The modern system of international relations is undergoing a phase of profound geopolitical transformation. Against the backdrop of parallel global conflicts, shifting power balances, and the selective application of international law, the mechanisms through which individual conflicts are resolved hold special significance. In this context, the conclusion of the Karabakh conflict serves as an important case study not only for the region but also for the theory of international relations. The culmination of this process was the Prague Statement adopted on October 6, 2022.
Transition of the conflict from a military to a legal phase
From this perspective, the next stage in the Karabakh issue continued on the political and diplomatic level. Azerbaijan’s strategic approach was not limited to achieving military superiority; it was also aimed at legitimizing this superiority within the framework of international law. This formed the concept of “closing” the conflict rather than merely “halting” it. Therefore, the Prague Statement acts as the key document ensuring that the Karabakh conflict is concluded not only politically but specifically in the legal domain.
Manipulation attempts and geopolitical motives
Nevertheless, attempts by some foreign circles to bring the Karabakh issue back onto the agenda are observed. These attempts mainly stem from geopolitical interests and reflect the positions of actors who wish to change the new realities in the region.
However, these attempts are legally baseless. This is because, with the Prague Statement, the parties confirmed their commitment to the fundamental principles of international law. These principles preclude the reopening of the conflict. In this regard, attempts to present the matter as a conflict again remain only at the level of political rhetoric.
The Karabakh conflict is over; the parties to the conflict, Azerbaijan and Armenia, have mutually recognized each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, the delimitation and demarcation of borders are underway, a peace treaty has been initialed, important steps are being taken toward restoring relations between the two countries, including economic relations, and necessary work is being done to conclude a final peace treaty. In short, both sides are moving toward peace. If Azerbaijan and Armenia, who were previously in a state of conflict over Karabakh, have declared that the problem is solved and have begun a process of peace and stability, then the fact that external foreign countries and forces are talking about Karabakh is not only inappropriate but also gives reason to suggest that they are pursuing certain interests. At the same time, their actions are contrary to UN documents and the norms and principles of international law. Most importantly, these countries and forces must finally understand that the Karabakh conflict is over, that page has been turned, and their misplaced nostalgia puts them in an unserious position.
Because the Prague Statement is not just a document that closes the past, but also a legal framework that shapes the future. The end of the conflict creates new opportunities for cooperation in the region. Directions such as the realization of transport projects, economic integration, and energy cooperation are already becoming priorities.
This stage implies the transformation of the region. The confrontation model is gradually being replaced by a cooperation model. This creates a fundamental basis for long-term stability and development.
Prague Statement: ensuring legal legitimacy
While noting all this, the occasional reminders of the Karabakh issue by individual circles and persons make it necessary to dwell on the essence and importance of the Prague Statement and to once again draw attention to the legal aspects of the document.
It must be specifically emphasized that the essence of this document goes beyond the framework of a classic diplomatic agreement, carries a broader normative meaning, and systematically defines the legal foundations of relations between the parties. In other words, the Prague Statement puts an end to the discussions surrounding the Karabakh conflict.
It is no coincidence that within the framework of this document adopted on October 6, 2022, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan referred to the UN Charter and the 1991 Almaty Declaration. These references clearly confirm that the parties are building their relations on the fundamental principles of international law and ensure the closure of the conflict within a legal framework.
The main strength of this document lies in its ability to create legal systematicity. The reference to the UN Charter establishes principles such as state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the inviolability of borders as a legal basis. At the same time, the reference to the Almaty Declaration once again confirms the legitimacy of the administrative borders formed in the post-Soviet space from the perspective of international law. The synchronous adoption of these two references minimizes the possibilities for legal interpretation between the parties and leaves no legal vacuum for controversial approaches. Thus, not only the factual but also the normative foundations of the conflict are removed.
One of the most important results of the Prague Statement is that Armenia, for the first time at an official level, accepted Azerbaijan’s sovereignty within its internationally recognized borders. This step carries more meaning than a political gesture and should be assessed as an obligation undertaken before international law. Under such conditions of recognition, the legal basis for any territorial claim automatically disappears, and consequently, the subject of legal dispute ceases to exist. This means the abolition of the legal basis of the conflict.
Another important aspect of the Prague Statement is that it defines the model for future interstate relations. The document forms a system of mutual recognition and obligations based on law in the new stage. This is important not only for bilateral relations but also for building an architecture of stability in the region as a whole.
At the same time, the Prague Statement is a document with special weight in terms of international legitimacy. It is not just an agreement between two states; because it is formed in accordance with the accepted principles of international law, it has the potential for broader international recognition. This creates a basis for the Karabakh issue to be accepted as a “closed issue” through the prism of international law.
In conclusion, the Prague Statement does not merely confirm existing realities; it also creates a mechanism that ensures the legal irreversibility of these realities. In this respect, the document, while being the legal final point of the conflict, also forms the basis for the formation of a new legal-political order in the region.
Change in Armenia’s position
The Prague Statement created a serious turn in the policy Armenia had been pursuing for many years. In the previous stage, Armenia approached the fundamental principles of international law selectively, either denying the principle of territorial integrity or interpreting it in accordance with its own political goals.
However, in Prague, Armenia accepted that the principle of territorial sovereignty is a fundamental condition of modern international relations and that peace and stability are possible only on the basis of the norms and principles of international law.
After the Second Karabakh War, it was in Prague that Nikol Pashinyan, by officially recognizing Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over its territory within its international borders, renounced the baseless and illegal territorial claims that had been put forward by Armenia against Azerbaijan until that time.
This is the acceptance of legal obligations at the international level. By declaring that it would adhere to the UN Charter, Armenia showed that it had abandoned its previous approach.
This change is the main factor preventing the Karabakh issue from becoming a subject of dispute again in the future. Because Armenia has already defined its position within the framework of international law.
The “uti possidetis juris” principle and the inviolability of borders
One of the key elements deepening the legal essence of the Prague Statement is the factual confirmation of the “uti possidetis juris” principle. This principle is considered one of the fundamental mechanisms in international law that ensures the stability of state borders and has been widely applied, especially in decolonization and state-building processes in the post-Soviet space. The essence of the principle is that former administrative borders are accepted as the internationally recognized borders of independent states.
The adoption of this principle in the context of the Prague Statement can be considered a turning point in the legal analysis of the conflict. Armenia’s acceptance of this approach means recognizing the legal legitimacy of the administrative borders that existed for the former USSR republics. This confirms that Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity is not a subject of dispute from the perspective of international law. Since the former Nagorno-Karabakh administrative territory was part of the former Azerbaijan SSR during the USSR, the “uti possidetis juris” principle naturally applies to Azerbaijan as well. In other words, the fact that Karabakh, which is historic Azerbaijani land, is an integral territory of today’s independent Azerbaijan raises no questions or disputes and cannot do so.
An important point here is that the “uti possidetis juris” principle is not limited only to the definition of borders but also implies their immutability. This feature makes it relevant not just as a technical legal norm but also as a security mechanism. Because the acceptance of this principle acts as a legal barrier that prevents the emergence of border claims in the future.
Confirmation of this principle in the Prague Statement creates a structure that preemptively prevents potential legal disputes between the parties. If borders are recognized within the framework of international law, any claim directed against those borders is deprived of legal legitimacy. This minimizes the risk of the conflict becoming relevant again.
Thus, the adoption of the “uti possidetis juris” principle acts as one of the main pillars of the legal closure of the conflict. This principle not only concludes the past from a legal perspective but also creates a normative framework that ensures stability for the future. In this regard, its establishment in the Prague Statement can be assessed as a legal guarantee of long-term peace in the region.
Mutual recognition of sovereignty and the removal of claims
Another important component of the Prague Statement is the principle of mutual recognition of sovereignty. This principle forms the foundation of interstate relations and shows that there are no territorial claims between the parties.
Armenia’s recognition of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty means it has renounced its previous territorial claims. This is the main legal factor ensuring that the Karabakh issue is removed from the international agenda. This issue is no longer assessed as a conflict, but as a resolved matter.
Dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group
The dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, which was supposed to deal with the resolution of the Karabakh conflict for many years, is also a logical result of this process. This mechanism was created for the resolution of the conflict, and after the conflict was legally closed, its functional necessity disappeared. It was the adoption of the Prague Statement that made the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group possible. Since the international system already considers the Karabakh conflict resolved and the dispute removed, it did not deem it necessary to maintain the Minsk Group.
Legal finale of the Karabakh conflict
Thus, the end of the Karabakh conflict was made possible as a result of the logical sequence of military, political, and legal stages. The legal conclusion of this process is the Prague Statement. Armenia’s acceptance of the fundamental principles of international law, its recognition of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, and its renunciation of previous claims show that this process is irreversible.
In this respect, the Prague Statement is not just a diplomatic document; it is the legal final point of the conflict, a fundamental framework forming the basis of the new regional reality, and a concrete example of the practical application of international law. This reality shows that the Karabakh issue is a conflict that has remained in the past, and Azerbaijan-Armenia relations and the region have entered a new stage of development.