The EU and Pan-European IOs and ‘Symbolic’ Successes and Failures in the Protracted Conflicts in Moldova and Georgia

  • Nina LutterjohannEmail author
Part of the New Security Challenges book series (NSECH)


By structurally analysing the interactions between international organisations, including the European Union, and conflict parties in the Eastern Partnership on what this chapter calls a symbolic level, the factors that have facilitated and impeded conflict resolution are identified. Four reasons explain the status quo: the zero-sum thinking of the conflict parties, the undermined efforts of IOs from the perspective of conflict parties, the principles that guide the objectives of IOs as well as their interests. The focus is on the EU as one of the main actors since 2003 because of the inauguration of the ENP and 2008 as a consequence of the Georgian-Russian war. Based on a model for success and failure, this chapter focuses on the symbolic level to determine that threat perceptions have been much stronger in the Georgia-Abkhazia conflict than in Moldova-Transnistria. Despite the low profile of the EU in Georgia prior to 2008, this analysis still shows the existence of symbolic influence of the EU as well as a pronounced role of the EU in Moldova.


  1. Adler, Emanuel and Barnett, Michael (eds.), Security Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  2. Anontenko, Oksana, ‘Frozen Uncertainty: Russia and the Conflict over Abkhazia’, in Bruno Coppetiers and Robert Legvold (eds), Statehood and Security: Georgia after the Rose Revolution (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2005).Google Scholar
  3. Cheterian, Vicken, War and Peace in the Caucasus: Russia’s Troubled Frontier (London: C. Hurst & Co., 2008).Google Scholar
  4. Deutsch, Karl W., Burrell, Sidney A., et al. Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957).Google Scholar
  5. Deutsch, Karl W. and Singer, David J., ‘Multipolar Power Systems and International Stability’, World Politics 16:3 (1964), pp. 390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fawn, Rick and Nalbandov, Robert, ‘The Difficulties of Knowing the Start of War in the Information Age: Russia, Georgia and the War over South Ossetia, August 2008’, European Security, 21:1 (2012), pp. 57–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fawn, Rick, ‘Russia’s Reluctant Retreat from the Caucasus: Abkhazia, Georgia and the US after September 11’, European Security, 11:4 (2002), pp. 131–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fawn, Rick, ‘The Kosovo and Montenegro Effect’, International Affairs, 84: 2 (2008), pp. 269–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flockart, Trine ‘The Coming Multi-order’, Contemporary Security Policy, 37:1 (2016), pp. 3–30.Google Scholar
  10. Freire, Maria Raquel, Paula Duarte Lopes, Daniela Nascimento, ‘The EU’s role in Crisis Management, The case of EUMM’, in M. G. Galantino et al. (eds.) Managing Crises, Making Peace (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).Google Scholar
  11. Maxime H. A. Larivé, Debating European security and Defense Policy: Understanding the Complexity (Abingdon: Routledge, 2016).Google Scholar
  12. Freire, Maria Raquel, Conflict and Security in the Former Soviet Union: The Role of the OSCE (Ashgate: Burlington, 2003).Google Scholar
  13. German, Tracey, ‘The Pankisi Gorge: Georgia’s Achilles’ heel in its relations with Russia?’ Central Asian Survey, 23:1 (2004), pp. 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill, William H., Russia, the Near Abroad, and the West (Washington: Wilson Center Press/Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 2012).Google Scholar
  15. Diksta, Hylke, Policy-making in EU security and defense: an institutional perspective (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).Google Scholar
  16. Lutterjohann, Nina, The Relative Success and Failure of International Organisations and the Georgian-Abkhaz and Moldovan-Transnistrian Protracted Conflicts, 1992–2013 (University of St Andrews: unpublished PhD Thesis, 2017).Google Scholar
  17. Lynch, Dov, Russian Peacekeeping Strategies in the CIS: The cases of Moldova, Georgia and Tajikistan (New York: Palgrave, 2000).Google Scholar
  18. MacFarlane, Neil, ‘The Role of the UN in A Question of Sovereignty: the Georgia-Abkhazia Peace Process’, Jonathan Cohen (ed.), CR, Accord #7, 1999, p. 38.Google Scholar
  19. OSCE, CSCE Testimonies, Causes and Consequences of the Helsinki Final Act, 1972–1989 (2013).Google Scholar
  20. Welt, Cory, ‘The Thawing of a Frozen Conflict: The Internal Security Dilemma and the 2004 Prelude to the Russo-Georgian War’, Europe-Asia Studies, 62:1 (2009), pp. 63–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zartman, I. William, ‘The Timing of Peace Pace Initiatives: Hurting Stalemates and Ripe Moments’, The Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 1 (September 2001), pp. 8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Primary Sources

  1. UN Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), available at:, last accessed 22 March 2017.
  2. IDMC, ‘Georgia IDP Figures Analysis’, December 2014, available at:, lass accessed 26 March 2016.
  3. Fuller, Liz, ‘Georgia: Abkhazia Certain To Reject New ‘Peace Plan’, RFE/RL, 13 April 2007, available at:, last accessed 11 November 2017.


  1. OSCE Mission to Georgia, SEC.FR/19/00, ‘Activity Report, No. 1/99, 13 January 1999’.Google Scholar
  2. ———, SEC.FR/124/99, ‘Activity Report No. 3/99 1–15 February 1999’.Google Scholar
  3. ———, SEC.FR/289/99, ‘Activity Report No. 6/99, 6–31 March 1999’, 7 April 1999.Google Scholar
  4. ———, SEC.FR/350/99, ‘Activity Report No. 7/99, 1–15 April 1999’, 21 April 1999.Google Scholar
  5. ———, SEC.FR/661/99, Activity Report No 14/99, 16–31 July 1999, 11 August 1999.Google Scholar
  6. ———, SEC.FR/772/99, ‘Activity Report No. 16/99, 22 August–24 1999’.Google Scholar
  7. ———, SEC.FR/582/02, ‘Activity Report 17/02, 1–15 October 2002’.Google Scholar
  8. ———, PC.DEL/442/99, ‘EU Statement on Georgia, Permanent Council No. 245 on 9 September 1999’, The Finnish Presidency of the EU, 9 September 1999.Google Scholar
  9. ———, PC.DEL/49/03, ‘US Mission to the OSCE, Statement of Response to the Georgian Intervention on Events in Abkhazia Delivered by Deputy Chief of Mission,’ Douglas Davidson, 24 January 2003.Google Scholar
  10. ———, PC.DEL/199/07, ‘US Statement on the ‚Elections’ in Georgia’s Abkhazia Region’, 9 March 2007.Google Scholar


  1. PC.DEL/742/04, ‘United States Statement on Moldova, US Delegation to the OSCE Delivered to the PC’, 6 August 2004.Google Scholar
  2. PC.DEL/739/04, ‘The Netherlands Presidency of the European Union, Permanent Council No. 522, EU Statement on Moldova’, 6 August 2004.Google Scholar
  3. PC.DEL/718/04, ‘US Statement on Schools and Linguistic Cleansing in Transnistria’, 29 July 2004.Google Scholar
  4. PC.DEL/786/04, Delegation of Ukraine to the OSCE, ‘Statement on the Situation in the Transdnistrian Region of the Republic of Moldova’, 9 September 2004 (Restricted).Google Scholar
  5. OSCE Mission to Moldova, SEC.DEL/20/05, ‘Statement by Russia’s MFA concerning the ban on the entry into Transnistria of diplomatic representation accredited in Moldova’, 21 January 2005.Google Scholar


  1. Interview with the Programme Director Caucasus, Berghof Foundation, 17 September 2015, Berlin-St Andrews.Google Scholar
  2. Interview with Ambassador Natalie Sabanadze, Georgian Mission to the EU and Belgium, 29 January 2015 in Brussels.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations