EXPLAINING INTRA-EXECUTIVE CONFLICTS IN SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL COUNTRIES: THE CASE OF GEORGIA

Abstract

The paper attempts to explain the variation in intra-executive conflict in Georgia. It scrutinises the hypothesis that episodes of intra-executive conflicts were generated from constitutional ambiguity, which I define using Elinor Ostrom’s framework of rule configurations. The paper explores the academic literature on Georgia’s constitution, as well as analysing the text of the constitution, and predicts that the majority of intra-executive conflicts would be related to foreign, security and defence affairs. It then tests the hypothesis by identifying and coding the conflict episodes covering the period from November, 2013 to May, 2015. After a careful empirical scrutiny, the paper finds supporting evidence for its theory.