Decentralization, Regional Diversity, and Conflict

The Case of Ukraine

Hanna Shelest, Maryna Rabinovych, Hanna Shelest, Maryna Rabinovych

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN:
  9783030417642
• eBook ISBN:
  9783030417659
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: European Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This edited volume focuses on the links between the ongoing crisis in and around Ukraine, regional diversity, and the reform of decentralization. It provides in-depth insights into the historical constitution of regional diversity and the evolution of center-periphery relationships in Ukraine, the legal qualification of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, and the role of the decentralization reform in promoting conflict resolution, as well as modernization, democratization and European integration of Ukraine. Particular emphasis lies on the securitization of both regional diversity issues and territorial self-government arrangements in terms of Russia's support for self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics. The volume captures the complexity of contemporary "hybrid" conflicts, involving both internal and external aspects, and the hybridization and securitization of territorial self-governance solutions. It thus provides an important contribution to the debate on territorial self-government and conflict resolution.

© The Author(s) 2020

H. Shelest, M. Rabinovych (eds.)Decentralization, Regional Diversity, and ConflictFederalism and Internal Conflictshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41765-9_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction: Regional Diversity, Decentralization, and Conflict in and around Ukraine

Maryna Rabinovych¹ and Hanna Shelest²

(1)

University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

(2)

Foreign Policy Council “Ukrainian Prism”, Odesa/Kyiv, Ukraine

Maryna Rabinovych (Corresponding author)

Hanna Shelest

Keywords

Territorial self-governanceConflict resolutionUkraine

End Abstract

Introduction

A decrease in interstate wars (Holsti 2016, 43) is one of the trends shaping the post-World War II global security environment. There has, however, been an increase in ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and identity conflicts within states, often involving an establishment of the “breakaway” or “de-facto” states, and external (foreign) “support” to the parties of such conflicts, reinforcing polarization (Dupuy and Rustad 2018). Hence, third-state ideational, political, financial, and military “support” to the parties to intrastate conflicts, including the administration of de-facto states, gives rise to the emergence of complex conflict constellations, embracing the intra- and interstate aspects.

Territorial self-governance arrangements (TSG) (federalization and different forms of decentralization) have been widely applied as a tool of managing intrastate conflicts rooted in interethnic, cultural, linguistic, and identity-related cleavages (e.g. federalization of Bosnia and Herzegovina, re-federalization in Nigeria, decentralization in Uganda and Sri Lanka) (Wolff 2013). Despite the fact that the vast majority of proposed conflict settlements for societies, experiencing such conflicts, involve some form of TSG, there is no consensus in scholarship whether the application of TSG, in general, or of particular governance arrangements under this umbrella term, allow for successful conflict resolution and promote stability (Martínez-Herrera 2010; Wolff 2011, 2013; Keil 2012; Breen 2018; Walsch 2018). The variation in the results of TSG application in different conflict settings is determined by numerous factors, including peculiarities of a particular conflict, involvement of third parties and the design of conflict settlement (Wolff 2010). Similar arguments can be made about decentralization, which may both decrease an intrastate conflict through bringing governments closer to the people, and indirectly encourage it through supporting the growth of regional parties (Brancatti 2006). Notably, while there are studies systematically examining the relationship between the duration of intrastate conflicts and third-party involvement, virtually no attention has been paid to the functioning of TSG, in general, and decentralization, in particular, under the circumstances of conflict constellations, involving both the intra- and interstate dimensions. Subsequently, unpacking the complexity pertaining to the intrastate divides and third-party involvement, as well as the potential of TSG and decentralization as conflict resolution tools, requires an in-detail insight into the historical roots of divides of a particular society, existing power-sharing arrangements, and a discursive and legal framing of the third-party involvement.

The case of Ukraine is highly illustrative for research into the scope of the problem outlined above: it features a historical constitution of ethnically, linguistically, and culturally diverse societies; power-sharing and an accommodation of diversity in state policies; a complexity of conflict, involving the intra- and interstate dimensions; foreign support for de-facto states’ administrations; and, finally, an application of decentralization as a tool to settle the conflict with extensive third-party participation. As underlined by Oksana Myshlovska, an author of “Regionalism in Ukraine: Historic Evolution, Regional Claim-Making and Centre-Periphery Conflict Resolution”, Chap. 2 in this volume, “throughout history the present territory of Ukraine has been an arena of competing influences of global, regional and local powers. In particular, different territories comprising contemporary Ukraine, used to belong to, among others, the Kyivan Rus (ninth to thirteenth century), the kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia (twelfth to fourteenth century), the Grand Duchy (Principality) of Lithuania (fourteenth to the end of the eighteenth century), the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (sixteenth to eighteenth century), the Russian Empire (end of the eighteenth to early twentieth century), the Austro-Hungarian Empire (nineteenth to early twentieth century) and the Soviet Union (twentieth century). Consequently, Ukrainian regions differ in terms of ethnic composition, national and regional identities, language identities and practices, religious affiliation, beliefs and practices, and foreign policy attitudes. Until the highly controversial presidential campaign of 2004, the problem of diversity received relatively modest attention from policy makers and scholars, despite differences that led a notable observer of Ukraine to refer to a “deeply divided society with a pronounced pattern of regional diversity” (Wilson 1997, 1). Moreover, until the launch of the decentralization reform in 2014, Ukraine had been a centralized state with few competencies ceded to local territorial self-government units. An important feature, characterizing the power-sharing arrangements in post-independence Ukraine, has been the legacy of neo-patrimonialism, combining strong presidential power, clientelism (the exchange of goods and services for political support) and regime corruption (the use of public resources for private purposes or political support) (Bratton and van den Walle 1997). Under such circumstances, the development of local self-government with an account of multi-aspect diversity had been impeded by an array of factors, such as the lack of public debate on diversity and its reflection in state policies; the proliferation of simplified constructs of diversity, such as the “Two Ukraines” concept of Riabchuk (2002), explaining Ukraine’s macro-level division into the pro-European Ukrainian-speaking west and center and the pro-Russian southeast; centralized management of resources, reflected in the limited competencies exercised by bodies of local self-government; and the absence of transparency of resource distribution among local territorial self-government units (hromadas).

The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in March 2014, allegedly supported by more than 80 percent of voters, and the outbreak of violent conflict in eastern Ukraine, gave new impetus to the debate on regional diversity. In particular, a considerable number of surveys and academic contributions have aimed at offering a detailed analysis of the substance of ethnic, religious, linguistic, and cultural diversity in Ukraine, Ukrainians’ geopolitical and foreign policy preferences, and their dynamics over the period since the 2013 Euromaidan¹ Revolution (the “Revolution of Dignity”) to the present era. Furthermore, given the Russian Federation’s explicitly unlawful annexation of Crimea and its extensive support to “rebels” in eastern Ukraine and, later on, its leadership of the self-proclaimed so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (“DPR ” and “LPR”), the “crisis in and around Ukraine” has provoked intense discussion on the interplay of the intra- and interstate factors triggering the conflict, and its qualification under international law. Whilst the “reunification of Crimea with Russia” is widely acknowledged to violate the foundations of public international law, qualifying the situation in eastern Ukraine under international law is a more complex task. In this vein, it is challenging to develop an objective and in-depth understanding of the “distribution of roles” between diversity and its mismanagement by Ukrainian authorities and Russia’s extensive involvement in the proliferation of secessionist beliefs, actions and movements in eastern Ukraine that eventually led to the establishment of the DPR and the LPR.

Reaffirming its “full support for the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Ukraine”, the UN Security Council has been very cautious about either mentioning the parties to the conflict or qualifying it (UN Security Council 2014, 2015, 2018). Similarly, the definition put forward by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) of the “crisis in and around Ukraine” only implies third-party involvement by incorporating the “around” dimension (OSCE 2015). So far, only the International Criminal Court has pointed to the parallel existence of “direct military engagement between the respective armed forces of the Russian Federation and Ukraine” and “the non-international armed conflict” in eastern Ukraine (International Criminal Court 2018, paras. 72–73). Looking ahead, it should be mentioned that modern scholarship offers different conceptualizations of the conflict in Ukraine, ranging from a “separatist war”/ civil conflict/ civil war (Katchanovski 2016; Wilson 2016) to the Ukraine–Russia “hybrid” conflict (Kofman and Rojanski 2015; Lanoszka 2016), challenging the post-Cold War world order (Allison 2014). Notwithstanding the above, Russia’s support for separatist forces in Donbas is a factor, seldom contested even by the proponents of the so-called “civil war” approach. Thus, the challenge of establishing causal links between the intrastate and interstate dimensions of the conflict makes Ukraine an appealing case for those interested in researching and qualifying conflicts marked by strong external support for one of the parties.

In view of the above mentioned complexity, Ukraine’s crisis response strategy has been comprised of three key axes: security operations, such as the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) (2014–2018), led by the Security Services of Ukraine (SBU), and, later on the Joint Forces Operation under the leadership of the military (2018–ongoing) (Verkhovna Rada 2018); diplomatic efforts, on both building international coalition against the Russian Aggression and pertaining to the Minsk Agreements and their implementation; and domestic reforms, including inter alia the decentralization reform.

Launched in April 2014, shortly after the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and the outbreak of ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction: Regional Diversity, Decentralization, and Conflict in and around Ukraine
• Part I. Regional Diversity in Ukraine and Its Accommodation in Government Policies
• Part II. The “Crisis In and Around Ukraine”, Occupied Territories and their Reintegration: The Legal Dimension
• Part III. Federalization / Decentralization as a Tool of Conflict Resolution: Discursive and Foreign Policy Perspectives
• Part IV. Decentralization, Its Perceptions and Linkage to Democratization, Modernization, and European Integration of Ukraine
• Back Matter