"I think that it would be much more real and just decision for all citizens throughout the world regardless of their nationalities and social origins to refuse to recognize the national boundaries, but the same rights for everyone."

(V Pryakhin. Central Asia and Caucasus Journal, №6, 2002, p.18)

Khagan Mammadov

Analysis of international conflicts that came out after the end of 'cold' war almost have to be started from scratch, because the current situations that exist in states cardinally differ from those that were during the 'cold' war. The ultimate goal of a conflict analysis is getting new substantive and credible knowledge about the conflict and developing practical recommendations relying on them; and only these recommendations are able for some extend to effectively facilitate and manage the regulation process of the conflict on constructive principles. Development of recommendations on overcoming the crisis is impossible without the knowledge and understanding of how peoples who lived next to each other for many tens of years on a relatively small area of Nagorno-Karabakh, proved so divorced on different sides of the barricades. Obviously, there was a third force that established peace, and it should be taken into consideration.

Azerbaijan was a part of the Russian Empire and then of the Soviet Union. The present state-territory of the Azerbaijan Republic was defined and formed due to the Turkish-Russian Treaty signed in Moscow on March 16, 1921 between the Soviet Russia and Turkey. Nagorno-Karabakh had retained its autonomy within Azerbaijan due to the decision adopted at the plenum of the Caucasus Bureau of the Russian (Bolsheviks) Communist Party dated 4 July, 1921. Needless to say that many outstanding government leaders of Russia and some people of Armenian origin played an important role in adopting this decision. And they were right to think that it would be better for Nagorno-Karabakh to keep economic and political ties with Azerbaijan than with Armenia.

Over the years while Azerbaijan was the part of the Soviet Union, Armenia many times raised the issue of territorial claims against Azerbaijan. The question was raised immediately after the Great Patriotic War, in 1960 and in 1968. But every time separatist attempts were decisively rebuffed by state political elite. Dramatic events happened in Azerbaijan in the 'Perestroika' period and in the first years of state independence. New established states in South Caucasus, primarily Armenia, rushed into battles for the return of their so-called 'ancestral' lands. The initiator of these bloody battles was Armenia that started the war against its neighbours in 1919. Consequently, 30 percent of population South of Caucasus lost their lives, and Azerbaijan lost a certain part of its historical territory. Even today, the 'Megri' corridor separates the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan from the rest of the country.

Armenia - Azerbaijan - Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is the most large-scale one among the regional conflicts in the CIS area attracting the attention of the international community with its political and humanitarian consequences. The significance of the Nagorno-Karabakh tragedy is that it reflects global problems of contemporary world order, new challenges and threats for international security and for the very survival of our civilization.

Another peculiarity of this conflict that was characterized by its severity, scope and the role of detonator in destructing the inter-ethnic relations in the former Soviet Union with other conflicts was tragic hopelessness in the prospects of settling the conflicts, characterizing the confrontation in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, the Balkans, etc. This desperation allowed to christen this conflict as "frozen".

The confrontation between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh appears to be dangerous not only because of its potential ethnic intransigence, but also  because of propensity towards conflict, and the possibility of uncontrolled escalation to other regions.

The events in Nagorno-Karabakh evolved due to a scenario of a 'legal chaos' deliberately created by the initiators of the conflict including the adoption of various declarations, decisions that didn't compliment but contradict one another from view of international legal standpoint.

***

On February 20, 1988,  the session of the People's Deputies of the Nagorno- Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAR) addressed to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR with a petition on the NKAR's secession from Soviet Azerbaijan and its transfer to Soviet Armenia. On June 15, 1988, the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR adopted a decision to include Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenia. On December 1, 1989, the Supreme Council of Armenia adopted a decision on the reunification of the Armenian SSR and NKAR. This attempt legally formalized the aggression of Armenia against Azerbaijan.

In January 1990, the Supreme Council of Armenia approved the plan on the economic development of the Republic for 1990. The NKAR was included in that plan. The Declaration of Independence adopted in September 1991 by the Armenian Parliament reaffirmed the joint resolution on the reunification of Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh. In June 1992, the Supreme Council of Armenia adopted a decision on inadmissibility of any international or internal documents in which the Nagorno-Karabakh region would be considered as a part of Azerbaijan. In particular, the decision said: " The Republic of Armenia ensures the security of NKAR and its people...  Carry out a mobilization due to the situation in the Republic of Armenia... Arrange necessary measures for keeping military secrets.

In 1988, according to the Constitution of the Soviet Union, the NKAR as a part of Azerbaijan had no right to secede from one republic and become the part of another republic. Therefore, a appeal of the NKAR dated February 20, 1988 and the Decree of the Supreme Council of Armenia dated December 1, 1989 had no legal force as they contradicted the articles of the Constitution of the State, to which NKAR belonged then. The decision of the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR dated June 15, 1988 had no legal force either.  

Naturally, the Soviet leadership could not adopt a decision on NKAR's secession from Azerbaijan. Therefore, in order to prevent the armed conflict,   the state authority declared a state of emergency. It is clear that since the outset the State authority hadn't been on the right side of the hedge in tackling the problem of Nagorny Karabakh. The Soviet State authority was supposed to play the role of an independent arbiter and guarantor of reciprocal rights and duties of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the regional authorities, as they were the parties of the conflict, not Armenia and Azerbaijan.

If prior to 1991 the conflict had been national in nature, after the proclamation of the Supreme Soviets of Azerbaijan and Armenia declarations of independence, it acquired an international context. Azerbaijan was recognized by the international community as an independent State within the administrative borders, and consequently, Nagorno-Karabakh, due to international law is an integral part of Azerbaijan, i.e. the independence of Armenia and Azerbaijan made the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia legally inappropriate from the standpoint of international law.

As soon Armenia adopted the Declaration of Independence in 1991, Armenia concentrated on achieving a military superiority and de facto secession of Nagorny Karabakh. In 1992, as a result of the referendum held after ethnic cleansing Nagorno-Karabakh announced its independence.

This kind of referendum has legal force only with the consent of the national government with the participation of the entire population. Therefore Nagorno-Karabakh  is not legally recognized by the international community.

* * *

In inter-ethnic conflicts primarily with ethno-territorial nature, conceptually, there exist clusters of conjugate pairs of ethnic pairs-antagonists. Ethno-confessional colouring is usually added to pairs-antagonists if they belong to different religions. If no religious controversy, the territorial conflict takes on ethno-political shade. Inter-ethnic conflicts rapidly die out, if pairs-antagonists do not receive help outside: either from interested States, or from certain financial and clerical or socio-political groups. The point is that the conflict without any external assistance  disappears by itself due to limited resources of one (or both) of the parties. Therefore, all conflicts are multifaceted, i.e. the destabilization on ethnic grounds has a multipolar basis. Specific reasons individuate the conflicts. Events in hot spots of the Caucasus are interlinked and influence each other, and the source is common: ethno-confessional, national, territorial-administrative problems.

Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be attributed to the complicated conflict, on the assumption that this conflict for Azerbaijan is both intrastate and interstate. Secondly, interests of superpowers face in this conflict; Armenia is supported by the influential Armenian diaspora in the United States, France and other Western States, as well as by Armenian terrorist organizations, obsessed with the crazy idea about "Great Armenia". That means, the conflict is supported from outside. The answer of a dignitary of the Armenian Church to the question 'How to defend the rights of the Armenians in Karabakh?' was as follows: "We are not alone. No political restrictions are imposed on our brothers in the diaspora. They can advocate our just cause before the Government, and this pressure will certainly have an impact." Later D. Dumkachyan, the governor of California made a stand for the Armenians. And some politicians in the West exerted similarly.

According to the plan, the conflict wasn't supposed to die out. The Armenian Church, under the banner of transparency demanded the inclusion of NKAR to Armenia.