Peacebuilding In The South Caucasus: Legal Tools And Regional Realities – Analysis
Evolving Diplomatic Engagement and Institutional Channels
President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan held a meeting in Abu Dhabi on 10 July 2025 to drive stalled peace negotiations following nearly three decades of war. The encounter, following an earlier meeting at the European Political Community summit in Tirana, constitutes another guarded yet important step in the institutionalization of post-war diplomacy between the two South Caucasian states. Yerevan and Baku’s official descriptions of the talks were “constructive,” with the goal of creating a legal and technical foundation for a lasting peace agreement.
Issues such as border demarcation and delimitation matters were discussed in the talks, without new steps or official agreements publicly detailed. However, the two parties ratified the value of legislating bilateral delimitation and demarcation practices, a step that, while politically sensitive, remains practically vital. It is a serious attempt at addressing chronic regional tension due to fuzzy borderlines and insecure crossings. It also illustrates a trend towards putting post-conflict mechanisms in legal and technical tracks.
Balancing Narratives and Trust in Regional Connectivity
Simultaneously, the summit reemphasized continuing disagreement over some priority issues. Missing from the final communiques were any references to the so-called Zangezur corridor, a political designation carrying politically charged sensitivities in Armenia and particularly in its Syunik province. As Azerbaijan continued to stress the strategic value of transport connections across the region, including to its Nakhchivan enclavity, both sides appeared to exercise rhetorical restraint, instead using substitute general affirmations of regional integration support.
The deliberate legal structuring of the peace negotiations reflects a shared recognition that durable peace requires something beyond political goodwill; it requires enforceable institutional arrangements. The governments are transitioning from ad hoc understandings to constitutive arrangements, with emphasis on boundary delimitation, demarcation, and constitutional guarantees. This development is not merely administrative but also constitutes a confidence-building measure. Legal frameworks assist in depersonalizing the dispute, restraining populist responses, and allowing compromise within a rules-based system. Here, the legal emphasis in South Caucasus diplomacy illustrates a broader reorientation of conflict resolution, where peace, law, and sovereignty issues are being renegotiated simultaneously.
In the post-2020s environment, Azerbaijan’s position encapsulates the incorporation of the recovered territories into its constitutional framework, a status reinforced by international judicial tradition. Baku demands that any agreement include the principle of unhindered passage across Armenian territory, ideally backed by internationally certified guarantees or mechanisms. Armenia, for its part, is insistent on the necessity for arrangements for regional transit to be fully compatible with its national legislative system. Moreover, Yerevan believes that any corridor must be subject to Armenian law and administrative jurisdiction.
This juridical difference reflects an elemental disagreement in post-conflict negotiations: reconciling national sovereignty with regional interconnectivity desires. Both sides share the strategic advantages of rehabilitation of transit corridors, but they have different modalities of implementation. Azerbaijan prefers binding guarantees and easy mobility, while Armenia wants to maintain comprehensive administrative control.
Legal Pathways and the Architecture of Peace
The fact that Abu Dhabi has been chosen as the location for this summit is also noteworthy. While the UAE’s input was procedural, the fact that it has come shows a changing geopolitical landscape where emerging powers, other than traditional powers like the OSCE, EU, or Russia, are beginning to take facilitator roles. However, final authority in shaping and sustaining peace is still very much in Baku’s and Yerevan’s hands.
For Azerbaijan, transit access through Armenian land is not just a strategic link to Nakhchivan, it is part of a strategic blueprint to boost its connectivity to Turkey, Central Asia, and further afield. Access in such a manner would reduce Baku’s reliance on Iranian corridors and enhance its Eurasian geostrategic reach. In the case of Armenia, the goal is to break regional isolation without a cost in constitutional or legal sovereignty. The Armenian government must address internal political obstacles while ensuring that any settlement defends national interests, particularly in strategic regions like Syunik. Constitutional compatibility is thus a fundamental prerequisite for any lasting settlement.
Strategic Corridors and the Politics of Access
Opening up transit routes, including the projected Zangezur corridor, promises immense potential for both nations and the broader region. Improved transit infrastructure would lower trade costs and travel time considerably, thereby propelling world commerce. Armenia, its part, can employ these developments as a means for foreign investment attraction and the enhancement of its economic stability and security. For Azerbaijan, the corridor would technically reunite Nakhchivan with physical access to the rest of its territory, thereby ending a historical logistical challenge.
Furthermore, the establishment of such corridors would also serve as a catalyst for further integration of the South Caucasus into global supply chains. The region can possibly emerge as a major logistics hub, bridging Europe and Asia and inviting investment from Central Asia and further afield. Economic interdependence forged by such connectivity can possibly reduce the likelihood of future clashes.
In this regard, the corridor needs to be seen not just as an infrastructural item, but as a potential instrument of peace and cooperation. If the Armenia-Azerbaijan sides accept provisions which safeguard legal guarantees, mutual observation, and transparency, the South Caucasus could transition from being historically disputed ground into a corridor of economic possibility and mutual stability.
Toward Durable Peace through Institutional Commitment
The July 10 summit cannot be labeled as either a breakthrough or a breakdown but rather is a measured but meaningful exercise in procedural diplomacy. The move from maximalist posturing to negotiation over legal texts is a shift in the tone of bilateral relations. The shift from military confrontation to rule-based negotiation is gradual movement toward more robust regional order.
Finally, peace in the South Caucasus is not a condition to be proclaimed by whim or words, but has to be constructed painstakingly. The Abu Dhabi summit illustrates that even in the absence of dramatic outcomes, the fact of formalized, high-level dialogue itself amounts to a profound change of approach and intention.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
