To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Conflit du Nagorno-Karabakh, 1988-1994.
Journal articles on the topic 'Conflit du Nagorno-Karabakh, 1988-1994'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 19 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Conflit du Nagorno-Karabakh, 1988-1994.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Júnior, Helvécio de Jesus, and João Ricardo Guilherme Zimmer Xavier. "GEOPOLÍTICA DO CÁUCASO:." Revista da Escola Superior de Guerra 33, no. 69 (July 11, 2019): 13–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.47240/revistadaesg.v33i69.991.
Full textAbstract:
A Guerra do Nagorno-Karabakh ocorreu entre 1988 e 1994, no primeiro momento entre as repúblicas soviéticas da Armênia e do Azerbaijão e, com as respectivas independências, em 1991, o conflito continuou e tomou maiores proporções. Em decorrência da importância geopolítica da região, as potências globais e regionais passam a influenciar no conflito que não foi resolvido até o momento, o que lhe dá um status de “sem guerra, nem paz”, com um cessar-fogo que não gerou o fim das hostilidades. Desta forma, serão apresentados, neste artigo, o histórico do conflito, seus aspectos geopolíticos, a ação de atores externos e os seus interesses na região.
2
Ryan, J. M., Matthew Fleggson, John Beavis, and Cara Macnab. "Fast-Track Surgical Referral in a Population Displaced by War and Conflict." Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 96, no. 2 (February 2003): 56–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014107680309600202.
Full textAbstract:
After the 1988–1994 conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, fought over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, large numbers of people were resettled in camps in southern Azerbaijan. Healthcare in the camps was generally good but there was no access to hospitals. The Leonard Cheshire Centre of Conflict Recovery (LCC) organized a ‘fast-track’ system of surgical care in the southern camps by securing the help of still-functioning hospitals in the distant capital, Baku. Regular clinics were held in the camps for visiting specialists; and, by arrangement with the Government of Azerbaijan and various non-governmental organizations, treatment was offered to those who fell within strict selection criteria. After a pilot study yielded clear benefits, the scheme was transferred to a local nongovernmental organization, which successfully operated an expanded version. The hidden cost of war often includes the neglect of chronic medical conditions that require secondary and tertiary care. The ‘fast-track’ system illustrates the potential of existing facilities to meet these needs at modest cost, given sufficient support.
3
Dewantara, Andhika, and Muhammad Yamin. "Analisis Peran Rusia sebagai Mediator dalam Penyelesaian Konflik Nagorno Karabakh Periode 2008-2016." Insignia: Journal of International Relations 6, no. 1 (May 9, 2019): 64. http://dx.doi.org/10.20884/1.ins.2019.6.1.1479.
Full textAbstract:
The Nagorno Karabakh conflict is a conflict over territorial disputes that is synonymous with inter-Azerbaijan strife that adheres to the principle of integrating its territory in Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia which support the Nagorno Karabakh region and ethnic Armenians who are in it for independence from Azerbaijan. The dynamics of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia continue to unfold, and there has never been a sustainable peace agreement between the two parties in dispute since the peace agreement Bishkek (Bishkek Protocol) 1994. Along with the dynamics of the battle, Russia has a very active role in the mediation and peace-building process between the two parties in conflict. Russia's position as mediator is carried out within the official framework of the OSCE Minsk Group and in the personal initiation of the state in the medium of the trilateral meeting. This research will describe the dynamics of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict in the period 2008-2016 along with efforts to resolve disputes under the Russian role.
Keywords : Nagorno Karabakh Conflict, Russia, Mediation, and Contigency Model
4
Mustafayev, Elmar. "EU Values and Interests in the Resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: French Unilateralism." Resurgence of Anti Islam in the World 23, Spring 2021 (June 10, 2021): 65–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.25253/99.2021232.5.
Full textAbstract:
The commentary looks at the stance of France on the Second Karabakh war between Armenia and Azerbaijan and subsequently the Russian-brokered trilateral truce deal, from the angle of the norms and values of the EU. To that end, the article studies the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict from the context of international law, the post-ceasefire period 1994-2020, and looks into the position of the EU on the issue of territorial integrity and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. By analyzing them, it argues that the standpoint of France is not in line with the norms and values of the EU, and also contradicts the position of a mediator state.
5
Minasyan, Sergey. "The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the context of South Caucasus regional security issues: An Armenian perspective†." Nationalities Papers 45, no. 1 (January 2017): 131–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2016.1237938.
Full textAbstract:
For more than a quarter-century, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been one of the most important factors influencing the political map of the South Caucasus. On 12 May 1994, Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia, and Azerbaijan signed a cease-fire agreement that ended military operations in the conflict zone and has been observed until recently. Negotiations for a peaceful settlement have been underway within the framework of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Minsk Group co-chaired by the USA, Russia, and France since 1992, but society and the elite in Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Azerbaijan remain largely unprepared for compromise. Considering the settlement process a zero-sum game, they have generally accused one another of escalating the conflict and of a lack of willingness to restore peace. Other countries and international organizations involved in the negotiations do not share a vision of the future and frequently pursue their own interests. Accordingly, the Karabakh conflict could remain unresolved for decades more. The aim of the paper is a general assessment of the current stage and dynamic of this conflict and the impact of new trends and old obstacles on the prospects for further settlement.
6
Qadir qızı Məcidova, Leyla. "From the history of Azerbaijan’ Karabakh victory." SCIENTIFIC WORK 68, no. 07 (July 22, 2021): 26–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.36719/2663-4619/68/26-31.
Full textAbstract:
Nagorno-Karabakh, one of the ancient cultural centre of Azerbaijan, is generally a part of Karabakh area. Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous region was founded in 4,4 thousand km2 area of the mountainous part of Karabakh during the Soviet power in 1923. So, the basis of separatism was founded in this area. The main problem was that a group of armenians, who were moved here in the XVIII century, claimed that they possess these areas. Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict started with armenians' claims for Azerbaijan lands and provacations in the ethnic backgrounds in 1988. Armenians of Soviet Union representations, Armenian leader of SSRI power and the foreign Armenian diaspora began active work to unite Nagorno Autonomous region with Armenian, using the weakening condition of central power of Armenian SSRI at the beginning of 1980 years. Key words: victory history, war, enemies, fake news, territorial claims, hostility
7
Maresca, John J. "Lost Opportunities in Negotiating the Conflict over Nagorno Karabakh." International Negotiation 1, no. 3 (1996): 471–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157180696x00188.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThere have been at least six moments in the evolution of the Armenian-Azeri conflict over Nagomo Karabakh which can be qualified as lost opportunities for negotiation toward management of the conflict; that is, moments when movement toward resolution could have been produced. These include early CSCE involvement in 1992, cooperation with Russia in 1993, provision of a peacekeeping force in 1993, provision of a special envoy in 1994, use of the CSCE summit of 1994, and use of an oil pipeline after 1994. Other possibilities are also examined; the idea of a special envoy should be retained.
8
Aplak, Hakan Soner, and Gokhan Sari. "Modeling Azerbaijan’s action process concerning Nagorno-Karabakh and the occupied territories." Global Journal of Sociology: Current Issues 7, no. 2 (September 10, 2017): 127–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.18844/gjs.v7i2.2398.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was caused by the warring sides’ claims of land possession or their struggle to maintain possession of their land. Despite the historical reasons for the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the primary factor for Karabakh's occupation by Armenia was the collapse of the Soviet Union. A limited ceasefire was achieved in 1994; however, lasting peace could not be sustained. During the tentative ceasefire, rising tensions at the Azerbaijan-Armenian border bring the countries back to the brink of war. Lack of a permanent solution to the conflict via diplomatic means has resulted in an increase in tensions since 2014. This study aimed to provide a systematic analysis of Azerbaijan’s perspective concerning the conflict, in terms of the political, economic, geographic, and military factors, as well as the other elements of national power. Using decisional analysis techniques of the factors mentioned above, the action process of Azerbaijan is modelled.
Keywords: Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, influence diagram, decision analysis.
9
Ziyadov, Taleh. "Nagorno-Karabakh Negotiations: Though the Prism of a Multi-Issue Bargaining Model." International Negotiation 15, no. 1 (2010): 107–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157180610x488209.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis article examines various phases in the Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan using a Multi-Issue Bargaining Model ‐ a modified version of the traditional bargaining model. It offers micro-level and phase-by-phase analysis of the negotiation process, mediation efforts and proposed mechanisms for the settlement of the NK conflict. Issues on the negotiation table and the evolution of the Azerbaijani and Armenian positions over time constitute a central focus of the article. The multi-issue model is applied to each negotiation phase in the NK conflict from 1994 until 2009.
10
Doose, Katja. "The Armenian Earthquake of 1988: A Perfect Stage for the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict." Europe-Asia Studies 70, no. 6 (July 3, 2018): 924–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2018.1487679.
Full text
11
Bozhko, Oleksandr. "Looking at the past." Diplomatic Ukraine, no. XIX (2018): 139–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.37837/2707-7683-2018-7.
Full textAbstract:
The article describes the reminiscences of Oleksnadr Bozhko, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to Armenia. Having arrived to Yerevan as the first Ambassador of independent Ukraine, the author became a witness to the events that initially led to a long-lasting political crisis, and subsequently to the unconstitutional change of Armenian government. The article analyses the tumultuous events that Ukrainian Embassy faced immediately after its opening in September 1996. At that time, the Armenian society, which for years had been patiently overcoming numerous abuses of power, the arbitrariness of oligarchs, bureaucratic corruption and bribery at courts, broke out with a riot of peaceful disobedience. It was the time when the reminiscences of the fierce Armenian-Azerbaijani War for Nagorno-Karabakh of 1991–1994 were still in minds of people when society had been drawn into an exhaustible internal political confrontation on the eve of the presidential elections. The more electoral confrontation grew, the more dissatisfying was the population with the leadership of the state. Eventually the state of emergency was introduced in the country. These factors affected further activities of Ukrainian diplomats. It was important to quickly find premises suitable for a diplomatic mission and to carry out the diplomatic procedures necessary for the launch of Embassy’s activities. The author states with sorrow that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia did not even find money to fuel a car and bring Ukrainian delegation to Yerevan. Shattered roads that have long been unrepaired, queues near bakeries and kerosene selling points, semi-empty store shelves and even faded eyes of those, with whom the author communicated, – those were sad realities of the Armenian life in the mid-nineties. The formation of the diplomatic services in both countries was carried out under difficult conditions, likewise the maintenance of diplomats’ activity in Ukraine was similarly poor then. The article also describes that the stumbling point in Ukrainian-Armenian relations was an issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. The principle of territorial integrity was one of the fundamental in security sphere of Ukraine, whereas Armenia, which acted as guarantor of Nagorno-Karabakh security, adhered to the principle of self-determination of the nation. In this respect, Armenian politicians considered everything related to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. This dramatic problem was originated from 1921, when Nagorno-Karabakh was included to the Azerbaijani SSR. The policy of displacing the Armenians from their ancestral lands, which was deliberately carried out by the authorities of Soviet Azerbaijan, caused frustration of Armenians, dozens of thousands of whom had lived in that territory for centuries. The author analyses the cooperation with the Directorate for Political Analysis and Planning of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine regarding the defining Ukraine’s possible position in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. The author emphasizes that the article is not just a diplomatic memoirs but also an attempt to comprehend what has happened to us over the past two decades, looking back at the past experience. Keywords: Armenia, Embassy of Ukraine, Nagorno-Karabakh, Ukrainian-Armenian relations.
12
Krzysztan, Bartłomiej. "Pamięć niezakończonej wojny. Konflikt i kształtowanie wspólnoty etnopolitycznej w Górskim Karabachu." Studia Polityczne 48, no. 1 (March 30, 2020): 61–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.35757/stp.2020.48.1.03.
Full textAbstract:
The ethno-political conflict and riots in the South Caucasus, followed by the regular Armenian-Azerbaijani war, constitute the most violent episodes during the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In the light of legal and institutional conditions, the conflict remains open as the Bishkek Protocol signed in May 1994 formally constitutes only a ceasefire. As a consequence of its signing, Nagorno-Karabakh’s territory in fact remains an independent state that is not recognised internationally. The permanent state of emergency has a decisive impact on the current relations of Armenia and Azerbaijan, but also on the symbolic and political dynamics of transformations occurring in the ethno-political community in the quasi-state. Using ethnographic material collected during field studies conducted over several years, the article attempts to answer the question of how memorial sites devoted to the conflict shape the ethno-political community of Nagorno-Karabakh. Through the exploratory study of this case, in a broader context, I examine the potential of applying the transdisciplinary paradigm of memory research in the analysis of transformations of ethno-political communities in, de facto, independent, non-recognised or partially internationally recognised quasi-states.
13
Gasparyan, Arsen. "Understanding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: domestic politics and twenty-five years of fruitless negotiations 1994–2018." Caucasus Survey 7, no. 3 (September 2, 2019): 235–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23761199.2019.1674114.
Full text
14
Askerov, Ali, and Thomas Matyok. "The Upper Karabakh Predicament from the UN Resolutions to the Mediated Negotiations: Resolution or Hibernation?" European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 1, no. 2 (August 30, 2015): 154. http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejis.v1i2.p154-163.
Full textAbstract:
Despite the third party efforts of the significant international and regional organizations, such as the UN and the OSCE, the Upper Karabakh problem remains unresolved for over 20 years. Neither the four resolutions related to Armenia’s invasion of Azerbaijani lands adopted by the UN SC in the early 1990s have worked, nor the formal negotiations over this conflict that have taken place under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group for more than 20 years have reached any tangible results. These facts give rise to questions about effectiveness of the role of this institution in reaching a resolution to the conflict. The ceasefire regime is in effect since May 1994 without changing the situation, in which Armenia still keeps about 20 percent of Azerbaijani lands under invasion and is effectively involved in building a new state over the invaded lands. This paper analyzes the effectiveness of UN resolutions in liberating Azerbaijan’s invaded regions, both within and outside of Upper Karabakh, as well as the OSCE mediation efforts to resolve this conflict. It also discusses effectiveness of the negotiation process, and raises a question about impartiality of the mediators and usefulness of the mediation institution of the OSCE in general. It argues that the OSCE Minsk Group has failed to successfully establish and lead the process of negotiations, thus expecting a fruitful yield is not realistic.
15
Askerov, Ali, and Thomas Matyok. "The Upper Karabakh Predicament from the UN Resolutions to the Mediated Negotiations: Resolution or Hibernation?" European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 2, no. 1 (August 30, 2015): 154. http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejis.v2i1.p154-163.
Full textAbstract:
Despite the third party efforts of the significant international and regional organizations, such as the UN and the OSCE, the Upper Karabakh problem remains unresolved for over 20 years. Neither the four resolutions related to Armenia’s invasion of Azerbaijani lands adopted by the UN SC in the early 1990s have worked, nor the formal negotiations over this conflict that have taken place under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group for more than 20 years have reached any tangible results. These facts give rise to questions about effectiveness of the role of this institution in reaching a resolution to the conflict. The ceasefire regime is in effect since May 1994 without changing the situation, in which Armenia still keeps about 20 percent of Azerbaijani lands under invasion and is effectively involved in building a new state over the invaded lands. This paper analyzes the effectiveness of UN resolutions in liberating Azerbaijan’s invaded regions, both within and outside of Upper Karabakh, as well as the OSCE mediation efforts to resolve this conflict. It also discusses effectiveness of the negotiation process, and raises a question about impartiality of the mediators and usefulness of the mediation institution of the OSCE in general. It argues that the OSCE Minsk Group has failed to successfully establish and lead the process of negotiations, thus expecting a fruitful yield is not realistic.
16
Druckman, Daniel. "Settlements and Resolutions: Consequences of Negotiation Processes in the Laboratory and in the Field." International Negotiation 7, no. 3 (August 14, 2002): 313–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718069-00703004.
Full textAbstract:
In their 1994 study of divorce mediation, Kressel and his colleagues distinguished between a problem-solving and a settlement-oriented style of mediation. The former led to more integrative agreements and better long-term relationships between the parties than the latter. This distinction has been a basis for a multi-method research program on negotiation and mediation processes in international relations. We have been exploring the consequences of a variety of indicators for outcomes and post-agreement relations among parties. In the laboratory, we have identified the way that sources of conflict (values and interests) lead to processes with different implications for long-term relationships. In case studies, we have identified the political conditions that produce short-term settlements, or stalemates followed by further escalation. In small-N comparative case studies, we have shown how negotiation process and context operate together to influence post-settlement relations and system change. We used a comparison of the conflicts in Karabakh and Mozambique and three cases of base-rights talks as examples. In large-N aggregate case comparisons, we developed empirical profiles of types of negotiation (e.g., innovation vs. re-distribution) with implications for outcomes and relationships as well as the role played by turning points in projecting a process toward agreement and changing escalatory into de-escalatory processes. The variables identified by these studies are organized in terms of a framework that connects issues and objectives, background factors, and conditions with processes, outcomes, and implementation. The framework shows how these variables can lead to integrative agreements.
17
Bashirli, Aynur. "Newspapers as the first draft of history. (The NYT coverage of Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: 1988-1991)." Studia Wschodnioeuropejskie, no. 12 (2020). http://dx.doi.org/10.31971/24500267.12.11.
Full text
18
Bocharnikov, Igor V. "Armenia's multi-vector foreign policy: Traditions and new political reality after the "Second Karabakh War"." Diplomaticheskaja sluzhba (Diplomatic Service), no. 3 (March 1, 2021). http://dx.doi.org/10.33920/vne-01-2103-03.
Full textAbstract:
The article analyzes the specifics and content of Armenia's multi-vector foreign policy, its results and prospects for further implementation. The article considers the processes of formation and development of the Armenian statehood in the Soviet and post-Soviet periods. The years when Armenia was part of the USSR were the period of its highest development. At the same time, along with the achievements in the spheres of socio-economic and cultural development, nationalist public sentiments were formed during this period, which undermined the foundations of the multinational state. The most important catalyst for fundamental changes in the development of the political situation in Armenia, in Transcaucasia and in the USSR as a whole was the events in the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region in the late 80s of the XX century, which transformed into an ethno-political confl ict. The most acute phase of the conflict coincided with the collapse of the USSR and the establishment of the statehood of Armenia and Azerbaijan. With the mediation of the Russian Federation, a ceasefire agreement was signed in May 1994, which was generally observed until September 2020 — the Second Karabakh War. The article examines the main stages of the formation of the statehood of Armenia and the formation of its foreign policy strategy, due to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as the actual blockade and pressure from Azerbaijan and Turkey. Building allied relations with Russia was carried out along with the implementation of a multi-vector foreign policy, focusing on the United States and the European Union within the framework of the European program "Eastern Partnership". The main factors determining the modern foreign and domestic policy of Armenia are considered. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the processes caused by the results of the" Second Karabakh War " (September — November 2020) and their significance for the formation of a regional security system in the South Caucasus. The main vectors of the development of Armenia's relations with the Russian Federation and other leading countries of the region, the conditions and factors, and the prospects for the development of the military-political situation in the South Caucasus are determined.
19
"Մեծ Բրիտանիայի հակահայ քաղաքականությունը Ղարաբաղի հարցում (1918–1920 ԹԹ.) և արդի իրավիճակը." Historical-Philological Journal, July 20, 2021, 88–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.52853/01350536-2021.2-88.
Full textAbstract:
The Armenian people were hopeful that after the capitulation of Turkey in the First World War (WWI) and the dislocation of the Allies troops in Transcaucasia, territories of Western Armenia and Transcaucasia would be included within the First Republic of Armenia. However, the Armenian people experienced another disappointment. In 1918–1920, Great Britain, who had gained dominance in Transcaucasia, ignoring the promises given to the Armenians during the war and their particular contribution to the victory of the Allies, adopted anti-Armenian attitude towards the Karabakh conflict. By constant pressure on the Republic of Armenia and Artsakh, the British strived to achieve hegemony of Azerbaijan over Karabakh, nevertheless, the uncompromising stance and unwavering resistance of the Armenians of Artsakh thwarted the anglo-azerbaijani plan. The anti-Armenian attitude of Great Britain was shaped by its strategic plans. Its main purpose in Transcaucasia was to gain control over the economic and military-political life and withdraw Russia from the region and the East in general. With the aim to carry out this important plan, it chose as an ally its recent rival in e WWI – Turkey, and Azerbaijan, which was created with the latter’s help. This selection was influenced by their military-economic potential and anti-Russian attitude. Nowadays (since 1988) when the Armenians of Karabakh struggle for their reunion with Armenia, from which Karabakh was cut off and annexed to Azerbaijan with the help of Soviet Russia on July 5, 1921, the British adopted anti-Armenian attitude towards the Karabakh conflict once again. They supported the aggressive actions of Azerbaijan and its ally Turkey by all means. The United Kingdom’s attitude proceeds from its political and economic interests. The United Kingdom has a large share of Azerbaijan’s most profitable oil mines, as well as the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan oil pipeline, which was put into operation in 2006 due to its active efforts (30% of the shares in the pipeline are owned by British Petroleum). The anti-Armenian and pro-Azerbaijani policy of Great Britain activated during the Second Karabakh War, which began on September 27, 2020, by Azerbaijan’s aggression against the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (the Republic of Artsakh). British companies expressed their support to Azerbaijan during this war have signed new economic agreements as well as have provided the other side with the maps of mined areas. In October, 2020, during the session in the UN Security Council, the UK suspended resolution of the OSCE Minsk Group member countries with an appeal to stop the war. Hence, the UK supported both war, intervention of the third party countries and terroristic groups in it. Thus, England once again betrayed democracy, justice, right of nations to self-determination, though the United Kingdom publicly presents itself as a protector of these values.