Abstract
Abstract This article examines the doctrine of uti possidetis iuris and its application to post-Soviet territorial formation in Central Asia and the South Caucasus, arguing that the Eurasian experience challenges assumptions derived from the doctrine’s classical decolonisation context. While originally conceived as a mechanism for stabilising borders during transitions to independence, its transplantation from colonial to post-imperial Eurasian settings occurred along administrative lines that were never intended to become international frontiers. The analysis demonstrates that in Central Asia, uti possidetis iuris operated as a stabilising principle due to pragmatic elite behaviour, demographic flexibility, and the absence of deep historical grievance narratives. In contrast, in the South Caucasus, inherited boundaries intersected with strong ethnonational identities and territorial claims, generating violent contestation in Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia. The article further explores the interaction between territorial integrity and self-determination, showing how the latter – particularly in its external form – was invoked to challenge the legitimacy of inherited borders. The comparative findings demonstrate that uti possidetis iuris is not a universally stabilising doctrine but one whose effect depends on underlying political, cultural, and demographic contexts. The Eurasian case calls for a more context-sensitive understanding of territorial settlement in international law.