Dr. Bumin presented on the judicial transitions in the post-Soviet world. In contrast to many Latin American countries, the post-Soviet states lacked in civic legacies of independent statehood’s and judicial traditions. Politicisation of their judiciary, therefore, was nearly universal among these states. The speaker shared research on judicial transitions linking the design of political institutions to the success of building independent judiciaries around the world. Dr. Bumin addressed the relationship of presidential systems between different transitional regions and the post-Soviet space, noting that while in the latter presidential systems enhanced judicial reforms, in the case of the latter, the result was the opposite.
Ms. Tatevik Khachatryan addressed the relative limitations in judicial reforms in Armenia, specifically the unfulfilled process of vetting, the necessity of integrity checks of judges, and the importance of civic society in participating in the process of judicial reforms.
Dr. Kopalyan spoke about the institutional limitations and complexities of judicial reforms in Armenia, specifically how institutional design and institutional insulation remain the primary explanatory factors as to why post-Velvet Armenia has observed a slow reforms process.
Ms. Khachatryan elaborated on the concerns over the Supreme Judicial Council, which is the state body responsible for oversight and monitoring of judicial behaviour, while Dr. Bumin added examples from other case studies of the need for independent state bodies to undertake the process of transparency and accountability of the judiciary. All panels also addressed the importance of including the role of the Prosecutor’s Office when studying or understanding judicial reforms. The need for parallel reforms in judicial educational sector and judiciary reform was also underlined in the discussion.
Neil Hauer reflected on the challenges of covering the war. Particularly poignant was his point as to how people in the front lines have adapted to war – the strange sense of hybridity, leading a “normal-ish” life with the war in the backdrop. The journalist also provided first-hand accounts on his reading of the military capacity on both sides of the battlefield. The journalist also elaborated on perceptions within Ukrainian society, especially how they understand the South Caucasus, and the extent to which perceptions are primarily defined through a “Russia-lens.”
Dr. Kirakosian explained the way in which the use of international judicial bodies by small states, in this case Armenia, interacts with great power dynamics. He argued that Armenian diplomacy had shied away from using these avenues, but that modernisation of diplomacy for small states requires active engagement in international bodies of law.
Dr. Khvorostiankina highlighted as to how times of global crisis throughout history have become moments of order building, via increasingly crystallising international law. She discussed the dire need for deepening of the international law as a result of the war in Ukraine.
Sossi Tatikyan talked about various factors shaping the approach of international actors to different conflicts; in particular, geopolitical interests, international law and its conflicting principles, human rights aspects , democracy and value systems, and alliances, partnerships and diplomatic strategies of the parties to the conflict. She referred to the conflicts in Kosovo, East Timor, South Sudan, Nagorno Karabakh, conflicts in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.
Dr. Brian Taylor focused on the impact of the war on Russia’s domestic politics, its retrenching economy, and the military sector which is under stress. The dramatic decline in Russia’s productive capacity and tightening political space were some of the take-aways.
Dr. Cooley examined the difficult predicament in which the states in Russia’s vicinities are finding themselves. Not wishing to pick a side, all of these countries are engaged in difficult balancing act between Russia and the West, a cleavage that penetrates deep into various institutional layers inside states. While effective in challenging the rules-based world order, Russia will also be weakened by it, emerging as a policy-taker among major powers, argued Dr. Cooley.
Dr. Katz concluded the panel by showing the complicated balancing among the countries in the Middle East. The war was yet another reminder to the countries in the Middle East that the US remains preoccupied, with yet another war, which diverts Washington’s attention from this region. Specific attention was placed on Russia-Iran relations.
Geopolitical Turbulence and the South Caucasus, Dr. Nerses Kopalyan, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Prof. Kopalyan specified the ways in which the war shapes the politics in the South Caucasus, with a specific emphasis on the relations between Russia and Armenia. Dr. Kopalyan addressed the broader structural components of the global order, and the extent to which Russia, as a revisionist actor, is being neutralized by the Western liberal order for its invasion of Ukraine.
Dr. Kopalyan also noted the implications of Russia’s relative decline on the South Caucasus and Armenia, specifically elaborating on the lack of reciprocity and mutual alignment of interests with respect to Russia’s relationship with its allies or strategic partners.
