottomanism Serkan Bulut is a third year PhD. student and he teaches at the University of Delaware as well as at the Johns Hopkins University. He graduated from Bogazici and Bilkent Universities before he joined University of Delaware in 2009. He participated and presented at various international events in Greece, Italy, India, Turkey, Azerbaijan, the US and so on. His research focuses on Turkish foreign policy, Europeanization debate (his M.A thesis) and international security. He is expecting to graduate in 2014. It is not easy to find many scholars who would argue that Turkish foreign policy (henceforth TFP) has not changed in dramatic ways in the last decade, compared to earlier periods. Briefly summarized this transformation refers to the changes in Turkish foreign policy in terms of style (more assertive, more active, incentive taking, mediation), processes (diplomacy-oriented policies as opposed to military, zero-problem policy and a new constructive approach to neighborhood, mediated settlement of problems before they escalate to armed conflict) and the expected goals of policy (imitating Ottoman peace, friends and potential friends discourse of Davutoglu etc.) (which will be discussed in detail in the relevant section).While the consensus is established in regards to the existence of such a transformation there is much debate when it comes to causes and effects of the ongoing transformation. This paper focuses on the astonishing and equally puzzling transformation in Turkish foreign policy in the last decade and challenges the Europeanization-oriented explanations that were widely provided by several scholars especially in early 2000s. Instead it argues that the main driving force of the transformation in TFP is/has been “Neo-Ottomanism”; an ideology that is so central to the policy yet has not been studied adequately. Neo-Ottomanism embodies aspects from Turkish political Islam and liberal pragmatism of Justice and Development Party (JDP) leadership. The projected leadership vision for Turkey through the lenses of this ideology is to establish ties with East and West, ties that are not limited to ethnic relation (as opposed to 1990s’ Demirel and Ozal’s attempts in Central Asia) nor entirely economy-bound, restore peace in the region, prevent intervention from outside and restore “Istanbul” as one of the power centers of the world. This paper is an attempt to decipher the operational codes of Turkish foreign policy by putting the spot light on the central causal element behind it: Neo-Ottomanism. The paper will mainly consist of 4 parts which will start with Europeanization discussion and continue with the reasons as to why Europeanization explanation falls short. It will continue with a detailed discussion of Neo-Ottomanism, its aspects and its policy implications. Finally the paper will talk about Iran, Israel Syria and Georgia to demonstrate the imprint of Neo-Ottomanist foreign policy in relation to those countries, in the last decade. Panel 9 Resources and Development Strategies: Energy Policy, Energy Dependence and External Relationships 9.1 Slawomir Raszewski University of Leeds States Over Markets? Development of a Turkish Gas Hub and its Effects on Sustainable Market Development Slawomir Raszweski is a PhD candidate in the School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds (UK). He was previously a visiting research fellow at the 52 University of Ankara (Turkey), and has completed the Energy Politics and Economics programme at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy in Baku. His research interests include security studies and the international energy and energy politics of the former Soviet Union and the European Union. Approximately two decades of neo-liberal approaches to energy matters in Europe have significantly altered the logic and narratives underpinning the issue of sustainable market development and energy supply security. In particular, internal energy market liberalisation and efforts to extend the legal basis of rules and norms achieved within the European Community to encapsulate other jurisdictions beyond the EU borders have been coupled with increased regulation and pressure within the Community itself. Complex picture of network industries and their respective gas markets in Europe have been under strain post-2004 as a result of the successful policy of enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe. Drawing on a range of International Political Economy perspectives, the paper’s argument is two-fold. Firstly, it argues that there seems to increasingly be more space for state participation in delivering energy supply security. As the two decades of neo-liberal approaches to energy in Europe pass their zenith, states are on the horizon of energy supply security especially in post-financial crisis. Secondly, it is argued that for a state to deliver patterns of increased and enhanced interdependency, measures including regulatory would need to be involved to ensure sustainable market development. The paper’s argument is based on the empirical example of Turkey which has initiated a blend of foreign economic and sustainable market development policy in pursuing its aim, leaving applicability of the EU energy acquis aside, of becoming a gas trading hub. Hub-based gas trading points found in continental Europe, such as eg. Baumgarten, Zeebrugge and Punto Scambio Virtuale, were created during statecentric or post-liberal ‘points in time’. Bearing in mind the changing landscape of energy markets, the paper outlines whether the map of trading points could be further developed and what the effects of the extension would be on sustainable and state-market balanced gas market development in Europe. 9.2Plamen Dimitrov “St. Kliment Ohridski” University, Sofia Turkey as a Regional Energy Corridor: Aspirations, Possibilities, Risks Plamen Dimitrov is a Member of the Board of Bulgarian Geopolitical Society and Editorial Board Member of Bulgarian bimonthly journal “Geopolitika”(Geopolitics). He recently defended PhD dissertation entitled “Caspian Perspectives of European Energy Security”. There are practically no oil and gas fields in Turkey but nevertheless its part related to the EU energy security is progressively increasing. Because of its geographical position Turkey is an unavoidable passageway for a number of oil and gas pipelines. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and especially in the first decade of the 21st century Turkey’s aspirations to become a distributing center, redirecting Russian, Caspian, Iranian and Iraqi oil and gas to Europe and even Israel attained real dimensions. The purpose of this report is to show Turkey’s ambitions and its possibilities to turn itself into a key player in the Eurasian energy geopolitics. It will also show the risks incurred by this new role of Turkey. They are mainly related to ecology, geopolitical susceptibility and wrong appraisal of certain energy projects of doubtful economic feasibility. 53 It will analyze all pipeline projects (already completed and potential) going through Turkish territory – oil pipelines: Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, Samsun-Ceyhan, Kirkuk–Ceyhan and gas pipelines: South Caucasus Pipeline, Nabucco, Transanatolian (TANAP), Blue Stream, South East Europe Pipeline, Tabriz-Ankara. Turkey’s role as an energy bridge between the Caspian region and Europe and the contradictions between Ankara and the EU regarding gas transfer will be studied. The importance of the energy component of Turkey’s policy in the Caucasus will be shown too. Turkey’s chances to take a central place in the gas triangle EU-Russia-the Caspian Sea and its possibilities to turn it into a quadrilateral through including Iran will be examined. The USA treat these intentions of Ankara with definite hostility and prefer to invest political capital in the gas axis: the Caspian Sea-Georgia-Turkey-Europe. The conclusion will answer the question how the energy projects fit to the last few years regional geopolitical reorientation framework of Turkey. 9.3Alda Kokallaj Carleton University, Canada Georgia as a Key Energy Corridor and Implications for Governance: Lessons from the Field Alda Kokallaj is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. Her research interests focus on energy security in post-communist countries, the nature-society-state relationship and its implications for international political ecology and environmental governance more broadly. Her PhD thesis focuses on the political economy of environmental governance surrounding energy projects in post-communist countries. This paper aims to focus on Georgia’s development strategy and external relations in particular by focusing on international institutions like the World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and European Union. Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and Baku-Erzurum oil pipeline will be the focus of attention as energy projects in which Georgia came to play a crucial role as an energy corridor that consolidated its relationship with the West and decreased its energy dependence on Russia. The government of Georgia supported the BTC in order to lift the country out of poverty and for improving its relationship with the United States. For most of the 1990s more than 50 per cent of Georgia’s population lived below the international poverty line. After coming to power in 2004, Mikheil Saakashvili started to implement an ambitious plan for privatization, and attempted to re-frame the country’s image to attract Western investment and raise revenue. The BTC was part and parcel of this overall strategy, raising US$50 million per year in transit revenues and helped make Georgia a magnet for foreign direct investment. Another less known aspect of the BTC experience was the concerns it raised among the civil society and local communities. NGOs based in Georgia forged connections with other international NGOs raising concerns about the construction and operation of BTC. They pointed at the lack of transparency in the decisions for the BTC, corruption, and the pipeline’s environmental, health and social impacts. Based on my field research conducted in Georgia I will argue that NGOs’ and local community’s involvement with the BTC and their subsequent interaction with the World Bank and EBRD suggest new venues for understanding governance in Georgia with respect to energy projects such as pipelines or hydropower plants. This perspective would be a contribution to the panel on “governance: achievements and obstacles” or to ‘resources and development strategies’. 54 9.4 Nikoloz Sumbadze Tbilisi State University, Georgia New Gas Era: Shaping Energy Policy in the South Caucasus Region Nikoloz Sumbadze has graduated from the International School of Economics at TSU (ISET) majoring in energy economics. Currently he is PhD student at Tbilisi State University majoring in economic policy and working at Hydropower Investment Promotion Project (HIPP) as an economic analyst. Global natural gas market development demonstrates high importance of natural gas in world’s total energy mix. Uncertainties affecting the energy sector can be seen as opportunities for natural gas. Compared to other fossil fuels natural gas is less emitting and pollutant fuel. At the same time, it can be used for the energy security, diversification of energy supplies and power generation. Boom in the shale gas industry can be seen as a potential source of economic development and prosperity. Only other hand, due to widely dispersed natural gas reserves, production and consumption there is a need of complex policies and market conditions formation in the coming decades. Consequently, current activities in the South Caucasus region points out to important structural changes of the market. 9.5Yuliya G. Zabyelina University of Trento, Italy Vulnerability of EU Cross-Border Energy Infrastructures: Pipeline Sabotage and Contraband of Energy Resources Yuliya G. Zabyelina is a post-doctoral lecturer at the Department of International Relations and European Studies at Masaryk University, Czech Republic. She is currently teaching courses on foreign security policy, contemporary security threats and politics in post-Communist Eurasia. While much political, diplomatic, media, and scholarly attention has focused on analyses of threats to EU’s external supplies, there has been little attention on the need to protect Europe’s energy infrastructure both domestically and in third countries has been often disregarded. This article aims to discuss critical energy infrastructure security through the prism of transnational security. The goal is to propose an analysis of risks to cross-border energy infrastructures. The analysis outlines the risk priorities of the European energy policy, assesses whether they accurately reflect the current threats facing the EU and third countries, evaluates the level of asymmetrical threats to energy chains posed by terrorist and criminal attacks, as well as scrutinizes the barriers to risk management of cross-border energy chains. It is a qualitative study that utilizes a case study method to analyze physical attacks against energy infrastructures such as acts of terrorism and other forms of terrorism-inspired sabotage, and cases of oil contraband and pipeline tapping selected in three different regions: the (North) Caucasus, Turkey, and Ukraine’s border with Russia. In undertaking this comparative analysis there is extensive reliance on primary data retrieved from governmental documents and the media. Secondary sources have also been used because of the scarcity and unavailability of primary materials. The findings suggest that the vulnerability of the EU energy security depends not only on the effectiveness of political negotiations and ad hoc agreements, but also the empowerment of criminal non-state actors engaged in deliberate attacks – whether disruption or theft – on the energy infrastructure segments located across national boundaries and state jurisdictions. 55 9.6 Sybilla Wege University of Mannheim The Black Sea Region as a Strategic Energy Corridor: International Dynamics of Cooperation and Conflicts Sybilla Wege is currently enrolled as an external PHD student in the department of Political Science at the University of Mannheim. Her thesis examines the Russian foreign energy policy and its economic ambitions in the Caspian region under consideration of the international gas market. Currently, she is working as a Gas Portfolio Manager at the Thüga Energie GmbH, an energy holding company specializing in supplying gas and electrical power. The Black Sea region takes in a key function in the transport of fossil energy sources from the Caspian area to Europe. As an oil and natural gas transport hub, the region stands as a consequence to its geographical position in the center of overlapping national interests. With the energy exports becoming a key element of Russia’s overall foreign policy strategy and the European Union’s ambition of diversification of energy sourcing through new routes the importance of the area as a strategic corridor has assumed a new extent. Further, not only in terms of energy transport, the Black Sea region extends its relevance in the geopolitical scene also in terms of regional and international security, endangered by frozen and festering conflicts in the region. As a matter of fact the control of these pipeline routes represents today for external actors equivalently important means as the resources flown through them due to the increased production oil and gas capacity over the past decades. The goal of this contribution is to examine the complex constellation of national interests in the Black Sea region through the competitive behavior of the European Union and the Russian Federation on the basis of the existent and planned pipeline projects. Furthermore, this empirical-analytic analysis explores the question whether one could speculate about a future accentuation of the international conflicts in the Black Sea region or an upcoming increasing cooperation between the involved protagonists with concerns to the pipeline network. 9.7Fabio Indeo University of Camerino, Italy Azerbaijan’s Role in the Euroasiatic Energy Chessboard: Geopolitical and Strategic Perspective Fabio Indeo is an external research fellow in Geopolitics of conflicts and energy resources at the University of Camerino (Italy) and lecturer on “Conflicts and energy resources” at the Master in Peacekeeping and Security Studies, Faculty of Political Science, University of Roma Tre (Italy). He holds a Ph.D in Geopolitics, Geostrategy and Geoeconomy at the University of Trieste with a thesis research titled “The geopolitical competition in Central Asia: the European Union and its potential strategic ambitions”. The presence in its territory of huge oil and gas reserves and its geographic-territorial location as a kind of “energy bridge” between Caspian energy and Turks and European markets represent relevant geopolitical factors which have enhanced the strategic relevance of Azerbaijan in the regional and international scenario. Thanks to these conditions, several energy projects (pipelines, LNG terminals) have been proposed with the aim to cross Azeri republic or to use Azeri oil and gas reserves: the most famous is Nabucco and the Southern Corridor but there are others like AGRI, TANAP, ITGI, TAP which stress the rising importance of this Caucasian republic. 56 The aim of this paper is to evaluate if Azerbaijan could play both roles as energy supplier and energy hub in the East-West corridor in the next years and which geopolitical, strategic and economic gains could obtain considering following issues: • Azerbaijan is a strategic key partner for the EU in order to satisfy its growing demand of energy and to achieve its energy security strategy focus on the diversification of export route and on the reduction of export dependency from Russia; • Azerbaijan could be a geopolitical player in the Russian energy strategy aimed to preserve the EU dependency from Russian gas hindering the realization of the Southern Corridor; • Azerbaijan could become a strategic energy partner for Turkey, not only following the implementation of the planned TANAP pipeline but because most of planned energy routes projects involving Azerbaijan must necessarily cross Turkish territory; • Azerbaijan is the obliged route for Central Asian states (mainly Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan) which aimed to channel their oil and gas exports towards Western and European markets. We can observe that the precondition for a full implementation of the Southern Corridor is the Turkmen-Azeri appeasement. 57 ABOUT ASCN ASCN is a programme aimed at promoting the social sciences and humanities in the South Caucasus (primarily Georgia and Armenia). Its different activities foster the emergence of a new generation of talented scholars. Promising junior researchers receive support through research projects, capacity-building trainings and scholarships. The programme emphasizes the advancement of individuals who, thanks to their ASCN experience, become better integrated in international academic networks. The ASCN programme is coordinated and operated by the Interfaculty Institute for Central and Eastern Europe (IICEE) at the University of Fribourg (Switzerland). It is initiated and supported by Gebert Rüf Stiftung. Contact Denis Dafflon ASCN Programme Manager www.ascn.ch [email protected] Tel: + 41 79 303 43 44 Hande Selimoglu Conference Assistant, Kadir Has University [email protected] Tel: +90 (212) 533 65 32 / 1628 GSM: +90 (537) 501 78 71 We deeply thank Gebert Rüf Stiftung and the Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research for their generous support. AN INITIATIVE OF GEBERT RÜF STIFTUNG IN COOPERATION WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG
Benzer belgeler
Beyond the Moscow Bombings: Islamic Militancy in the North
Charles King is Professor of International Affairs and Government at Georgetown
University. He lectures widely on international affairs, social violence, and ethnic
politics, and has worked with ma...