Abstract

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh from a multidisciplinary political science perspective. It examines the historical background, geopolitical stakes, and the roles of regional and global powers, alongside the humanitarian consequences of the conflict. By applying realist and constructivist theories, this study argues that the conflict is not solely a territorial dispute but also a manifestation of national identity narratives and a battleground for international influence. The article concludes with policy recommendations aimed at fostering a sustainable resolution balancing sovereignty, security, and human rights protections.

1. Introduction and Methodological Framework

1.1. General Context

The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh represents one of the longest-standing territorial disputes in the post-Soviet space. The mountainous enclave, known as “Artsakh” by Armenians, has been predominantly populated by ethnic Armenians but is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan (UN Security Council, 1993).

The conflict spans multiple historical phases, from imperial rivalries between Persia and Russia to modern wars after the collapse of the Soviet Union (De Waal, 2013). The first war (1988–1994) resulted in Armenian control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the displacement of around 700,000 Azerbaijanis (Helsinki Watch Report, 1992). However, the 2020 war reversed this dynamic, with Azerbaijan reclaiming most of the contested territories with significant support from Turkish drone technology, notably the Bayraktar TB2 drones (Cornell, 2022).

In September 2023, Azerbaijan launched an offensive, capturing Stepanakert, the administrative center of Nagorno-Karabakh, which led to the exodus of nearly 100,000 Armenians (UNHCR, 2023). This event marked a humanitarian catastrophe and highlighted the failure of international mediation mechanisms (Human Rights Watch, 2023).

1.2. Research Problem

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict extends beyond a territorial dispute; it is a multifaceted crisis rooted in historical grievances, ethnic identities, and geopolitical rivalries. Despite multiple ceasefires and peace negotiations, a comprehensive resolution remains elusive. The complexity lies in the overlapping influences of regional powers such as Russia, Turkey, and Iran, each pursuing strategic goals within the South Caucasus (Broers, 2019).

This article addresses the following research question:

How do internal dynamics and external geopolitical interests shape the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, and what are the prospects for a sustainable resolution?

1.3. Hypotheses

1.    Geopolitical Rivalry: Competing interests, particularly from Russia and Turkey, perpetuate the conflict as part of their broader regional ambitions (De Waal, 2020).

2.    Identity Narratives: National identity and historical grievances contribute to intransigence, making compromise politically costly for both Armenia and Azerbaijan (Thomas, 2022).

3.    Institutional Weakness: The failure of international organizations, particularly the OSCE Minsk Group, to enforce peace agreements exacerbates the conflict (OSCE Minsk Group Report, 2021).

1.4. Research Objectives

The primary objective of this study is to analyze the key factors contributing to the persistence of the conflict and to evaluate potential solutions. Specifically, this article aims to:

•      Examine the historical and political causes of the conflict, focusing on key turning points (De Waal, 2013).

•      Assess the role of regional and global actors in influencing the trajectory of the conflict (Cornell, 2022).

•      Propose policy recommendations for a sustainable peace framework based on diplomacy, security guarantees, and economic cooperation (Zarifian, 2024).

1.5. Methodology

This study adopts a multidisciplinary approach combining historical analysis, international relations theory, and case study methods:

•      Historical Analysis: This section contextualizes key events such as Soviet territorial decisions and post-Cold War geopolitical shifts (Broers, 2019).

•      Realist Theory: The analysis focuses on the security interests of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and external actors such as Russia, Turkey, and Iran (Cornell, 2022).

•      Constructivist Theory: The study explores how national identity, cultural memory, and political discourse shape the conflict dynamics (Oskanian, 2013).

The research relies on primary sources such as reports from the UNHCR, Human Rights Watch, and the OSCE, as well as secondary sources including scholarly books, policy briefs, and peer-reviewed journal articles. Key works include Laurence Broers’ Armenia and Azerbaijan: Anatomy of a Rivalry (2019) and Thomas de Waal’s Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War (2013).

2. Historical Context of the Conflict: From Imperial Rivalries to Modern Wars

2.1. Imperial Legacies

The roots of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be traced back to imperial rivalries between Persia and Russia over the South Caucasus.

•      The Treaty of Gulistan (1813) ended the Russo-Persian War and ceded Nagorno-Karabakh to the Russian Empire (De Waal, 2013).

•      Under Russian rule, Armenians were granted administrative privileges that deepened ethnic divisions with Turkic Muslims (Herzig, 1999).

The imperial context set the stage for enduring grievances that persisted into the Soviet era.

2.2. Soviet Policies and Territorial Decisions

The Soviet period introduced artificial boundaries that sowed the seeds of future conflict:

•      In 1921, Joseph Stalin placed Nagorno-Karabakh within Soviet Azerbaijan to secure Azerbaijani loyalty while alienating the Armenian population (Broers, 2019).

•      The establishment of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) in 1923 granted limited autonomy to the region but failed to satisfy Armenian aspirations for unification with Armenia (Oskanian, 2013).

The lack of political agency within the NKAO fostered growing nationalist sentiments on both sides.

2.3. The Rise of Nationalism and the First Nagorno-Karabakh War (1988–1994)

•      In 1988, protests in Stepanakert and Yerevan called for the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia, while anti-Armenian pogroms in Sumgait and Baku fueled ethnic violence (Helsinki Watch Report, 1992).

•      By 1991, following the collapse of the USSR, Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence—a status not internationally recognized.

•      The war ended in 1994 with a Russian-brokered ceasefire, leaving Nagorno-Karabakh under Armenian control but without a comprehensive peace (International Crisis Group, 2021).

The war displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians, marking a humanitarian catastrophe in the region.

2.4. The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (2020)

The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war marked a significant turning point in the conflict’s history, highlighting the transformation of military strategy and regional alliances:

       •      In September 2020, Azerbaijan launched an extensive military offensive, employing advanced drone warfare supported by Turkey. The Bayraktar TB2 drones, alongside Israeli-made Harop loitering munitions, proved crucial in neutralizing Armenian air defenses and armored units (Cornell, 2022).

       •      The conflict lasted 44 days and ended with a Russian-mediated ceasefire on November 10, 2020. The ceasefire terms stipulated Azerbaijan’s control over territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and the deployment of 2,000 Russian peacekeepers to monitor the situation (International Crisis Group, 2021).

This war demonstrated the decisive role of technology and highlighted the limitations of Armenia’s reliance on traditional military tactics. Additionally, Turkey’s active support for Azerbaijan reshaped the regional balance of power (Aksoy, 2020).

The 2020 war displaced 90,000 Armenians from the contested territories, further exacerbating the humanitarian crisis (Human Rights Watch, 2023).

2.5. Post-2020 Developments

Following the 2020 war, tensions remained high, with sporadic border clashes and diplomatic impasses:

       •      In September 2023, Azerbaijan launched another offensive, capturing Stepanakert, the administrative center of Nagorno-Karabakh. This marked the collapse of Armenian control in the region and prompted the exodus of nearly 100,000 Armenians (UNHCR, 2023).

       •      Humanitarian organizations, including the International Red Cross and UNHCR, struggled to provide aid due to blockades and logistical challenges (Amnesty International, 2023).

This period reinforced perceptions of international inaction, as the OSCE Minsk Group failed to mediate an effective resolution (OSCE Report, 2021).

3. Geopolitical Dynamics: Regional and Global Interests in the South Caucasus

3.1. Strategic Importance of the South Caucasus

The South Caucasus serves as a critical geopolitical corridor connecting Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Its strategic value stems from its location and vast natural resources, particularly oil and gas reserves.

       •      Energy Transit Routes: The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline and the South Caucasus Pipeline (SCP) transport Caspian energy to Europe, bypassing Russia and Iran. These pipelines are vital for European energy security, especially amid the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict (Cornell, 2022).

       •      China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): The region plays a key role in China’s BRI, providing a crucial transit corridor linking Asia to Europe (Zhang, 2021).

3.2. Regional Actors in the Conflict

3.2.1. Turkey’s Regional Strategy

Turkey’s involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is part of its broader geopolitical ambition to assert influence over former Ottoman territories and the Turkic world.

       •      Military Support: During the 2020 war, Turkey provided Azerbaijan with significant military assistance, including the deployment of Bayraktar TB2 drones, which played a decisive role in Azerbaijan’s military victory (Aksoy, 2020).

       •      Cultural and Political Solidarity: The slogan “One Nation, Two States” underscores the close relationship between Turkey and Azerbaijan.

Turkey’s actions, however, have strained its relations with Russia and Iran and raised concerns among Western nations about Ankara’s growing regional influence (Zarifian, 2024).

3.2.2. Iran’s Ambivalent Position

Iran’s stance in the conflict reflects a complex balance between religious ties, national security concerns, and regional rivalries.

       •      Religious and Cultural Links: Despite sharing Shiite Islam with Azerbaijan, Iran has historically supported Armenia to counterbalance Turkish and Israeli influence in Azerbaijan (Milani, 2021).

       •      Border Security Concerns: Iran fears that Azerbaijan’s military success could embolden separatist movements among its Azeri population, which constitutes nearly 20% of its population (Cornell, 2022).

Iran’s military exercises along its northern border during the 2023 offensive signaled its unease with the shifting power dynamics in the region (Middle East Monitor, 2023).

3.2.3. Russia’s Dual Role

Russia views the South Caucasus as part of its “near abroad” and seeks to maintain its influence through peacekeeping efforts and arms sales.

       •      Peacekeeping Operations: The deployment of Russian peacekeepers in 2020 aimed to stabilize the region. However, their failure to prevent the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive raised questions about Russia’s reliability as a security guarantor (Cohen, 2020).

       •      Military Influence: Russia continues to supply arms to both Armenia and Azerbaijan, reinforcing its role as a key power broker while maintaining leverage over both nations (Trenin, 2019).

Russia’s ongoing involvement in Ukraine has diverted its attention and weakened its capacity to act decisively in the South Caucasus (Broers, 2021).

3.3. Global Powers and the South Caucasus

3.3.1. The United States and the European Union

Western powers have historically played a limited role in the South Caucasus but have increased their engagement due to energy security concerns.

       •      Energy Diversification: The Southern Gas Corridor, which transports Azerbaijani gas to Europe, is a cornerstone of Europe’s strategy to reduce dependence on Russian gas (Cornell, 2022).

       •      Diplomatic Initiatives: The U.S. and the EU have supported OSCE-led negotiations and provided humanitarian aid, although their influence remains constrained by the lack of direct military involvement (OSCE Minsk Group Report, 2021).

Western diplomatic efforts often prioritize securing energy supplies over addressing the root causes of the conflict (Zarifian, 2024).

3.3.2. China’s Economic Focus

China’s involvement in the South Caucasus is primarily economic rather than military.

       •      Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): The South Caucasus serves as a key transit route for China’s global infrastructure projects (Zhang, 2021).

       •      Non-Intervention Policy: China has maintained partnerships with both Armenia and Azerbaijan, avoiding entanglement in their political disputes (Herzig, 1999).

China’s pragmatic approach aims to secure economic interests without jeopardizing diplomatic relations with either side.

4. The Role of International and Regional Powers

4.1. Russia: Strategic Opportunism or Security Guarantor?

Russia plays a dual role in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, acting as both a mediator and a power broker.

       •      Military Presence: After the 2020 ceasefire, Russia deployed 2,000 peacekeepers to Nagorno-Karabakh to monitor compliance and prevent further hostilities (International Crisis Group, 2021).

       •      Diplomatic Leverage: Russia maintains military and economic ties with both Armenia and Azerbaijan, supplying arms to both sides as part of its strategy to preserve influence in the South Caucasus (Trenin, 2019).

       •      Diminished Capacity in 2023: Russia’s focus on its military campaign in Ukraine reduced its ability to effectively intervene during the 2023 offensive, leaving a power vacuum that Azerbaijan capitalized on (Cohen, 2020).

4.2. Turkey: Expanding Influence through Military Alliances

Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has cemented its position as a key regional actor.

       •      Defense Partnerships: Turkey’s provision of Bayraktar TB2 drones and training assistance to Azerbaijan during the 2020 war demonstrated Ankara’s growing role in regional conflicts (Cornell, 2022).

       •      Narratives of Unity: The slogan “One Nation, Two States” reflects the cultural and historical ties between Turkey and Azerbaijan, reinforcing their strategic alliance (Aksoy, 2020).

       •      Geopolitical Tensions: Turkey’s assertiveness has heightened tensions with Russia and Iran and increased concerns among Western allies about its growing military footprint in the Caucasus (Zarifian, 2024).

4.3. Iran’s Defensive Posture

Iran’s position in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is shaped by its fears of encirclement and separatist movements within its own borders.

       •      Religious and Ethnic Balancing: Although Iran shares Shiite religious ties with Azerbaijan, it has historically supported Armenia to counterbalance Turkey’s influence and prevent Azerbaijani irredentism among its own Azeri population (Milani, 2021).

       •      Military Maneuvers: In response to Azerbaijan’s military victories, Iran conducted military exercises near its northern border, signaling its discontent with the shifting power dynamics in the region (Middle East Monitor, 2023).

4.4. The West’s Limited but Strategic Role

Western involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has primarily focused on energy security and diplomatic mediation rather than direct intervention.

       •      Energy Security: The EU has prioritized securing the Southern Gas Corridor to diversify its energy sources and reduce dependence on Russian gas (Cornell, 2022).

       •      Diplomatic Initiatives: The U.S. and EU have supported peace negotiations led by the OSCE Minsk Group and provided humanitarian aid. However, their efforts have been criticized as insufficient due to the lack of a direct military presence (OSCE Minsk Group Report, 2021).

4.5. China’s Strategic Neutrality

China has maintained a neutral stance in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, focusing on economic rather than political engagement.

       •      Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): The South Caucasus serves as a vital corridor in China’s BRI, providing a key transit route between Asia and Europe (Zhang, 2021).

       •      Economic Pragmatism: China avoids taking sides in the conflict to preserve economic partnerships with both Armenia and Azerbaijan (Herzig, 1999).

5. Humanitarian Dimensions and Security Challenges

5.1. Civilian Displacement and Humanitarian Crises

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has resulted in large-scale civilian displacement and humanitarian crises.

       •      1988-1994 War: Approximately 700,000 Azerbaijanis and 230,000 Armenians were displaced due to the conflict (UNHCR Report, 1995).

       •      2020 War: The war displaced around 90,000 Armenians from the territories reclaimed by Azerbaijan (International Crisis Group, 2021).

       •      2023 Offensive: The capture of Stepanakert led to the mass exodus of nearly 100,000 Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh (Human Rights Watch, 2023).

Humanitarian organizations, such as the Red Cross and UNHCR, have faced significant challenges in addressing the needs of displaced populations due to limited access to the conflict zone (Amnesty International, 2023).

5.2. Allegations of War Crimes and Ethnic Cleansing

Numerous reports from human rights organizations have documented potential war crimes during both the 2020 war and the 2023 offensive:

       •      Targeting of Civilian Areas: Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reported the use of cluster munitions and the destruction of civilian infrastructure (HRW, 2023).

       •      Forced Displacements: Analysts described the mass exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh as an attempt to permanently alter the region’s demographic composition (UNHCR, 2023).

The lack of independent investigations has fueled accusations of impunity and deepened mistrust between the conflicting parties.

5.3. Regional Security Implications

The humanitarian crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh has heightened security concerns in the South Caucasus and beyond.

       •      Cross-Border Clashes: Despite ceasefire agreements, border skirmishes between Armenia and Azerbaijan continue to threaten regional stability (Cornell, 2022).

       •      Militarization: The arms race between Armenia and Azerbaijan has led to increased defense spending, further destabilizing the region (International Crisis Group, 2021).

       •      Foreign Fighters: Reports indicate that foreign mercenaries and extremist groups have been involved in the conflict, complicating peace efforts (Zarifian, 2024).

The ongoing instability has raised fears of a broader regional confrontation involving Russia, Turkey, and NATO.

6. Policy Recommendations for a Sustainable Resolution

6.1. Strengthening Multilateral Diplomacy

       •      Reform of Mediation Mechanisms: The OSCE Minsk Group should be restructured to include neutral mediators and more robust enforcement mechanisms.

       •      UN-Led Initiatives: The UN should play a more active role in coordinating humanitarian aid and facilitating peace negotiations.

6.2. Security Guarantees and Demilitarization

       •      International Monitoring: Deploy neutral observers to monitor ceasefire agreements and prevent future escalations.

       •      Arms Reduction Agreements: Implement arms reduction measures to limit militarization in the region.

6.3. Humanitarian Assistance and Accountability

       •      Increased Humanitarian Aid: Expand international funding for displaced populations to ensure access to essential services.

       •      Independent Investigations: Establish impartial investigations into alleged war crimes to ensure accountability.

6.4. Economic Cooperation and Regional Integration

       •      Infrastructure Development: Invest in cross-border infrastructure projects to foster economic interdependence.

       •      Trade Agreements: Promote regional trade agreements to reduce economic disparities and create mutual incentives for peace.

Conclusion:

The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh remains one of the most protracted disputes in the post-Soviet space. The analysis presented in this article demonstrates that the conflict is driven by a complex interplay of historical grievances, national identity narratives, and geopolitical rivalries. The influence of external actors—particularly Russia, Turkey, and Iran—has turned the South Caucasus into a contested space where local disputes are magnified by competing strategic interests.

The 2020 war and the 2023 offensive underscored the inadequacy of existing international mediation mechanisms, particularly the OSCE Minsk Group, in fostering sustainable peace. These events also highlighted the humanitarian consequences of unresolved tensions, as evidenced by the large-scale displacement of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh and allegations of war crimes.

To achieve a lasting resolution, a paradigm shift is needed from zero-sum territorial competition to cooperative regional development. This shift must be grounded in the following key pillars:

       1.    Strengthening Multilateral Diplomacy: Reforming international mediation to include neutral actors with enforcement capabilities, while enhancing the UN’s role in peace processes.

       2.    Security Guarantees and Demilitarization: Deploying international monitors to ensure ceasefire compliance and implementing arms control agreements to prevent further militarization.

       3.    Humanitarian Protection and Accountability: Expanding humanitarian aid, ensuring the protection of displaced communities, and establishing independent investigations into alleged war crimes.

       4.    Economic Cooperation and Regional Integration: Promoting economic interdependence through infrastructure projects and trade agreements that provide mutual benefits to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and neighboring countries.

Ultimately, sustainable peace in the South Caucasus will require a commitment from both regional actors and the international community to prioritize justice, accountability, and human security over geopolitical rivalries. The lessons learned from past failures must inform future negotiations to break the cycle of war and displacement and foster a vision of coexistence and stability.

The road to peace remains challenging, but it is only through genuine multilateral engagement, inclusive diplomacy, and the recognition of mutual grievances that a durable solution can be achieved.

7. Bibliography

       1.    Broers, Laurence. (2019). Armenia and Azerbaijan: Anatomy of a Rivalry. Oxford University Press.

       2.    Cornell, Svante E. (2022). The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: Regional Power Dynamics. Journal of International Security, 12(3), 112-134.

       3.    De Waal, Thomas. (2013). Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. Columbia University Press.

       4.    De Waal, Thomas. (2020). The Caucasus: An Introduction. Columbia University Press.

       5.    International Crisis Group. (2021). Aftermath of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War: Challenges for Regional Stability. Policy Report No. 224.

       6.    Human Rights Watch. (2023). Mass Displacement in Nagorno-Karabakh: International Failures. HRW Reports.

       7.    UNHCR. (2023). Displacement and Humanitarian Crises in the South Caucasus. UNHCR Global Report.

       8.    Zarifian, Julien. (2024). Les États-Unis et l’effondrement du Haut-Karabagh arménien (2020-2023). Orients Stratégiques.

       9.    Aksoy, Mehmet. (2020). Turkey’s Strategic Aspirations in the South Caucasus. Middle East Policy Journal.

       10.  Amnesty International. (2023). Reports on Human Rights Violations in Nagorno-Karabakh.

       11.  Cohen, Ariel. (2020). Russian Strategy in the Post-Soviet Space.

       12.  Zhang, Wei. (2021). China’s Strategic Neutrality in the South Caucasus.

       13.  Milani, Abbas. (2021). Iran’s Regional Security Policy.

       14.  Minassian, Gaïdz. (2024). Haut-Karabakh et Ukraine : d’une conflictualité à l’autre. HAL Sciences Po.

       15.  Thomas, Caroline. (2022). Identity, Sovereignty and Territory: The South Caucasus Question. International Relations Review.

       16.  Stepanyan, Aram. (2023). L’histoire du Haut-Karabakh dans les récits nationaux. Revue d’Histoire Géopolitique.

       17.  Hovannisian, Richard. (1996). The Republic of Armenia. University of California Press.

       18.  Herzig, Edmund. (1999). The New Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Royal Institute of International Affairs.

       19.  Cheterian, Vicken. (2015). Open Wounds: Armenians, Turks and a Century of Genocide. Hurst & Co.

       20.  Gorjian, Ara. (2021). The Role of Diaspora in the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. Journal of Eurasian Studies.

       21.  Rieff, David. (1997). The Armenian Massacres Revisited. Foreign Affairs.

       22.  Pashinyan, Nikol. (2020). Armenia’s Strategic Vision for the Future. Eurasia Review.

       23.  Huseynov, Emil. (2022). Azerbaijan’s Foreign Policy and the Role of Energy Diplomacy. Middle East Quarterly.

       24.  Martirosyan, Ashot. (2021). Media Narratives and Conflict Perceptions in Armenia and Azerbaijan. Revue des Études Caucasiennes.

       25.  Trenin, Dmitri. (2019). Post-Soviet Conflicts and Russian Military Strategy. Journal of Strategic Studies.

       26.  Kramer, Andrew. (2023). Geopolitical Shifts in the South Caucasus. New York Times International Report.

       27.  Bechev, Dimitar. (2017). Rival Power: Russia’s Influence in Southeast Europe. Yale University Press.

       28.  Kapanadze, Sergi. (2014). Frozen Conflicts in the South Caucasus. European Policy Centre Report.

       29.  Iskandaryan, Alexander. (2021). The Sociopolitical Landscape of Post-War Armenia. Caucasus Research Journal.

       30.  Baghdasaryan, Karen. (2022). Le discours diplomatique dans le conflit arméno-azerbaïdjanais. Revue des Études Internationales.

       31.  Peuch, Jean-Christophe. (2021). La Russie face aux conflits du Caucase. Revue de Géopolitique.

       32.  Arakelian, David. (2020). Le rôle des organisations internationales dans le Haut-Karabakh. Forum Mondial de la Paix.

       33.  Aslanov, Fuad. (2023). La diplomatie militaire de l’Azerbaïdjan après 2020. Eurasian Diplomacy Journal.

       34.  Helsinki Watch Report. (1992). Azerbaijan: Human Rights and Ethnic Conflict. Human Rights Watch Archives.

       35.  Mackenzie, Michael. (2018). The Future of Frozen Conflicts. Journal of Peace Studies.

       36.  Hedges, Chris. (2003). War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. PublicAffairs.

       37.  Mégret, Frédéric. (2015). Le droit des conflits armés dans les zones post-soviétiques. Revue du Droit International.

       38.  Oskanian, Kevork. (2013). Fear, Weakness and Power in the Post-Soviet Caucasus. Palgrave Macmillan.

       39.  Freedom House Report. (2023). South Caucasus: Democracy Under Threat.

       40.  Habib, Reza. (2022). Iran’s Military Exercises in the Caucasus: A Warning Signal. Middle East Monitor.

       41.  UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). (2023). Humanitarian Needs Assessment in Nagorno-Karabakh.

       42.  Braud, Antoine. (2024). La chute du Haut-Karabakh et les perspectives de paix. Revue Servir.

       43.  Khachaturova, Anna. (2024). L’Arménie dans la tourmente. Diplomatie.

       44.  Grigoryan, Lilit. (2023). Memorialization of the Karabakh Conflict in Armenian Education. Eurasia Academic Review.

       45.  Karimov, Rashid. (2021). Post-War Azerbaijan: Reconstruction and Future Challenges. Caspian Policy Report.

       46.  Meredith, David. (2020). Humanitarian Law in Protracted Conflicts. Journal of International Humanitarian Studies.

       47.  OSCE Minsk Group Report. (2021). Status Report on Peace Negotiations in the South Caucasus.

       48.  UN Security Council. (1993). Resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh.

       49.  Thomas, Edward. (2022). Borders and Sovereignty in Post-Soviet Conflicts. Journal of Territorial Studies.

       50.  Baranovsky, Vladimir. (2001). Russia and the Post-Soviet Space: Strategic Choices. Carnegie Moscow Center Reports.