Competing Epistemologies in Contested Spaces: Knowledge Production on ‘De Facto States’ in English and Russian Language Academic Literature

Abstract

In Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, competitive regional integration frameworks—most notably the European Union’s Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union—have been institutionalised. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has further intensified the geopolitical rivalry, particularly as Moldova and Georgia joined Ukraine in obtaining EU candidate status. Despite this deepening competition at the regional level, little attention has been paid to its impact on knowledge production in international relations (IR), especially regarding entities often labelled as de facto states—whose status remains contested and whose conceptual framing is debated. Although comprehensive reviews of de facto states’ studies, including those emerging from the end of the Soviet Union, exist (e.g., Broers 2013; Pegg 2017), these accounts overwhelmingly rely on English-language Western scholarship. The limited engagement with Russian-language sources, including the perspectives of scholars based in the places analysed, has been criticised as indicative of Western epistemic bias (Yemelianova 2015). This criticism reflects broader concerns within international relations (IR) regarding epistemological hierarchies and the marginalisation of non-Western knowledge production.

This paper adopts a comparative perspective to analyse knowledge production by Western and Russian(-language) scholars on four case studies: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Transnistria. Adopting a decentring perspective, it also explores the scholarship produced within these regions. Drawing on a systematic literature review and theoretical concepts such as epistemic communities, regimes of truth, and speech acts (Foucault 1980), the paper interrogates the relationship between knowledge and power, while attempting to critically distance itself from Eurocentric assumptions.

Findings reveal broad alignments between Western scholarship and European politics on the one hand, and Russian-language scholarship and Russian political narratives on the other, particularly in relation to sovereignty claims. Notably, however, Russian-language scholars often continue to categorise Abkhazia and South Ossetia as de facto states despite Russia’s formal recognition since 2008, illustrating a divergence in terminological usage. In the concluding discussion, the paper highlights the epistemic contributions of scholars writing from within, particularly in Abkhazia and Transnistria, and calls for greater inclusion of these voices in global academic discourse.