Questionnaire Study

The questionnaire study looks at similar, although more succinct, versions of the issues analyzed in official public statements and aims to understand the positions of the external actors regarding Transdniestria’s constitutional development and the prospects for its recognition beyond public discourse. Such an approach provides a more comprehensive picture for the analysis of the effects of the constitution on the recognition of Transdniestria.

This study of officials’ opinions was conducted between January and September 2013 and comprises both the written and/or oral responses from the questionnaire on Transdniestria’s constitutional development and its status. In total, the questionnaire was sent to forty-three relevant public officials and experts in the negotiation process in the “5+2” format.

Correspondence was maintained with twenty-seven of them. In the end, responses to the questionnaire were obtained from seventeen people, some of whom provided their answers on the condition of remaining anonymous. As a result, the present study included the views of

representatives from the TMR, Moldova, the OSCE, Ukraine, and the EU. Representatives from the Russian Federation as well as the United States did not provide their views for the study.

Thus, this research analyzes the insights of five actors in the negotiation process obtained from public sources, the questionnaire, and semi-structured interviews, as well as two additional positions obtained only from the publicly available sources (See Table 6).

TABLE 6. PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY

Actor Number of pers. Position Period covered

TMR 3 High-ranking public officials 1990-2013

Moldova 3 High- and low-ranking public

officials

1994-2013

OSCE 6 High-ranking public officials 1993-2013

Ukraine 1 High-ranking public official 2007-2013

EU 2* High- and low-ranking public

officials

2007-2013

Experts 2 Independent scholars 2002-2013

*Note: One respondent, a representative of the EU, is an independent expert whose knowledge on the issue is used in the work of the EU public officials.

To summarize, by examining Transdniestria’s constitutional acts, this research explores whether they demonstrate the criteria for recognition, and, if so, which criteria are used and how they are asserted. Additionally, by looking at the official statements of Transdniestrian political leaders, this study analyzes whether the entity’s claim to recognition is related to its constitutional acts or to specific stages in the TMR’s constitutional development. Finally, this research seeks to explore the reactions of the outside actors to the existence of Transdniestrian constitutional acts and/or to the steps of Transdniestria’s constitutional development, as well as to see whether such reactions have had any impact on Transdniestria’s status.

Conclusion

The doctrinal framework on the international recognition of states suggests that constitutionalism is part of the recognition process and that a constitution matters for the purposes of an entity’s recognition. Observing these doctrinal expectations in practice requires close examination of the experience of an unrecognized state in search of recognition. This chapter suggests focusing on a special category of state-like entities – unrecognized states – that possess all the attributes of statehood but lack international recognition due to the contested nature of their statehood. The lengthy efforts of these states in searching for recognition allows us to analyze the constitutional tools they use for the purposes of recognition and the reactions of outside actors toward these tools. Along with sharing similar features with other de facto states, Transdniestria stands out as a case study that facilitates observation of the doctrinal expectations in practice due to its highly internationalized, non-ethnic conflict and well-developed constitutional structures. Thus, analysis of the interactions between elements of Transdniestrian constitutional development and the positions of the external actors will demonstrate whether the existence of a constitution and constitutional mechanisms in an unrecognized state has any effects on its recognition.

CHAPTER THREE. THE EFFECTS OF ASSERTING THE TRADITIONAL

AND CONTEMPORARY CRITERIA FOR

RECOGNITION IN THE TRANSDNIESTRIAN

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ON THE PROCESS OF TRASDNIESTRIA’S RECOGNITION

Introduction

Unrecognized states experience and create a viable sense of statehood despite their lack of international recognition. One of the features that assists unrecognized states in consolidating their statehood is their constitutional framework: it provides the basis for their internal political development and establishes a sovereign presence for the purposes of external relations. As Chapter 1 has shown, the process of state recognition and a state’s constitutional development are interrelated in several ways. First, a constitution asserts the traditional criteria for recognition such as a defined territory, population, and government, as well as the capacity of a state to conduct international relations. Second, a constitution enables the state to implement the contemporary criteria for recognition on democratic governance, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights. Third, a constitution ensures the state’s commitment and capacity to respect its international obligations and to pursue international aims that demonstrate its potential to be a member of the world community.

In order to observe whether similar relations characterize the Transdniestrian case study and to assess the effects of the Transdniestrian constitution on the TMR’s recognition, this research explores the ways in which Transdniestria has constitutionally embedded the criteria for international recognition and publicly linked its constitutional provisions and practices to its claim for recognition. It also analyzes the official responses of the key external actors on Transdniestrian constitutional development as observed through their public statements and personal communications. Here and in the next chapters, the term the external actors refers to a

specific group of actors in the Transdniestrian negotiation process, namely Moldova, Ukraine, Russia, the OSCE, the EU, and the US.

This framework for analysis suggests a variety of possible outcomes concerning the effects of the TMR’s constitutional framework:

 the Transdniestrian constitution has an effect only on the recognition of this entity;

 the Transdniestrian constitution affects the recognition of this entity, and has other effects as well;

 the Transdniestrian constitution does not affect the recognition of this entity or anything else;

 the Transdniestrian constitution does not have an impact on the recognition of this entity, but does have other effects.

The case study shows that the Transdniestrian constitution did not impact the process of recognition of this de facto state, but that it did have other effects. On the one hand, the adoption of the TMR’s constitution has not led the external actors to view the issue of Transdniestria’s recognition more favorably or predisposed them to granting it recognition. This lack of recognition stands in contrast to the fact that the TMR’s constitution asserts both the traditional and contemporary criteria for recognition and establishes a framework for the entity’s democratic development.

On the other hand, the overall development of the Transdniestrian constitutional system has had an impact on Transdniestria itself and on the external actors. First, in Transdniestria, the constitutional framework has aided the consolidation of the TMR’s statehood. The constitutional incorporation of both the traditional and contemporary criteria for recognition has ensured its

internal organization, the regulation of the TMR’s polity, and the internal legitimation of the TMR’s authority. Although the constitutional function of asserting the criteria for international recognition is applicable in the context of both recognized and unrecognized states, it has a particular relevance for unrecognized states that are seeking their independence. In the case of Transdniestria, its constitutional assertion that it meets the criteria for recognition and its constitutional practices have served as a basis for state building and for the entrenchment of its claims to statehood. Second, the existence of the Transdniestrian constitution has influenced the TMR’s political path by keeping its focus on achieving its independence as a state. Domestically and internationally, Transdniestrian authorities have promoted policies that have reflected the will of the people as enshrined in the constitution. In particular, authorities in the TMR have made sure that the constitutional provisions stipulating the state’s sovereign and independent character are followed and implemented.

Furthermore, the TMR’s constitutional framework has influenced the entity’ interactions with the external actors. First, during the negotiation process, the external actors have officially worked with Transdniestrian representatives who were elected or appointed in accordance with the TMR’s constitution. As this shows, the external actors are willing to engage with the constitutionally elected (although officially unrecognized) leaders of Transdniestria for the purposes of negotiations.

Second, the TMR’s long existence as a de facto state has prolonged and increasingly deepened its engagement with the external actors over the years. Gradually, these interactions have included a growing number of parties to the Transdniestrian issue and have covered an increasing number of issues connected to the process of conflict resolution. The causal link between the TMR’s constitutional framework and its increased engagement with the external

actors, however, remains unclear. Although the constitutional organization and regulation of the TMR has contributed to its longevity, the available evidence suggests that the Transdniestrian constitution has not been the only or even primary factor in sustaining the entity’s existence.

Therefore, while the constitution has likely influenced the TMR’s endurance, which, in turn, has enabled more meaningful interactions with the external actors, the constitution alone is not solely responsible for this international engagement.

Third, while the TMR’s constitution has had no impact on its recognition, the very idea of constitutional, democratic development in the entity has shaped how the external actors approach negotiations with and over Transdniestria. The external actors have further injected the general principles of democratic development into the negotiation process by suggesting that the democratic development of Transdniestria in practice is an important factor for possible settlement of the conflict. Therefore, the external actors have paid close attention to the internal constitutional practices of Transdniestria in order to observe whether those practices favor or jeopardize resolution of the entity’s status.

The analysis of the case study’s findings is divided into two chapters. This chapter looks at the effects of the TMR’s constitutional incorporation of the traditional and contemporary criteria for recognition on the decision-making processes of the external actors regarding possible recognition of the entity. The next chapter examines the specific example of democratic development as one contemporary criterion for recognition and explores the effects that the TMR’s electoral practices have had on Transdniestria’s quest for recognition.

This chapter demonstrates that, while the TMR’s constitutional framework has not had any effect on the international recognition of Transdniestria, it has influenced the consolidation of Transdniestrian statehood. This chapter also explores the ways in which the external actors

have emphasized the idea of Transdniestrian democratic development for the purposes of the negotiation process. Section 1 analyzes the use of the traditional criteria for recognition in constitutional documents and public discourse in Transdniestria and examines the responses of the external actors. The section demonstrates that the assertion of the traditional criteria in constitutional documents has created a strong basis for Transdniestrian state-building and the consolidation of its statehood. However, the lack of response from the external actors to Transdniestria’s constitutional statehood implies its potentially negative effects on the entity’s prospects for recognition. Section 2 explores how both the Transdniestrian constitution and official public discourse reflect the contemporary criteria for recognition. It also reviews the reactions of the external actors to the TMR’s constitutional provisions as they stand in text, and, most importantly, to their realization in specific practices that illustrate general aspects of its constitutional development. While the existence of TMR’s democratic constitutional provisions and their implementation have not affected international recognition of the entity, they have consolidated and legitimized Transdniestrian state institutions. Also, despite the exclusion of recognition from possible solutions to the conflict, the external actors have taken the TMR’s democratic development into account when approaching the broader process of conflict resolution.