Euroculture Thesis Assessment Grid 

Name of Student: Maka Mdivani

Thesis Title: “The EU’s role in the resolution of Georgia’s conflicts”

Home University: University of Palacky

Host University: University of Uppsala

Name of Supervisor: Ph.D. Candidate Christofer Berglund (second supervisor)

First supervisor: Mgr. Pavla Slavickova, Ph.D. 

In this report, please consider the following:

1) Problem statement, method and theory:
	a) The aims and objectives of the thesis – are these clearly identified and explained? Is there a well formulated problem statement?

Maka’s thesis departs from the pressing problems facing Georgia in the form of its two secessionist provinces in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Following the August 2008 war, the European Union is the only international actor with a presence on the ground by the conflict zones. Given its central role in the process of conflict resolution, Maka argues that there is a need to evaluate the impact of the EU’s interventions during 1990-2008. Considering the volatile situation in these conflict regions, this thesis undoubtedly addresses an important empirical problem. However, Maka does not explain whether – and if so, how – this thesis can shed light on other cases of third party intervention, e.g. other interventions carried out by the EU in its neighbourhood. As a result, the significance of the study rests squarely on Georgia’s secessionist conflicts per se. 

	b) Has a suitable methodology and theoretical frame been taken to solve the stated problems?

Maka’s thesis does not include a section on methodological issues. Questions concerning how to distinguish the impact of one external actor from that of other external actors, and how to distinguish exogenous influences from endogenous conflict dynamics, are not systematically tackled. In chapter one, Maka presents two theories of European Union intervention (Normative Power Europe and a Neorealist critique of the same) conducive to juxtaposing different interpretations of EU interventions in Georgia’s conflicts. Unfortunately, these tools are not utilized during the subsequent analysis in chapter three. Maka’s thesis therefore falls short of its potential. 

	c) Does the conclusion provide convincing answers/proof to the initial questions/hypothesis?

Maka’s first research question is: “What was the impact of the EU, as an international player on Georgia’s conflict resolution?” Her second research question introduces the hypothesis that the EU’s impact has been either positive or negative (“Did the EU’s involvement contribute to the resolution of these conflicts, or in contrary, the EU policies carried out in Georgia before the Russia-Georgia war contributed to the escalation of the conflict?”). The thesis does indeed provide a convincing answer to the first (primary) research question; the EU’s policies did not have a significant impact on Georgia’s conflict resolution during 1990-2008. However, the absence of a methodological section means that the process of answering this question is less transparent than would otherwise have been the case. The ineffectual use of the two theories also limits the surplus value added by chapter three. By tightly linking the theories to the hypotheses in the second research question, Maka could have magnified her contribution. 

2) Structure:
	a) Is the thesis coherently structured?

The structure of the thesis is clear-cut. Following an introductory section, chapter one outlines the theoretical framework; chapter two presents a background of Georgia’s conflicts; and chapter three contains an analysis of the EU’s role in the resolution of these conflicts. While there is a logical progression to Maka’s thesis, her argumentative chain is nonetheless muddled by the problematic connection between hypotheses, theories and analysis. 

	b) Are concepts clearly introduced and explained, and critically and consistently applied?

Maka visibly introduces and explains several central concepts in the early stages of her thesis. She also lays down some important delimitations. These inject a significant amount of rigour and consistency into subsequent chapters. However, Maka occasionally does go beyond these delimitations and introduces assumptions as to the meaning of particular concepts. Thus, although she claims not to investigate the matter, the thesis evinces a clear view as to who is culpable for the 2008 August war. Presumptions concerning appropriate conflict resolution behaviour from intervening powers also occasionally appear. 

3) Sources (primary and secondary):
	a) Has (enough) relevant (primary and secondary) literature been adequately interpreted and integrated into the thesis?

Maka has drawn on a wealth of secondary sources and is extraordinarily knowledgeable about the topic of her thesis. She has avoided using authors belonging to either nationality among the conflicting sides in order to reduce the risk of bias. In particular the sections on the Georgian-Ossetian and Georgian-Abkhazian conflicts should be commended for their even-handedness. Thus, she has made serious efforts to overcome partisan narratives, with only some controversial assertions remaining (e.g. concerning Georgia’s progressing democratization). 

	b) Is the bibliography/list of references complete and accurate?

Yes, almost. However, prominent Georgia-specialist Svante Cornell is mistakenly referred to as “Swante Cornell”. 

4) Stylistics:
	a) Is the use of language (English) acceptable and of the required standard (i.e. no spelling mistakes and typos, range of vocabulary, grammar)?

Maka commands excellent English skills and her text flows very well. I did discover a few spelling mistakes. 

	b) Are references in the text given in a coherent and consistent manner (either in-text or as footnotes)?

Yes. 

5) Format:
	a) How is the thesis presented? (i.e. consistency in lay-out, choice of fonts, headings, tables and graphs)

The thesis has a consistent and readable layout and is overall edited carefully. 

6) General:
	a) Have recommended revisions been executed to a satisfying degree?

Maka has proven to be critical about her own work during the process on many occasions and has clearly tried to overcome problems in her thesis. In that sense it has been a pleasure to supervise her. This last version of the thesis represents a considerable improvement compared to previous versions. However, had Maka planned further ahead, there would have been time to make additional revisions, which could have improved the thesis even more.

	b) To what degree has the student been able to work independently?

With a job on the side, Maka has often been pressed for time. And even though she has not organized her work in a way which enabled her to benefit maximally from our comments and suggestions, Maka did meet the most significant deadlines.

	c) Any other relevant comments.

I would like to congratulate Maka on the finishing her thesis! I wish her all the best for the future. 

Swedish Grade: Pass (Godkänd)

ECTS Grade: D

Date: 1 September 2011, Uppsala. 

Signature: Christofer Berglund