Human Rights and the Wars in Chechnya
By Ib Faurby
Royal Danish Defence College
During the two
Russian-Chechen Wars (1994-96 and 1999-?) extensive violations of international law and
human rights have taken place. The purpose of the following is to give a brief overview of
the nature of these violations and, even more briefly, to discuss the implications for
international law and the observance of human rights in intra-state conflicts.
When the Soviet
Union dissolved in late 1991, Chechnya (until then the major part of the Chechen-Ingush
Autonomous Republic in Northern Caucasus) declared itself independent. During the
following three years Moscow made some half-hearted attempts to force Chechnya back into
the Russian Federation but mostly ignored developments in the rebellious republic.
in December 1994, after the failure of a Russian supported attempt by the pro-Russian
opposition to overthrow the separatist regime, a regular Russian military intervention
took place. I lasted until August 1996, where the Russian forces suffered a humiliating
defeat and the Khasavyurt Agreement brought an end to the hostilities.
January 1997 Chechen Chief of Staff, Aslan Maskhadov, was elected president in an election
which international observers characterised as "free and fair". A Peace Treaty
was signed between Maskhadov and Russian President Boris Jeltsin in May the same year.
However, due to the devastations brought about by the war, the absence of the promised
Russian war reparations, external meddling by Islamic radicals, escalating crime and
inter-Chechen rivalries, Chechnya degenerated into a chaos which Maskhadov was unable to
to Maskhadovs policy, Chechen "field commander" Shamil Basayev and his foreign
brother-in-arms al-Khattab in August 1999 lead an attack into neighbouring Dagestan in
order to support radical Islamic groups there and with the declared purpose of
establishing a Chechen-Dagestani Islamic Republic. The attack was repelled by Russian and
local Dagestani forces. Moscow, however, lead by the new Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin,
used the crisis as the pretext for new war against Chechnya, allegedly in order to combat
"international terrorism", but clearly with the purpose to force Chechnya back
into the Russian Federation.[i]
new war, though several times declared over and won by Moscow, continues as a guerrilla
war with considerable losses on both sides and with no prospects for an early political
During both wars
massive violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law have taken
place. These two bodies of law are defined in the following way:
rights law consists of
international conventions and declarations, most of which have become customary
international law binding all states and having general applicability; and
humanitarian law only applies to
armed conflicts - international or internal conflict.[ii]
The number of
international conventions and other relevant documents on human rights is large. They
Declaration of Human Rights from 1948
for Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from 1948
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from 1966
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment from 1984
relating to the Status of Refugees from 1951 and its Additional Protocol from 1967
on the Rights of the Child from 1989
In a regional,
i.e. European, context there is - after Russia's membership of the Council of Europe in
The Statute of
the Council of Europe,
Convention on Human Rights and its additional protocols as well as
Convention Against Torture, Inhuman and or Degrading or Punishment from 1987.
legal documents there are also a number of so-called "politically binding"
documents, primarily drawn up within the CSCE - from 1994 the OSCE. These are the Helsinki
Final Act (1975), the Vienna Final Act (1989) and the Paris Charter (1990) as well as the
Copenhagen and Moscow Documents on the Human Dimension (1990 and 1991). Furthermore, there
is the Politico-Military Code of Conduct, signed in Budapest less than a week before the
first Russian-Chechen war.
As for international humanitarian law - which
applies to armed conflict - the most important texts are the Four Geneva Conventions from
1949 and the two Additional Protocols to these conventions. Only the common article 3 of
the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II from 1977, which specifies the
principles of the common article 3, applies to internal conflicts such as the
Russian-Chechen conflict. However, there can be no doubt that Protocol II does apply to
that conflict. This has also been confirmed in a ruling by the Russian Constitutional
Court in July 1995.
Finally, with the
decision to establish the International Criminal Court under the auspices of the UN, which
is soon to come into force, there is the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[iii]
This statute clearly defines what constitutes the most serious crimes of concern to the
international society, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime
violations of human rights and international humanitarian law during the two wars in
Chechnya are extremely well documented by inter-governmental and governmental institutions
as well as by highly respected non-governmental organisations. They include, just or
mention the most well-known:
President's Human Rights Commission[iv]
The U.S. State
Department's Annual Report on Human Rights Practises[v]
from Committees of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe[vi]
Reports from OSCEs Assistance Group in Chechnya during the first war (unpublished)
Reports from the
International Committee of the Red Cross[vii]
from Human Rights Watch[viii]
M�decins sans Fronti�res[x]
from the Human Rights Centre "Memorial"[xi], the most important Russian
human rights NGO
Reports from the
Dutch Pax Christi[xii],
to mention one of many respected national NGOs from the west.
Danish Refugee Council's has produced very useful Situation Reports, particularly about
the conditions of internally displaced persons.
It is beyond the
scope of this article to quote systematically from these very detailed reports. However,
they do exist and prove in gruelling details the systematic and very serious human rights
violations, which have taken place.
Both parties to the war have committed serious violations of international humanitarian
law and human rights law. In the west this has sometimes lead to the attitude that both
parties are equally guilty. The Russian side continuously draws attention to Chechen
violations - something, which has not been lost on some western media, commentators and
It is, however,
beyond any doubt that during both wars the Russian forces committed the largest number of
and the most serious violations. That is the unanimous conclusion of several of the above
mentioned reports, including reports by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe, the US State Department, the Russian Presidents Human Rights Committee (in 1996)
and Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International as well as other humanitarian NGOs.
To quote from a
report by the Committee of Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe dated April 2000:
". . .the
scale and number of human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian
law on the Chechen side cannot even remotely compare to those of the Russian side, which
are of much greater magnitude, and, due to Russia being a state party to the European
Convention on Human Rights and thus bound by duty to protect the rights she is violating,
much more serious".[xiii]
Among the most
serious Chechen violations were the
two hostage actions during the first war in Budjonnovsk and Kizlyar which included the
murder of hostages. These reprehensible acts must be condemned, but it should not be
forgotten that in both instances most of the hostages killed, were killed by Russian
There have been
numerous other cases of hostage taking in Chechnya, though it has been difficult to
ascertain to what extend they have been cases of individual crime or part of a deliberate
policy on behalf of the Chechen authorities.
include fighting in and from housing areas and thereby exposing the civilian population to
Russian counter attacks. That was the case during the extended battles for Grozny as well
as the battles in and around many towns and villages.[xv]
There are also
reports about Chechen fighters having executed, physically molested or threatened the
execution of village leaders and others who would not co-operate with them or who
co-operated with the Russian authorities or the Russian installed Chechen administration.[xvi]
The Russian side
has also claimed that Chechens kept prisoners of war or other captives as slaves or in
have been Russian claims that Chechen fighters have tortured or in other ways maltreated
Russian prisoners. There are, nevertheless, many instances where former Russian prisoners
have said that they were well treated by their Chechen captors.
The nature and
extend of the Russian violations of
humanitarian international law and human rights law are, as mentioned, well documented.
The list is long and includes almost all categories of human rights violations.
conduct of the war has shown that the purpose is not the claimed fight against
international terrorism but a collective punishment of the Chechen people.
During both wars
there have been numerous instances of disproportionate and indiscriminate bombing of the
civilian population (the most striking - but certainly not only - example being the
destruction of Grozny during both wars).
Already on 6
January 1995, the International Court of Justice denounced the indiscriminate use of force
by the Russian army against civilian targets in and around Grozny. The court stated that
"the Russian army violated the right to life of unarmed civilians on a massive
President's Human Rights Commission, of which Mr. Sergej Kovaljov was then chairman,
estimated that the original battle for Grozny during the first war cost 27.000 civilian
Due to censorship and other restrictions there are no figures for the loss of civilian
lives in Grozny during the second war.[xix]
In both wars
immense destruction was served on towns and villages throughout Chechnya. "The
attacks on populated areas must be characterised as a war against the civilian
population", wrote the OSCE Assistance Group in Chechnya in a report in March 1966.[xx]
Often towns and
villages were surrounded by Russian forces and their populations threatened with attack if
they did not hand over an arbitrary number of weapons or pay considerable sums of money to
gruelling example is the town of Samaskij, which twice during the first war was the scene
of massacres on women, children and elderly men. The Russian human rights organisation
"Memorial" has documented the killing of more than one hundred civilians in
Samaskij during the attack in April 1995.[xxi] Almost one year later, in
March 1996, 174 persons were killed and approximately 200 men taken to so-called
filtration points. Many houses were set on fire.[xxii] A similar massacre took
place in Sernovodsk in March 1996.
abound from the second war.[xxiii]
From the first 18 months there are three cases of mass killings of the civilian population
by Russian troops, which have been particularly well documented by Russian and
To this should be added a number of suspected mass killings during the same period as well
as the revelation of a mass grave at a village less than a kilometre from the main Russian
military base at Khankala in the eastern part of Grozny. 51 bodies were found, several of
which belonged to persons who had been taken into custody by the federal forces.[xxv]
Besides mass killings there are numerous well-documented cases of summary executions of
individual Chechens - men, women and even children.[xxvi]
From both wars
there are reports about columns of refugees being attacked by air planes, helicopters and
artillery as well as by soldiers with light arms. Russian helicopters have also attacked
refugees trying to cross the mountains into Georgia. In many cases Russian officers
demanding payment in order to let civilians escape from areas under attack. Likewise
Russian border troops have been demanding payment for letting refugees pass the border
from Chechnya into Ingushetia.
During both wars
Russian authorities established so-called filtration camps where boys (from 10 years old
and upwards) and men and occasionally women as well have been arbitrarily
interned ostensibly in order to check whether or not they are terrorists.
Conditions in the camps are primitive not to say inhuman. In some cases the interned have
been placed in unheated box cars. Supply of food and water was insufficient.[xxvii]
The Council of Europe has, among other, criticised that the interned get no legal council.
Based on interviews with former detainees several international humanitarian organisations
claim that internees have been tortured and raped.[xxviii] The two following
illustrations are from a Human Rights Watch report from 2000:
at Chernokozovo were beaten both during interrogation and during night time sessions when
guards utterly ran amok. During interrogation, detainees were forced to crawl on the
ground and were beaten so severely that some sustained broken ribs and injuries to their
kidneys, liver, testicles and feet. Some were tortured with electric shocks".
majority of former detainees interviewed by Human Rights Watch reported that they were
only released after their families had paid substantial bribes to their Russian captors
and predatory intermediaries, ranging from 2,000 roubles to US $ 5,000".[xxix]
During both wars
Russian forces have pillaged and stolen Chechen property, often carried away in military
vehicles and stored at military bases until it could be transported out of Chechnya.
Russian officers have clearly known about this without intervening to stop the traffic in
violation of international humanitarian law Russian civilian and military authorities have
obstructed the work of humanitarian organisations, including the International Committee
of the Red Cross, whose access to detainees and victims is guaranteed by the Geneva
authorities have been very negligent in bringing legal proceedings against officers and
men who have committed human rights violations and war crimes. This has been severely
criticised by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Already during the
first war the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights stated that it was unacceptable
that there was no investigation or legal proceedings against Russian soldiers who were
suspected of violations of human rights.
This criticism has
been repeated during the second war. In January 2001 the Committee on Legal Affairs and
Human Rights wrote:
". . . the
key problem from a human rights perspective remains the lack of accountability for crimes
committed by federal servicemen and the personnel of law-enforcement agencies against
civilians and the resulting impunity which in turn, encourages further human rights
violations by the Russian federal forces operating in the Chechen Republic and leads to
unnecessary and unacceptable suffering among the civilian population".[xxxii]
Thus, there can
be no doubt about the seriousness and scale of the Russian violations. To quote once again
from the April 2000 report from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Humans Rights of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe:
Russian side has continued its indiscriminate and disproportionate military campaign in
the Chechen Republic . . ., including direct attacks on the civilian population. The
Russian federal troops have committed - and apparently continues to commit - grave human
rights violations and even war crimes. Peaceful civilians have been - and still are at
risk of being - shot dead, raped, arrested and arbitrarily detained, tortured and
ill-treated; their homes destroyed and looted. . . Most violations of human rights by the
Federal troops in Chechnya go unreported, due to the restrictions imposed on the free
movement of journalists in Chechnya, and the non-admittance of non-governmental human
rights organisations, and stay unpunished."[xxxiii]
The most serious
It must be
emphasised, that this article is not just about what is euphemistically called
"collateral damage", something which, regrettably, occurs during all armed
conflicts. More than any thing else it is about deliberate and systematic violations of
international humanitarian law and the rights of civilian non-combatants.
definitions of the most serious crimes are as follows:
Genocide (as defined in Article 6 of the 1998
Statute of the International Criminal Court and Article II of the 1948 UN Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide) is
- characterised by the specific
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,
Against Humanity (as defined in
Article 7 of the 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court) are
- characterised by part of a
widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population
Crimes in Non-international Armed Conflicts (as defined in
Article 8, 2 c and e of the 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court and the
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions) include
killing, torture or inhuman treatment of persons protected by the Geneva Convention as
well as extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity, and the
taking of hostages.
It is not the
purpose of this article to analyse whether or not the Russian violations in Chechnya can
be characterised as genocide. The accusation of genocide is a serious one and should not
be used lightly. The definition of genocide requires that there was an intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group as such. To determine whether or not that has been the case
during the two Russian-Chechen wars necessitates an in-depth legal and empirical study.
However, it seems
from the reports referred to above, that there can be little doubt that the Russian forces
in Chechnya have committed serious violations, some of which clearly fall within the
definitions of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Furthermore, the Russian conduct of
the wars is in violation of the Statute and the Conventions of the Council of Europe, as
has been stated in numerous reports from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
international debate over human rights violations in Chechnya, Russian representatives
have continuously referred to Chechen violations as justification for Russian acts. Many
Western governments seem, at least in their rhetoric, in part to have accepted that
However, as the
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe has written:
of Russia's military intervention in Chechnya was and is of such a magnitude that it
cannot be justified in terms of an anti-terrorist operation, and must in itself be
condemned as a violation of human rights and international humanitarian law."[xxxiv]
violations cannot be used as justification for Russian violations. It is Russia who is
signatory to international conventions and other legal instruments concerning the conduct
of war and the protection of human rights. It is Russia, who, by signing these
instruments, has committed itself to a set of legally binding norms.
In a report to the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Lord Judd has stated it in this way:
recognising that human rights violations have been, and are still, perpetrated by both
sides in the conflict, the assembly considers that membership of the Council of Europe
requires a commitment to a higher order of conduct. The Assembly cannot accept that a
member state's failure to comply with the organisation's standards is justified by the
behaviour of its adversaries".[xxxv]
Russian-Chechen wars Russian political leaders repeatedly claimed that the conflict was an
"internal matter" for the Russian Federation, which other states had no right to
meddle in. What was even more remarkable and discouraging was that several western leaders
seemed - openly or tacitly - to accept this argument.[xxxvi]
rights law and international humanitarian law as "internal matters" is not just
politically problematic, it is in clear contradiction of well established international
the most fundamental norms of human rights law and international humanitarian law are now
considered legally binding upon all states as part of customary international law. The
norms are obligations of all states towards the international community as a whole".[xxxvii]
This view has
been confirmed by several resolutions by the UN General Assembly and as well in rulings by
the International Court of Justice. A strong testimony to this view was adopted by the
World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993. In the concluding Vienna Declaration
and Programme of Action, which was unanimously adopted by all member states of the UN, it
is unequivocally stated that, "the promotion and protection of all human rights is a
legitimate concern of the international community".[xxxviii]
In a European
context, this view has been reaffirmed through declarations made within the context of
CSCE/OSCE beginning with the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. In the 1991 Moscow Document from the
Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE it says that "issues relating to human
rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law are of international concern,
as respects for these rights and freedoms constitute one of the foundations of
international order" and the participating states "categorically and
irrevocably" declare "that the commitments undertaken in the field of the human
dimension of the CSCE are matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating
states and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the state concerned".[xxxix]
It is outside the
scope of this article to analyse the motives and goals behind the reluctance of
international organisations and western governments to take stronger action in relation to
the Russian violations. But clearly, Russia's great power status and importance for
international security has played an important role.
by smaller and less important states would not have gone unchallenged. The seriousness and
magnitude of the atrocities committed by Russian forces in Chechnya are no less than the
violations committed by military and para-military forces in the Balkans, for which the
international community brings accused war criminals to trial in the Hague.
For the western
countries, the policy - sometimes referred to as "Russia First" - was motivated
by considerations of Russia's importance for international security in general and the
hope of Russia's cooperation on arms control and the situation in the Balkans in
particular as well as Russia's tacit acceptance of NATO enlargement.
These motives are
both serious and legitimate. The point is certainly not that such considerations should
have been thrown over-board. The question is in stead, why it was not possible to strike a
more balanced policy, which was based on respect for international law and human rights as
well as on considerations of western security interests. It would indeed be sad, if one
had to conclude that no such balance is possible.
Even so, many in
the west, including western political leaders, seem to have believed that President
Yeltsin personally was the guarantee for political and economic reforms in Russia and
thought that any criticism of him and his policies would weaken the democratic forces in
Russia and threaten to bring extreme nationalists and communists to power. However, the
weak western reactions - particularly during the first war - were a great disappointment
for the democratic forces, which opposed the war. To quote the leading Russian human
and Clinton had taken a different stand", on Chechnya", a principled,
uncompromising, honest stand, the war would not have gone on like it did. But they were
thinking of Yeltsin's prestige, they were afraid of political chaos in Russia. This lack
of principles was paid for with tens of thousands of human lives".[xl]
during the second war many western leaders seem to see President Putin as the person who
can bring stability and liberal economic reform to Russia. After September 11, 2001 Putin
furthermore is seen as an important partner in the fight against terrorism.
However, there can
be little doubt that the western caution served to confirm Yeltsin's belief that he could
continue the first war and initiate the second war without major international
consequences. Similarly, it seems to be President Putin's belief that the new war can be
fought at limited costs to Russia's international position. This has been confirmed by the
almost total absence of western interest in Russian human rights violations in Chechnya
since September 11, 2001.
half-century since the Second World War, human rights have come to play an increasing role
in international relations. A large number of treaties, declarations etc. have been drawn
up and ratified by the majority of states and, as mentioned, become part of customary
international law. Furthermore, in the years following the end of the Cold War human
rights language has found its way into the foreign policy declarations of many
reluctance to challenge the Russian human rights violations in Chechnya has, however, had
serious consequences for international law. It has been clearly demonstrated that large
and politically important states can defy international law with impunity. This should not
surprise anyone, but it is a sobering reminder at a time where ritualistic declarations of
commitments to human rights have become politically popular.
the willingness of the Council of Europe to admit and uphold the membership of a state
which continues to violate the Council's Statute and Conventions is a testimony to the
demise of what for long was considered to be the worlds most effective human rights
[i] M�rta-Lisa Magnusson og Ib Faurby,
"Endl�sung i Tjetjenien?", Udenrigs,
nr. 4, 1999, pp. 39-52; Ib Faurby, "Ruslands v�bnede styrker i krise og krig", Politica, nr. 2, 2001, pp. 166-179.
[ii] Humanitarian Intervention. Legal and
Political Aspects. Copenhagen: The Danish Institute of International Affairs, 1999, p.
[iv] On the Observance of the Rights of Man
and the Citizen in the Russian Federation (1994-1995). Report of the President's
Commission on Human Rights. Moscow: February 1996.
[xii] For example Rieks
H.J. Smeets and Egbert G. CH. Wesselink, Chechnya
One Year of War. A Pax Christi International report. 11 December 1995.
[xiii] Council of
Europe. Parliamentary Assembly. Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Conflict in
Chechnya - Implementation of Russia of Recommendation 1444 (2000). Doc. 8700. 5 April
[xiv] Chechnya and Dagestan. Caught in the
Crossfire: Civilians in Gudermes and Pervomayskoye. Human Rights Watch/Helsinki: March
[xvi] Council of
Europe. Parliamentary Assembly. Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Conclict in
Chechnya - recent developments. Doc. 8948. 23 January 2001
[xvii] Nicolas M. L.
Bovay, "The Russian Armed Intervention in Chechnya and its Human Rights
Implications", International Commission of
Jurists - The Review, 54, 1995, p. 34, here quoted from Svante E. Cornell,
"International Reactions to Massive Human Rights Violations: The Case of
Chechnya", Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 51,
No. 1, 1999, p. 88.
[xviii] On the
Observance. . ., Op.cit., chapter 2.1.
[xix] M�rta-Lisa Magnusson og Ib Faurby,
"Hvorfor ville russerne krig? Mediernes rolle under de to russisk-tjetjenske
krige", Nordisk �stforum, nr. 3, 2000, pp.
"Human-Rights Situation Remains Unimproved". Telefax from OSCE AG to CiO, 12
[xxii] Greg Hansen and
Robert Seely, War and Humanitarian Action in
Chechnya. Providence, RI: The Thomas J. Watson Institute for International Studies,
1966, p. 43; Civilians Targeted. A M�decins sans
Fronti�res Report on Violations of Humanitarian Law in Chechnya. Moscow: April 18,
1996, p. 14.
The "Dirty War" in Chechnya: Forced Disappearances, Torture, and Summary
Executions. Human Rights Watch. Vol 13, No. 1
(D), March 2001.
[xxiv] Council of
Europe. Parliamentary Assembly. Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Conflict in
Chechnya - recent developments. Doc. 8948. 23 January 2001; Civilian Killings in
Staropromyslovski District of Grozny. Human Rights
Watch. Vol 12, no. 2 (D), February 2000. Russia/Chechnya; Russia/Chechnya. "No
Happiness Remains". Civilian Killings, Pillage, and Rape in Alkan-Yurt, Chechnya. Human Rights Watch. Vol. 12, No. 5 (D), April
2000; Russia/Chechnya. February 5: A Day of Slaughter in Novye Aldi. Human Rights Watch. 2001;
"Russia/Chechnya. Buyring the Evidence: The Botched Investigation into a Mass Grave
in Chechnya", Human Rights Watch. Vol. 13,
No. 3 (D), May 2001.
[xxvi] The "Dirty
War". . ., Op. cit.
[xxvii] O. Orlov, A.
Cherkasov and S. Sirotkin, Conditions in the
Detention in Chechen Republic Conflict Zone: Treatment of Detainees. Moscow: Memorial
Human Rights Centre, 1995.
[xxix] "Welcome to
Hell". Arbitrary Detention, Torture, and Extortion in Chechnya. Human Rights Watch,
[xxx] Rieks and
Wesselink, Op. Cit.
[xxxi] Update No. 96/2
on ICRC activities in Chechnya/Northern Caucasus. 14 August 1996; Hansen and Seely, Op. cit.
[xxxii] Council of
Europe. Parliamentary Assembly. Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Conclict in
Chechnya - recent developments. Doc. 8948. 23 January 2001.
[xxxvi] Ib Faurby, "'Et indre anliggende'.
Vesten og krigen i Tjetjenien", Vindue mod
�st, nr. 34 (1996) pp. 8-12; Svante E. Cornell, Op. Cit., pp. 85-100.
[xxxvii] Humanitarian Intervention, op.cit.,
[xl] Quoted from Peter Reddaway and Dimitri Glinski, The Tragedy of Russia's Reforms. Market Bolshevism
Against Democracy. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2001, p.
[xli] For a more
detailed presentation of this argument se: Ib Faurby and M�rta-Lisa Magnusson,
"Europar�det, Rusland og krigene i Tjetjenien", Udenrigs, nr. 2, 2000, pp. 39-51. (A Russian
language version can be found on ).