II. THE ANALYSIS OF POSSIBLE VARIANTS OF POLITICAL SOLUTION TO THE KARABAKH CONFLICT

Since 1988, i.e. the beginning of the Karabakh events, the officially interested parties (states, international organizations) as well as individuals: statesmen, scholars and many public and political organizations, have advanced different proposals for the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. In the given chapter we attempt to offer as full an account as possible of these proposals according to the following scheme:

1. The international-legal aspects of the problem.

2. The possible schemes of principles for the resolution of the problem.

1. The international-legal aspects of the problem

One might think that the international-legal principles ought to have made their own decisive contribution to the resolution of the Karabakh problem. However, a conflict arose between two major principles – the right of nations to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity and inviolability of state frontiers. The parties to the conflict and often states involved in its settlement interpret these principles according to their own interests¹. We cannot but mention that the situation which formed in international law after the Second World War is not least connected with the inconsistency of the world community itself which lags behind in its legal evaluation of political processes in various parts of the world. To completely assess the situation, it is enough to turn to the source we ourselves refer to in our analysis of the international-legal aspects of the conflict².

On the face of it, these two principles are indeed incompatible in cases where the population residing on part of the territory of a certain state declares its intention to secede, that is, to subject the borders of this state to change or revision.. It seems that the universal solution of such conflicts could be found if the international community was to come to the opinion that one of these principles prevails over the other. But there is nothing but ambiguity in this question, and one has to seek various solutions in every concrete case.

Many researchers note that the preference given by one entity or another to one of the aforementioned principles often changes depending on the prevailing political conjuncture. For instance, it is evident that during the cold war the principle of inviolability of borders and territorial integrity dominated in international relations. The world was then divided into two opposing hostile military-political blocs headed by the US and the USSR respectively. Each side was afraid that any changes in the world based on the right of self-determination could affect the already established balance of forces.

An exception was observed for the peoples under colonial rule. As far back as in 1960, the UN General Assembly adopted a Declaration about decolonization which embraced absolutely all colonial peoples. At the same time, it should be said that even in that period, there were cases of secession and formation of new states by people who had already emerged from the yoke of colonialism (for example, Bangladesh, Singapore and Eritrea).

The situation changed after the cold war, however, with the collapse of the USSR and the liquidation of the socialist camp. Since then a new world order requiring different approaches to the question of correlation between the right of self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity has become a subject for discussion. The essence of the new situation is formulated by American researchers M. Halperin and D. Scheffer:“With the end of the cold war the international community ran unexpectedly into multiple demands of peoples for self-determination in the context of different variants. The clear principles, which served as guidelines during the confrontation with the Soviet Union, have disappeared and it is impossible any more to state that all existing states must be indivisible and no changes can take place in international borders”³.

It seems there are no more grounds to set off the principle of self-determination against the principle of inviolability of state borders. The above-mentioned authors note that it is time to pursue“a creative policy which would take into account the peculiarities of each situation”⁴.  In their opinion, a demand for self-determination may reflect a legitimate aspiration, which should not be ignored, and in most cases such wishes can be realized within the borders of the existing states, but in some cases there is a necessity for the formation of new states and a peaceful procedure for secession, that is separation, must be found.

Modern conflictologists, the supporters of a new approach to the problem of self-determination and inviolability of state borders, have done useful work from the point of view of a classification of demands for self-determination:

A. Anti-colonial self-determination.This means a solution according to the Declaration of the UN General Assembly adopted in 1960. It practically arouses no arguments.

B. Sub-state self-determination.This implies the aspiration of a certain ethnic group in an already existing state to secede and form a new state. This category includes Tibet in China, the Sikh community in Punjab (India), Chechnya in Russia, Corsica, which seeking to secede from France, etc.

C. Trans-state self-determination.This case can be applied to groups of peoples, residing in more than one country. The researchers note that“a group (of people) may strive to break away from one state and join another state. An example is the ethnic Armenians of NK, striving to become part of Armenia”⁵. This category also includes some movements in Kashmir in favor of uniting with Pakistan, the movement in South Ossetia striving to unite with North Ossetia, which is part of Russia, or the Russians in the Crimea and Transdnistria striving to secede from Ukraine and Moldova and unite with Russia, and also the Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina seeking to unite with Serbia, the Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland trying to re-unite with the Republic of Ireland.

Among other categories of self-determination one should note the self-determination of dispersed peoples, the self-determination of aboriginal peoples (Guatemala, Nicaragua, Mexico, Rwanda, Australia, etc.) and representative self-determination, which is connected with the change of the political structure of a given state.

The anti-colonial (since the Armenian sides contend that NK had never been part of the Azerbaijan Republic of its own will), sub-state and especially trans-state self-determination appears to be of the greatest interest for the resolution of the Karabakh problem from the standpoint of the Armenian side. 

At present a more tolerant attitude, as compared with the period of the cold war, towards people striving for self-determination is apparent. And, in the opinion of Armenian experts, it is time to give up the opposition of the two principles to each other. Contradictions are not in them, but in their interpretation. In the opinion of A. Yenokyan:“The principle of inviolability of borders prohibits trans-border conflicts, the seizure of the territory of one existing state by another existing state, that is to say, it vetoes local conflicts. The principle of national self-determination acknowledges as something of high value the right of a free community of free people – the people – to have their own sovereign political formation – an independent state – and with this lofty aim it doesn’t prohibits global wars”⁶. According to the opinion of Azeri experts, the seizure of a neighboring country’s territory and an attempt to present it as self-determination are apparent in the Karabakh conflict.

The Armenian side also invokes the work of the German lawyer O. Luchterhandt, “Nagorno Karabakh’s Right to Independence According to International Law”⁷. He acknowledges that there is a certain contradiction between the two principles and notes that the principle of sovereignty finds its restriction in the right of self-determination and, on the contrary, the right of self-determination is restricted by the principle of sovereignty. That is, they balance each other. However, this scholar is convinced that any conflict or confrontation can be solved by means of differentiation between a normal case and an exceptional case. In a normal case the priority of the principle of sovereignty is applied as a decisive basis for international law on the whole. “Exceptional” cases require a different approach. “In exceptional cases,” writes Luchterhandt, “that is, when a national minority is discriminated in an unbearable form, then the right to self-determination in the form of the right of secession has a priority over the sovereignty of the state concerned. In the case in question the right of Azerbaijan to sovereignty loses its weight in comparison with the right of self-determination (the right of secession), because Azerbaijan itself has just become free of the disintegrated USSR, taking advantage of its right to self-determination”.

Consequently, the compensatory granting of the status of a national minority, which could be justified in other cases, is not appropriate for NK, the German lawyer thinks. Luchterhandt emphasises that the “analysis of the policy of Azerbaijan towards NK as well as the conditions of life in the region show that from the administrative, national-cultural, social-economic and demographic points of view, the Armenian ethnic group was an object of permanent and mass discrimination that lasted for decades. The state of Azerbaijan lost the right to subject the Armenian ethnic group of NK to its sovereignty”. These circumstances create the prerequisites to consider the problem of NK as an exceptional case. It means that the right of NK to secession gains priority over the principle of the inviolability of Azerbaijan’s borders. As a result, O. Luchterhandt comes to the following conclusion:“As a result of the expert study we can establish on the whole that in accordance with the current international law the Armenian ethnic group of Nagorno Karabakh has the right to self-determination in the form of secession from the Azerbaijan Republic (the right of secession), which has priority over the right of Azerbaijan to sovereignty. Owing to the right of self-determination, the Armenian ethnic group of NK has the right either to form its own state or to unite with the Republic of Armenia”⁸. For Azerbaijan, these conclusions appear to be one-sided and unconvincing. Following from this logic, the Azeri ethnic group that earlier compactly lived in Armenia and was expelled from there also has a right to form its own state or to unite with the Azerbaijan Republic.

In the context of the problem of the correlation between the two principles Armenian experts note one circumstance, which they think to be very important and has to do with the problem of NK. The thing is that the leaders of Armenia, including its current President Robert Kocharian also speak in favor of the principle of the inviolability of state borders and underline that the self-determination of Nagorno Karabakh does not run counter to the principle of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan because NK has never been a part of the independent Azerbaijan Republic – either in 1918-1920 or after the break-up of the USSR (NK declared independence in September 1991, three months before the USSR’s demise). Moreover, the fact that Azerbaijan, having accepted the Declaration of the Supreme Soviet (Council) on the Restoration of the State Independence of the Azerbaijan Republic (on August 30, 1991) and the Constitutional Act On the State Independence of October 18, 1991, has proclaimed itself the successor of the Azerbaijan Republic of 1918-1920, (and has declared the annexation of Azerbaijan by the Red Army illegal) is, in the opinion of Armenian experts, is a basis for legally proving the presence of NK separate from AR.⁹The Azeri side regards this approach as a free interpretation of both the real historical events and international principles, pointing out that the international community invariably acknowledges that NK is part of the Azerbaijan Republic. Moreover, contrary to the opinion of the Armenian party, still in September, 1919 Azerbaijani Democratic Republic and the congress of Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh concluded a temporal agreement on the belonging of this territory to Azerbaijan up to the decision of the international conference. During the Soviet period, congresses of the Armenian population of NK defined the determination to create an autonomous region within Azerbaijan. According to the laws of the USSR, the establishment of an autonomy of a region was initiated by the Supreme Soviet of a union republic upon the presentation of the Soviet of People's Deputies of an autonomous region, and the aspiration of the Armenian party “not to notice” the legal capacity of these representations can lead to refusal (de jure and de facto) to recognize the legitimacy of the creation and existence of the autonomous region during the Soviet period.

The Azeri side considers the Karabakh conflict exclusively from the perspective of Armenia’s territorial claims and, therefore, insists that this question has no contradictions in the context of international law or clash with other principles. The conflict must be considered exclusively within the framework of the international principle of the integrity of the state within the borders recognized by the international community when the Azerbaijan Republic was admitted to the United Nations: namely, within the administrative borders of the union republic (the former Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic). As to the frequently debated problem of self-determination, it is noted that in all international documents there are clauses which completely remove its priorities. Thus, all international documents on self-determination contain a clause according to which“nothing in this document can be interpreted as violation of the territorial integrity of a state”. On the other hand, it is said that“at present the world community recognizes only the internal aspect of self-determination – the right of the existing states to restore their independence if they are occupied or conquered by foreign forces”¹⁰.

Azerbaijan also refuses to discuss the grounds for NK’s secession from the Azerbaijan Republic, which are presented and declared by the Armenian side as “legitimate”. Azerbaijan doesn’t recognize the so-called referendum on independence held in NK in December, 1991, stating that it was held without the participation of the Azeri population and in conditions that formed as a result of ethnic cleansings of the region. After the events of November 20, when the helicopter with leading members of Azerbaijan’s government and representatives of the presidents of Russia and Kazakhstan was brought down, the parliament of Azerbaijan abolished the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region on November 26, 1991. It was in that period that the population of the region, under the influence of the aggravating conflict often turning into acts of confrontation and armed clashes, segregated by ethnic principle and territorial enclaves, which excluded any negotiations on “the referendum on independence” in December, 1991.    

The Azerbaijan Republic notes that the opposite side persistently covers up the fact that during numerous conventions and meetings in 1923 and in following years, the Armenian population repeatedly spoke in favor of establishing an autonomous region within Azerbaijan, motivating it by the geo-economic interdependence of Mountainous (Nagorno) and Lowland Karabakh¹¹.   

The Azeri side states that if the main thing, a territorial difference between Azerbaijan and Armenia, is eliminated, the existing problems of the future status of NK must be solved between its two ethnic groups.

The Azeri side mentions that today not a single state in the world – and the Republic of Armenia is not an exception – has dared to recognize NK’s independence at the state level, whereas the territorial integrity of the Azerbaijan Republic is recognized by all international documents. After the statement of Presidents Bush and Putin in 2002 about the search of peace within the framework of the territorial integrity of the countries involved in ethno-political conflicts, the Azeri position obtained new support.

The last year was marked by a new wave of discussions about the problem of Nagorno Karabakh at prestigious international forums. Within the framework of the winter session of the PACE (on January 25, 2005) in Strasbourg, the report of British MP David Atkinson on the question of Nagorno Karabakh, which initially had been prepared by its first rapporteur Terry Davis, who is now the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, was heard. This document for the first time admits that “significant parts of the territory of Azerbaijan continue to remain occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region.” Besides, the CE Parliamentary Assembly confirmed that “the seizure of the region from a state and its sovereignty can be achieved only as a result of a peaceful and legal process based on democratic support of the residents of a given territory, but not by way of an armed confrontation leading to ethnic resettlements and a de facto annexation of this territory by another state.” A resolution on the report was adopted.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE, for whose session (Washington, July 2005) the report of special representative of the PA of the OSCE on NK Göran Lennmarker had been prepared, became another similar forum. The report, which, as one could expect, should have become a basis for the discussion and adoption of the resolution, additionally contained the following provisions:

- Armenian central concern is national security, Azerbaijani central concern is of injustice caused by the occupation of a part of the country and refugees and internal immigrants. It is vital that the parties should satisfy the central concern of the opposite party.

- It is necessary that a certain bi-partisan “truth and reconciliation committee” should try to reach a common and objective understanding of the past.

- There is a golden opportunity for Armenia and Azerbaijan to build mutual relations based on European standards on the support of European structures. 

- Armenia and Azerbaijan could strive to build, together with Georgia, a common area characterized by security, democracy, and prosperity.

It is stated in the report that granting independence to NK would be a bad precedent for the South Caucasus where there are a lot of territories trying to achieve independence, though NK could receive the greatest degree of security as part of Armenia. As to the alternative, in the form of a high-degree autonomy within Azerbaijan, in the opinion of the speaker, this variant could be realized under the scheme of the Aland Islands (see below). In any case, in Lennmarker’s opinion, the first step should be the establishment of direct contacts between Azerbaijan and NK.

No resolution was adopted on the Lennmarker report in view of the negative attitude to it of the Azerbaijan delegation. Both the PACE resolution and the Lennmarker report are included in the Appendices of this book.

In the light of all stated above, the viewpoint of a number of experts, who believe the legal approach to finding a solution to the problem of NK is a dead end, seems important. In particular, they point out that international law contains a lot of different principles that can often come into clash. Speaking at the conference “Formation of the Environment for Peace, Stability and Trust in the South Caucasus” in Yerevan on April 25, 2002, Ambassador V. Kazimirov, a former Russian representative of the OSCE Minsk Group, said:“The resolution of the Karabakh conflict is unlikely to be purely legal, it is likely to be political with other factors, including legal ones taken into consideration. That is why pragmatic solutions to disputable questions are more useful than framework discussions about principles”¹². It is another matter what legal force this political decision will have for the future generations of the two republics¹³.

2. The possible schemes of principle for the solution of the problem

In this chapter we set ourselves the task of bringing together all variants of a political settlement of the problem of NK available to us. We also tried as far as possible to assess the degree to which these variants are realizable. 

1. The position of Azerbaijan

This position consists of the fact that the conflict which began in 1988 was the result of military aggression carried out by Armenia against Azerbaijan with the aim of seizing and uniting part of Azeri territory to Armenia. As a result of the aggression, the Armenian side seized entirely or partially seven regions of Azerbaijan outside the borders of NK. Hundreds of thousands of Azeris became forced migrants¹⁴. Azerbaijan demands as immediate measures the withdrawal of Armenian military units from the occupied territories as well as the return of refugees to their homes. The Azerbaijan Republic is ready to grant NK “the highest status of self-government within the Azeri state”, the form and likelihood of realization of which are not specified and must be worked out in the course of the negotiating process. The main point, according to this position, is the preservation of the territorial integrity of the Azerbaijan Republic, which means recognition of the Azerbaijan Republic within the borders of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. This question cannot become a subject of negotiations. As to the de facto independence of NK (the existence of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic), the Azerbaijan Republic believes it to be entirely the result of aggression on the part of the Republic of Armenia.

2.2. The position of the Azeris of Nagorno Karabakh

This position is rarely voiced and its official version on the whole coincides with the position of Azerbaijan’s leadership. Another viewpoint is held by the Organization for the Liberation of Karabakh (OLK) that represents the Azeris from NK and occupied territories. The OLK’s approach to the solution of the Azeri-Armenian conflict consists of the necessity of the liberation of the occupied lands by military force as soon as possible and the return of refugees to the places of their former residence. After the liberation of the occupied territories, for the purpose of achieving stable peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia, discussions should be started on the possibility of forming structures of self-government for the Armenian population of the Azerbaijan Republic in the territory of Azerbaijan and of the Azeri population deported from the Republic of Armenia in the territory of Armenia. This would require the use of all resources of international organizations including the United Nations, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, as well as means of people’s democracy and public human rights organizations.

The OLK deems that the main principle of structures ensuring the peaceful co-existence of the Azeri and Armenian populations in the territories of the Azerbaijan Republic and the Republic of Armenia must be the complete coincidence of the status of the administrative rights and powers of the structures formed in the Republic of Armenia and the Azerbaijan Republic.

After agreement is reached with the Republic of Armenia, a plan of realization of the agreements is developed and measures for its simultaneous (hereinafter parallel) implementation begin.

The OLK thinks that stable peace in the region is possible only with a fair solution to the conflict. The peoples will be able to live in a stable and fair prosperous world only if there are neither winners nor losers, if no one is able to benefit from the results of ethnic cleansings and aggression.

3. The position of the authorities of Nagorno Karabakh

The position of the Nagorno Karabakh authorities is the acknowledgement of NK’s right to self-determination up to the formation of an independent state.

NK’s leadership gives priority to the question of status in the resolution of the conflict. It believes that according to all provisions of the international law the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) must be recognized as a legitimately formed independent state. In particular:

- There were no legal grounds for the inclusion of NK into Azerbaijan, except by a certain resolution of the Caucasian Bureau of the Bolshevik Party in 1921.

- At the same time, from the point of view of Soviet laws which were in effect at the time of the NKR’s declaration in September 1991, this act is legally irreproachable. The declaration of the NKR was in full conformity with the USSR Law of April 3, 1990 “On the order of settling matters connected with secession of Soviet Republics from the USSR” and was implemented on the basis of a referendum on December 10, 1991, conducted in the presence of numerous international observers and recognized by the world community. The NKR authorities discard as unfounded the statements of Baku that this referendum was allegedly conducted after the ethnic cleansings of the Azeri population of NK. They emphasise that ethnic cleansings began only after the start of military operations, i.e. after January 1992. During the referendum ballot papers were delivered to all areas of NK inhabited by Azeris but Azeris refused to take part in the referendum on Baku’s demand. Finally, the Armenians highlight the fact that even the participation of the Azeri population of NK in the referendum couldn’t have changed its outcome, as they (Azeris) made only about a quarter of the population of the NKAR.              

- The NKR rejects any attempts to restore the former status quo and extension of the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan to it. The leadership of the NKR believes that they won in the battlefield and the Azeri armed forces suffered a defeat. And this circumstance must be considered in determining the status, because there is no historical precedent for a victor subjecting to the dominance of the defeated country. The relations between NK and Azerbaijan can only be horizontal, with different modifications.

- The independence of NK and the achievement of such a degree of security which would ensure the preservation of the Armenian population of Karabakh are necessary. It is natural that the Karabakh army is the main guarantor of the security of the republic and its Armenian population.

- The declaration of the NKR as an independent republic means that its integration with the Republic of Armenia is not on the agenda. The leadership of NK regards this as a manifestation of compromise, the readiness to remove the tension because of the possible unification of two Armenian states, which is taken painfully by Azerbaijan. Though, the leadership of NK does not hide the fact that they see the ultimate goal in the unification with the Republic of Armenia (This was repeatedly stated by NK’s leader A. Ghukasian).

The issue of the return of Azerbaijan’s territories occupied by the Karabakh Army must be tied to the issue of the status. So to say, “lands in exchange for status”.

4. Nagorno Karabakh as part of Armenia

This variant, which Armenia and NK put forward in the initial “Soviet” period of the development of the crisis, needs no further commentary. Besides, Armenia and the NKR do not advance such a demand now. Armenia’s current position is as follows: it will agree with any kind of the Karabakh problem solution acceptable to the Armenians of NK, including on the status. Proceeding from this, the leadership of the Republic of Armenia doesn’t insist on NK’s uniting with it. Therefore, the resolution of the parliaments of the Republic of Armenia and NK of December 1, 1989 about the unification of NK and the Republic of Armenia still remains on paper (which, though, serves as a ground for extremist Armenian politicians to criticise the leadership of the Republic of Armenia). This fact, as well as the fact that officially Armenia doesn’t recognize the NKR’s independence are intended not to complicate the situation, to maintain room for maneuvering and leave the door open for political negotiations.

5. More than autonomy but not a state

Schemes that can be conventionally called “more than autonomy, but not a state” were often proposed in the process of searching for an acceptable solution to the Karabakh problem. Perhaps the first such attempt was the so-called “Willy’s Plan,” which was proposed back in 1919, and envisaged the transformation of NK into some “Special Zone” (SZ) within Azerbaijan under a sort of U.S. protectorate. (One of the clauses of the project believed to have been authored by U.S. Army Colonel William Haskel, read straightforwardly: “security and law and order in the special zone is ensured by the U.S. Army under the command of the consul”¹⁵). Now this plan is only of historical interest, except perhaps that it reaffirms that the Karabakh problem, despite the claims of many of the nomenclature statesmen of the Soviet period, is not “far-fetched” but existed still at that time.

The Aland Islands are very often cited as another example of a conflict of this kind where the ethnic conflict did not result in bloodshed but was resolved by way of finding a special status within the limits of self-determination.

The Alands is an archipelago of 8,000 islets situated in the Baltic Sea. The population of these islets were part of the Swedish Kingdom until 1808, and spoke Swedish from time immemorial. At that time Norway and Finland were both part of Sweden. As a result of the 1808-1809 war, Sweden was forced to cede Finland and the Alands to Russia. After a defeat in the Crimean War in 1856, Russia had to recognize the Alands as a de-militarized zone. At the beginning of the 20th century, Norway peacefully seceded from Sweden on the basis of a referendum. In 1917, Russia recognized the independence of Finland. At that time, the Swedish population of the Alands expressed their desire to reunite with their ancient homeland, Sweden, and sent the King of Sweden a petition signed by the entire adult population of the islands. In December 1917, Finland voiced its opposition to the desire of the Alands population and suggested that the terms of self-determination should be coordinated with it. The Alands islanders rejected these suggestions. A conflict was growing, but neither side took up arms.

In 1921, the League of Nations passed a resolution: the Aland islands, neutral and demilitarized, were declared to be a territory belonging to Finland. Finland was given the responsibility of guaranteeing to the population of the islands the preservation of the Swedish language, customs and traditions and the development of Swedish culture. 

Sweden and Finland concluded a Treaty according to which the population of the Alands gained the right to preserve their language, culture and traditions and thus the threat of assimilation was removed. Sweden received guarantees of security for the Swedish population of the islands and the right of unimpeded communication with them.

According to the Law of 1922 on self-government, the local parliament-Lagting is entitled to adopt laws on the internal affairs of the islands and on the budget. The Lagting appoints the government. In accordance with the Constitution of Finland, the laws on self-government can be amended by the Parliament of Finland only with the consent of the Lagting of the Alands. The law-making powers of the Lagting are defined in the following spheres: education and culture; public health; economy; transport; communal services; police; postal services; radio and television. In these spheres, the Alands hold the power of a sovereign state. The rest of the legislative powers are the prerogative of Finland: foreign policy; the bulk of the civil code; courts and criminal law; customs and money circulation.

To defend the interests of the Aland population, one deputy from the archipelago is elected to the Parliament of Finland. With the consent of the Lagting, the president of Finland appoints the governor of the islands. The powers of the governor are as follows: to head the Council of representatives of the Aland Islands (formed on parity principles); to open and close sessions of the Lagting.

In the economic sphere, relations are built according to the following pattern:  the government of Finland levies taxes, collects customs and other levies on the islands the same way it does in the rest of the country. The expenses on the archipelago are covered from the state budget. The archipelago recieves a proportion of state revenues after the deduction of its share for state debt repayment. It is up to the Lagting to decide how to distribute the remaining sum according to budget items.

The laws adopted by the Lagting are sent to the President of Finland who has the right of veto. This veto can be exercised only in two cases: if the Parliament of the islands exceeds its powers or if the adopted law contains a threat to the internal and external security of Finland.

The right to live on the islands is equivalent to the right to citizenship. Every child born on the islands has that right on condition that one of his/her parents is a citizen of the Alands. The islanders are simultaneously citizens of Finland. The right of Aland citizenship is granted to any citizen of Finland who has moved to the archipelago and has lived there for five years on the condition that he speaks Swedish.

Restrictions on the rights for foreigners regarding the ownership of real estate are explained by the aspiration to secure land for the residents of the Alands. A resident of an island, who has lived for five years outside the Alands, loses his citizenship. A citizen of the Alands is exempted from the duty of serving in the Finnish Army. It is also forbidden to station troops and build fortifications on the islands.

The Alanders may directly cooperate with Scandinavian countries. They also take part in the work of the Northern Council.  

Foreign policy is the prerogative of the Government and Parliament of Finland. But if Finland signs an international treaty that affects the internal affairs of the Alands, then the implementation of the treaty should be coordinated with the Lagting.

The Alands model was proposed by international intermediaries as a possible future model for relations between NK and the Azerbaijan Republic. A symposium of Azeri, Armenian and NK parliamentarians was held on the Aland Islands on December 21-22, 1993, upon the initiative of the CIS Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, the Federal Assembly and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. During the symposium, details of the model¹⁶were presented. However, the authorities of NK consider that the Alands model fails to take into consideration“the historical basis and psychological consequences of the Karabakh-Azeri conflict and of the war fought for NK’s de facto independence from the Azerbaijan Republic”. Besides, according to the firm conviction of the Armenian and the Karabakh sides, the Alands model was inapplicable to the conditions of the South Caucasus also for the reason that the question of the status of the mentioned archipelago in the 1920s was not resolved separately, but within the framework of the general issue – the so-called “Sweden problem” in Finland. The Swedes were able to get equal rights not only in the Alands but also in Finland as a whole where the Swedish language is the second state language.

It is not the only example of a settlement according to the principle “more autonomy, but not a state”. Many statesmen and experts proposed such options as an opportunity for both sides to resolve conflict with dignity, with minimal losses both to their security and self-esteem (which is equally important). Let’s look at one more example of this kind presented by American researchers D. Laitin and R. Suny¹⁷.

1. Karabakh de jure must remain within Azerbaijan in conformity with the principle of territorial integrity of a state and the inadmissibility of unilateral alternations of borders by force. The symbolic sovereignty of Azerbaijan over Karabakh could be represented by the Azeri flag waving over the Government House in Karabakh and by the appointment of an Azeri representative in Karabakh who will have to be approved by the Karabakh government. The formal aspect of sovereignty implies Azerbaijan’s representation of Karabakh in the UN and other international organizations.

2. The citizens of Karabakh must have proportional representation in the Parliament of the Azerbaijan Republic in Baku. The Karabakh representatives in the Parliament of the Azerbaijan Republic must have the powers to stop any proposed law that directly concerns Karabakh.

3. The establishment of full self-government of the Republic of Karabakh within the borders of the Azerbaijan Republic, presupposing the formation of their own Parliament with proportional representation of the population, the right of veto on the resolutions of Azerbaijan concerning this republic, sovereign rights of its government in issues of security, education, culture and investments in infrastructure.

4. The absence of units of armed forces and the police of the Azerbaijan Republic and the Karabakh Republic on each other’s territories without mutual consent.

5. The Armenians and Azeris living in Karabakh would have the right to dual citizenship or full citizenship in either republic with the right of permanent residence in Karabakh.

Summing up what was stated above, one can note that the variants of settlement like “more than autonomy, but not a state”, “associated state” and “common state” often have characteristics interwoven among themselves and it is difficult to draw a clear distinction among them¹⁸.

6. Exchange of territories

As far back as 1988, a group of human rights activists headed by Andrei Sakharov proposed a variant of territorial “separation” of the Armenians and Azeris as a model for the resolution of the conflict. At that time this variant failed to become a subject of discussion.

The first elaborated draft of such a variant was proposed by an American political scientist Paul Goble, a former officer of the U.S. State Department, who stated his viewpoint in the article “Coping with the Nagorno Karabakh Crisis”. Goble argued that the Azerbaijan Republic and the Republic of Armenia were unable to solve this problem themselves. And not a single solution is possible if the sides try to return to the old status quo, to the situation that existed before the start of the conflict in 1988¹⁹.

The former status quo, Paul Goble said, was maintained thanks to the USSR, which no longer existed. Now the situation has changed and it dictates the necessity to show a new approach to the NK conflict.

Paul Goble thought that“in principle there are three ways “to solve” the NK problem: to oust or kill all Armenians living there now, to station a great number of foreign forces to move these sides apart or to hand over the NKAR under Armenian control”. But the author himself felt that all these options were impossible to realize: the first option because of moral considerations, the second because it was not physically possible, and the“third one is impossible politically since in this case Azerbaijan will become the side unfairly treated both from the viewpoint of loss of territory and the question of water supply to Baku”. Therefore, he sought the key to the resolution of the problem in the exchange of territories, including the following conditions:

First, handing over a part of the NKAR to Armenia together with the territories of the sources of rivers flowing in the direction of Azerbaijan. Secondly, handing over the Armenian territory connecting the Azerbaijan Republic with Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan’s control.

Evidently Paul Goble understood that in the case of the realization of this variant, Armenia would find itself in a difficult situation because it would lose its connection with Iran, which is of vital importance to Armenia. That is why, in 1996, he introduced some amendments to his plan. In particular, he proposed to create a corridor through the southern region of Armenia, Meghri, to Iran, where some international forces would be stationed.

Later, Goble suggested handing over a part of the NKAR to Armenia in exchange for handing over a part of Armenian territory, namely the Meghri region, to Azerbaijan. This would enable Azerbaijan to have an immediate border with Nakhichevan.

The Goble Plan, for one reason or another, failed to find support first of all from the Republic of Armenia and NK. It is important, however, to note that according to media reports and oppositionists in Armenia, some variant of a territorial swap like the one proposed by Goble was seriously considered during talks between the presidents of the Azerbaijan Republic and the Republic of Armenia in 2000-2001. Officially, Yerevan and Baku were refuting these reports and there was not any additional information about this variant, even if it was actually discussed. (see further)²⁰.

7. Associated state

Politicians and scholars often pay great attention to the concept of the associated state as one of the variants of solving ethno-political conflicts, including the NK conflict. They usually refer to UN resolutions and declarations, in particular to UN Resolution 2625 adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1970 on the “Declaration on the Principles of International Law Pertaining to Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the United Nations Charter”.

The Declaration admits three forms of the realization of the right of nations to self-determination: formation of a new state; association with an already existing independent state or status of a different level if it is approved by the free expression of will of a given people. In this case the variant of free association with an independent state is of interest. This variant is not only a political postulate but is realized in practice. The islands of Cook and Near already have associated statehood with New Zealand, while Puerto Rico, the Marshall Islands and the Federation of Micronesia have associated statehood with the United States. The last two – the Marshall Islands and the Federation of Micronesia – even became members of the United Nations in 1990.

On the basis of this principle, Ambassador John Maresca, a former U.S. representative to the CSCE Minsk Group, worked out and published on July 1, 1994 a plan for the political resolution of the NK conflict. John Maresca’s proposal consisted of eight chapters. In the first chapter, “The Status of Nagorno Karabakh”, it was noted that“NK must be called the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and must be a completely self-governed legal formation within the sovereign state of the Azerbaijan Republic”²¹.“The NKR must be within Azerbaijan and associated with it”. Maresca proposed the adoption the Basic Law about the status of the NKR on the basis of which its associated unification with the Azerbaijan Republic would be realized. It was suggested that representative offices should be established in Stepanakert and Baku; the NKR would have the right to have permanent representations in the capitals of states of special importance such as Yerevan and Moscow, and receive corresponding representatives from the same countries. But“the NKR must not be recognized as a sovereign independent state”.

According to Maresca’s plan,“the armed forces of the NKR must be gradually reduced. The NKR may have the right to have local security forces, including self-defense forces, but must not have offensive military forces.”And the Azerbaijan Republic would gain the right to station in the NKR only local security forces, but no offensive armaments system, including near the NKR.

There are some clauses in John Maresca’s variant about the right of the Republic of Armenia to maintain transit links with the NKR via the Lachin corridor, and the Azerbaijan Republic with Nakhichevan via the territory of Armenia. There are also clauses about the return of refugees to the places of their former residence, about turning the Republic of Armenia and the Azerbaijan Republic, including NK and Nakhichevan, into a free trade zone, about the convocation of a conference of donors for financial support of the Azerbaijan Republic and the Republic of Armenia, including NK, etc. And finally, Maresca proposed that the OSCE and the UN Security Council should become guarantors of the implementation of the terms of this document.

The variant of an associated state, though deviating from unconditional demands for the submission of NK to the laws and jurisdiction of the Azerbaijan Republic, nevertheless is based on the principle of non-recognition of the independence of the NKR and views it as part of the Azerbaijan Republic, with the retention of the NKR’s vertical submission to Azerbaijan. This, in the opinion of the Armenian side, absolutely failed to correspond to the internationally acknowledged concept of an “associated state”. In the NK leadership’s opinion, the relations with the Azerbaijan Republic must be based on the principle of full equality, which excludes any vertical ties²².

The so-called “synthesis variant” can be considered to be among the varieties of this variant. This variant was put forward in the mid-1990s by the director of the U.S. National Democratic Institute (NDI), Ambassador Nelson Ledsky, who stated his viewpoint in an interview with the “Turkish Daily News” paper (September 1995). In his opinion, in real fact NK must become part of the Republic of Armenia, although possibly, in some form it must be connected with the Azerbaijan Republic.“There is no doubt,”N. Ledsky says,“that the Armenians were a success in this war. And the Azeri side must admit that it has lost something.”

It would be appropriate to note here that, according to the Azeri side, the constant reference of western analysts to the “military success” and “results of war” hide a hint that a “military solution” to the Karabakh problem is the only possible one.

N. Ledsky expressed that the problem of Nakhichevan, from the point of view of its communication with the Azerbaijan Republic, was an essential part of the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Answering a Turkish reporter’s question: “Do you propose an exchange of NK for Nakhichevan?”, Ledsky replied that“there must be negotiations, which will provide communications between NK and the Republic of Armenia as well as between Nakhichevan and the Azerbaijan Republic”.

Although in this chapter we have distinguished the variant of the “Common State” proposed by the Minsk Group co-chairmen in December 1998, it is easy to see that this variant is close enough to the concept of an associated state, and the difference between these two variants is rather conditional. Below we are going to discuss this variant at length. 

Let us round up the analysis of this variant by an assessment of the “psychology of fears” of the sides defined by the Azeri politician and scholar Niyazi Mehti.

“There is no doubt that NK has a chance to actually exist as an independent state with the retention of some political symbols, formally remaining within the Azerbaijan Republic. But the Armenians are afraid of such a prospect. Firstly, because if on the one hand the  military-economic strength of today’s opponent increases and its international position stabilises, and if on the other hand the international control over the maintenance of peace is weakened the Azerbaijan Republic could take advantage of its legal right of a sovereign state and would abolish the de facto independence of NK. “The absence of 100% guarantees makes NK afraid of snags of even symbolic attributes of NK’s belonging to Azerbaijan. The other reason is the dynamics of the demographic and migration processes in the Azerbaijan Republic, capable, in the opinion of the Armenians, of leading to a repetition of the Nakhichevan scenario: the alleged peaceful ousting of Armenians by Azeris. Thirdly, the proposed subordination of NK to the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan will inevitably encounter the resistance of the Armenians of NK and the Republic of Armenia: official persons state that after so many victories the people themselves will never allow it.

“The stand of the Azeri side is conditioned first by the constant presence in the nation’s consciousness that Upper and Lower Karabakh make up an inseparable part with the rest of the country’s geography. Karabakh’s separation is perceived by this consciousness as a national disaster. Secondly, the systems and principles of international law (inviolability of borders, recognition of the Azerbaijan Republic by the UN and other international organizations within its factual borders etc.) work for Azerbaijan, and to give up these advantages is ludicrous. Thirdly, one cannot exclude the prospects of the state’s increased might and as a consequence the possibility of revenge. Fourth, the international law is inclined, especially of late, to accept some precedents which create the situation of automatism and permanence in conflict resolution. At the very first small compromise this automatism turns on the “domino” principle requiring more and more concessions up to NK’s secession: for example, the recognition of the Armenians of NK as a party to the negotiations, according to the same principle may become a step on the way towards the recognition of NK’s independence.”²³

8. The Cyprus model

The idea of the so-called Cyprus variant very often emerges in discussions of the ways to settle the Karabakh conflict and the status of NK.

The point of the “Cyprus model” consists of the fact that this formation (the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) is only officially recognized by Turkey, and only exists and functions de facto. The Cyprus model as applicable to NK means: not to recognize it de jure, but to agree with its existence de facto. It means that NK would not be an integral part of the Azerbaijan Republic or the Republic of Armenia, wooul not be officially recognized as an independent state, would not be a member of the international community, but would exist and function as an independent state formation.

In the opinion of the Armenian side, the Cyprus model is a compromise one. It may allow the sides to reconcile themselves to the existing state of affairs without the humiliation of the national dignity of all sides involved in the conflict. It would ease tension, grant a respite and, in future, would promote a broader approach to the resolution of the problem. On the other hand, it would promote the normalization of relations between the neighbors – Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Such a model, in the opinion of the Azeri side, has already been working for about a decade, but has not lived up to anybody’s expectations.

9. The “Chechen Variant” and the “Prague Process”

Immediately after the conclusion in 1996 of the Khasavyurt agreements between the leadership of the Russian Federation and the leadership of Chechnya there appeared another variant for solving the conflict later called the “Chechen variant”. After a year and a half of bloodshed the Russian Federation and Chechnya came to an agreement on stopping the war, establishing peace and postponing the determination of the status of Chechnya for five years. This is the essence of the Chechen model, a sort of “mechanism of a postponed determination of political status.” After the Russian-Chechen agreement, different circles within the Russian Federation, Armenia and the leadership of NK started to talk about the possibility of applying this model in relation to the Karabakh problem.

It is necessary to consider this transition period during which the positions of the parties will be gradually determined. It is thought that if the question of status is delayed, for example for a five year period, during this time a new generation of politicians may emerge, there will be more clarity in the geopolitical situation in the South Caucasus as well as in the economy. Possibly, the parties to the conflict would abandon too categorical a tone in negotiations. Thus, it may become possible to move the problem from deadlock.

To sum up, the “Chechen variant” as applied to the problem of NK rests on three principles:

A. Ensuring maximum security for Karabakh and for the residents of the adjacent territories of the Republic of Armenia and the Azerbaijan Republic.

B. Establishment of a transitional period for a minimum of five years during which the determination of the political status of NK will be delayed. This will create a breathing space and more favorable political, geopolitical and economic conditions for the settlement of the Karabakh problem.

C. A new generation of politicians, free from the burden of the preceding period and mutual enmity will emerge during this period, and this generation will act in a new atmosphere and in new conditions.

At the same time, it is not difficult to see the following obvious obstacle: this variant presumes broad negotiations with the involvement of “the parties to the conflict”, but this question is not solved even within the framework of the current negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

In fact, one variation of the “Chechen variant” is the Dayton Peace Accord (1996) according to which the Serb population of Bosnia and Herzegovina was granted “a delayed right” of self-determination after nine years. The leadership of NK immediately gave a positive estimation to the possibilities of the “Chechen variant”. The then president of unrecognized NKR, Robert Kocharian, stated on February 27, 1997 in Stepanakert that the“variant of the resolution of the Karabakh problem in analogy with the Chechen problem is quite acceptable for Karabakh”. He said that as far back as two years ago, the NK leadership suggested departing from the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination, but that suggestion was rejected by the leadership of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan, in turn, thought that the “Chechen variant” was incompatible with the situation in NK. There is no one for Chechnya to integrate with, while NK has already widely integrated with the Republic of Armenia and, in another five years, would simply complete this process. Meanwhile, the development of the political situation in Chechnya led to the oblivion of the Khasavyurt agreements, which, however, does not rule out the importance of studying the “Chechen variant” as it is.   

The so-called “principle of anomaly” set forth by Niyazi Mehti in his aforementioned article can be presented as a particular variety of the “Chechen variant”. We think it important to consider this variant as an example of how, with the presence of goodwill and readiness of the sides, it is possible to overcome stumbling blocks and try to get used to peaceful co-existence gradually arriving at mutually acceptable legal solutions. Here are the main provisions of this principle.

1. The Azerbaijan Republic, the Republic of Armenia and the two communities of NK agree that the region of the conflict is an internal Azeri anomaly, which can be settled using exceptional, anomalous methods. After acceptance of this thesis the sides appeal to the international community to regard this situation outside the jurisdiction of international principles, which run counter to the formed situation. Then, the situation is brought to a stalemate situation through a number of mutual agreements.

2. Azerbaijan recognizes NK as the NKR sort of recognising its independence. However, the NKR is deprived of the possibility of changing its name or seceding from the Azerbaijan Republic without approval in an all-Azerbaijan referendum (a situation when the Azeri side would mark “NKR” in its official documents in inverted comas is possible).

3. The NKR formally has its own army, but this structure is inspected by the Azerbaijan Republic and in actual fact becomes a police force deprived of heavy armaments. This symbolic army should also enlist Azeris living in the territory of NK. The quota of Azeris should be proportional to their number in NK.

4. NK has a Parliament to which Azeris are elected according to the quota of the Azeri minority. The Parliament adopts a Constitution on the basis of agreements with the Azeri side within the framework of the basic principles of the Constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic.

5. According to a quota, the NKR has its deputies in the Parliament of the Azerbaijan Republic.

6. Every five years, the Azeri Parliament raises the question of abolishing the NKR. But the deputies of the NKR have the right of veto in this matter. As soon as this question is brought up for discussion the deputies of the NKR, on the basis of an official document submitted by the NKR Parliament (in order to rule out any pressure on deputies or their “consent” due to corruption), apply their veto. The deputies of the NKR can exercise their right of veto only in connection with this question. (A number of other symbolic questions can be added here).

7. Likewise, every five years, the NKR Parliament raises the question of seceding from the Azerbaijan Republic (creation of their own currency, etc.) and the Azeri deputies proceeding from the resolution of the Azeri Parliament impose their veto. This kind of play, meanwhile, must be compulsory because such symbolic procedures remove psychological tension. In due course of time all this will turn into a sort of ritual like some procedures in the political life of monarchic Great Britain. The therapeutic, psychological effect of this procedure on the Armenian-Azeri conflict can be modeled and studied. The number of such symbolic anomalies in world practice is rather great. For example, the Queen of England is the nominal monarch of the whole Commonwealth, but in actual fact she is far from making political decisions in these countries.

8. If the Republic of Armenia declares war on the Azerbaijan Republic or any other country the NKR is prevented from automatically entering an alliance with the Republic of Armenia as an independent entity by force of a veto imposed by the Azeri representatives of the Parliament. Similarly, the Azerbaijan Republic, if it declares war on the Republic of Armenia, has no right to draw the NKR into this war due to the veto of the Armenian side.

It is important to note here that such “rules of the game” do not hurt the ambitions and dignity of the sides and most of the problems are shifted to the symbolic zone of confrontation, in which the procedure of the stalemate situation simulates progress in resolving painful problems thus removing tension. Of course, all the names, examples and symbols used in the model are conditional and are only presented to explain the general principles. After consultation the sides can change some provisions of the anomalous autonomy and stalemate situations. In the modern situation of confrontation, symbolism has obtained such an acute nature that solution to the conflict must also be connected with symbolic procedures²⁴.

In conclusion one should note that, if media reports are accurate, then the present stage of the negotiating process with the participation of Armenia and Azerbaijan called “the Prague Process”²⁵, represents a variety of “the Chechen variant”. On July 12, 2005, Radio Liberty, quoting reliable diplomatic sources, reported that according to the preliminary arrangement, this process includes the holding of a national referendum in Nagorno Karabakh on its status within 10-15 years, with Azerbaijan recognizing the results of this referendum. This process differs from the “classical” “Chechen” variant, however, by the fact that Armenian military units of the party (Armenia and the NKR) would be required to withdraw from parts of the occupied areas around NK beforehand and would allow the return of Azeri refugees to the region. The realization of other confidence building measures is also planned. The officials involved in the negotiating process, naturally, have neither confirmed, nor denied these reports.

10. “Common State”

For a number of reasons in 1996-1997, the efforts of international mediators in settling the Karabakh problem failed to yield results and were resumed only in December 1998, when the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen advanced a new initiative based on the so-called principle of the “common state”²⁶.

It was, in fact, an attempt to find an “unconventional” solution, which could, as much as possible, formally combine the two basic demands: Azerbaijan’s demands about its territorial integrity, and NK’s demands for self-determination. The most important provisions of this variant published in the press are as follows (not in the order cited in the official document of the Minsk Group):

1. NK is a state and a territorial formation and together with the Azerbaijan Republic make up a single state within its internationally recognized borders.

2. NK has its own constitution and laws effective on its territory. The laws of the Azerbaijan Republic are effective on the territory of NK if they do not run counter to the Constitution and laws of the latter.

3. NK will have the right to establish direct external relations with foreign states in the spheres of economy, trade, science, education and culture.

4. NK will have a National Guard and police forces, but they can not act outside the NK borders.

5. The army, security forces and the police of the Azerbaijan Republic are not entitled to enter the territory of NK without the consent of NK authorities.

However, to all appearances this concept was not fully defined, as there was no consensus even on how to name the concept. Indeed, besides the name “common state” wordings like “single,” “joint” and even “union state” were also used²⁷.

It is obvious that there is an essential difference between “single”, “common” and “union” states. In the first case – “single state” – a unitary form of state is meant, within the framework of which there may or may not be limited or “broad” autonomy. And if this is what was offered to the conflicting sides in 1998 by the co-chairmen of the OSCE’s Minsk Group, then it should be acknowledged that there was nothing “new” in their offer. But in the second case – “joint state” – two forms of state order are implied at a time: federation and confederation. Judging by what the then Russian representative Y. A. Yukalov said, the Armenians of the NKR were in fact presented with an offer to become a member of some federation, while it is not clear what sort of vague status the Minsk Group co-chairman offered NK as a member of this hypothetical federation.

But as far as “union state” is concerned, this is already a concrete indication of a federation, which can be symmetric or asymmetric, and its entities may exist on an equal or unequal legal basis and so on²⁸.

As to the point of the of the “common state” proposals it should be noted that the matter in this case concerns the concept of federalism in the countries of the South Caucasus, which Russia adhered to in its intermediary mission up until 1995 and only then gave up because of the positions of Azerbaijan and Georgia²⁹. Besides, at the stage of the NK conflict settlement under review, this idea was already vaguely advanced by the United States. A study of the text of proposals of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen dated November 1997 gives us reason to believe that the main idea of the Russian Federation, the U.S. and France, which joined it in this question, was the intention to broaden the ordinary notions about the mutual relations between the “federal center” and an “entity of the federation”. For instance, it was presumed that NK, while returning to the state-legal space of Azerbaijan, would nonetheless maintain all the external attributes of independent statehood: the institutions of presidency, parliament, government, constitution, court, army (in the form of a National Guard), police, security forces, emblem, anthem, flag, etc. But as to NK maintaining its communication with the outside world, the following form was proposed: Azerbaijan “rents out” to the OSCE the zone of the Lachin humanitarian corridor and the OSCE establishes its control over it “in cooperation and interaction” with the leadership of NK and using manpower provided by official Stepanakert working jointly with OSCE observers. NK would be deprived of the possibility of implementing an independent foreign policy and having an independent banking and financial system. But at the same time this territory was to be declared a free economic zone with unlimited circulation of any foreign currency.

These and other provisions of the studied peace proposals of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen enable us to conclude that, although terminologically it was to be spoken about the preservation of territorial integrity and a single Azerbaijani state, in terms of the contents the international negotiators, tried to realize a policy aimed at forming a union of states – Azerbaijan and NKR – that is to say a confederation, which, above all, would be an asymmetric one.

NK and the Republic of Armenia stated then that they were ready to accept those proposals of the Minsk Group as a basis for negotiations and this position has remained in force up to now. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan, referring to the norms of international law and national interests, turned down this proposal.

11. “Transcaucasian Confederation”

The idea that the future of the South Caucasus countries lies in their integration, up to the integration on the political level, is not new (suffice it to remember the term “the Caucasian Benelux” coined by Eduard Shevardnadze as far back as the first half of the 1990s). But a group of analysts from the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels, led by Michael Emerson, proposed a very radical variant of such a development, presuming that integration in itself may turn out to be a key to the resolution of both the Karabakh and other conflicts in this region. This “Stability Pact” proposal contained the following elements:

· Readiness of the leaders of the three recognized states of the South Caucasus to take immediate steps towards regional integration; the establishment of the so-called South Caucasus Community.

· Consent of the EU, Russia and the United States to sponsor such integration.

· Readiness to realize a six-point plan (“agenda”), three of the points immediately concerning the South Caucasus, three concerning cooperation in a broader region, including the Black sea zone and the South of Russia.The first three items include:

- Constitutional resolutions for international conflicts, in particular, with the use of modern European models of shared sovereignty as well as interdependency of different levels of governance.

- It is proposed for the major conflicts – Nagorno Karabakh and Abkhazia, to make provisions for a high degree of self-government, exclusive prerogatives, separate constitutions, horizontal and asymmetric relations with state authorities and shared joint powers in such spheres as security, foreign relations and economy.

- Special provisions must be foreseen for peace-keeping and guarantees of security for refugees.

The project also stipulated the possibility of the federalization of Georgia and Azerbaijan proceeding from their cultural-ethnic characteristics so as to avert conflicts in the areas where national minorities reside. All this was to be followed by concrete measures on the establishment of a new South Caucasus Community, presuming compact political and economic integration of all states of the region. Besides the Russian Federation, the EU and the United States, an active participation in this project³⁰of other organizations such as the OSCE, was also planned.

The project, as one should have expected, failed to bring any concrete results due to the failure to find any interest among the leaders of the region’s states.

Here we can mention a similar model of Emil Agayev³¹which was called the “Transcaucasian Confederation” or “South-Caucasian Union” (SU). According to this concept, the SU could include at first two, and then three, independent states, which after entering confederate relations would retain their sovereignty. On certain conditions (stipulated in each case separately) the autonomous entities of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Ajaria, Nagorno Karabakh (plus Nakhichevan), could also be included as associate members, remaining entities of sovereign republics and gaining the right to participate in solving the stipulated issues of confederate life as a whole on an equal basis with them. Each of them would gain the right to live as it wishes but within certain limits without interfering with others. All this is stipulated by a treaty covering the formation of the confederation. (In the way, this treaty must stipulate that territorial and other claims are handed to the archives once and for good). But then it would be easier to settle many disputed questions, and would be easier for refugees to return to their native places. But the most important thing was that, in the case of the immediate entrance of NK, as well as other autonomies into a confederation, it was easier to put out these “hot spots”.

The formation and functioning of the SU, according to Agayev, could be realized with the help and even through the mediation of the world community, otherwise it would be difficult to come to terms.

The possibility of the formation of such a confederation could be considered in the context of the world integration tendencies. The question is whether it is time to form a common political space and how to organize the process of controlled, “predictable” globalization, leaving space for the development of peoples and their cultures.

The empires which have almost gone into non-existence held one advantage: on their vast territories there really was a dialogue of cultures, a meeting of civilizations and interaction of peoples. It would be ridiculous in the 21st century to aspire to the political past, but the projects on the formation of a new type of confederation of countries included in one region could become a subject for discussion. The South Caucasus and the territories of Russia, Turkey, and Iran adjacent to it, as well as the Caspian countries of Central Asia, and some Black Sea countries, are geographically and economically predisposed to integration. All the pluses and minuses of such a political step, in our opinion, deserve critical analysis.

The model proposed in 1996-1998 by the left-wing forces of the Republic of Armenia and NK and supported by the communists of the Russian Federation is, as a matter of fact, another sub-variant of an integration solution. According to this scheme, the path towards the settlement of the conflict could lie through joining the internationally recognized and non-recognized states of the South Caucasus to the Russia-Belarus Union (now a Union state) as separate units. In 1997, more than a million signatures in the Republic of Armenia were collected in favor of this decision, as the leaders of the Communist Party of Armenia and the public organization “Armenian People’s Initiative Russia-Belarus-Armenia” claimed. According to some data, NK’s authorities also favored this idea. However, the official authorities of the Azerbaijan Republic and the Republic of Armenia (as well as of Georgia) showed a negative attitude to it.

12. The “Paris principles”

We have to mention separately the initiatives known by this name only because they have been circulating since the spring of 2001. The name of these principles is connected with the meeting of the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia held in Paris by the mediation of President Jacques Chirac of France (March 5, 2001).The negotiating parties did not publicize what the gist of these “principles” was and it is, in fact, possible that they coincided with some variants described earlier. After the meeting on April 4 -7, 2001 in Key West (USA), these principles also were often called the “Key West” principles.

It is of some interest to note that the then President of Azerbaijan, Heydar Aliyev, who had previously insisted that there were no “Paris principles”, stated in mid-June 2002 that these principles were nothing but a proposal about an exchange of corridors between the sides, i.e. Meghri for Lachin. Armenian President Robert Kocharian denied these statements, but refused to disclose the essence of these principles³². We can only quote the statements of Armenian officials that these principles comprised three basic theses on which Yerevan and Stepanakert insisted: a) exception of the vertical subordination of NK to Azerbaijan; b) ensuring of permanent communication between NK and Armenia; c) presence of security guarantees for the population of NK³³.

13. The principle of condominium (or the “Andorra variant”)

After the Key West meeting, Armenian and Azeri mass media wrote about an allegedly proposed variant of “Andorra status” (condominium) envisaging the participation of “plenipotentiary representatives” of Azerbaijan and Armenia in the government structures of NK and other “attributes” (including the establishment of some kind of international control over the “corridors”). The matter is likely to have concerned a mere touchstone to gauge the political opinions in Azerbaijan, NK and Armenia. In reality, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen could hardly have intended to consider the plan themselves, let alone propose it to the conflicting sides. The thing is that any “Andorrised” variant of settlement, logically, must be based on the denial of the right of “new Andorrans” to maintain their own armed forces. As it became clear from the public statements of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen in Stepanakert and Yerevan, and especially by N. Gribkov and P. de Suremain, today the international community is inclined to understand that NK long ago turned into a “big independent factor” of Transcaucasian politics. It is likely to mean that the co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group are inclined to distinguish the separate role of NK’s armed forces in this factor. And in the case of “Andorrisation” of NK or even one single similar attempt, the U.S., Russia and France would face the task beyond their strength of fully and unconditionally disarming the NK defense army and demilitarizing the territories of not only NK but also of the lands adjacent to it both in Azerbaijan and Armenia. Meanwhile, in Azerbaijan, the co-chairmen pronounced quite different statements, acknowledging that negotiations were conducted exclusively between the Azerbaijan Republic and the Republic of Armenia and that their framework can be broadened after first successes are achieved³⁴.

---

¹By the way, very often, for a variety of reasons, a part of a unitary state, the population of which does not differ from the rest by nationality, often strives for self-determination (or, as it is often said, display separatism). During the last decade movements for secession with most various motivations could be observed in Italy, Indonesia, Canada, Mexico and the USA._{Back to text}
²What is implied is the articles by E. Kurbanov, “International Law on Self-determination and the Conflict in Nagorno Karabakh”; A. Iskandaryan, “The Genesis of Post-Communist Ethno-Political Conflicts and International Law (Trans-Caucasus as an example)”; and N. Hovhannisian, "The Nagorno Karabakh Conflict and Variants for its Solution", presented in the book "Ethno-Political Conflicts in the Transcaucasus: Their Sources and Ways to Solve Them" (Published by Maryland University. – Baltimore, 1997)._{Back to text}
³Halperin M., Scheffer D. Self-Determination in the New World Order. – Wash. D.C., 1996. – P. 46._{Back to text}
⁴Ibid._{Back to text}
⁵Halperin M., Scheffer D. Self-Determination in the New World Order. – Wash. D.C., 1996. – P. 46._{Back to text}
⁶Materials of the seminar “The Process of Peaceful Settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict”, Tsakhkadzor, 23-25 July, 2001._{Back to text}
⁷Luchterhandt O.Nagorno Karabakh’s Right to Independence According to International Law. – Boston, 1993._{Back to text}
⁸Luchterhandt O.Nagorno Karabakh’s Right to Independence According to International Law. – Boston, 1993._{Back to text}
⁹See Manasyan A.S.,The Karabakh Conflict:  Internationally Recognized Bases of The Problem. (The Open Folder of Legal Documents). Yerevan, 2004. This author specifies that in 1918-1920 the Azerbaijan Republic not only did not have NK as its part, but had no internationally recognized borders at all – just like the other republics of the South Caucasus, it simply has not had time to get corresponding documents during its short life. _{Back to text}
¹⁰See in this connection the statements of leading foreign specialists Khannum Kh., Eizner M., Espinel G. et al., quoted in the aforementioned article by Kurbanov E. – P. 58, 59, 60 etc._{Back to text}
¹¹Sometimes the conduction of such a referendum in August 1923 in Nagorno Karabakh is even mentioned in Azeri literature. The Armenians call it into question arguing that there is no document proving the fact of the conduction of the referendum. And indeed, there is no exact data, and it is unclear how the questions were formulated and what the concrete outcomes of the referendum in figures were. (V.K.)_{Back to text}
¹²A report of the Noyan Tapan News Agency, April 25, 2002._{Back to text}
¹³No matter how interesting may be the discourses of scientists and experts concerning the priority of one of the principles of international law over the others, they remain no more than discourses – they can’t be considered internationally accepted norms, the grounds  for reconsidering  this law, let alone  its application in practice by the states. Primordially neither contraposition of these two principles to each other nor the establishment of their hierarchy is acceptable. As it was noted in the Declaration of the UN General Assembly on the Principles of  International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the United Nations Charter adopted on October 24, 1970, “while interpreting and using the principles stated above the latter principles are interconnected and each principle must be considered in the light of the others.” The OSCE which assumed the basic role in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict displays the same approach. The Helsinki Final Act after stating 10 well-known principles especially emphasises: “All the principles stated above are of primary importance and, therefore, they will be equally and undeviatingly applied in the interpretation of each of them taking into account the others.” (V.K.) _{Back to text}
¹⁴Unlike many mass media the authors quite correctly use this very term. In the press and in private life in connection with conflicts it is mostly spoken about refugees but terminologically it is not always correct and it is sometimes used inappropriately.  In the international humanitarian law and in the legislation of many states there is a distinction betweenrefugeeson the one hand andforced migrantsordisplaced personson the other hand (the first ones moved to another state, the second and/or the third ones remain in the territory of the state where they lived). Who should help and support them substantially depends on the distinction of these categories of persons who suffered from the military conflict. It is worth specifying that the overwhelming majority of Azeri “refugees” are in fact forced migrants as they remained in the territory of their state. The real refugees are the Armenians who left Azerbaijan and the Azeris left Armenia. (V.K.) _{Back to text}
¹⁵We express our gratitude to political analyst R. Musabekov who kindly provided us with the text of the project._{Back to text}
¹⁶One should not forget that the symposium in Marienhamn (Alands) was held at the time when military operations around Nagorno Karabakh were in full swing. At that period, to have big ideas about the introduction of the Alands model in Karabakh would be the acme of naivety on the part of the initiators of the symposium. To stop the war at that time, it was more important to familiarize the parties to the conflict with the possibilities of a civilized peaceful solution to the ethnic conflict similar to that earlier reached by the Finns and Swedes around the Alands.  (V.K.)  _{Back to text}
¹⁷David Laitin D. and Grigor Suny R. Armenia and Azerbaijan: Thinking a Way Out of Karabakh // Middle East Policy. – Wash. – Vol. VII. – N 1. – Oct. 1999._{Back to text}
¹⁸At the beginning of 1996, by instructions of the new Minister of Foreign Affaires of the Russian Federation, Ye. M. Primakov, within the framework of Russia’s “shuttle diplomacy” the project of the “package” settlement of the conflict was submitted to all the three sides as the basis for negotiations. Its essence is stated in Primakov’s memoirs “Years in Big Politics” (M., 1999. – P. 408-409) the following way: The recognition by Armenia and NK of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan was connected with the self-determination of the population of NK within the framework of Azerbaijan as a state formation with the highest degree of self-government. Practical measure from the two sides were envisaged: Baku’s consent to the liquidation of the “enclave” character of Nagorno Karabakh and the establishment of unhindered communication between Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia through the so-called Lachin corridor as well as Armenia’s consent to free railway communication between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan. It was envisaged that Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh would sign an agreement according to which Nagorno Karabakh would have its own Constitution. It mustn’t comprise clauses which contradict the basic principles fixed in the agreement between the sides (about the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict). At the same time, the parliament of Azerbaijan must introduceappropriate changes in the Basic Law of the state. It was envisaged that the laws of Azerbaijan are valid in the territory of Nagorno Karabakh provided that they don’t contradict its Constitution and laws. Nagorno Karabakh independently forms its legislative, executive and judicial power. It will have its flag, emblem and anthem, security forces (national guards) and police. At the same time, the population of Nagorno Karabakh will elect their representatives to the parliament of Azerbaijan as well as will take part in the election of the president of the Azerbaijan Republic. The citizens of Nagorno Karabakh will have passports of Azerbaijan with special marking “Nagorno Karabakh”. Decisions of central authorities with respect to sovereign rights, security, territorial division and borders of Nagorno Karabakh will be valid only if approved by the parliament and the government of Nagorno Karabakh.
The zone of free trade with the circulation of currency of other states will be established in the territory of Nagorno Karabakh. Nagorno Karabakh will be entitled to establish direct foreign ties in the sphere of economy, culture, sport, political (except diplomatic) relations with other states and international organizations, to have its appropriate representations abroad. The return of refugees (except the zone of the Lachin corridor) and guarantees for the agreement between the Azerbaijan Republic and Nagorno Karabakh from Russia, the US and other members of the OSCE which are permanent members of the UN Security Council were envisaged.
In Yerevan this project was taken as a basis for the negotiations, but Baku and Stepanakert rejected it. (V.K.)_{Back to text}
¹⁹Goble P.Coping with Nagorno-Karabakh Crisis // The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. – Boston. – Vol. VI. – N 2. – Summer 1992._{Back to text}
²⁰The Goble plan would have rather significant geo-strategic consequences for Armenia: it would lose the border with Iran and would find itself closed from the west, south and east by a Turkish semi-ring. Tehran also categorically opposes this plan. (V.K.) _{Back to text}
²¹United State Institute of Peace. War in the Caucasus. A Proposal (by John Maresca) for Settlement of the Conflict over Nagorno Karabakh. – Wash. D.C., 1994. – P. 5._{Back to text}
²²J.Maresca is an experienced American diplomat who played an active role in the CSCE Minsk Group at the initial stage of its activities (1992-1993). First he was promoting the scheme of “programmes on districts” (programmes on Shusha, Lachin, etc) in which measures to be taken in each district were only outlined without binding them to dates and without determining their sequence. Then he was trying in every possible way to include Turkey in the active part of the Minsk Group, nearly at the same grounds as Russia. He put forward the aforementioned proposals already as a private person – eight months after resigning. They were not discussed in the Minsk Group and didn’t attract its attention.  (V.K.)_{Back to text}
²³We express our gratitude to N. Mehti for lending us his article._{Back to text}
²⁴Niyazi Mehti, the mentioned article._{Back to text}
²⁵A series of meetings of the Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, Elmar Mamedyarov and Vardan Oskanyan, in Prague in August 2004 marked the beginning of this process. Hence the origin of its name._{Back to text}
²⁶Such an evaluation of efforts of international mediators is typical for the parties to the conflict. The non-constructive, maximalist position of the conflicting sides themselves led to the deadlock in the first place. The mediators were quite active before March 1997, while the negotiations were conducted on the basis of the Russian draft Agreement on stopping the armed conflict, which was called in the press a Great Political Agreement – GPA (which in essence is not quite correct as only military-technical and military- political questions were solved in it and political problems were delayed until other agreements) and during 1997, when two new drafts were put forward by the co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group as a basis for further negotiations. However, the way towards reaching the Agreement was blocked by all sides and the proposals of the co-chairmen were rejected tree times by one side or the others in 1997-1998._{Back to text}
²⁷Only what was stated in the document about the common state itself may be regarded as the concept of the document. All the rest of the terms in the statements of different persons about these proposals can not be viewed as a change of the concept – sometimes they were nothing but not very clear comments.  No one had the power of mediators to change the basic concept. (V.K.)_{Back to text}
²⁸The proposal about the common state to a great extent was borrowed from the practice of the Transdnistrian settlement where the sides accepted it as a basis for negotiations. It was offered as a basis for negotiations in Karabakh too. Hence,  the vagueness of the status. (V.K.)_{Back to text}
²⁹Before 1995, political scientists and researchers from different countries many times stated that the concepts of federalization of Azerbaijan and Georgia, however, in the negotiating process of the Karabakh settlement neither the concept of a common state nor the proposals of federalization of Azerbaijan was put forward by the intermediary mission of Russia. In this sense it had nothing to reject. Quite different questions were on the agenda of the negotiations: the Russian draft Agreement on stopping the armed conflict and then since May 1995 also the “key problems” of the settlement. The only similar episode is dated as far back as March 1996 when the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan G. Gasanov, who was interested in the experience of division of powers between the federal center of Russia and Tatarstan, unofficially asked the head of the intermediary mission of Russia to prepare the preliminary estimates of how it would be possible to divide powers between Baku and Stepanakert. I (also unofficially) made this estimate and gave it to him in April 1996, but it never appeared in the negotiating process. (V.K.)_{Back to text}
³⁰See details on the website:www.ceps.be_{Back to text}
³¹We thank the author for providing us his unpublished article._{Back to text}
³²According to some sources, which appear to be well-informed, the essence of what was spoken about in Paris and Key West came down to joining Nagorno Karabakh  to Armenia and bargaining around the status of the transit transport corridor  from “mainland” Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan through Meghri. See, for instance, the interview of the Chairman of the RA National Assembly Committee on Foreign Affairs Armen Rustamyan to the “Regnum” news agency on 24 July 2003. (V.K.)_{Back to text}
³³In particular, the press secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affaires of Armenia, Dzunik Aghajanyan, talked about it on 13 July, 2001. Armenia’s Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan stated in his interview with Armenian television on 28 January 2004 that Heydar Aliyev was disposed to accept these principles as a basis but rejected them under the pressure of his surroundings. _{Back to text}
³⁴Most conflicts in the territory of the former USSR have a traditional “two-dimensional” character (Chisinau – Tiraspol; Tbilisi – Sukhumi; Tbilisi – Tskhinvali; Dushanbe – opposition),  i.e. there are two sides there. The number of sides in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict remains one of the main disputable questions seriously embarrassing the process of its settlement. Sometimes this procedural problem was hypertrophied by the sides and overshadowed even the essential questions in the course of negotiations.
The specific character of the Karabakh conflict is that there are at least “two and a half sides” in it. In military operations there were of course two combating sides (the formations of Karabakh Armenians together with regular military units of the RA were one of them), but politically there are three of them (Baku – Stepanakert – Yerevan). For a long time Armenia tried to present the matter as if the conflict takes place only between Baku and Stepanakert. Russian mediators directly showed Yerevan that Armenia is a party to the conflict. Finally, they achieved the participation of Yerevan in the Moscow negotiations as a party to the conflict.
Bakuinsists that the conflict takes place between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In doing so it proceeds from excessive fears lest the recognition of Nagorno Karabakh as a party to the conflict and a participant in the negotiations should ease the international recognition of “NKR”. And this position contradicts the fact that during the second half of 1993 Baku ten times reached agreements with Stepanakert (without the participation of Yerevan) about the restriction of military operations (the agreements about ceasefire, its prolongation, etc.) Azeri diplomacy often cites the resume of deductions of the Council of Ministers of CSCE from 24 March, 1992, according to which it was planned that in the Minsk Group of CSCE on Nagorno Karabakh 11 states should take part and “elected and other representatives of Nagorno Karabakh should be invited as “interested sides”. In Baku this is understood as representatives of the “Armenian and Azeri communities” of NK. However, peace talks with the mediation of Russia and then the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group were conducted with the participation of all three parties to the conflict. The Budapest summit of the OSCE in fact reconsidered at the top level a number of clauses of the decision adopted at a ministerial level on 24 March 1992 and entrusted the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group with the conduction of negotiations among all conflicting sides, reserving the function of consulting mechanism to the Group itself.
Shortly after the Budapest summit the question about the status of the sides and their participation in the negotiating process was stated in the resume of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office at the session of its Governing Council (Prague, 31 March 1995). It reads: “The Chairman-in-Office confirms the decisions made earlier by the OSCE about the status of the parties, i.e. about the participation of the two states-participants involved in the conflict as well as the third party to the conflict (Nagorno Karabakh) in the whole process of the negotiations including the Minsk Conference”. The attempts of the Azeri side to give the representative of its community in NK, who was on the delegation of the Azerbaijan Republic, the status of an independent delegation in the course of the negotiations were never accepted by the co-chairmen. In the proposals of the Co-Chairmen from 1997-1998 it was openly stated many a time about three parties to the conflict (V.K.)_{Back to text}