Georgia Q&A: Legal position unclear as pipeline politics focus global concern

Published on Monday 11 August 2008 22:04

Who is to blame for the conflict?

Georgia initiated the fighting. On Thursday, after several days of exchanges of fire with South Ossetian forces, Georgia's army crossed into the enclave and captured the regional capital, Tskhinvali. After a meeting of the UN Security Council failed to secure a withdrawal pledge from Georgia, Russia sent tanks into the enclave.

Is the Russian intervention justified?

International law appears to say no. South Ossetia is part of Georgia's sovereign territory and, as such, neighbouring powers have no right to send in troops. Russia could plausibly argue that, as it already had an agreement with Georgia – dating from 1992 – to deploy peacekeepers in the enclave, it was entitled to reinforce those soldiers. But air strikes, naval action and attacks into Georgia itself fall outside such a mandate.

Why is South Ossetia demanding independence?

This dates to 1991 when the Soviet Union broke up and Georgia, a former Soviet republic, became an independent state. Leaders in South Ossetia and a second enclave, Abkhazia, demanded the right to join Russia, fighting a war that left them in control of their enclaves, with 250,000 Georgians ethnically cleansed from Abkhazia and a smaller number from South Ossetia.

What about a diplomatic solution?

Georgia has offered both enclaves autonomy, but they have insisted on independence, meaning the talks are permanently stalled. Georgia says Russia stands in the way as its peacekeepers act as a shield to guarantee the enclaves.

Do the enclaves have the right to secede?

This is the bugbear of international law, as there is no agreement on whether a community has the right to self-determination. The UN charter says each state is sovereign over its own territory and can enforce its law there. Russia used this argument to justify its crushing of Chechens fighting for independence. Georgia says it has the same right to have control over South Ossetia.

What about International law?

In practice, individual states are free to "recognise" as independent enclaves of one country set up within another: The EU and United States did this in recognising Kosovo as independent from Serbia in February. Russia did the same for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But this is a grey zone – neither territory has UN recognition, which presumably allows Serbia and Georgia to assert their sovereignty.

No exceptions?

One state may not legally invade another unless it has permission from the UN or faces imminent attack. The invasion of Iraq was launched without a UN mandate, but with Washington and London arguing they were justified as Saddam Hussein was poised to use weapons of mass destruction. Nato intervened in Kosovo without a UN mandate, arguing humanitarian concerns outweighed international law. Russia used this argument to justify intervention in Georgia.

Why are the US and Russia so interested in these remote enclaves?

Pipeline politics. Georgia is home to an oil pipeline and a soon-to-be-completed gas pipeline, which connect the West to Central Asia, home to the world's second-biggest reserves. With the pipeline, the West has access. Without it, Russia controls those resources. Georgia's president, Mikhail Saakashvili, is pro-West, but a pro-Moscow replacement could cut the pipelines.

What can the international community do?

Not much. Power at the UN rests with the five permanent members of the Security Council; when they act in concert, peace deals are enforced. With Georgia, the council is split, with China and Russia on one side and Britain, France and the US on the other. Each permanent member can veto council decisions, allowing Russia to block any resolution condemning the conflict.