On 2 September 2006, the self-declared Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica (Pridnestrovie, for short) marks sixteen years since it proclaimed independence. Although its sovereignty is still unrecognised by any country, the fact that it is a functioning constitutional democracy distinguishes it from the majority of entities with secessionist claims, and a small but growing number of governments have shown sympathy for its cause.
In April an international conference was held in Washington, D.C., to review the question of state sovereignty of Pridnestrovie under international law. This paper summarizes the conclusions of the conference, reviewing the process of state creation and comparing it to similar processes in neigboring Moldova and Ukraine. It examines the historical differences between Pridnestrovie and Moldova, and studies the Moldovan declaration of independence, its renouncement of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and its call for status quo ante bellum leading to the dissolution of the M.S.S.R. in the overall context of the breakup of the Soviet Union. In this context, the paper concludes that by a strict technical definition it would be incorrect to Pridnestrovie as a breakaway state or a separatist state. It argues that Pridnestrovie's claim to statehood may be buttressed by an estoppel.
Reviewing 16 years of nation building efforts by the government of Pridnestrovie, the paper evaluates the “principle of effectiveness” (effectivités) and the extent to which activity performed by the state in the exercise of sovereign powers reinforces its claim to territorial title. It examines Moldova's counter claim and concludes that despite fears that recognition would lead to the fragmentation of other states, the situation is sufficiently unique and self-justified in regional political history that the case should not be linked to the notion of ‘opening a pandora’s box’.
The claim to statehood hinges on the territory’s separate historical status and Moldova's call for a return to those borders during its own transition to independent statehood. Since the two declarations of independence of Pridnestrovie and Moldova, respectively, each government has developed separate institutions. The paper examines the degrees of internal and external sovereignty obtained by Pridnestrovie, concluding that it has already obtained statehood and merely lacks recognition of this fact from other members of the world community. It then examines the degree to which this lack of recognition precludes the validity of state sovereignty of Pridnestrovie under international law.