General information
Type of Incompatibility: Territory
Comment on Type of Incompatibility: Nagorno-Karabakh is a region in Azerbaijan populated mainly by Armenians. The legitimate belonging of Nagorno-Karabakh is a long-disputed question. In the 1920s, it was decided that the area was to belong to Azerbaijan. During the Soviet era, the underlying conflict in the area was suppressed, but by the end of the 1980s, the conflict re-emerged.
On 20 February 1988, the regional council in Nagorno-Karabakh voted that the region should be integrated into Armenia. As a response, a direct rule was imposed from Moscow over the territory. On 28 November 1989, Moscow ended the direct rule over Nagorno-Karabakh, which led Armenia to declare on 1 December that the enclave was to be part of a unified Armenian republic. Following that, Armenia fought with the USSR over Nagorno Karabakh for two years.
At the end of 1991, the primary parties of the conflict changed as the Soviet Union collapsed and Armenia claimed that it was no longer interested in Nagorno-Karabakh. However, it did not solve the conflict issue. Instead, the war over the territorial status of Nagorno-Karabakh became even more intense than before. Only this time, it was Nagorno-Karabakh, which proclaimed itself a republic on 28 December 1991 that fought for independence against the very state it was a part of, the newly independent Azerbaijan.
In 2005 the separatist leader of Nagorno-Karabakh stated that they would never give up struggling for independence.
Territory: Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh)
Date of first stated goal of incompatibility: 1991-12-28
Comment on date of first stated goals of incompatibility: Since the conflict over the status of Nagorno Karabakh is a long-disputed question, the first stated goal of incompatibility could be set at a variety of dates. However, since this part of the conflict (for the previous part, see Soviet Union/Russia) is a dispute between Azerbaijan and the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, the date for the first stated goal of incompatibility is set after Azerbaijan's independence as it is difficult to have an incompatibility with a state that had not been existed before.
On 21 December 1991, Azerbaijan became independent when the Soviet Union dissolved, and the Commonwealth of Independent States emerged. On 28 December 1991, Nagorno-Karabakh held elections to a parliament after proclaiming itself a republic, and UCDP regards this as the first stated goal of incompatibility. It should be noted that Nagorno-Karabakh made clear statements about its political goals only some weeks before Azerbaijan became independent. For example, on 10 December 1991, Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh approved the establishment of an independent state in a referendum boycotted by local Azerbaijanis.
Date of first use of armed force: 1991-12-29
Comment on first use of armed force: In independent Azerbaijan, the forces of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh reportedly clashed for the first time on 29 December 1991. Fierce fighting reportedly raged throughout the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and resulted in at least 15 deaths.
Date of first battle related death: 1991-12-29
Comment on first battle related death: In independent Azerbaijan, the forces of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh reportedly clashed for the first time on 29 December 1991. On that day, fierce fighting was reported throughout the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Date of conflict reached 25 battle releated deaths: 1991-12-30
Comment on conflict reached 25 battle releated deaths: On 29/30 December 1991, Azerbaijani forces launched several attacks throughout Nagorno-Karabakh. 25 people were reportedly killed as a result of fighting that night.
Annual information
This section contains annual information systematically collected by the UCDP.
1982
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1988
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1989
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1991
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 35 |
| Best | 35 |
| Low | 35 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1992
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
Comment on Dimension: Armenia declared Nagorno Karabakh part of its territory first at the end of 1989, and later in its independence declaration in August 1990. Armenia fought with the USSR over the Nagorno Karabakh enclave 1990-1991. After the collapse of the Soviet Union the primary parties to the conflict changed, at least on the paper, and came, on the one hand, to involve Azerbaijan to which Nagorno Karabakh belonged to and which gained independence at the same time as the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the republic of Nagorno Karabakh on the other hand.
Armenia denied that they had any interest in the conflict in March 1992, and declared that the status of Nagorno Karabakh was Azerbaijans internal affair. It is however very clear that Armenia was very much involved in the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh, and Armenia will therefore be considered a secondary warring party to the conflict on the side of the republic of Nagorno Karabakh, despite their denial of any involvement.
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 3635 |
| Best | 2167 |
| Low | 2099 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1993
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
Comment on Dimension: Armenia declared Nagorno Karabakh part of its territory first at the end of 1989, and later in its independence declaration in August 1990. Armenia fought with the USSR over the Nagorno Karabakh enclave 1990-1991. After the collapse of the Soviet Union the primary parties to the conflict changed, at least on the paper, and came to involve Azerbaijan, which gained independence at the same time as the collapse of the Soviet Union, on the one hand and the republic of Nagorno Karabakh on the other hand. Armenia denied that they had any interest in the conflict in March 1992, and declared that the status of Nagorno Karabakh was Azerbaijans internal affair. It is however very clear that Armenia was very much involved in the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh, and Armenia will therefore be considered a secondary warring party to the conflict on the side of the republic of Nagorno Karabakh, despite their denial of any involvement.
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 1801 |
| Best | 1171 |
| Low | 968 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1994
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Dimension: Internal
Comment on Dimension: Armenia has been considered to be involved as a secondary warring party in the conflict during 1992 and 1993.This involvement continous during 1994 and the conflict dimension will therefore be categorised as intrastate with foreign involvment during 1994.
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 3937 |
| Best | 1507 |
| Low | 1257 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1995
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 18 |
| Best | 18 |
| Low | 18 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1996
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 11 |
| Best | 5 |
| Low | 3 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1997
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
Comment on Dimension: The conflict is categorized as intratstate with foreign involvment as Armenia sends military personel to serve in Nagorno-Karabakhs army.
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 36 |
| Best | 29 |
| Low | 29 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1998
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
Comment on Dimension: The conflict is categorized as intratstate with foreign involvment as Armenia sends military personel to serve in Nagorno-Karabakhs army.
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 38 |
| Best | 34 |
| Low | 34 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1999
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 35 |
| Best | 18 |
| Low | 18 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2000
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 16 |
| Best | 13 |
| Low | 13 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2001
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 7 |
| Best | 6 |
| Low | 6 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2002
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2003
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2004
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 8 |
| Best | 8 |
| Low | 8 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2005
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
Comment on Dimension: The conflict is categorized as intratstate with foreign involvment as Armenia sends military personel to serve in Nagorno-Karabakhs army.
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 26 |
| Best | 25 |
| Low | 25 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2006
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 10 |
| Best | 7 |
| Low | 7 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2007
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 28 |
| Best | 12 |
| Low | 12 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2008
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
Comment on Dimension: The conflict is categorized as intratstate with foreign involvment as Armenia sends military personel to serve in Nagorno-Karabakhs army.
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 43 |
| Best | 30 |
| Low | 30 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2009
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 13 |
| Best | 7 |
| Low | 7 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2010
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 28 |
| Best | 20 |
| Low | 20 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2011
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 28 |
| Best | 21 |
| Low | 21 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2012
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
Comment on Dimension: Armenia supported the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh with troops.
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 27 |
| Best | 25 |
| Low | 25 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2013
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 15 |
| Best | 12 |
| Low | 12 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2014
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
Comment on Dimension: The conflict is categorized as intratstate with foreign involvment as Armenia sends military personel to serve in Nagorno Karabakhs army.
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 54 |
| Best | 46 |
| Low | 45 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2015
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
Comment on Dimension: The conflict is categorized as intratstate with foreign involvment as Armenia sends military personel to serve in Nagorno Karabakhs army.
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 121 |
| Best | 72 |
| Low | 65 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2016
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
Comment on Dimension: The conflict is categorized as intratstate with foreign involvment as Armenia sends military personel to serve in Nagorno Karabakhs army.
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 263 |
| Best | 141 |
| Low | 141 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2017
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
Comment on Dimension: The conflict is categorized as intratstate with foreign involvment as Armenia sends military personel to serve in the Artsakh army. There are close ethnic ties between Armenia and the Republic of Artsakh, and the former has maintained close ties to the break-away region since the 1990s.
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 37 |
| Best | 36 |
| Low | 36 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2018
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 21 |
| Best | 17 |
| Low | 16 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2019
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 12 |
| Best | 11 |
| Low | 9 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2020
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side A: Government of Turkey
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 7943 |
| Best | 7538 |
| Low | 7439 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2021
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 43 |
| Best | 40 |
| Low | 40 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2022
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 310 |
| Best | 308 |
| Low | 308 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2023
Primary Parties: Government of Azerbaijan - Republic of Artsakh
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Armenia
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 462 |
| Best | 462 |
| Low | 462 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2024
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
Conflict Archive
This section contains annual information no longer systematically collected by the UCDP.
1982 Conflict Archive
Terminated: NO
1988 Conflict Archive
Terminated: NO
1989 Conflict Archive
Terminated: NO
1991 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: Clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh after the Soviet Union was dissolved resulted in 35 deaths.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh after the Soviet Union was dissolved resulted in 35 deaths.
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1992 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The conflict over Nagorno Karabakh continued after the collapse of the Soviet Union but was from 1992 and onwards aimed at the Azerbaijani government instead of the USSR. After Azerbaijans independence the conflict intensified drastically.
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: On 20 February the Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia met in Moscow for Peace talks. They called for a ceasefire in the region and for access to humanitarian aid deliveries. Azerbaijani President Mutalibov failed, however, to attend talks scheduled for the same day with Russian President Yeltsin and Armenian President Ter-Petrosyan. On 25 February Iranian Foreign Minister Vellyati flew to Baku for talks with both sides as a prelude to mediation. An Iranian-sponsored ceasefire failed to hold, however.
In March Turkey requested support for a ceasefire from the USA, France and UK. However, Armenia accused Turkey of not being neutral and refused to examine a Turkish peace plan unveiled on 11 March. However, on 15 March a ceasefire and an agreement lifting economic sanctions was signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The foreign ministers of member states of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe met in Helsinki to set up a peace conference following a meeting in February. The proposition recognised Nagorno Karabakh as a part of Azerbaijan, but gave the enclave self-determination. On 25 March it was announced that a ceasefire was to take place between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh in parallel with the peace plan conference.
Peace efforts continued in April and Azerbaijani and Armenian officials met under Iranian auspices, whereas Russia was unsuccessful in arranging talks between the parties. A ceasefire was agreed on 8 May in Teheran, but was broken the day after by intense shelling. Peace negotiations in June was characterised by lack of progress, both because leaders refused to attend and because meetings and conferences were cancelled. Trilateral negotiations on Foreign Minister level, which resulted in a ceasefire agreement, began on 27 August following an offer of mediation from Kazakhstans President.
A ceasefire agreement was signed on 1 September, but produced little respite in the fighting. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (now OSCE) initiated negotiations in June, July and August although without much of a result. A further ceasefire came into effect on 25 September together with protocols on the withdrawal on arms, on prisoner exchange and on stationing observers in the region. This did however not stop violations of the ceasefire from continuing.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, CSCE (now Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE)
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The UN special envoy visited both Armenia and Azerbaijan in March 1992. Turkey and Iran have tried to mediate in the conflict, but especially Turkeys neutrality has been questioned both by Armenia and by Iran. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe initiated negotiations at several occasions during 1992.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1993 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: Ceasefires was initiated at several occasions during 1993 and on 30 April the UN adopted resolution 822 demanding, among other things, an immediate ceasefire in the country.
A plan formulated by Russia, Turkey and the USA had as its objective the resumption of peace negotiations, under the auspices of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Azerbaijan had withdrawn from CSCE-sponsored talks in April in protest at a large-scale Armenian offensive, which had resulted in the capture of the strategic Azerbaijani district Kelbajar (which separated Nagorno Karabakh from Armenia). The plan also called for withdrawal of international Armenian forces from Kelbajar under international supervision, followed by a ceasefire.
A CIS-meeting in mid-May provided a forum for talks between the Prime minister of Azerbaijan and the Prime Minster and the President of Armenia as well as Russian, US and Turkish officials on 17 May. The talks ended without an overall agreement on the peace plan, but Azerbaijan and Armenia approved it and on 24 May Azerbaijan announced a six-day unilateral ceasefire in order to create the necessary conditions for the implementation of it. However, Nagorno Karabakh rejected the peace plan on the grounds that it failed to provide security guarantees for the population of Nagorno Karabakh. On 27 May Nagorno Karabakh called all parties involved to sign a bilateral agreement on security guarantees for the people of Karabakh as a first step towards the resumption of peace negotiations.
The revised version of the peace plan was approved of by the Nagorno Karabakh parliament on 14 June, but the day after they requested that it would be postponed one month. A CSCE (now OSCE) negotiator held talks on 10 July to secure the agreement and to implement the peace plan on 15 July. However, on 13 July the Karabakh authorities asked to postpone the peace plan again, this time until August. A temporary Russian-brokered ceasefire was operating from 27 June. A three-day ceasefire began on 24 July, which was extended by five days on 28 July. There were, however, some reports of fighting during the ceasefire.
Talks were held in Moscow on 9-14 September and ended with an agreement to extend the ceasefire, which was formally announced on 31 August, to 5 October. Despite an offer on 18 October by the Azerbaijani Foreign Minister to extend the ceasefire for six months, there was a resumption of fighting on 23 October. A new ceasefire between Azerbaijani units and troops from the Armenian enclave Nagorno Karabakh came into force on 28 October after mediation by Iran. Fighting was resumed in early November, however.
On 25 November the Armenian President announced that leaders in Nagorno Karabakh had agreed to accept a peace timetable put forward by the CSCE. Azerbaijan rejected the peace plan on 30 November, and heavy fighting continued in December. However, negotiations between representatives from Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh opened on 21 December. Nevertheless, a large scale Azerbaijani offensive, which came to continue a few months during 1994, started the same day.
Third party involvement: NO
Third party involvement names: UN, CIS, CSCE (now OSCE), Russia, USA, Turkey
Comment on Third Party Involvement: On 30 April the UN adopted resolution 822 demanding an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of all Armenian units from Azerbaijani territory. It also called for a resumption of negotiations within the framework of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
On 29 July the UN passed another resolution, UN Security Council Resolution 853, in which they condemned the seizure on 24 July of the Azerbaijani town, Agdam, called for an immediate Armenian withdrawal from the town and requested the Armenian government to persuade authorities in Nagorno Karabakh to accept the peace plan put forward by the CSCE.
A CIS-meeting in mid-May provided a forum for talks between the parties. Russian, US and Turkish officials have helped forming peace plans to solve the conflict. The conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, CSCE (now OSCE), have also negotiated in the conflict at a number of occasions.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1994 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: After a large scale Azerbaijani offensive that started on 21 December 1993 the parties presented a ceasefire plan on 18 February, effective from 1 March, after negotiations in Moscow. Fighting nevertheless continued through out March, without substantial progress made by any side. Fierce fighting continued after a renewed Azerbaijani offensive in April, despite a Russian-mediated ceasefire negotiated on 26 April.
After negotiations in Moscow on 4-5 May with CIS delegates the chair of the National Assembly in Azerbaijan signed a protocol calling for a ceasefire in the war and the deployment of international peacekeeping forces on 9 May. Fighting continued. However, the conflicting parties again reached an agreement on a ceasefire on 16 May. The agreement was given legal status to and was extended indefinitely on 27 July by the Defence Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the military leader of Nagorno Karabakh. A series of violent incidents and rallies by groups opposed to the agreement took place during the remaining months of the year.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: CIS, Russia, OSCE, The Minsk Group chaired by Russia and Sweden
Comment on Third Party Involvement: Mediators
Victory: NO
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: Ceasefire
Date of termination: 1994-07-27
Comment on Termination: After negotiations in Moscow on 4-5 May with CIS delegates the chair of the National Assembly in Azerbaijan signed a protocol calling for a ceasefire in the war and the deployment of international peacekeeping forces on 9 May. Fighting continued. However, the conflicting parties again reached an agreement on a ceasefire on 16 May. On 15 July two people were killed when Armenian troops launched an attack in the Tauzskiy district. The ceasefire agreement was given legal status to and was extended indefinitely on 27 July by the Defence Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the military leader of Nagorno Karabakh.
Comment on Termination Date: After negotiations in Moscow on 4-5 May with CIS delegates the chair of the National Assembly in Azerbaijan signed a protocol calling for a ceasefire in the war and the deployment of international peacekeeping forces on 9 May. Fighting continued. However, the conflicting parties again reached an agreement on a ceasefire on 16 May.The agreement was given legal status to and was extended indefinitely on 27 July by the Defence Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the military leader of Nagorno Karabakh.
1995 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: Officials representing Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed on 7 March that disputes over the operation of the ceasefire announced in May 1994 would be settled through direct contact between the countries Defence Ministers. Despite the agreement clashes continued on March 12-13 and on March 19.
Following an attack that disrupted Armenian gas supplies Armenias Deputy Foreign Minister announced Armenias withdrawal from the peace talks on Nagorno Karabakh on 22 May. Azerbajani representatives countered on 25 November that Armenia was trying to undermine the peace process.
Peace talks were resumed in early September under the auspices of the Minsk group of the OSCE. The two rounds of talks were held on 4-9 and on 11-12 September and were attended by delegations from Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Russian and Finnish co-chairs of the Minsk-group. The first round of talks focused on the draft ceasefire agreement concluded on in May 1994, with particular emphasis on the legal status of Nagorno Karabakh. The second round of talks ended with a joint statement on all sides to observe the ceasefire and to release all prisoners-of-war and civilian detainees.
Further rounds of talks under the auspices of the Minsk-group were held in Finland in October and in Moscow and Bonn in November. On 19-26 December Armenian and Azerbaijani officials held their first talks without mediators in the Netherlands.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: OSCE, Organisation of Security and Co-operation in Europe, The Minsk Group chaired by Russia and Finland
Comment on Third Party Involvement: A number of rounds of talks were held with the help from the OSCE. In April Finland replaced Sweden as co-chair of the Minsk Group.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1996 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: In January - March 1996 negotiations were held in Moscow. In the negotiations the parties showed no willingness to compromise according to the Minsk group mediators. At the OSCE’s summit in Lisbon in December 1996, the OSCE members agreed that a solution to the conflict was to be found without interfering with Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. The decision was followed by harsh protests from Armenia.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: OCSE, The Minsk Group chaired by Russia and Finland
Comment on Third Party Involvement: mediators
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1997 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: In 1997 the ceasefire was threatened by several deadly skirmishes along the border of the conflicting parties. The worst fighting between Azerbaijani and Armenian forces since the ceasefire in May 1994 broke out on 18-19 April 1997. Sporadic fighting continued on 7-12 May.The situation had not improved by the end of the year despite attempts from negotiators too initiate talks to reduce the increase in tension in the area.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Most casualties are connected to ceasefire breaches close to or along the Line of Contact.
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: Further negotiations under the auspices of the Minsk group of the OSCE were held in Moscow on 1-3 April. It was reported on 7 April that no progress had been made, but that the next round of talks had been scheduled to take place in the USA.
The Minsk Group submitted a draft peace plan for Nagorno Karabakh to the leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh in late May. The plan gave Nagorno Karabakh autonomy within Azerbaijian with the right to its own constitution. It also suggested a reduction in the enclaves armed forces and that Karabakh Armenian forces should withdraw from a number of Azerbaijani regions; all or which would be policed by OSCE forces. Nagorno Karabakh would also be granted a free economic zone under the plan. The announcement of the peace plan was followed by new clashes.
The Minsk Group met representatives from the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan in late September. The talks focused on a structure for resolving the conflict rather than introducing new proposals. Azerbaijani President Aliyev reaffirmed his support for the peace plan proposed by the Minsk-group in May, whereas Armenia suggested a more gradual approach to the settlement of the conflict and the future status of Nagorno Karabakh. The leaders of Nagorno Karabakh, however, stressed that all issues relating to the conflict should be resolved simultaneously.
On 10 October the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia reaffirmed that their countries were committed to a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. On 16 October President Aliyev claimed that the agreement had been made with Armenia to settle the conflict on the basis of the proposals put forward by the Minsk Group in May.
The leaders of Nagorno Karabakh described the Minsk Groups proposals as unacceptable, and claimed that the only way to establish a relationship with Azerbaijan was in the context of equal partnership. The Karabakh leadership further claimed that direct negotiations was the only way to settle the dispute and therefore requested a meeting with the government of Azerbaijan. They indicated that their forces would be prepared to return occupied territory to Azerbaijan on condition that the international community would provide guarantees of the security of the region. It was also suggested that the Karabakh leadership would be prepared to sacrifice some elements of independence in order to settle the conflict. The Azerbaijani government responded on 25 October that it was prepared to hold talks with the Karabakh leadership, but only within the context of the proposals put forward by the Minsk group.
After a meeting with all OSCE-members on 7-8 November the Prime Minister of Nagorno Karabakh indicated (on 17 November) that the Karabakh Armenians might agree to a step-by-step settlement of the conflict provided that the future status of the region was determined in advance. This approach was welcomed by all other parties involved, i.e. the governments of Azerbaijan and Armenia respectively as well as the OSCE.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: OSCE, France and United states become joint co-chairs with Russia of the Minsk Group.
Comment on Third Party Involvement: mediation
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1998 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: In 1998 the conflict resumed and the fragile ceasefire continued to be threaten by violent skirmishes along the borders of the conflicting parties. Just as the previous year the exchanges of fire across the Line of Contact resulted in more than 25 battle related deaths.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Most casualties are connected to ceasefire breaches close to or along the Line of Contact.
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: In 1998 there were no direct negotiations between the conflicting parties Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh. However, in November the OSCE Minsk group put forward a new resolution proposal to the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan. The solution proposal was formally presented as "on the Principles of a Comprehensive Settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh Armed Conflict". This proposal is known as the “common state approach” would remove the vertical power relation between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh; in effect creating a confederation between the parties. Nagorno Karabakh would be allowed to keep its own independent institutions such as the National Guard and a police force. Armenia agreed on moving forward with the proposal. Azerbaijan This proposal was seen by Azerbaijan a substantial departure from the Minsk group’s usual approach as it seemed to deviated from the from the OSCE’s own principal on territorial integrity. Armenia agreed to the key points of the proposal while the proposal was firmly rejected by Azerbaijan.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: OCSE, The Minsk Group chaired by Russia, U.S. and France
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The mechanism of the conflict settlement was established in 1994 as the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs. At present, three permanent members of the Security Council — the United States of America, France and the Russian Federation — are the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs.
Victory: NO
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: No or Low Activity
Date of termination: 1998-12-31
Comment on Termination: In 1998 the conflict was resumed as the parties violated the 1994 ceasefire to the extent that more than 25 deaths were reported.The parties have continued to violate the ceasefire but less than 25 casualties were reported in 1999; therefore the use of armed force is coded as terminated by low activity on 31 December 1998.
Comment on Termination Date: The ceasefire violations continued in 1999 but at a lower intensity level and the casualties never rose above 25, therefore the use of armed force is coded as terminated in by the end of 1998.
1999 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: In 1999 no negotiations were held where the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh was represented. However talks between the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia concerned a solution based on a territory swap. In exchange for agreeing to transfer Nagorno-Karabakhs sovereignty to Armenia, Azerbaijan would acquire Armenias strategic Meghri region.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: OCSE, The Minsk Group chaired by Russia, U.S. and France
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The mechanism of the conflict settlement was established in 1994 as the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs. At present, three permanent members of the Security Council — the United States of America, France and the Russian Federation — are the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2000 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: No representatives of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh was invited to direct negotiations during 2000.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: OCSE, The Minsk Group chaired by Russia, U.S. and France
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The mechanism of the conflict settlement was established in 1994 as the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs. At present, three permanent members of the Security Council — the United States of America, France and the Russian Federation — are the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2001 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: No representatives of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh was invited to direct negotiations during 2001. In March-April 2001 talks between Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents in Key West Florida and in Paris concerned a proposal based on an exchange of access to territory.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: OCSE, The Minsk Group chaired by Russia, U.S. and France
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The mechanism of the conflict settlement was established in 1994 as the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs. At present, three permanent members of the Security Council — the United States of America, France and the Russian Federation — are the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2002 Conflict Archive
Terminated: NO
2003 Conflict Archive
Terminated: NO
2004 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: No representatives of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh was invited to direct negotiations during 2004. In April 2004 the President of Azerbaijan and the President of Armenia met in Warsaw. They launched a new peace initiative "the Prague Process" were the Foreign Ministers of the two governments would meet to examine all aspects of a settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. The Foreign Ministers met four times in 2004.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: OCSE, The Minsk Group chaired by Russia, U.S. and France
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The mechanism of the conflict settlement was established in 1994 as the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs. At present, three permanent members of the Security Council — the United States of America, France and the Russian Federation — are the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2005 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: In 2005 the conflict between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh resumed, the fragile ceasefire was threatened by an upsurge in violent skirmishes along the border between the conflicting parties. These skirmishes resulted in more than 25 battle related deaths, an overwhelming amount of the casualties are a result of exchanges of fire across the ceasefire line also known as the Line of Contact. In addition both sides accused the other of incursions across the borders prompting a vitriolic rhetoric over blame for breaches against the self-regulated cease fire. Between March and May 2005, ceasefire violations and resulting injuries and fatalities were higher than in the same period the previous year. Senior Azerbaijani officials have repeatedly stated that their preference is to resolve the conflict through peaceful negotiations but if these fail, they will resort to a military option. In June 2005, President Aliyev stated, "to solve this conflict and put an end to the occupation, both political-diplomatic efforts have to be made, and the enemy should know that the Azerbaijani army can liberate its land at any moment, and when necessary we will mobilise all our force to achieve that". Azerbaijan argues that under international law it has the right to use force to guarantee its territorial integrity.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Most casualties are connected to ceasefire breaches close to or along the Line of Contact.
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: No representatives of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh were invited to direct negotiations during 2005. However, the negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan within the Prague process continued.
No progress was made at talks in January in Prague between the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia over the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. On 16 May talks were held between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Warsaw. The talks focused on the presence of Armenian troops in Nagorno-Karabakh. After the talks the President of Azerbaijan claimed that Armenia had offered to return occupied territory adjacent to the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, the President of Armenia denied this claim. In August the foreign ministers of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan along with representatives of the United States and France met Moscow to talk about the conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave. The meeting ended in a hopeful mode.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: OSCE Minsk Group
Comment on Third Party Involvement: Mediators
The mechanism of the conflict settlement was established in 1994 as the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs. At present, three permanent members of the Security Council — the United States of America, France and the Russian Federation — are the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs.
Victory: NO
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: No or Low Activity
Date of termination: 2005-12-31
Comment on Termination: In 2005 the conflict was resumed as the parties violated the 1994 ceasefire to the extent that 25 deaths were reported. The parties have continued to violate the ceasefire but less than 25 casualties were reported in 2006; therefore the use of armed force is coded as terminated by low activity on 31 December 2005.
Comment on Termination Date: The ceasefire violations continued in 2006 but at a lower intensity level and the casulties never rose above 25, therefore the use of armed force is coded as terminated in by the end of 2005.
2006 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: No representatives of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh were invited to direct negotiations during 2006. Instead negotiations took place between Nagorno-Karabakh’s ally Armenia and the Azeri government. The “Prague Process” continued during this year, with the Presidents and Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan meeting under the mediation of the Minsk Group (consisting of Russia, France and the USA) in London, Paris, Bucharest and Moscow. Negotiations allegedly focused on a draft proposal presented by the Minsk Group which stipulated and Armenian withdrawal from Azeri territory, the deployment of peacekeepers and a referendum in Nagorno-Karabakh on its territorial status within 10 years. Azerbaijan officially rejected the idea of a referendum in August, but agreement on a number of the suggested points was reached towards the end of the year. No breakthroughs in the form of a signed agreement were reached though, and some aggressive murmurs could be heard, from Azerbaijan in particular. Overall, both parties mutually condemned the other for stalling negotiations.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Minsk Group (Russia, US, France), OSCE
Comment on Third Party Involvement: Although the leadership of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh continued to be relatively severed from the third party and negotiations dynamics there was some third party involvement in the conflict. The Minsk Group, arranged several rounds of talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia on the conflict, set at different locations in Europe such as London, Paris, Moscow and Brussels.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2007 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: In 2007 no representatives of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh were invited to direct negotiations. Instead the "Prague Process" continued during this year, with the Presidents and Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan meeting under the mediation of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group (consisting of Russia, France and the USA). Armenia informally agreed with the Nagorno Karabakh de facto authorities to represent them at the negotiation table. However, at the end of 2007, still no agreement on the draft “Basic Principles” worked out over the last years, was in sight. The “Basic Principles” document did not address the most sensitive issue, the status of Nagorno Karabakh, but covered most other disputed matters. It proposed interim international security arrangements for Nagorno Karabakh until a final referendum on the status of disputed territory would be held. The timeframe of the interim status was left open, as the two sides could not find an agreement on this point. The interim legal framework for Nagorno Karabakh would provide among other things for political rights for the population of Nagorno Karabakh and possibilities to trade and travel. The modalities of this referendum/plebiscite on the status of Nagorno Karabakh were principle sticking points. Moreover, disagreement remained over the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the Azeri territory surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and the status and width of the Lachin corridor that would form a safe connection between Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh after the return of the Armenian-controlled Lachin district to Azerbaijan.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: France, Russia, USA, OSCE
Comment on Third Party Involvement: Although the leadership of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh continued to be relatively severed from the third party and negotiations dynamics there was some third party involvement in the conflict. The Russia, US and France as co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group arranged and mediated several rounds of talks between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh’s ally Armenia on the conflict. The OSCE also monitored the ceasefire line between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2008 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The ceasefire was increasingly fragile in 2008, with several deadly exchanges of fire along the borders.The year saw an increase in battle-related deaths compared to the previous year. The conflict resumed as ceasefire breaches resulted in more than 25 casualties, most of which occured along the Line of Contact.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Most casualties are connected to ceasefire breaches close to or along the Line of Contact.
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: During 2008 no formal negotiations between the conflicting parties Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh took place. However, the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan met twice during the year both times under the aegis of Russian President Medvedev. The first meeting took place on 6 June in St. Petersburg where talks revolved around the principles for the resolution of the conflict. This was followed by a meeting in Moscow on 2 December were both the Azeri and Armenian president signed a declaration to accept the Madrid principles as a basis for future negotiations. The Madrid principles were formulated by the OSCE Minsk group in 2007 and stipulate a phased resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The principles require as a first step a withdrawal of Armenian military from occupied districts surrounding the enclave. Although the declaration signaled a commitment to future negotiations, no formal legal binding peace agreement was signed. The conditions for negotiations during this year were further complicated by presidential elections in Azerbaijan and general destabilization of the region due to the conflict between Georgia and Russia.
The November 2008 declaration did, however, not address the incompatibility and no representatives of the Nagorno Karabakh authorities took part in the talks.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: France, Russia and USA (Minsk Group of the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe)
Comment on Third Party Involvement: Russia, US and France co-chaired the Minsk Group, authorised by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to facilitate negotiations. The Minsk Group arranged and mediated talks between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakhs ally Armenia on the conflict.
Victory: NO
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: No or Low Activity
Date of termination: 2008-12-31
Comment on Termination: In 2008 the conflict was resumed as the parties violated the 1994 ceasefire to the extent that more than 25 deaths were reported.The parties have continued to violate the ceasefire but less than 25 casualties were reported in 2009; therefore the use of armed force is coded as terminated by low activity on 31 December 2008.
Comment on Termination Date: The ceasefire violations continued in 2009 but at a lower intensity level and the casualties never rose above 25, therefore the use of armed force is coded as terminated in by the end of 2008.
2009 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The ceasefire continued to be fragile in 2009, with sporadic skirmishes along the border and some casualties, mostly due to sniper fire.
At the same time some progress was made in negotiations between Nagorno-Karabakh’s backer Armenia and Azerbaijan. Throughout the year, regular talks between the two sides took place, which were mediated by the OSCE Minsk group consisting of USA, France and Russia.
Mediation was guided by the OSCE’s 2007 Madrid Document, which called for a phased settlement of the Karabakh conflict including a legally binding referendum on the disputed enclave’s status. Armenia and Azerbaijan accepted the Madrid proposals as a framework for discussions and moved closer to a preliminary “basic principles” agreement. However, major differences remained concerning more specific questions, such as the right of return of refugees, Nagorno-Karabakh’s interim status, the process for determining the regions final status and the timetable for Armenian troop withdrawal.
Thus, at the end of the 2009, still no agreement had been signed and the two sides trade threats. Azerbaijan said, it would use armed force if negotiations failed, Armenia responded that it would recognise Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence if Azerbaijan resorted to violence.
Nagorno-Karabakh representatives did not take part in the talks as Azerbaijan feared that their inclusion would give legitimacy to the Nagorno-Karabakh de facto authorities.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: In 2009 the cease-fire was broken with sporadic skirmishes on the border between Nagorno-karabakh and southwestern Azerbaijan but the casualties did not cross the threshold of 25 battle related deaths.
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: No negotiations between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh took place as Azerbaijan feared that their inclusion in talks would give legitimacy to the Nagorno-Karabakh de facto authorities.
However, Nagorno-Karabakh’s backer Armenia and Azerbiajan held regular talks throughout the year, which were mediated by the OSCE Minsk group consisting of USA, France and Russia. Mediation was guided by the OSCE’s 2007 Madrid Document, which called for a phased settlement of the Karabakh conflict including a legally binding referendum on the disputed enclave’s status. Armenia and Azerbaijan accepted the Madrid proposals as a framework for discussions and moved closer to a preliminary “basic principles” agreement. However, major differences remained concerning more specific questions, such as the right of return of refugees, Nagorno-Karabakh’s interim status, the process for determining the regions final status and the timetable for Armenian troop withdrawal.
Thus, at the end of the 2009, still no agreement had been signed and the two sides trade threats. Azerbaijan said, it would use armed force if negotiations failed, Armenia responded that it would recognise Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence if Azerbaijan resorted to violence.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Minsk group (USA, France and Russia), OSCE
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The mediators of the OSCE Minsk group, USA, France and Russia cooperated to mediate resolution to the conflict within the framework of basic principles as outlined in the OSCE’s 2007 Madrid Document.
Moreover, the OSCE had small group of observers on the ground that monitored the ceasefire. The groups effectiveness was limited, however, due to its small size and a weak mandate.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2010 Conflict Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: In 2010 the cease-fire remained fragile, with sporadic skirmishes along the borders between Nagorno-karabakh and Azerbaijan. Most casulties occured along the Line of Contact.
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2011 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The ceasefire continued to be fragile in 2011, with sporadic skirmishes along the border and some casualties, mostly due to sniper fire.
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: No negotiations between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh took place as Azerbaijan feared that their inclusion in talks would give legitimacy to the Nagorno-Karabakh de facto authorities.
Some informal talks, including a bilateral meeting between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan did take place in 2011, but with no success in resolving the conflict.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Minsk group (USA, France and Russia), OSCE
Comment on Third Party Involvement: Informal talks did take place in 2011, but with little if any success in resolving the conflict.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2012 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: In 2012 various skirmishes and sniper fire incidents between border-based troops resulted in at least 25 deaths. The conflict remained simmering throughout the year even as high level diplomats traveled through the region and encouraged the parties to engage in high level talks. Talks did take place between Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers in June; however later discussions between the foreign ministers were suspended in September following continued sporadic fighting.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Most casualties are connected to ceasefire breaches close to or along the Line of Contact.
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: No negotiations between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh took place during 2012.
However, talks were held between the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan in Sochi, Russia on the 23 January. The meeting was hosted by the Russian president Dmitry Medvedev but did not result in any progress on the conflicts main stumbling blocks.The OSCE Minsk group oversaw a meeting between the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers in june; however later discussions between the foreign ministers were suspended in September following continued sporadic fighting.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: OSCE Minsk Group
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The mechanism of the conflict settlement was established in 1994 as the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs. At present, three permanent members of the Security Council - the United States of America, France and the Russian Federation - are the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs. During 2012 the Minsk group met multiple times with the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan and issued multiple statements encouraging the parties to come to a resolution.
Victory: NO
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: No or Low Activity
Date of termination: 2012-12-31
Comment on Termination: In 2012 the conflict was resumed as the parties violated the 1994 ceasefire to the extent that 25 deaths were reported. The parties have continued to violate the ceasefire but less than 25 casualties were reported in 2013; therefore the use of armed force is coded as terminated by low activity on 31 December 2012.
Comment on Termination Date: The ceasefire violations continued in 2013 but at a lower intensity level and the casualties never rose above 25, therefore the use of armed force is coded as terminated in by the end of 2012.
2013 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2014 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: 2014 saw a significant upsurge in violence and a considerable increase in tension between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh. Exchanges of fire along the ceasefire line have been a reoccurring feature of the conflict. However, this year’s violent clashes between border troops escalated during the summer and resulted in the highest casualty figures since the declaration of the official ceasefire in 1994. Most casualties where due to border shoot outs on the ceasefire line also known as the Line of Contact. In November a Nagorno Karabakh military helicopter was shot down on the Line of Contact by the Azerbaijan military, the first such incident in more than two decades.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Most casualties are connected to ceasefire breaches close to or along the Line of Contact.
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: No direct negotiations between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh took place and the year was marred by an increasingly sharp rhetoric on the part of both sides. However, in response to the increase in tension and volatile situation on the borders three high level meetings took place between the president of Armenia and the president of Azerbaijan. These meeting were organized separately by Russia, US and France although all three countries co-chair the OSCE Minsk group. The first meeting took place in August in Sochi under the auspices of President Putin, followed by a meeting in September in Newport headed by US state secretary John Kerry and the final meeting was hosted by President Hollande in Paris in October. The OSCE Minsk group co-chairs also organized several meetings between the Armenia and Azerbaijan’s foreign ministers in an attempt to further reduce tension and prevent future escalation.None of the meeting during the year ended in any signed agreement but the parties made a commitment to additional peace talks in 2015.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: The OSCE Minsk group
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The mechanism of the conflict settlement was established in 1994 as the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs. At present, three permanent members of the Security Council — the United States of America, France and the Russian Federation — are the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2015 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: No direct negotiations between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh took place. However, in response to the increase in tension and volatile situation on the borders a high level meeting took place between the president of Armenia and the president of Azerbaijan in Switzerland in December 2015. Also, Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers met in New York in September, in presence of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: The OSCE Minsk group
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The mechanism of the conflict settlement was established in 1994 as the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs. At present, three permanent members of the Security Council — the United States of America, France and the Russian Federation — are the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2016 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The conflict between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh escalated in 2016, with heavy fighting in early April. The clashes in early April was the most serious outbreak of fighting since the ceasefire in 1994. A truce was declared after a few days of fighting, but the clashes continued sporadically during the rest of the year with both sides accusing each other of violating the truce.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: The OSCE Minsk group
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2017 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: In 2017, violence was considerably less intense than in 2016, even if fatalities remained above the 25 battle-related deaths threshold. As in 2016, Armenia continued to provide secondary warring support to the Republic of Artsakh in 2017.
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: The OSCE Minsk group
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: No or Low Activity
Date of termination: 2017-12-31
Comment on Termination: In 2017 the conflict continued as the parties violated the 1994 ceasefire to the extent that more than 25 deaths were reported.The parties have continued to violate the ceasefire but less than 25 casualties were reported in 2018; therefore the use of armed force is coded as terminated by low activity on 31 December 2017.
Comment on Termination Date: In 2017 the conflict continued as the parties violated the 1994 ceasefire to the extent that more than 25 deaths were reported.The parties have continued to violate the ceasefire but less than 25 casualties were reported in 2018; therefore the use of armed force is coded as terminated by low activity on 31 December 2017.
2018 Conflict Archive
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: The OSCE Minsk group
Terminated: NO
2019 Conflict Archive
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: The OSCE Minsk group
Terminated: NO
2020 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: 2020 saw the most severe escalation of violence in the recent history of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. After minor violations of the ceasefire in early 2020, the Government of Azerbaijan and Republic of Artsakh clashed in multiple locations in July. The fighting occurred mainly near the Tovuz district of Azerbaijan and the tension did not deescalate during the summer. On 27 September, clashes erupted at the Line of Contact and immediately turned into a major Azerbaijani offensive along the entire front line and within a month, the Azerbaijani forces were able to capture strategic locations like Jabrayil, Hadrut, and Fuzuli. They were able to control the whole border with Iran for the first time after decades and then, moved north to cut the vital Lachin corridor, which connects Armenia with the Republic of Artsakh's de facto capital of Khankendi/Stepanakert. After intense fighting, Shushi/Shusha was also captured by the Azerbaijani forces in early November. On 9 November, the Government of Azerbaijan accidentally shot down a helicopter belonging to the Russia and killed two soldiers. Following this incident, Russia managed to broker a ceasefire agreement, ending the clashes. Armenia, on behalf of the Republic of Artsakh, agreed on the Azerbaijani control over the areas that Azerbaijani forces took over during the conflict and also agreed to withdraw from the territories that Armenian forces occupied around the Nagorno-Karabakh. The Republic of Artsakh kept de facto control over the parts of Nagorno-Karabakh that were not captured by Azerbaijani forces at the moment of the ceasefire. The war resulted in nearly 8 thousand battle-related deaths. Hundreds of civilians died, mainly due to the shelling of inhabited centers by both sides.
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: No direct negotiations between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh took place. However, on 9 November 2020 a ceasefire agreement was signed by the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, the Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan, and the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, ending all hostilities in the zone of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. On 10 November Arayik Harutyunyan, the leader of the Nagorno-Karabakh government said that he also agreed to the peace terms in consultation with the Prime Minister of Armenia.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Russia, Turkey, The OSCE Minsk group
Comment on Third Party Involvement: Russia, a historical Armenian ally, declared that it would have intervened only if the fighting reached Armenia and took an active role in ceasefire negotiations. Both Turkish and Russian peacekeepers operated in the region after the ceasefire was signed.
Victory side: a
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: Ceasefire
Date of termination: 2020-11-09
Comment on Termination: On 9 November, the Government of Azerbaijan accidentally shot down a helicopter belonging to the Russia and killed two soldiers. Following this incident, Russia managed to broker a ceasefire agreement, ending the clashes. This was the third attempted ceasefire agreement and the first one to be successful. Armenia, on behalf of the Republic of Artsakh, agreed on the Azerbaijani control over the areas that Azerbaijani forces took over during the conflict and also agreed to withdraw from the territories that Armenian forces occupied around the Nagorno-Karabakh. The Republic of Artsakh kept de facto control over the parts of Nagorno-Karabakh that were not captured by Azerbaijani forces at the moment of the ceasefire, with Russian peacekeepers separating the two sides and maintaining order. Peacekeepers from Turkey also soon arrived and took part in this process.
2021 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: Following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, the Azerbaijan: Artsakh conflict entered a calmer period in 2021. Though the conflict remained active primarily due to some sporadic border clashes around Azerbaijan's Kelbajar rayon and Armenia's Gegharkunik province, the conflict intensity was much lower than what it was in 2020. Several violations of the November 2020 ceasefire were observed throughout the year, though the conflict did not escalate further.
Terminated: NO
2022 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: Tensions persisted in 2022 between Azerbaijan and Armenia, with reciprocal allegations of shooting along the border throughout the year. Notably, on 12 September 2022, hostilities significantly intensified, resulting in over 300 battle-related deaths in just two days. To prevent further escalation, Russia intervened in the conflict, ultimately resulting in a ceasefire being reached between Armenia and Azerbaijan on 14 September 2022.
Terminated: NO
2023 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: In 2023, the Azerbaijan: Artsakh conflict escalated significantly, resulting in around 450 fatalities within just two days. On September 19, Azerbaijan launched a military offensive against the self-declared Republic of Artsakh to disarm the Artsakh forces and ensure their surrender. A ceasefire was brokered the following day by Russia, leading to the agreement that the Artsakh forces would be disarmed. The ceasefire agreement also led to the announcement that the Republic of Artsakh would cease to exist from January 1, 2024, terminating the Azerbaijan: Artsakh conflict.
Victory: YES
Victory side: a
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: Victory
Date of termination: 2023-12-31
Comment on Termination: On September 19, Azerbaijan launched a military offensive against the self-declared Republic of Artsakh to disarm the Artsakh forces and ensure their surrender. A ceasefire was brokered the following day by Russia, leading to the agreement that the Artsakh forces would be disarmed. The ceasefire agreement also led to the announcement that the Republic of Artsakh would cease to exist from January 1, 2024.
2024 Conflict Archive
Terminated: NO
