The new EP Library Catalogue allows you to search the EP collection for:
- Journals, books and articles in paper or electronic format
- EPRS and Policy Department publications
Abstract by the author: This article is devoted to the relations of the European Union with Armenia and Azerbaijan based on the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership. Due to strategic location between Europe, the Middle East, as well as Central Asia the above mentioned instruments are very important for the European Union and its Member States, as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan s rich resources of crude oil and natural gas combined with the dominant role of the Russian Federation in the region make these two countries geopolitically important. In the context of the diversification of fuels in the EU energy sector this situation poses challenges for Brussels. Russia is the main supplier for many EU countries (the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline shows that important EU members want to strengthen the observed realities, as does the Russian Federation) and the European diversification efforts are a threat to a stabilization of the energy dialogue with Moscow. The growing importance of the discussed countries of the South Caucasus has not caused significant interest among scholars in this issue. This is probably due to little interest in Armenia and Azerbaijan so far of major actors in the international political scene - with Russia as an exception. This text is an attempt to at least partially fill this gap.
Abstract by the authors: The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict negotiations have been continuing for more than two decades now, but a settlement still remains elusive. This paper is an exploration of the reasons for that failure, and it argues that the real obstacle for the peaceful settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh was the domestic politics of the parties to the conflict. By clarifying and testing alternative perspectives, this paper seeks to resolve an important debate about the causes of the OSCE Minsk process failure.
Abstract by the authors: One of the most critical disputes in the Post-Soviet space is the long-lasting Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. While this issue has long been regarded as a land-based dispute to a large extent, it can also be stated from the securitization perspective that it is a conflict inherent in ethnic identity. The proposed way to solve a problem in the securitization approach is the desecuritization of the issue. However, negotiations conducted by the Minsk Group on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which were initiated within the framework of the OSCE, did not yield any results. In this context, the process of resolving the issue through negotiations, in other words, desecuritization, failed. This has led to the re-securitization of the problem and paved the way for taking extraordinary measures to come to a solution. The final military confrontation experienced in 2020 has also been triggered specifically by this approach.
Abstract by the author: Analyses of the transformation and political change in Armenia pays noticeable attention to the dominant role of discourses of the Armenian Genocide and the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh for nation and state-building processes. At the same time, the two issues usually are investigated separately. Attempts are rarely made to interpret the interrelation and connection between the two narratives. Nevertheless, the trauma-based discourse of memory is linking the two narratives as technology of power through discursive structures/mechanisms of analogy and continuity. Methods of discourse analysis combined with expert interviews, internet questionnaires and ethnographic field research aim to analyse the crucial discursive patterns and mechanisms. Hypothetically, instrumentalized and ideological usage of combined narratives are impacting the political changes, in Post-Soviet Armenia. The article touches upon only one aspect of the discursive interrelation between the Armenian Genocide and the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Thus, the subject under the question is the impact of theusage of historical analogy and the idea of continuity understand as technologies on contemporary Armenian politics of memory.
Abstract by the authors: Tehran viewed the Russian-Turkish-brokered ceasefire of Nov 10, 2020, which ended the 45-day war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, with very mixed feelings. On the face of it, the cessation of hostilities on Iran's northern border, which attracted considerable foreign intervention at a time when the country is reeling from dire economic problems, the ravages of the COVID-19 pandemic, and lingering domestic restiveness should not have been more welcome for the Iranian regime, not least since it represented the triumph of a Muslim state over its Christian, Washington-backed adversary. Yet, this victory was largely due to the military support provided both by Israel, which had been steadily rolling back Tehran's military presence in Syria and frustrating its progress toward nuclear weapons, and by Turkey, which has persistently sought to expand its foothold in the South Caucasus. Here, Khoshnood and Khoshnood discuss Tehran's new moderation in its hegemonic goals.
Abstract by the authors : The enduring deadlock in peace negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh has created a special, “frozen” phase in the conflict cycle. Several cases of skirmishes, escalating in 2016 during the Four-Day War, demonstrate the security threat the conflict represents. Simultaneously, ongoing unsuccessful peace talks and escalations and de-escalations of violence at the line of contact indicate the failure to transform the conflict in either a peaceful or a violent way. This paper seeks to identify conditions contributing to the stalemate of the conflict. The key actors contributing to the conflict’s “frozenness” are the political leadership of Armenia and Azerbaijan and third parties represented by the Minsk Group. The failure to achieve a peaceful transformation is given by political hostilities carried out through negative labelling, uncompromising statements and the self-victimisation of the belligerents. Such activities deepen the grievances within the Azerbaijani and Armenian populaces, which in response to such behaviour does not support any concessions in negotiations. At the same time, the Minsk Group does not provide any concrete model for a peaceful settlement nor does it apply pressure on the belligerents to grant concessions. A violent transformation of the conflict is not possible due to the presence of third parties in the region which deter the belligerents from full-scale war. These findings indicate that in order to avoid the future failure of negotiations and violent escalations at the line of contact, the political leaderships of Armenia and Azerbaijan need to withdraw from mutual hostilities, the negotiation agenda and framework need to be changed and the third parties involved have to actively participate in the peace process.
Abstract by the authors: The article analyzes the evolution of Russia's policy in secessionist conflicts in the post-Soviet space in 1991-2018. The authors differentiate the patterns of Russian policy between the "first" and "second" generation of frozen conflicts. The "first generation" includes four conflicts of an ethno-linguistic nature that arose out of the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Pridnestrov'e and Karabakh). Most commentators interpret Russia's actions in the "second generation" conflicts as centralized, directly controlled by the president of Russia, and driven by Russia's opposition to NATO expansion, and some extend this logic back to the conflicts of the 1990s. However, this article argues that this was not true of Russian policy for the "first generation" conflicts in the early 1990s. In that period the policies of the Yeltsin administration were a product of struggle of different forces both in Moscow and outside of it. The "first generation" conflicts all primarily originated as a result of local grievances. Gradually, shifts in the broader geopolitical landscape in Eurasia, especially the growing confrontation between Russia and the West, led to a reconfiguration of the logic of these conflicts, turning them into the elements of Russian-Western geopolitical opposition.
Abstract by the authors: Natural disasters can sometimes have a tremendous impact on societies and can even contribute to the outbreak of violent conflicts. The onset of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is usually attributed to the lack of Soviet control over the periphery and the consequent ‘resurgence of ethnicity’. Based on an analysis of how the main political actors in Moscow and the Caucasus framed the 1988 earthquake in Armenia in opposition to each other, this essay shifts the focus from political history to environmental history to argue that the disaster, and the narratives revolving around its origin and meaning, can further explain the exacerbation of the conflict.
Abstract by the authors: Natural disasters can sometimes have a tremendous impact on societies and can even contribute to the outbreak of violent conflicts. The onset of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is usually attributed to the lack of Soviet control over the periphery and the consequent 'resurgence of ethnicity'. Based on an analysis of how the main political actors in Moscow and the Caucasus framed the 1988 earthquake in Armenia in opposition to each other, this essay shifts the focus from political history to environmental history to argue that the disaster, and the narratives revolving around its origin and meaning, can further explain the exacerbation of the conflict.
Abstract by the authors: The Nagorno Karabakh conflict remains a perplexing challenge for the regional security of the South Caucasus. In spite of decades of negotiations under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group, the final resolution of the conflict remains a distant goal. Against this background, since 2012 several US and Australian states as well as the Basque Parliament started to support the right of the people Nagorno Karabakh to self-determination. The resolutions passed by these states were not only unprecedented but were also inconsistent with the foreign policies of their federal governments. The present paper examines the underlying reasons for nine US states (California, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Michigan, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Louisiana, and Colorado), and the most populous state of Australia, New South Wales, to have recognized the right of the people of Nagorno Karabakh to self-determination. The paper also looks at the legal and political implications deriving from these resolutions as well as possible prospects for this pattern of recognitions. The paper argues that recognition of de facto states by federal sub-states is a new, albeit isolated, phenomenon. It may potentially enhance visibility of de facto states and help them to gain more support for their pursuit of international recognition.
Zusammenfassung: 20 Jahre nach der Unterzeichung des mehrfach verletzten armenisch-aserbaidschanischen Waffenstillstandsabkommens zeichnet sich im Konflikt um die 1991 selbsterklärte Republik Berg-Karabach keine friedenstauglich verhandelte Lösung ab. OSZE-gestützte Versuche, zwischen den hochgerüsteten Kaukasusrepubliken Armenien und Aserbaidschan zu vermitteln, endeten bislang ergebnisarm. Als kooperative Hegemonialmacht und Hauptwaffenlieferant beider Seiten wäre die Russische Föderation in der Lage, anders als die einflussarme OSZE, eine Verhandlungslösung zu forcieren.
Abstract by the author: Located at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, Armenia and Turkey are two neighboring countries that share a 311 km of land border. Official relations between them, however, remain antagonistic as they never established diplomatic relations, and the land border remains closed. All the past efforts to normalize relations and eradicate the standoff have foundered. This article engages with several methodological problems and (mis)perceptions that persist in existing interpretations of Armenia–Turkey relations and examines their impact on the current deadlock. It particularly discusses the questions of the closed border, its relevance to the conflict in Karabakh, the importance of disentangling the process of normalization from reconciliation, and its impact on past normalization initiatives. The article argues that critical rethinking of several deep seated conceptions and approaches could expand our understanding about the roots of the present rift and propose avenues for resolving the impasse.
Abstract by the author: The article examines Turkey’s role in the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh that erupted between Azerbaijan and Armenia in September 2020. It analyses how changes and continuity in Turkey’s foreign policy have influenced the conflict’s outcome, as well as the extent to which it has been exploited to fulfil Turkey’s foreign policy objectives. Thus, unlike most research on Nagorno-Karabakh, this article focuses on the role of one external actor, and not on the conflict itself or possible hypotheses for its resolution. The article’s special focus was influenced by the fact that Turkey’s participation resulted in a change in the long-standing status quo in Nagorno-Karabakh, allowing the situation to turn dramatically in Baku’s favour. Turkey, along with Russia, has emerged as one of the most important regional players in this conflict. This is the result of Turkey’s emphasised foreign policy ambitions, which were influenced by changes in its international security environment as well as changes in the country’s domestic policy. In any case, with its role in the second conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Turkey has once again shown its determination to pursue its foreign, and especially regional, policy independently and in accordance with its national interests, despite being a member of NATO.
Abstract by the author: The paper discusses the effect of the 19th century rebirth of Armenian nationalism in the Ottoman or Western Armenia and Russian or Eastern Armenia and of Azeri nationalism in Russian Azerbaijan with its ramifications in Iran and Ottoman Turkey on the formation of Armenian and Azeri identity from the late 1800s to the present and the key role of Nagorno-Karabakh - called Artsakh by the Armenians- from the beginning of the 20th century, using the theories of Anthony D. Smith. At the time of the disintegration of the USSR, the reinforcement of Armenian and Azeri identity over Nagorno-Karabakh and the Armenian victory in the first war and the armed peace generated by the 1994 ceasefire made it inevitable that a second war would take place unless a political compromise – that never happened – was reached.
Abstracts by the authors: This article is rooted in a narrative approach to interethnic conflict which treats them principally as competing stories. On this basis, we examine experimental strategies for narrative intervention in interethnic conflict and potential tools for their reconciliation. Narrative intervention is understood here as a set of actions to identify and disseminate narratives that can reduce negative emotions and attitudes and promote reconciliation between members of conflicting groups. In terms of new solutions, we suggest a method of "Progressive Narrative Transformation" whose key element is the establishment of common points of contact between conflicting narratives and their gradual transformation such that they may converge into a new narrative accepted and shared by both sides. We present different kinds of narratives to evaluate attitudes and emotions among Azerbaijanis, including people displaced from their homes by conflict. Analyzing responses to a "common suffering" narrative, we registered that individuals and groups are able to keep sympathetic attitudes, even implicitly, toward their opponents. Results might enable scholars in conflict resolution and reconciliation to learn how to develop strategies that take advantage of these attributes of the human mind.
Abstract by the authors: For the three countries of the South Caucasus region, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, linked to the EU through its European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), the Eastern Partnership (EaP) and a diverse set of Association, Cooperation and Partnership Agreements (Simão, 2018; van Gils, 2020), 2020 brought about three developments of supposedly seismic magnitude.(…) As will be discussed by this article, EU relations with the three countries of the South Caucasus remained largely unaffected by domestic crises and regional conflict, whereas EU responses variegated considerably. It is argued that variance is due to a mix of factors. On one hand, local and regional scope conditions and the role of other extra-regional actors provided differentiated opportunity structures for EU engagement. On the other hand, variegated responses are the result of intra-EU dynamics that oscillated between passivity, disinterest, go-alone attitudes of individual Member States, and consensus when action seemed needed and possible.(…)
If you are unable to access the article you need, please contact us and we will get it for you as soon as possible.
| Data Protection Notice | Cookie Policy & Inventory |
 |
 |
 |
Journals on all devices |
Books, articles, EPRS publications & more |
Newspapers on all devices |