The developments in this year would likely generate a huge turning process in international political order. With the rise in aspirations of regions to get independent, their recognitions amidst contestations the state system vogue almost for three and half centuries has received a jolt, especially with the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia by Russia and earlier that of Kosovo. Russia has justified its recognition and cited Kosovo’s independence as a perfect precedent which can be equally applicable to the breakaway regions of Georgia. The question that needs to be elicited is not that of Kosovo, Abkhazia or South Ossetia, but it is the larger question of the survival of the state system. There are around the world numerous disgruntled regions which, if granted independence, would radically alter the existing state system.

The modern state system derives its existence to the treaty of Westphalia, 1648, which recognised the sovereignty of nation states. The treaty which encompasses the two peace treaties of Osnabruck and Munster, signed on 15 May and 24 October of 1648 respectively, ended both the Thirty Years’ War in Germany and the Eighty Years’ War between Spain and the Netherlands. It initiated a new order in Europe based on the concept of national sovereignty. Earlier, it was not the state per se in the sense of its modern usage, but it was the empires and kingdoms, whether Greek, Roman, Mongol, Ottoman, Persian, Russian, etc. that were reigning over the world space. The medieval era was particularly called dark phase as it witnessed tussle between temporal and papal authorities at its height. The Westphalia treaty among then major powers led the emergence of the current state system.

The two world wars were fought in the name of fighting imperialism and making the world safe for democracy. President Woodrow Wilson propounded fourteen points in 1918 as postulates of peace and order. The second world war that led to the defeat of Nazi totalitarianism was also aimed at making the world free from retrograde forces, and to provide rights to emerging nations to live in peace. The UN Charter of 1945 was an improved version of the League of Nations, which ostensibly failed to address the complicated issues, and due to non-compliance of its terms by its members. The UN Charter, Article 1 of Chapter 1, called for international peace and security.

The question of balancing national sovereignty and right to self determination has become a difficult balance in international politics as always. The concept of nationalism too has been highly contested and the same with the concept of right to self determination. The cold war, much driven by ideological considerations, witnessed much of the energy wasted over trivial issues. The world was polarised into two camps, with some of the developing countries adhering to a policy of non-alignment. The military blocs such as NATO and Warsaw Pact, erection of the Berlin wall on ideological basis, etc. led to much of the weakening of the state system. The UN succumbed to these ideological divisions and lost its sheen as a world body to maintain international peace and security.

The end of the cold war did not witness any significant changes in international system, despite change in the patterns of global politics. It appeared that the old rivalry has not died down, rather it has refashioned itself. Though writers like Fukuyama has propounded that after the end of the cold war liberal ideas would emerge victorious, the international politics appeared to be much skewed as earlier. In the post cold war the hottest bed of politics, the theatre of contestation has been the Central Eurasian region. The ethnic diversities of the region have challenged the structure of state. Whether it was Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia or Abkhazia, the ethnic identities have resurfaced to assert their identities, not often recognised under international law.

On a different plane, the imperatives of the new world order do not imply the disintegration of state system, but rather accommodation of diverse demands in a framework resilient federal structure. In the modern world, no particular state is absolutely homogenous in its structure. Diverse aspirations are there, but it is the resilience and flexibility of the federal state to accommodate diverse aspirations or its rigid and totalitarian control over regions- that is going to determine much of the shape of state system in coming years. The question then revolves around possible harmonious coexistence of the diverse identities within a broader framework of national sovereignty.

In South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the question then arises, could these regions stay united with the Georgian framework. Russia has argued that the Kosovo precedence is a clear case that set precedent for the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. If Kosovo with a distinct identity with the larger Serbian state system could not be accommodated, they why could the two republics within Georgia? Russia has taken into account its citizens in the two regions, the refugee issue in North Ossetia, and the attack of Georgia as the immediate trigger for the recognition of the republics.