Journals / Review of Armenian Studies / 2026 / Issue: 53

POST-CONFLICT DYNAMICS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS: EVALUATING THE FUTURE OF ARMENIA-AZERBAIJAN PEACE EFFORTS

GÜNEY KAFKASYA'DA ÇATIŞMA SONRASI DİNAMİKLER: ERMENİSTAN-AZERBAYCAN BARIŞ ÇABALARININ GELECEĞİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Hakan Ömer Tunca(ATILIM ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-1180-2549
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-11
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that post-conflict discourse in the South Caucasus is characterized by dynamism rather than stable, displaying shifts in emphasis that reflect broader geopolitical transformations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This research investigates the articulation, negotiation, and institutional framing of peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan during the post-conflict period.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The analysis is centered on four primary corpora: speeches from the UN General Assembly, mediation documents from the OSCE and EU, bilateral and trilateral diplomatic communications, and significant treaties or draft agreements.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that post-conflict discourse in the South Caucasus is characterized by dynamism rather than stable, displaying shifts in emphasis that reflect broader geopolitical transformations.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Post-Conflict Governance · Conflict Transformation · Regional Security Architecture

Abstract

This research investigates the articulation, negotiation, and institutional framing of peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan during the post-conflict period. The analysis is centered on four primary corpora: speeches from the UN General Assembly, mediation documents from the OSCE and EU, bilateral and trilateral diplomatic communications, and significant treaties or draft agreements. Employing a systematic Thematic Content Analysis (TCA), the study identifies eight recurring themes; sovereignty, connectivity, peace agenda, security, humanitarian issues, mediation, memory, and reconstruction and explores their evolution across diplomatic contexts over time. The findings indicate that post-conflict discourse in the South Caucasus is characterized by dynamism rather than stable, displaying shifts in emphasis that reflect broader geopolitical transformations. Although sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security continue to be foundational principles, the data reveal a notable increase in themes related to connectivity and treaties between 2023 and 2025, indicating a transition from emergency stabilization towards institutional normalization. In contrast to prevailing scholarly perspectives that highlight identity, trauma, and competing notions of victimhood as primary explanatory factors in the conflict, formal diplomatic texts across all corpora predominantly exclude memory-centric narratives, favoring instead a technocratic, forward-looking discourse focused on borders, infrastructure, and regional cooperation. The study also uncovers significant variances across different diplomatic platforms: UNGA speeches emphasize global legitimacy, OSCE/EU documents highlight mediation frameworks, bilateral discussions concentrate on practical negotiations, and treaties formalize emerging agreements. These results underscore the necessity of conceptualizing peace as a complex, discursive process rather than a singular event, influenced by evolving regional and international dynamics. The study concludes by addressing limitations concerning data scope and proposing future research directions, including the examination of domestic political discourse, public sentiment, and civil-society perspectives to better understand the interplay between elite narratives and societal perceptions of peace.

Özet

Bu araştırma, çatışma sonrası dönemde Ermenistan ile Azerbaycan arasındaki barışın nasıl ifade edildiğini, müzakere edildiğini ve kurumsal olarak çerçevelendiğini incelemektedir. Analiz, dört temel metin kümesine dayanmaktadır: Birleşmiş Milletler Genel Kurulu’nda yapılan konuşmalar, AGİT ve AB’ye ait arabuluculuk belgeleri, ikili ve üçlü diplomatik yazışmalar ile önemli antlaşmalar veya taslak anlaşmalar. Sistematik bir Tematik İçerik Analizi (TCA) kullanılarak yürütülen çalışma, egemenlik, bağlantısallık, barış gündemi, güvenlik, insani meseleler, arabuluculuk, hafıza ve yeniden inşa olmak üzere sekiz yinelenen temayı belirlemekte ve bu temaların zaman içinde farklı diplomatik bağlamlarda nasıl geliştiğini incelemektedir. Bulgular, Güney Kafkasya’daki çatışma sonrası söylemin durağanlıktan ziyade bir dinamizm taşıdığını ve bölgesel jeopolitik dönüşümleri yansıtan vurgu değişimleri gösterdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Egemenlik, toprak bütünlüğü ve güvenlik temel ilkeler olmayı sürdürmekle birlikte, veriler 2023–2025 döneminde bağlantısallık ve antlaşma temalarına yönelik dikkate değer bir artış olduğunu göstermekte ve acil istikrarlaştırmadan kurumsal normalleşmeye doğru bir geçişe işaret etmektedir. Çatışmayı açıklayan başat unsurlar olarak kimlik, travma ve rekabet eden mağduriyet anlatılarını öne çıkaran yaygın akademik yaklaşımların aksine, incelenen tüm metinlerdeki resmi diplomatik söylem hafıza merkezli anlatıları büyük ölçüde dışlamakta ve bunun yerine sınırlar, altyapı ve bölgesel iş birliği odaklı, teknokratik ve geleceğe dönük bir dil benimsemektedir. Çalışma ayrıca farklı diplomatik platformlar arasında belirgin farklılıklar olduğunu göstermektedir: BM Genel Kurulu konuşmaları küresel meşruiyeti vurgularken, AGİT/AB belgeleri arabuluculuk çerçevelerini öne çıkarmakta, ikili görüşmeler pratik müzakerelere odaklanmakta ve antlaşmalar ortaya çıkan düzenlemeleri resmileştirmektedir. Bu sonuçlar, barışın tekil bir olaydan ziyade bölgesel ve uluslararası dinamiklerin dönüşümünden etkilenen karmaşık ve söylemsel bir süreç olarak kavramsallaştırılması gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır. Çalışma, veri kapsamına ilişkin sınırlılıkları ele alarak ve iç siyasi söylem, kamuoyu algısı ve sivil toplum perspektiflerinin incelenmesini içeren gelecekteki araştırma yönelimlerini önererek son bulmaktadır; böylece elit söylem ile toplumun barış algıları arasındaki etkileşimin daha iyi anlaşılmasına katkı sağlanabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tunca, H. Ö. (2026). POST-CONFLICT DYNAMICS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS: EVALUATING THE FUTURE OF ARMENIA-AZERBAIJAN PEACE EFFORTS. Review of Armenian Studies, Issue: 53. https://doi.org/10.54842/ras.1840441

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. References Astourian, Stephan H. “From Ter-Petrosian to Kocharian: Leadership Change in Armenia, 1991–1998.” Berkeley Program in Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 2000.
  2. Bar-Tal, Daniel. Intractable Conflicts: Socio-Psychological Foundations and Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
  3. BBC News. “Nagorno-Karabakh: Mass Exodus of Armenians.” BBC News, September 25, 2023.
  4. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, no. 2 (2006): 77–101.
  5. Broers, Laurence. Armenia and Azerbaijan: Anatomy of a Rivalry. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2019.
  6. Brubaker, Rogers. Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
  7. Cornell, Svante E. Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2001.
  8. de Waal, Thomas. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War. 2nd, revised and updated ed. New York: New York University Press, 2013.
  9. Eldem, Tuba (2022) ‘Russia’s war on Ukraine and the rise of the middle corridor as a third vector of Eurasian connectivity’, SWP Comment, 2022/C 64, 28 October. doi: 10.18449/2022C64
  10. Galbas, Michael. “Post-Conflict Dynamics in the South Caucasus.” Europe-Asia Studies 73, no. 5 (2021): 897–920.
  11. Gready, Paul, and Simon Robins. Transitional Justice and the Politics of Peacebuilding. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.
  12. Güleç, Cansu. The Nagorno-Karabakh Dispute: Why an Intractable Conflict for Armenia and Azerbaijan? Working paper. Buenos Aires: Centro Argentino de Estudios Internacionales, 2015.
  13. Göyüşov, Altay. “Nation-Building and Memory Politics in Azerbaijan.” Caucasus Survey 6, no. 2 (2019): 98-121.
  14. Hill, Fiona, and Kemal Kirişci. Conflict Resolution and Regional Cooperation in the Caucasus. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2021.
  15. Institute of Armenian Studies. “Chronology of Events: Nagorno-Karabakh.” USC Dornsife Institute of Armenian Studies, University of Southern California.
  16. International Crisis Group. “Improving Prospects for Peace after the Nagorno-Karabakh War.” Europe Report no. 264. Brussels: International Crisis Group, 2021.
  17. Landgraf, Walter, and Nareg Seferian. “A ‘Frozen Conflict’ Boils Over: Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 and Future Implications.” Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2023.
  18. Markedonov, Sergey. “The OSCE Minsk Group at a Crossroads: Lessons from the Past and Options for the Future.” Carnegie Moscow Center, 2016.
  19. Melvin, Neil. “After the War: Rebuilding the South Caucasus.” SIPRI Commentary, December 2021.
  20. Ohanyan, Anna. Networked Governance and Peacebuilding: Partners or Proxies? Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2015.
  21. Panossian, Razmik. The Armenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commissars. London: Hurst, 2006.
  22. Paris, Roland. At War’s End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
  23. Paul, Amanda, and Dennis Sammut. “Nagorno-Karabakh: Between Old Conflict and New Realities.” European Policy Centre Policy Brief, 2016.
  24. Reynolds, Bradley. CSCE/OSCE Mediation in Nagorno-Karabakh: Implications for Institutional Evolution and Ideas of European Security. Master’s thesis, University of Helsinki, 2018.
  25. Stalin, Joseph. “Marxism and the National Question.” 1913. In Marxism and the National and Colonial Question.
  26. Suny, Ronald Grigor. Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.
  27. Tsutsiev, Arthur. Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus, trans. Nora Seligman Favorov (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014).
  28. Velihanly, Naila. “Some of the Historiographical Problems of Zangezur’s History.” Review of Armenian Studies 45 (2022): 107–126.