The conflict is considered as an internal conflict by the major powers and international organizations. As known, from the beginning of 1988 the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh had an intra-state dimension which means the struggle for independence of Nagorno-Karabakh where are populated Armenian population. But since the beginning of 1922 the conflict possesses an inter-state dimension between two sovereign states: Azerbaijan and Armenia. So the conflict has become one of the most intractable disputes in the international arena and it is also the conflict of the region which has the largest geopolitical significance.
So Azerbaijan and Armenia, as the two former Soviet Republics fought over the NK region from 1987 to 1994 in the forms of first communal clashes. Despite the fact that both states agreed on a cease-fire on the conflict in May 1994, the outcomes of the war are political turmoil, territorial losses and mass displacements. Though two sides recognized and ceased-fire armed force, but nevertheless conflict or confrontations existing in the form of diplomatic relations and by other ties relations. Problem and Significance The problem of this conflict lies under the disagreement of belligerents: Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Especially, on the side of Armenian which occupied over the enclave land and doesn’t want recognize any resolution are contested and suggested by organizations. Here, one of the problems is influence of external powers which can support its side and made financial and military aid. Also here another problem is the refugees’ problem from both sides to the conflict and their integration into society. To this day, discussion of the problem of refugees has focused exclusively on Azeris from Karabakh or Armenia, with no serious mention of Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan.
A comprehensive and fair solution to the refugee problem, consistent with the most basic international human rights standards, will treat all individuals that qualify as refugees independent of their national identity or current location of residence. But in case of significance, the main issue is the security issue which is so fragile. Because Caucasus states are located nearby Europe, Central Asia, Russia and Islamic states in which there are sufficient problems. It is so fragile because the conflict can effect to the neighbor states.
This long-lasting problem must be provided by international organizations which peace-making process is going now and for future keeping safeness or security to the neighbors and for their sovereignty status. And this status must be resolve or guaranteed. Literature Review. The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) region of Azerbaijan, which in its modern form has continued for 20 years, is a complicated case study of multi-vector and multi-layered claims, mostly from the Soviet times, ranging from history, economy, and legal status, used to justify the military occupation (along with seven adjacent regions).
The article illustrates that some of the weaker claims were dropped altogether, whilst others were continually mixed with additional charges to make them “stick”. Despite solid legal, historic and moral grounds, Azerbaijan has been lagging in clarifying and explaining the fictitious charges of NK’s supposed transfer to Azerbaijan’s suzerainty in 1920s, the legal status of NK itself, its economic and financial well-being, and the impossibility to apply the 3 April 1990 Soviet Law on Succession to the NK case whether for the purposes of justifying its independence or attachment to Armenia.
Despite all the challenges and blame shared by all sides, NK and adjacent currently occupied territories are recognized as part of Azerbaijan, with the latter retaining all rights, including military, to return it under its full sovereignty. So, there are many scholars that wrote articles about Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I want to mention some famous scholars’ articles. Philip Gamaghelyan wrote article about “Intractability of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: A myth or a reality?
He provides a stakeholder analysis and examines political, economic, security and socio-cultural dynamics of the conflict. Distinguishing between the positions and the interests of the main actors, the paper evaluates the peace process, reveals the factors accounting for its continuing failure and develops recommendations on how the conflict can be resolved. This article is intended to call in question the myth of the intractability of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Philip Gamaghelyan: “The ‘intractability’ of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not attributable to the lack of vitality of a particular solution”. He also argues that any agreement that establishes a definite solution would require some concessions would dissatisfy one or both parties and would produce powerful ‘spoilers’ that could sabotage the peace process. Therefore it is necessary not to look for a fast solution, but to develop a long-term strategy of addressing underlying issues of the conflict such as mutual perceptions, security issues and democracy.
In our opinion, the ‘intractability’ of the conflict in this article largely originates from the desire of parties to have a sense of the final status of the region, before addressing the underlying problems. I suggest that if this approach is reversed, all other issues are resolved, and an acceptable level of stability and cooperation in the region is achieved, the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh will become less significant, which will make it easier for parties to come to a compromise. Next article “Democratization as the key to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution" was written by Tigran Mkrtchyan.
Tigran Mkrtchyan: “Theoretically the risks of war or re-emergence of war are reduced by democratization and exacerbated by reversals in the democratization process, but rapid democratization which was the case after the collapse of the Soviet Union may bring weak regimes unable to establish effective control and political order” He mention these questions in his article “What can democratization give? Can it reach the peace? ”. And also he mention “Political change or democratization can take many different forms and need not proceed in a unidirectional or linear fashion.
The significance is that there be steady movement towards democracy in a given state. Changes toward autocracy and reversals of democratization are accompanied by increased risks of war involvement. Reversals are riskier than progress”. At issue therefore is not the rapidity of change toward democracy but the linearity of the process. Also the elections are indeed the first test of democratization, but by fair and transparent elections only one does not build a democratic society.
So the ‘dangerous democratization hypothesis’ has suggested that emergent democracies may be quite prone to international violence, largely because of “deformed” institutional forces. The conflict is an obstacle to democratization, the solution of the war in the long run also rests with democratization. Democratization or “mature democracies” do not wage wars against each other. The democratization tendencies in the Soviet Union made many ethnic-nationalist conflicts within its space because the democratization was incomplete and political institutions weak.
So, he think in order to have complete democratization they need to consolidate their internal institutions and elect or choose a good leader. Last article that I want to mention is “Nagorno-Karabakh: basis and reality of Soviet-era legal and economic claims used to justify the Armenia-Azerbaijan war” written by Adil Baguirov. In his article he maintain that regarding the early claims that the economy of NK region was supposedly deliberately neglected by Soviet Azerbaijani authorities, to both “punish” and “root out” Armenians, and this, allegedly, left no choice than for Armenian separatism and military action.
Ironically, this argument did not stand the test of time and has been disproved by the fact, that the economic situation of the remaining Armenians in the occupied territories today is hardly better than it was before the war. This is not only the consensus of foreign journalists visiting the occupied territories, but also of the OSCE fact-finding mission in February 2005 – he argues such like this in his article. Hypothesis. Russian’s support to Armenia led to occupation 20% of territories of Azerbaijan.
Hence we understand that Russia totally support Armenian Governments and it is a one of the cause unresolved long – lasting conflict. Russia behind of this conflict as known obviously wants to keep influence to Caucasus states especially to Armenia, despite of other major powers in international arena. Subjects of study. In our work we are studying - Russian role in the conflict and its support for Armenia, consequences of the war, possible ways of resolving. To find out the ways of resolving and to determine the right side we also use UN Charter and International Law.
Exactly we will look at the International Laws branches – sovereignty of the state, self-defense right and self-determination right. Measurement. As “Russian support” we mean military, economic and political support of Russia to Armenia and its pressure for the Azerbaijan government. Another term is “Self-determination right” – means right for determining of their future, political system, sovereignty and etc by groups, nations, and autonomies. “Self-defense right” – the right for declaring a war for the other state in situation when it attacked first or preparing to attack.
References: • Philip Gamaghelyan: “Intractability of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: a myth or reality? ” • Shahen Avakian: “Nagono-Karabakh, Legal Aspects”. • www. flashpoints. info Nagorno-Karabakh: Azebaijani and Armenian perspectives. • Tigran Mkrtchyan: “Democratization as the key to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution” • www. wikipedia. org Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict • Nora Dudwick, “Armenia: Paradise Regained or Lost? ” in Ian Bremmer & Ray Taras (Ed. ), New States, New Politics: Building the Post-Soviet Nations, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 84; • George Joffe, “Nationalities and Borders in Transcaucasia and the North Caucasus,” in John F. R. Wright, Suzanne Goldenberg and Richard Schofield (Ed. ), Transcaucasian Boundaries, (London: UCL Press, 1996), p. 25 • Adil Baguirov: “Nagorno-Karabakh: basis and reality of Soviet-era legal and economic claims used to justify the Armenia-Azerbaijan war” • Turkish Weekly Journal:” Nagorno-Karabakh Problem: Claims, Counter Claims and Impasse” by Guner Ozkan