Due to recent actions by a certain publication, I am requesting anyone interested in re-posting any of my material to please ask permission before doing so. I am more than happy to share in most cases, but with proper recognition (and compensation if deemed appropriate). Thank you for your cooperation.
It’s the year 2015 and I think (read: hope) that by now it is largely accepted that calling a woman a bitch is misogynistic. Even if not everyone abides by this assumed status quo, most have probably at least considered the thought (whether or not they care about it is a different topic).
Before I jump into the actual list, I’ll start out by giving the disclaimer that it is fairly unorthodox. I try to steer clear from the typical responses of “the Eiffel Tower” or “the Great Wall of China.” Now don’t get me wrong, both of those would be stunning to see in-person and hopefully one day I will make those trips, but they do not make my all-time bucket list of places I need to see in my lifetime. My interest is in the little-known of the world; places few are knowledgeable about. So without further ado:
“Abysmal” and “atrocious” are two adjectives commonly used to describe the current state of human rights in the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan. World Audit placed its rights records as the third worst in the world as of January 2015, only nudging out Turkmenistan and North Korea. Let’s investigate what makes this little-known nation’s human rights records so heinous.
The nations of the Southern Caucasus have had a longstanding history of territorial disputes, Armenia and Azerbaijan being of no exception. The Christian Armenians have had a long history of animosity with the Muslim Azerbaijanis, but the strife became greatly exacerbated by Soviet policies that divided up Armenian-majority territories, specifically Nagorno-Karabakh, in the early twentieth century.1 The source of conflict in this case is that Nagorno-Karabakh falls physically within Azerbaijani states lines but its inhabitants consist of 94% ethnic Armenians.2 Both sides believe they have legitimate claims over the land, which has ignited many acts of aggression. The conflict is on-going to this day but this paper will focus on the beginning of the twentieth century, largely when the violence began.
Seven years after the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia broke out over the autonomy of the breakaway republic of Abkhazia, the tiny de facto nation sits in a politically-favorable position for Russia. On July 16, Russian security forces moved the administrative boundary fence in order to place more Georgian territory under Russian control, part of a “creeping annexation of Abkhazia,” according to The Guardian.
I’ve been told countless times that I’m being “too sensitive” when I try to call out the casual sexism that I hear from time to time amongst my friends. Now to give a disclaimer, my male friends are all lovely people and I know they don’t mean any harm by these comments, but that is exactly the point I will address. Not meaning anything simply doesn’t mitigate the affects of harmful comments. The lack of understanding of the harm of these comments also proves that injustices are alive and well in our society.
The Collective Security Treaty Organization was developed in 1991 by Moscow after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a means to give Central Asian states, like Kyrgyzstan, the overarching security framework to replace what the Soviet Union had left behind. Given basic security framework these states went on to pursue their respective interests in the years following, resulting in a clash of national interests. Moscow then further developed the CSTO as a way for Russia to discretely gain more regional control, with the title of “security manager”1 always in mind. The organization has failed to do what it was originally intended for. This paper will serve to explain how Russia’s covert desire to be viewed as a security manager in Kyrgyzstan through its pretext of the Collective Security Treaty Organization has negatively impacted Kyrgyzstan’s development as a sovereign nation by forcing its dependent on Russia.
The Southern Caucasus region has consistently been infamous for its endless territorial disputes throughout history. The age-old conflict between the state of Georgia and its breakaway nation of Abkhazia remains a crucial issue that has pressured world powers to take sides in order to exert influence. The European Union is no different in this regard; it has clearly demonstrated its support for Georgia’s territorial integrity while trying to promote peacekeeping efforts in Abkhazia, but simultaneously refuses to actually recognize Abkhazia as a sovereign state in solidarity with Georgia. The EU has implemented a few policies, including the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), and the Non-recognition and Engagement Policy (NREP), in order to meet its goals in EU-Georgia relations and in preventing Abkhazia’s worst fear of becoming completely isolated on the world stage. This paper will serve to analyze the impacts and effectiveness of two recent policies that the European Union has put into place in attempt to help remedy the pressing territorial conflict between Georgia and Abkhazia.
The Republic of Uzbekistan has a rich history full of an eclectic mix of cultures from around the region, as well as the remnants of some of the oldest human civilizations in the world. It is safe to say that the nation is a fascinating one to which few Westerners have ventured, but the former Soviet Republic of Uzbekistan has had its share of skirmishes throughout history. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, a constitution that guaranteed basic freedoms was adopted. The Constitutional Court serves to interpret the Constitution and determine the constitutionality of laws in Uzbekistan.1