More than 30 years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, new prospects for lasting peace and security have finally arisen in the South Caucasus. Until now, the region had been entangled in a Gordian knot that adversely affected its security landscape and development, serving as an asset in the geopolitical maneuvers of regional and global powers. This knot refers to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, primarily caused by Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijani territories for three decades. However, after the Second Karabakh War in 2020 and the anti-terror operations of 2023, Azerbaijan succeeded in unraveling this knot and restoring its territorial integrity and sovereignty, writes Sultan Zahidov, leading consultant at the AIR Center (Center of Analysis of International Relations) Baku, Azerbaijan.
In February 2022, Azerbaijan, despite having previously been subjected to Armenian occupation, initiated the peace process by proposing five principles for peace to the Armenian government. Since then, negotiations have begun on a draft text of the peace treaty aimed at establishing peace and interstate relations between the two countries, with 15 rounds of discussions being held. Over the past year, progress has been made in delimitation of borders, as well as in reaching agreements on specific articles of the peace treaty text. In December 2024, President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan noted that two articles of the peace text, which comprises a preamble and 17 articles, remained unresolved; a similar statement was subsequently issued by the Armenian side. These articles concern the mutual withdrawal of international court claims and non-deployment of third-party forces along the conditional border.
On March 13, 2025, the foreign ministries of both countries announced the conclusion of the negotiations on the text of the peace treaty, confirming their agreement on the remaining two articles. This event garnered significant international attention, with the global community extending congratulations to both countries. Interestingly, despite Azerbaijan having been the party subjected to occupation for many years and serving as the initiator of the peace process and the author of the peace text, Armenia attempted to portray itself as a primary initiator and the dove of peace in the international arena.
However, history demonstrates that the mere signing of an agreement does not lead to lasting peace between countries. The Tartu Treaty, signed in 1920 between the Soviet Union and Finland, the 1928 Briand-Kellogg Pact, and other agreements illustrate that specific political, economic, legal, and social conditions must also be satisfied to achieve enduring peace. For example, the peace established between France and Germany, which had been adversaries for nearly a century and were on opposing sides during World War II, was only formalized with the signing of the Élysée Treaty in 1963. By that time, however, various projects had been implemented to foster mutual trust and cooperation between the two nations.
All these factors indicate that while a peace treaty encompasses the formal and legal aspects of the process, overlooking other critical factors in a rush to finalize an agreement may jeopardize future security and stability.
For this reason, there are critical conditions beyond the peace agreement that must be met to attain lasting peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Two of these conditions include amending the Armenian Constitution and other normative acts that contain remnants of the conflict, as well as dissolving the OSCE Minsk Group. These conditions were reiterated by Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister, Jeyhun Bayramov, on March 13, when he stated that the remaining articles of the peace treaty had been agreed upon.
The demand for constitutional change stems from the fact that the preamble of the Armenian Constitution references the Declaration of Independence of Armenia, signed on August 23, 1990, which includes territorial claims to Azerbaijan’s Karabakh region. The presence of such claims in the country’s highest legal document and other normative acts poses a significant threat to achieving sustainable peace between the two countries. Given that there have been instances in the past where countries have amended their constitutions to improve bilateral relations—such as the 1995 Belfast Agreement and the 2018 Prespa Agreement—it would be reasonable for Armenia to consider similar steps. Another barrier to peace is the OSCE Minsk Group and its associated institutions, which were established to resolve the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. An official joint request from both Armenia and Azerbaijan for the dissolution of this group could be viewed as a sincere expression of their commitment to ending the conflict.
On the other hand, the rise of revanchist sentiments in Armenia poses a significant threat to the prospects for peace. At the 35th Congress of the radical-right Dashnaksutyun (ARF) held on February 26, representatives from this party and other previously ruling factions in Armenia openly expressed revanchist and irredentist rhetoric against Azerbaijan, bringing the issue of territorial claims back to the forefront. Given that Prime Minister Pashinyan has historically echoed similar sentiments and that his party may not remain in power indefinitely, these radical anti-Azerbaijani ideas that have taken root in Armenia can be viewed as a serious impediment to sustainable peace.
It is noteworthy that some individuals of Armenian origin influenced by anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, including Arayik Harutyunyan, Arkadi Ghukasyan, Bako Sahakyan, and Ruben Vardanyan, who have been accused of complicity in the occupation of Azerbaijani territories, and of committing alleged acts of genocide and terrorism, are currently being prosecuted in Baku for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Throughout the trial, it has been established that these individuals committed their crimes with the political, economic, and material support of Armenia and directly followed instructions from Yerevan. For this reason, it is essential for Armenia to acknowledge state responsibility in this matter, to compensate Azerbaijan for the damages incurred, and to facilitate the accountability of other culpable individuals in Armenia by cooperating with the legal proceedings in Baku.
Furthermore, Armenia’s recent policy of intensive militarization, characterized by the acquisition of advanced weaponry from countries such as France and India and a significant increase in its military budget, precipitates an arms race and establishes a security dilemma that poses a substantial threat to regional peace and security. Given Armenia’s historical territorial claims against Baku and the rising revanchist sentiment within the country, it can be inferred that these weapons are likely intended to target Azerbaijan. This assertion is further supported by reports of multiple ceasefire violations by Armenia along the conditional border between 16-21 March.
On the other hand, the interference of foreign powers in regional processes for their own interests serves as a significant obstacle to the peace process. The openly supportive stance of France, the European Union, and the United States under the Biden administration toward Armenia, along with the military assistance provided to Yerevan, has stymied the negotiation process. Consequently, negotiations have continued on a bilateral basis, without intermediaries, as insisted upon by Azerbaijan. Furthermore, Russia’s efforts to maintain its influence in the region raise questions about its genuine interest in achieving peace in the South Caucasus. This complex interplay of militarization and external influence complicates the prospects for lasting peace in the region.
In his article titled “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research,” Johan Galtung, recognized as the founder of peace studies, discusses three aspects of violence: direct, cultural, and structural violence. He argues that structural violence is rooted in political mechanisms, processes, and institutions, while cultural violence is fueled by anger, fear, and hatred stemming from a lack of understanding among parties. Both structural and cultural violence represent the invisible components of conflict, and if left unresolved, they can escalate into visible direct violence (Galtung, 1969, pp. 167-168).
In the context of the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process, even though Azerbaijan has ended the Armenian occupation of its territories and direct violence has ceased, structural and cultural violence persist, manifested in territorial claims within Armenia’s constitution and other legal documents, as well as the rising sentiment of revanchism against Azerbaijan. In his study “What is Peace Research?”, Galtung further distinguishes between positive and negative peace, where negative peace refers to the absence of violence and war, while positive peace signifies the absence of structural and cultural violence (Galtung, 1964, pp. 1-4). Galtung posits that negative peace is insufficient for achieving sustainable peace; rather, the peace process should aim for positive peace through confidence-building mechanisms, cooperation, and integration between societies. He concludes that to attain lasting peace, conditions such as development, cultural coexistence, and equality must be realized.
Therefore, Azerbaijan’s intentions reflect not only the signing of the peace treaty but also the realization of certain prerequisites that can enhance mutual trust and foster lasting peace in the region. Otherwise, signing a fast-track peace agreement without fulfilling these prerequisites will not result in authentic peace; rather, it could derail the entire peace process and contribute to the emergence of new threats on the horizon.
Hence, the conclusion of the negotiations on the text of the peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia can be considered a milestone achievement in terms of furthering the peace process. However, the obstacles remain and overcoming them will foster mutual trust and peace between the two states and contribute positively to the security architecture of the South Caucasus region.
Share this article:
Related Topics:
EU Reporter publishes articles from a variety of outside sources which express a wide range of viewpoints. The positions taken in these articles are not necessarily those of EU Reporter. This article was produced with the assistance of AI tools, with final review and edits conducted by our editorial team to ensure accuracy and integrity.
You may like