Justice in the Process of Regional Conflict Settlement: Analysis of Russia’s Strategy, 1992-2021

封面

如何引用文章

详细

Research in the field of regional conflict resolution rarely touches on the issue of justice. This paper aims to identify what understanding of international justice underlies Russia’s actions as a mediator/peacekeeper in the process of regional conflict resolution in the 1990s-2010s. The study also contributes to the understanding of Russia’s foreign policy by clarifying Moscow’s views on the essence and parameters of a just global order. The paper provides a study of the dominant Russian views on the essence of justice in international relations. It offers an insight into Russia’s peace-making and conflict resolution activities in the context of the three concepts of global justice and taking into account the factor of national interests. The study concludes that the dominant understanding of international justice in Russia is that which corresponds to Allen Buchanan’s concept of subjective justice. In Moscow’s view, international justice is a set of rules developed in the process of consensus driven negotiations between the great powers. According to this logic, a just settlement of the regional conflict is possible only on the basis of the consensus of the parties to the conflict and in accordance with the interests of the global and regional powers concerned. The fair interaction of the great powers in the settlement of the regional conflict and the impact that the conflict resolution could have on the development of the international order were of crucial importance for Moscow within the period under consideration. Moscow’s activity in the conflict resolution in the post-Soviet space generally corresponded to the model of justice as mutual recognition, but with absolute priority of Russian national interests. The strategy for resolving regional conflicts in the post-Soviet space could only be understood in the broad context of relations with Western countries and has changed in line with the development of these relations.

作者简介

Nikolay Kaveshnikov

MGIMO University; Institute of Europe, Russian Academy of Sciences

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: n.kaveshnikov@inno.mgimo.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0223-1083

PhD (Political Science), Head, Department of Integration Studies, MGIMO University; Leading Researcher, Institute of Europe, Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow, Russian Federation

参考

  1. Arbatova, N. K. (2019). Three dimensions of the post-Soviet “frozen” conflicts. World Economy and International Relations, 63(5), 88-100. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-5-88-100
  2. Bogaturov, A. D. (2007). Three generations of Russia’s foreign policy doctrines. Mezhdunarodnye Processy, 5(1), 54-69. (In Russian).
  3. Buchanan, A. (1990). Justice as reciprocity versus subject-centered justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19(3), 227-252.
  4. Danilov, D. A. (2012). Russia - EU: Features of political dialogue. In O. Potemkina (Ed.), The European Union in the 21st century: A time of trials (pp. 519-548). Moscow: Ves’ Mir publ. (In Russian).
  5. Devyatkov, A. V. (2010). “Kozak memorandum” in the history of the Transdniestrian settlement. Izvestiya Altajskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, (4-2), 52-57. (In Russian).
  6. Devyatkov, A. V. (2012). Before the challenge of Europeanization: Russia’s policy in the Transnistrian settlement (1992-2012). Tyumen: Izdatel’stvo TGU publ. (In Russian).
  7. Eriksen, E. O. (2016). Three conceptions of global political justice. GLOBUS Research Paper, (1), 1-31. Retrieved from https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/55580/2016-01-GLOBUS-research-paper-Eriksen.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  8. Markedonov, S. M., & Gushchin, A. V. (2016). Transnistria: Dilemmas of a peaceful settlement. RIAC Analytical Paper, (1), 1-12. (In Russian). Retrieved from https://russiancouncil.ru/upload/Transnistria_policybrief1.pdf
  9. Nikitin, A. I. (2017). International conflicts: Intervention, peacekeeping, regulation. Moscow: Aspekt Press publ. (In Russian).
  10. Persson, A. (2015). The EU and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 1971-2013: In pursuit of a just peace. London: Lexington Books.
  11. Primakov, E. M. (2015). Meeting at the crossroads. Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf publ. (In Russian).
  12. Richmond, O. P. (2018). A genealogy of mediation in international relations: From ‘analogue to ‘digital’ forms of global justice or managed war? Cooperation and Conflict, 53(3), 301-319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836717750198
  13. Rubenstein, R. E. (1999). Introduction: Conflict resolution and social justice. Peace and Conflict Studies, 6(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.46743/1082-7307/1999.1195
  14. Shapiro, I. (2012). On non-domination. University of Toronto Law Journal, 62(3), 293-336. https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.62.3.293
  15. Sjursen, H. (2017). Global justice and foreign policy: The case of the European Union. GLOBUS Research Paper, (2), 1-27. Retrieved from https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/55729/WP-2-17%2bSjursen33234.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  16. Tomić, N., & Tonra, B. (2018). The pursuit of justice through EU security strategies. GLOBUS Research Paper, (2), 1-30. Retrieved from https://www.globus.uio.no/publications/globus-research-papers/2018/2018-02-globus-research-paper-tomic-tonra.html
  17. Zagorsky, A. (2017). Russia in the European security order. Moscow: IMEMO RAN publ. (In Russian).

版权所有 © Kaveshnikov N.Y., 2023

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##