Prague: The modern system of international relations is undergoing a deep phase of geopolitical transformation. Amid parallel conflicts on a global scale, shifting power balances, and the selective application of international law, the ways and mechanisms through which individual conflicts are resolved have gained particular importance. In this context, the resolution of the Karabakh conflict serves as an important case not only regionally but also from the perspective of international relations theory. The culmination of this process was the Prague Statement adopted on October 6, 2022.
According to Azeri-Press News Agency, the end of the Karabakh conflict is the result of a multi-stage and systematic process. As a result of the 44-day war, Azerbaijan restored its territorial integrity, and the long-standing 'status quo' was changed. However, in international practice, the resolution of conflicts does not end with a military outcome alone. The key issue is the acceptance of this result by the opposing side and its confirmation within a legal framework.
The next stage of the Karabakh issue continued on the political and diplomatic plane. Azerbaijan's strategic approach was not limited to achieving military superiority, but was also aimed at legitimizing this advantage within the framework of international law. This shaped the concept not of 'freezing' the conflict, but of 'closing' it. Therefore, the Prague Statement serves as the key document that ensured the conclusion of the Karabakh conflict not only politically, but specifically within a legal framework.
Attempts by certain external actors to bring the Karabakh issue back onto the agenda are being observed. These efforts are mainly driven by geopolitical interests and reflect the positions of actors seeking to alter the new realities in the region. However, such attempts are legally unfounded. This is because, through the Prague Statement, the parties have reaffirmed their commitment to the fundamental principles of international law. These principles, in turn, exclude the reopening of the conflict. Attempts to present the issue again as a conflict remain only at the level of political rhetoric.
The Karabakh conflict has ended, and 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 agreement has been initialed, and important steps are being taken toward restoring relations between the two countries, including economic ties. The necessary work is being carried out to conclude a final peace agreement. Both sides are moving toward peace, and it appears inappropriate for external countries and forces to continue speaking about Karabakh, suggesting they may be pursuing certain interests.
The Prague Statement is not only 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. The implementation of transport projects, economic integration, and energy cooperation are already becoming priorities. This stage entails the transformation of the region, with a model of cooperation gradually replacing the model of confrontation. This creates a fundamental basis for long-term stability and development.
Occasional references to the Karabakh issue by certain circles and individuals make it necessary to focus on the essence and significance of the Prague Statement and to once again highlight its legal aspects. The essence of this document goes beyond the framework of a classical diplomatic agreement, acquiring a broader normative meaning and systematically defining the legal foundations of relations between the parties. The Prague Statement puts an end to discussions surrounding the Karabakh conflict.
The references made by President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan to the UN Charter and the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration are not accidental. 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 coherence. The reference to the UN Charter establishes principles such as state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the inviolability of borders as a legal basis.
One of the most important outcomes of the Prague Statement is Armenia's official recognition, for the first time, of Azerbaijan's sovereignty within its internationally recognized borders. This step carries more than symbolic political meaning and should be assessed as an obligation undertaken under international law. Under such recognition, the legal basis for any territorial claims is automatically removed, and consequently, the subject of legal dispute is eliminated. This effectively means the removal of the legal foundation of the conflict.
The statement defines the model for future interstate relations, establishing a system of mutual recognition and obligations based on law in the new phase. This is significant not only for bilateral relations but also for the construction of a stability architecture across the region. The Prague Statement holds particular weight in terms of international legitimacy. It is not merely an agreement between two states, but a document formed within the framework of accepted principles of international law, giving it broader potential for international recognition. This creates the basis for the Karabakh issue to be regarded as a 'closed issue' from the perspective of international law.
The Prague Statement created a serious turning point in the policy that Armenia had pursued for many years. In previous stages, Armenia approached the fundamental principles of international law selectively, either denying the principle of territorial integrity or interpreting it in a way that served its own political objectives. However, in Prague, Armenia recognized that the principle of territorial sovereignty is a basic condition of modern international relations and that peace and stability are only possible on the basis of international legal norms and principles.
The principle of 'uti possidetis juris' is considered one of the fundamental mechanisms ensuring the stability of state borders in international law and has been widely applied in decolonization and state-building processes, particularly in the post-Soviet space. The acceptance of this principle in the context of the Prague Statement can be regarded as a turning point in the legal analysis of the conflict. Armenia's acceptance of this approach means recognition of the legal legitimacy of the administrative borders of former USSR republics.
Armenia's recognition of Azerbaijan's sovereignty signifies its renunciation of its earlier territorial claims. This, in turn, is the main legal factor ensuring that the Karabakh issue is removed from the international agenda. The dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, which for many years was supposed to work on resolving the Karabakh conflict, is also a logical outcome of this process. The adoption of the Prague Statement made the termination of the Minsk Group possible.
Thus, the end of the Karabakh conflict became 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, recognition of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, and abandonment of previous claims demonstrate the irreversible nature of this process. The Prague Statement is not merely a diplomatic document, but the legal final point of the conflict, a fundamental framework shaping a new regional reality, and a concrete example of the practical application of international law.