Frozen Conflicts and International Law

Scholars (mostly in international relations and politics) and policymakers (in various countries) have referred to a series of conflicts in the space of the former USSR as “frozen conflicts.” Because some now speak of new “frozen conflicts” emerging, it is timely to ask what— if any— legal meaning this expression contains. Moreover, how we characterize these conflicts affects legal and other procedures the parties and others might apply to resolve them. Beyond the open questions of semantics and taxonomy, the so-called “frozen conflicts” merit attention because of their salience to the dispute settlement machinery that they so largely have frustrated. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 I. “Frozen Conflict”: Etymology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 A. State Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364 B. International Organization Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 C. The Expression “Frozen Conflict” in Dispute Settlement Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 D. International Law Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 E. International Relations Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 II. Defining “Frozen Conflict” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376 A. Four Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 1. Transnistria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 2. Nagorno-Karabakh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380 3. South Ossetia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 4. Abkhazia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386 B. Seven Characteristics of the Frozen Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . 390 1. Hostilities Between a State and Separatists . . . . . . . . . . . 391 2. Changes in Effective Control of Territory as a Result of Hostilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391 3. Lines of Separation with Effective Stability . . . . . . . . . . . 391 4. Lines of Separation with (Qualified) Juridical Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 5. Self-Determination Claims Associated with the Establishment of a Putative State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394 6. Non-Recognition of the Putative State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 7. Settlement Process (Sporadic and Inconclusive) . . . . . . . 396 C. Legal Problems Associated with “Frozen Conflicts” . . . . . 397