The present legal status of Transnistria neither seems to be obvious, nor distinctly determined. Its estimation in the context of the region’s statehood has been a subject of disputes of, and divides at the same time, the theorists of state, international lawyers, as well as experts in international relations and political sciences. The hereby paper is an attempt of making the analysis of the selected issues determining Transdniester’s status, first and foremost from the perspective of the theory of state and constitutional law, but also taking into account the international law point of view. It aims at finding an answer to the question on its legal and constitutional status as it is seen by both the unrecognized Transnistria’s state and Moldavia. The subject of the work contains the analysis of the elements of a state’s definition in the context of Transnistria. Moreover, it comprises considerations over the right of nations to self-determination and the problem of sovereignty as regards to the region. It also concentrates on the analysis of Transnistria’s status based on the Moldavian legislation, as well as different possibilities and opportunities/chances to solve the conflict lasting for almost thirty years.

Due to contemporary political conditions, there is a number of geopolitical entities outside the states that are not internationally recognized as states, due to a number of sociological, legal, historical and political factors. The world’s changes may contribute to the changes of the status of non-state geopolitical units. Authorities from unrecognized states have been making efforts for many years to recognize members of the international community as full, but this is a difficult task. Also, in the societies of dependent territories, the need for change is more and more often considered to be crucial, because it is very important for their future. There is no doubt that contemporary international relations constitute an interesting research field, if only due to the problems of recognition and lack of recognition of the states undertaken in the following considerations.

Borderization in the politics of Georgian and South Ossetian power elites

The dissolution of the Soviet Union led to both the restoration of independent states and the emergence of entities with the status of unrecognized states. In the aftermath of the five-day Georgia-Russia conflict of August 2008, the borderization incidents have intensified. The process involves the installation of barbed fences along the Administrative Boundary Line (ABL) between Georgia and South Ossetia, and shifting border marks deep into the Georgia-controlled territory to transform the official ceasefire line into an international border by the Russian FSB border guards. The paper aims to examine how ‘borderization’ activities have affected the politics of Georgian and South Ossetian ruling elites. By becoming a part of the political and social debate, border incidents have allowed victimization the Georgian nation to be presented to the world. However, especially in 2012-2013, the two main political parties in Georgia differed in their perceptions of borderization. From South Ossetian perspective, in turn, the process has served as a manifestation of strengthening national identity, independence from Georgia, and above all, the belief in Ossetian statehood guaranteed by Russia’s military presence and the growing importance of the military elite. The methodology of the work is based on the case study approach, as well as critical analysis of literature, documents, web content and a review of archival materials. The paper also includes data obtained during the 2018 and 2019 field research in Abkhazia and in the IDPs camp in Shavshvebi, near the Georgian-Ossetian border.