Introduction In 1975 the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe decided to consider the existing boundaries in Europe as finally settled. In the beginning of the 1990s, due to the merging of two Germanys and the dissolution of the USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, the international community had to adjust its previous doctrine to the new realities and recognize the new state boundaries in Central and Eastern Europe and those that emerged on the terri- tory of the former USSR (Newly Independent States – NIS). The common will of the German people to unite and to form one state and, in the dissolving federations, the existence of the Union republics which made-up multiethnic states, were used as a justification. There arise some questions concerning the NIS which were earlier supposed to be integral parts of Russia, no matter how called – the Russian Empire or the USSR. Was their emergence an illogical mistake, mere ‘play of history’, or were they bound to emerge sometime? Was there any national idea preceding their formation? How were their territories formed and how stable are their boundaries? The example of Georgia, a NIS that emerged (or, better, restored its independence) in the Transcaucasus may answer some of these questions. The Georgian experience during the Soviet era was similar to that of the other NIS, although Georgia, naturally, has a number of peculiarities by which it differs from the other NIS. A better understanding of these similarities and peculiarities implies at least a brief observation of the overall political-geograph- ical background of the post-Soviet space. The national idea and state-building within the Soviet republics The collapse of the Soviet Union and the appearance of the 15 NIS was to a great extent a surprise to the World – not only for the common people, but even to most of the scholars involved in Soviet studies, or politicians involved in the political affairs with the USSR. On the contrary, to the ethnic intellectual elites of some of the Union republics (at least of those in the Baltic and Transcaucasian regions, Ukraine) this was not totally unexpected. Of course, nobody could have predicted when the collapse of the USSR might have happened and one may doubt if anybody within a Soviet republic even in the mid-1980s expected it to occur during his lifetime. But the idea of independence was always openly present among the so-called ‘dissi- dents’ and, in a clandestine manner, even among the formally pro-Soviet intelligentsia, not rarely Communist Party members – predominantly histo- GeoJournal 43: 51–60.  1997 (September) Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. National idea, state-building and boundaries in the post-Soviet space (the case of Georgia) Gachechiladze, Revaz, Tbilisi State University, Georgia Received 14 April 1997; accepted 7 May 1997 Abstract: The emergence of the Newly Independent States at the end of 1991, although due to the coincidence of historical events, was a logical outcome of the political crisis within the USSR. The nations had been actively formed during the Soviet period and they consid- ered their homeland the territory which bore the name of a definite nationality. Since all the Union republics were multi-ethnic entities it is rather hard for them to form the nation- states up to present. Citizenship is just being formed and in many areas the ‘state-idea’ is still to emerge. Georgia, a NIS in the Transcaucasus, bears most of the common features of the post-Soviet political space. But it has distinct peculiarities in state-building due to its location and historical legacy. The national self-identity of the Georgians was formed quite a long time ago, but some geopolitical problems may temporarily hinder the formation of stable boundaries of this NIS.