Frozen Conflicts in International Law

V.Conclusion

The case study has presented four common legal characteristics that portray frozen conflicts. First, the core issue of the conflict remains unresolved and is about the status of the break-away territory. The claims to this specific territory are mutually exclusive and thus entail a deadlock. The separatists claim their right to self-determination and demand secession, while the parent state insists on the integrity of its territory. Although in theory international law upholds territorial integrity against secessionist movements, in reality de facto states have been established and persist to this day. In the absence of a full-scale war with daily casualties, it seems convenient and legitimate for the parties not to agree on compromises over the territory’s status. Both parties — S. 117 —have retained their maximalist legal positions for three decades, resulting in indefinite deferral of the status question.

Second, the time factor in the conflicts exacerbates their deadlocked nature. Frozen conflicts are often characterized by their protracted duration spanning three decades. While ceasefire agreements have repeatedly succeeded in ending phases of active armed hostilities, they have not resolved the underlying conflicts. The conflicts persist because international law does not set a time frame for dispute settlement. In frozen conflicts, the parties can play for time. The conflicts are further prolonged because without a rapidly evolving emergency situation, the international community does not intervene in frozen conflicts with timely and decisive actions. Furthermore, the passage of time widens the gap between the de jure and the de facto territorial situations: whereas the de jure territorial situation was fixed at the critical date and is resistant to factual changes over time, the de facto territorial situation consolidates further the longer it exists.

Third, the intensity of the conflicts underscores their status between war and peace. Frozen conflicts are characterized by a low intensity that distinguishes them from the violence of a full-scale war or armed conflict. For most of the time, no active armed hostilities occur. However, they are also distinct from positive peace, as violence is not completely absent. Some violence has been found to be present in three respects: first, the military occupation of the regions in question constitutes a permanent violation of international law and a constant threat of the use of force. Second, the human rights situation in the regions remains precarious, and as the de facto states cannot be held responsible for violations, those must be attributed to the parent state and/or the patron state, both of which tend to deny their responsibility. Third, hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced over decades and prevented from returning to their homes, which has resulted in the denial of their property rights and significantly changed the demographic composition of the regions.

Fourth, the proliferation of such conflicts in the post-Soviet space suggests that they should be viewed against a specific historical and political background. Contrary to the trend of applying the concept of frozen conflicts universally, there are arguments for narrowing its application to the specific post-Soviet temporal and spatial context. In fact, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Russia’s waning influence on the former Soviet Republics have led Russia to develop specific approaches to international law. These include a permissive stance on the use of force and changes of territorial titles in its near abroad and the decisive support to the de facto states of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria at various levels. Russia’s approaches to international — S. 118 —law have contributed to the perpetuation of frozen conflicts. In response to these approaches, the affected states of Georgia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, and Ukraine have partially succeeded in employing lawfare strategies to assert their legal positions. However, the law has not proven capable of resolving the conflicts. These conflicts are embedded in global geopolitics, which contributes to their deadlocked nature.