Advertisement

Moldova: Weak Autonomy, Central Government Neglect, and Mixed International Impact

  • Dawn Walsh
Chapter
Part of the Federalism and Internal Conflicts book series (FEINCO)

Abstract

This chapter outlines how autonomy has been used to manage a low-level conflict between the Gagauz and central Moldovan state. It shows how the other conflict in Moldova, between the central state and Transniestria encouraged moderation to ensure the Gagauz conflict did not escalate. However, it also argues that the weak capacities and small size of the autonomy coupled with a failure of the central government to consider the autonomy’s rights and needs have undermined the TSG institutions role as a conflict management tool. The analysis shows that kin and regional states have a mixed impact. Turkey has provided helpful assistance to the Gagauz. Yet discussion about a Moldovan–Romanian union and Russia’s links to the Gagauz have been destabilising.

References

  1. Avram, A. (2010). Territorial Autonomy of the Gagauz in the Republic of Moldova: A Case Study. Leipzig: Moldova-Institut.Google Scholar
  2. Beschieru, I. (2016, January 27). Interview with Dawn Walsh. Chişinău.Google Scholar
  3. BBC Monitoring Kiev Unit. (2014, May 9). Turkish Speaker Visits Gagauz Region of Moldova.Google Scholar
  4. BBC Monitoring Kiev Unit. (2015, August 19). Moldovan, Gagauz Leaders Urge Unity on Anniversary Day.Google Scholar
  5. BBC Monitoring Kiev Unit. (2015, October 30). Moldova’s Gagauz Politicians Deny Links to Purported Ukrainian Separatists.Google Scholar
  6. BBC Monitoring Kiev Unit. (2015, November 13). Programme Summary of Moldova One TV ‘Mesager’ News 12 Nov 15.Google Scholar
  7. BBC Monitoring Kiev Unit. (2015, December 23). Gagauz Autonomy Head Slams Moldova’s Pro-EU, Pro-Romanian Foreign Policy.Google Scholar
  8. Ceban, V. (2016, January 29). Interview with Dawn Walsh. Chişinău.Google Scholar
  9. Cioaric, V. (2016, January 28). Interview with Dawn Walsh. Chişinău.Google Scholar
  10. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova. (1995). Judgement of the Constitutional Court on Constitutionality Control of Article 1 Paragraph (4) of the Law No. 344-xiii of December 23, 1994 on the Special Legal Status of Gagauzia (Gagauz-Yeri). Chişinău: Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova.Google Scholar
  11. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova. (1999). Decision of the Constitutional Chamber No. 24 of 06.05.1999 on the Control of Constitutionality of Article 20 part (2) of the Law No. 344-XIII of 23 December 1994 on the Special Legal Status of Gagauzia (Gagauz-Yeri). Chişinău: Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova.Google Scholar
  12. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova. (2011). Judgement on Ceasing the Process for Constitutional Review of Article 21, para. (2) and para. (3) of the Law No. 344-XIII of December 23, 1994 on the Special Legal Status of Gagauzia (Gagauz-Yeri) and Article 40, para. (5) of the Law No. 294-XVI of December 25, 2008 on Prosecution. Chişinău: Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova.Google Scholar
  13. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova. (2014). Judgement On Rejection the Referral no. 22a/2014 on Constitutional Review of the Article 14, para. (4) of the Law No. 344-XIII of December 23, 1994 on the Special Legal Status of Gagauzia (Gagauz-Yeri). Chişinău: Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova.Google Scholar
  14. Constitution of the Republic of Moldova (1994). Accessed December 31, from, http://www.presedinte.md/titlul3#6.
  15. Creanga, I. (2016, February 16). Avdarma, Gagauzia.Google Scholar
  16. Cuijuclu, E. (2015a). The Mechanisms of Cooperation between the Autonomy and the Central Executive Authorities: Experience of Italy and the Republic of Moldova. Comrat: Pilgrim-Demo.Google Scholar
  17. Cuijuclu, E. (2015b). Implementation of the Status of Gagauz-Yeri Autonomy: Challenges and Prospects. Comrat: Pilgrim-Demo.Google Scholar
  18. Cuijuclu, E. (2016, February 16). Pilgrim Demo, Avdarma, Gagauzia.Google Scholar
  19. Cuijuclu, E. (2017, June 24). The Cooperation Mechanisms between the Centre and Autonomy: The Case of Gagauzia in Moldova. International Political Science Association Colloquium, Democratization and Constitutional Design in Divided Societies, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  20. Cuijuclu, E., & Sirkeli, M. (2015). Reciprocal Control Between the Center and Autonomy: Experience of Implementing the Gagauz Status. Comrat: Pilgrim-Demo.Google Scholar
  21. Demirdirek, H. (1996, April 12–14). The Painful Past Retold. Social Memory in Azerbaijan and Gagauzia. Postkommunismens Antropologi Conference, Copenhagen. Accessed December 31, 2017, from http://www.anthrobase.com/Txt/D/Demirdirek_H_01.htm.
  22. Fane, D. (1993) Moldova: Breaking Loose from Moscow. In I. Bremmer & R. Taras (Eds.), Nations and Politics in the Soviet Successor States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Freedom House. (2003). Nations in Transit – Moldova 2003. Washington, DC: Freedom House.Google Scholar
  24. Gilet, K. (2015, May 25). In Tiny Moldova, Hints of a ‘Federalized’ Ukraine’s Future; Gagauzia, An Autonomous Region in Southern Moldova, Looks to Moscow Before the West, Much as Ukraine’s Restive East Does. The Christian Monitor.Google Scholar
  25. Groza, I. (2016, January 28). Interview with Dawn Walsh. Chişinău.Google Scholar
  26. King, C. (1997). Minorities Policy in the Post-Soviet Republics: The Case of the Gagauzi. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 20(4), 738–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirnitki, I. (2016, January 26). Interview with Dawn Walsh. Chişinău.Google Scholar
  28. Law on the Special Legal Status of Gagauzia (Gagauz-Yeri). Accessed December 31, from, http://www.regione.taa.it/biblioteca/minoranze/gagauziaen.pdf.
  29. Litra, L. (2016). Nations in Transit – Moldova 2016. Washington, DC: Freedom House.Google Scholar
  30. Neukirch, C. (2002). Autonomy and Conflict Transformation: The Case of the Gagauz Territorial Autonomy in the Republic of Moldova. In K. Gal (Ed.), Minority Governance in Europe, Series on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues (Vol. 1, pp. 105–123).Google Scholar
  31. Member of People’s Assembly. (2015, November 24). Institute for European Policies and Reforms Conference. Chişinău.Google Scholar
  32. Moldovan Parliament. (1994). Resolution of the Parliament No. 345 on implementation of the Law on Special Legal Status of Gagauzia (Gagauz-Yeri) of 23/12/1994. Accessed December 31, from, http://lex.justice.md/viewdoc.php?action=view&view=doc&id=308860&lang=2.
  33. O’Leary, B., & McCrudden, C. (2013). Courts and Consociations: Human Rights Versus Power-Sharing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Protsyk, O., & Rigamonti, V. (2007). Real’ and ‘Virtual’ Elements of Power Sharing in the Post-Soviet Space: The Case of Gagauzian Autonomy. Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 6(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  35. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. (2005, April 5). Moldova: The Example of Gagauz-Yeri as an ‘Unfrozen Conflict’ Region.Google Scholar
  36. Rank, H. (2016, January 27). Interview with Dawn Walsh. Chişinău.Google Scholar
  37. Sultanli, J. (2016, January 25). Interview with Dawn Walsh. Chişinău.Google Scholar
  38. Tass—News Agency. (2017, April 25). Gagauzia Does Not Support Moldova’s Policy of Integration with EU—Gagauz head.Google Scholar
  39. Tass—News Agency. (2014, July 11). Moldova’s Gagauz Autonomy Continues Russia 24 Broadcasts Despite Chişinău’s ban.Google Scholar
  40. Topal, I. (2016, February 16). Avdarma, Gagauzia.Google Scholar
  41. Troebst, S. (2001). Die Autonomieregelung für Gagausien in der Republik Moldova – ein Vorbild zur Regelung ethnopolitischer Konflikte? in Berliner Osteuropa Info, No. 17.Google Scholar
  42. Wober, S. (2013). Making or Breaking the Republic of Moldova? The Autonomy of Gagauzia. European Diversity and Autonomy Papers—EDAP, No. 2.Google Scholar
  43. Vaubel, R. (2009). Constitutional Courts as Promoters of Political Centralization: Lessons for the European Court of Justice. European Journal of Law and Economics, 28, 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Venice Commission. (1999). Opinion on the Questions Raised Concerning the Conformity of the Laws of the Republic of Moldova on Local Administration and Administrative and Territorial Organisation to Current Legislation Governing Certain Minorities. Strasbourg: Venice Commission. Accessed December 31, from, http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-INF(1999)014-e.
  45. Venice-Commission. (2002). Law on Modification and Addition in the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova. Strasbourg: Venice Commission. Accessed December 31, from, http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2002/CDL(2002)029-e.asp.
  46. Venice Commission. (2004). Republic of Moldova Law on Political Parties and Socio-political Organisations. Strasbourg: Venice Commission. Accessed December 31, from, http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL(2004)023-e.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law and GovernmentDublin City UniversityDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations