Cjss second Issue: cjss second Issue qxd

Conclusion
War is a complicated phenomenon, thus its causes may vary greatly. For
some people war is a destiny for others it is a matter of choice. 
As other means of conflict resolution remain imperfect, states still have
some opportunities to go in for war. 
Generally talking about the humanitarian law, we can conclude that any
question regarding it can be traced to two main problems: 1) coupling the
humanitarian considerations with the military necessities and 2) the will of
states to preserve their sovereignty. 
The Cold War has long finished, but the international politics is still
haunted by the question- what will replace the 50 year-long crisis? And was
the end of Cold War generally the end of any war? These questions remain
controversy for the experts of international relations. 
Resting on the materials discussed during the article we may conclude
that the end of Cold War actually heralded increasing probability of wars
worldwide. As the world has moved from bipolar to multi polar system the
minor wars with the potential of growing into massive confrontation cannot
be avoided. 
As we said, conventional and minor wars are inevitable for future. How-
ever even the limited scale nuclear or a conventional war will pose a great
danger to humanity. Thus the only way out is to agree that there exist better
ways out of conflict then going to war. 
War of XXI Century
The events which took place in Caucasus at the verge of XXI Century
changed the concept and form of war utterly. If earlier wars were being won
on battlefield, today the main element of war is the information warfare. A
the main topic of the article is war, it would be unacceptable not to mention
the 5-day war between Russia and Georgia which took place in August 2008,
during which Russia demonstrated itself in all components of war. Today the
prevailing anti-Georgian sentiments in Moscow are not a secret to anyone. 
The question frequently heard today is- who was the initiator of the con-
flict. Even the form of the question reveals the fact that unfortunately the con-
cept of the Caucasian conflict remains unclear to the Western analytical
centers up to now. Thus its most important to help the international commu-
nity, the disoriented Russian society and the Georgian citizens understand
the reality about the processes taking place in Caucasus region. 
Russia has used different methods to erase Georgia from the political
185
Caucasus Journal of Social Sciences

---

and cultural map of the world through time. Securing Caucasus as its geo-po-
litical backyard is the main aim of Russia from 1801 to date. This is even
voiced by the current ideologist of Kremlin- Alexander Dugin (Dugin 1999).
The last campaign against Georgia began in 1991, after the Supreme
Council of the Republic of Georgia declared the Russian forces on the Georgian
territory as occupational. The West as this time was busy freeing Eastern Eu-
rope and the Baltic States from Russian domination, so nobody had either
time or energy to assist Georgia. In 1992-1993 the Russian forces ousted the
President and the parliament of Georgia and established its control over Abk-
hazia and the region of South Ossetia. The new president Edward Shevard-
nadze gave the occupational forces the peacekeeping status, at the same time
he agreed on Georgia entering the CIS. 
Russia began preparing for the August War long time before. The Russian
forces were sent to Abkhazia in July- with the pretext of reconstructing the
railway. Meanwhile the military training of the 58th army (with code name
Caucasus 2008) began in proximity of the Georgian border. (24 hours, 2008)
All these facts have to receive an adequate legal evaluation. 
Although conflicts among neighbors are not ruled out over time, turning
this into bloodshed is utterly inacceptable. Historically Georgians and Abk-
hazians (Georgians and Ossetians) have never been enemies. It’s time to call
everything by its name, and to define the actual parties of the conflict- Georgia
vs. Russia. 
According to the resolution issued by the Parliament Assembly of Coun-
cil of Europe on 2 October 2008 both Russia and Georgia have acted against
principles of the Council and did not accomplish their duties to find peaceful
solution to the conflict. Thus both parties are responsible for violation of the
Humanitarian Law. ‘Bombing Tskhinvali by the Georgian side escalated the
conflict even further- into the all-out and mass-scale war’. Using heavy ar-
tillery and cassette bombs created a serious threat to the lives of civilians,
and can be evaluated as disproportionate use of force by Georgia on its own
territory’. However it can be inferred that Georgia was protecting its territo-
rial integrity by doing so. According to the resolution the Russian counterat-
tack was also disproportionate. ‘The Russian counterattack together with its
actions in Central and Western Georgia and Abkhazia obviously did not cor-
respond to the principle of proportionality, the Humanitarian Law and the
principles of the Council of Europe. And may be evaluated as violation of re-
sponsibilities of Russia as a member state’- the resolution concludes. Accord-
ing to the assembly using violence by both sides can be defined as a
war-crime. At the same time, the Assembly supports territorial integrity and
sovereignty of Georgia and calls on Russia to withdraw recognition of both
186
Caucasus Journal of Social Sciences

---

regions. The Council of Europe has also addressed other states not to recog-
nize the given separatist regions. It has also expressed concerns about the
facts of ethnic cleansing in the Georgian villages of the Tskhinvali region.
Georgia has addressed the Court of Justice demanding ‘temporary measures’
to be taken (to cease the bombing, to return Russian forces to their disloca-
tions of August 6, to deliver humanitarian aid, to return the population to
their homes etc.) what was confirmed by the Court. 
Russian aggression resulted in immense losses on the Georgian side.
Apart from the lives lost, tens of thousands of Georgian citizens became sub-
ject to ethnic cleansing. The local Georgians were ousted from their homes,
their property was damaged. The local population was forced either to take
citizenship of Ossetian or Russian republics or leave their homes. Georgian
towns were bombed inflicting immense psychological trauma on the peaceful
population. All this went against the principles of IV Geneva convention (pro-
tecting civilians during armed conflicts) (Report by S. Subar, 2008). According
to Washington Post Eduard Kokoity had arranged a peaceful corridor for
those who chose to leave, South Ossetia would never allow these people to re-
turn back home again. This in itself is one more instance of  war-crime. 
On August 26, 2008 Dmitri Medvedev signed a document recognizing
independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia used as a legal basis the
right of self-determination of nations discussed in the UN Resolution 2625
(XXV). However the given resolution can do little good in this case. The part
of the resolution where the right of self-determination is discussed stresses
concrete cases when it can be rightly applied, namely to end colonialism as
soon as possible, expressing unanimous consent of all states. The last para-
graph of the resolution determines in which context this principle cannot be
used- any state should refrain from any action violating territorial integrity of
another. In other words, the sole purpose of the resolution was to organize the
process of disintegrating colonial empires. It cannot be applied to interstate
relations. 
The nature of Russian peacekeeping on the Georgian territory should
also be discussed. Namely: the Sochi (Dagomisi) agreements signed in 1992
are violated since they ruled out possibility of Russian military intervention
in the conflict. Also the rules of conduct of the armed forces and military ob-
servers in the conflict region are violated; according to them the peacekeepers
should have prevented any uncontrolled military endeavor of the conflicting
parties. 
Russia has never received the UN peacekeeping mandate to legalize its
military presence in South Ossetia ; not to say in the rest of Georgian territory
including Senaki, Poti, Gori,  Zugdidi, Sachkhere, etc. (www.grani.ru)
187
Caucasus Journal of Social Sciences

---