General information
Part of Conflict: Azerbaijan: Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh)
Date of first stated goals of incompatibility: 1991-12-28
Comment on date of first stated goal 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 date of 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.
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 when dyad reached 25 battle releated deaths: 1991-12-30
Comment on date when dyad reached 25 battle related 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.
Conflict issues
Conflict Goal Issues: The Republic of Artsakh, also known as the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, was a self-proclaimed independent governance structure that emerged following the fall of the Soviet Union. The Republic, which governed the contested area of Nagorno-Karabakh, pronounced itself independent around the same time as Armenia and Azerbaijan in 1991 but was not recognized as independent but rather under Azerbaijani rule by the international community which prompted the conflict with the government of Azerbaijan. The Republic is coded as a rebel group due to it being a non-state actor in conflict with a state. The Republic and its leadership was largely made up of ethnic Armenians, and it had close ties with the government of Armenia throughout its existence. During its first year of existence, the Republic of Artsakh stated four conflict goal issues, calling for Nagorno-Karabakh to be declared independent from the Azerbaijani government, for the cultural rights of ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh to be respected and protected, and for relations to be improved with Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Republic also stated its intentions to establish law and order under the Republic’s governance.
As the conflict progressed, the issue of independence was stated frequently and continuously throughout the entire conflict. The issue of rule of law was also frequently stated, as were the intentions to protect Armenian cultural rights from the Azerbaijani government. The Republic also introduced several new issues. The Republic of Artsakh continuously stated its intentions to protect the civil-, cultural-, human-, and language rights of its population, particularly of its Armenian ethnic population. The Republic also emphasized calls for a democratic state to be implemented, which was largely interpreted from continuous statements relating to democracy as the Republic of Artsakh was a de facto, but not de jure, government with a democratic structure. Many other issues were also raised, particularly in 2006 and 2017, when the Republic released its two constitutions, although most of these were not explicitly stated in other years.
The main conflict goal issue of the Republic of Artsakh is undoubtedly the issue of independence from Azerbaijan. This issue was continuously raised throughout the conflict and heavily influenced the Republic’s other issues which indicates its centrality to the Republic.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: In 1991, the Republic of Artsakh stated four conflict dynamics issues, accusing the Azeri army of conducting operations into Nagorno-Karabakh with the aim of establishing terror and fear in the population, this was particularly targeted against Armenian civilians which prompted the Republic to call upon the USSR to protect the Armenian population. Apart from military misconduct and intentional targeting of civilians, this operation also resulted in large civilian casualties, which is why it is interpreted as accusing the military of atrocities. Finally, following the operation, the Republic of Artsakh also called upon the international community and the UN to “save the Armenian people of NKAO from physical extermination and grant them political asylum.”
As the conflict progressed, no further mentions were made of Azeri military misconduct and issues of atrocities and calls for political support were only restated once in 2013, 25 years after a massacre against Armenians in Sumgait. During this year, Azeri officer Ramil Safarov, who murdered an Armenian lieutenant on a UN mission, was extradited to Azerbaijan, pardoned, and celebrated as a national hero, which prompted the Republic to once again accuse the Azeri army of atrocities and abuses. The issue of collective targeting against ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh was also reemphasized toward the latter stages of the conflict, being raised in 2013 and 2014. Several new issues were also introduced, particularly toward the international community, calling for the withdrawal of Azeri forces from the region, for international monitoring missions to be established to protect the population, for sanctions against Azerbaijan, and for international recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence under leadership of the Republic. On two occasions, the Republic also called for resettlement programs and for refugees to be returned to Nagorno-Karabakh.
The main conflict dynamics issue raised by the Republic of Artsakh was the issue of collective targeting of ethnic Armenians by the Azeri government and army. Whilst this issue, similarly to most other conflict dynamics issues, was only occasionally raised, it was the foundation of both many other issues and of the Republic’s existence as a whole.
Conflict Resolution Issues: Whilst no conflict resolution issues were stated in 1991, the Republic of Artsakh stated several issues as the conflict progressed. In 1994, the Republic called for a ceasefire to be negotiated and implemented, and whilst future calls for new ceasefires would not be made, calls for agreed upon ceasefires to be implemented and abided to were continuously stated. In 1997, the Republic called for negotiations with the Azeri government and conditioned negotiations on them being held “in the context of equal partnership” with Azerbaijan. Further issues were stated regarding the structure of negotiations and the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh presence in negotiations between the Armenian and Azeri state were frequently made, particularly emphasizing the importance of the Republic’s participation in resolving the conflict. Further calls for negotiations were only made in one other instance. Finally, in 2013, the Republic called for accountability and condemnation from the international community against the forces that perpetrated the Sumgait massacre.
The main conflict resolution issues raised by the Republic of Artsakh were the continuous calls for the Azeri military to stop its ceasefire violations and for the inclusion of the Republic in peace talks between the Azeri and Armenian government. These issues were continuously raised throughout the conflict and heavily emphasized, which indicates their centrality to the Republic.
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Basic needs, Change a specific law, Change economic system, Change judicial system, Childrens rights, Citizenship reforms, Civil rights, Confederation/union, Constitutional issues, CPS: Democracy, Cultural rights, Decentralization, Foreign policy reform, Freedom of association, Freedom of expression, Freedom of movement, Gender rights, Hold elections, Human rights, Independence, Language rights, Law and order, Protection of cultural heritage, Protection of natural resources/the environment, Public services, Reform executive structure, Reform judicial system, Reform parliament, Religious rights, Restructure military forces, Rule of law
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Atrocities and abuses, Collective targeting: ethnic, DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, IFI: International monitoring, IFI: Political support, IFI: Recognition, IFI: Sanctions, Military conduct, Return of refugees/IDPs
Conflict Resolution Issues: Accountability/prosecution/investigation, Call for ceasefire, Structure of negotiations, Call for implementation/abiding to ceasefire, Call for negotiations, Peace agreement implementation
Annual information
This section contains annual information systematically collected by the UCDP.
1982
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
1988
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
1989
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
1991
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 35 |
| Best | 35 |
| Low | 35 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
1992
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 3635 |
| Best | 2167 |
| Low | 2099 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
1993
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 1801 |
| Best | 1171 |
| Low | 968 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
1994
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 3937 |
| Best | 1507 |
| Low | 1257 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
1995
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 18 |
| Best | 18 |
| Low | 18 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
1996
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 11 |
| Best | 5 |
| Low | 3 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
1997
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 36 |
| Best | 29 |
| Low | 29 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
1998
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 38 |
| Best | 34 |
| Low | 34 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
1999
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 35 |
| Best | 18 |
| Low | 18 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
2000
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 16 |
| Best | 13 |
| Low | 13 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
2001
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 7 |
| Best | 6 |
| Low | 6 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
2002
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
2003
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
2004
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 8 |
| Best | 8 |
| Low | 8 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
2005
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 26 |
| Best | 25 |
| Low | 25 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
2006
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 10 |
| Best | 7 |
| Low | 7 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
2007
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 28 |
| Best | 12 |
| Low | 12 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
2008
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 43 |
| Best | 30 |
| Low | 30 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
2009
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 13 |
| Best | 7 |
| Low | 7 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
2010
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 28 |
| Best | 20 |
| Low | 20 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
2011
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 28 |
| Best | 21 |
| Low | 21 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
2012
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 27 |
| Best | 25 |
| Low | 25 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
2013
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 15 |
| Best | 12 |
| Low | 12 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
2014
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 54 |
| Best | 46 |
| Low | 45 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
2015
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 121 |
| Best | 72 |
| Low | 65 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
2016
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 263 |
| Best | 141 |
| Low | 141 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
2017
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 37 |
| Best | 36 |
| Low | 36 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
2018
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 21 |
| Best | 17 |
| Low | 16 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
2019
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 12 |
| Best | 11 |
| Low | 9 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
2020
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 7943 |
| Best | 7538 |
| Low | 7439 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): Government of Turkey
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
2021
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 43 |
| Best | 40 |
| Low | 40 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
2022
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 310 |
| Best | 308 |
| Low | 308 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
2023
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 462 |
| Best | 462 |
| Low | 462 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): Government of Armenia
2024
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Secondary Warring Support:
Side A (Government of Azerbaijan): n/a
Side B (Republic of Artsakh): n/a
Dyad Archive
This section contains annual information no longer systematically collected by the UCDP.
1982 Dyad Archive
Negotiations: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1988 Dyad Archive
Negotiations: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1989 Dyad Archive
Negotiations: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1991 Dyad Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh after the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union on 29 and 30 December.
Negotiations: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1992 Dyad Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Number of battle related deaths during 1992.
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiations: 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 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.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1993 Dyad Archive
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiations: 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 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.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1994 Dyad Archive
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiations: 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. 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.
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.
1995 Dyad Archive
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiations: 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.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1996 Dyad Archive
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiations: 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.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1997 Dyad Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Most casualties are connected to ceasefire breaches close to or along the Line of Contact.
Comment on Active: 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.
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiations: 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 Azerbaijan 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.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1998 Dyad Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Most casualties are connected to ceasefire breaches close to or along the Line of Contact.
Comment on Active: 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.
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiations: 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 two parties. Nagorno Karabakh would be allowed to keep its own independent institutions such as the National Guard and a police force. 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.
Victory: NO
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: No or Low Activity
Date of termination: 1998-12-31
Comment on Termination: In 1998 the parties violated the 1994 ceasefire to the extent that more than 25 deaths were reported and the conflict resumed. 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 Dyad Archive
Negotiations: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2000 Dyad Archive
Negotiations: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2001 Dyad Archive
Negotiations: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2002 Dyad Archive
Terminated: NO
2003 Dyad Archive
Terminated: NO
2004 Dyad Archive
Negotiations: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2005 Dyad Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Most casualties are connected to ceasefire breaches close to or along the Line of Contact.
Comment on Active: In 2005 the conflict 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.
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiations: 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.
Victory: NO
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: No or Low Activity
Date of termination: 2005-12-31
Comment on Termination: In 2005 the parties violated the 1994 ceasefire to the extent that 25 deaths were reported and the conflict resumed. 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 casualties never rose above 25, therefore the use of armed force is coded as terminated in by the end of 2005.
2006 Dyad Archive
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiations: 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.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2007 Dyad Archive
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiations: In 2007 no representatives of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh were invited to direct negotiations as in previous years. 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.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2008 Dyad Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Most casualties are connected to ceasefire breaches close to or along the Line of Contact.
Comment on Active: 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.
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiations: In 2008 no direct negotiations took place between representatives of Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh.
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.
Victory: NO
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: No or Low Activity
Date of termination: 2008-12-31
Comment on Termination: In 2008 the parties violated the 1994 ceasefire to the extent that more than 25 deaths were reported and the conflict resumed. 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 Dyad Archive
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.
Comment on Active: 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.
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiations: 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.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2010 Dyad 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
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2011 Dyad Archive
Comment on Active: 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 Negotiations: 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.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2012 Dyad Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Most casualties are connected to ceasefire breaches close to or along the Line of Contact.
Comment on Active: 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.
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiations: No direct negotiations between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh took place during 2012.
However, talks were held between Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers in June; however later discussions between the foreign ministers were suspended in September following continued sporadic fighting.
Victory: NO
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: No or Low Activity
Date of termination: 2012-12-31
Comment on Termination: In 2012 the parties violated the 1994 ceasefire to the extent that more than 25 deaths were reported and the conflict resumed. 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 Dyad Archive
Negotiations: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2014 Dyad Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Most casualties are connected to ceasefire breaches close to or along the Line of Contact.
Comment on Active: 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.
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiations: 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.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2015 Dyad Archive
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiations: 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.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2016 Dyad Archive
Comment on Active: 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.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2017 Dyad Archive
Comment on Active: 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
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 Dyad Archive
Terminated: NO
2019 Dyad Archive
Terminated: NO
2020 Dyad Archive
Comment on Active: 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 Negotiations: 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.
Terminated: NO
2021 Dyad Archive
Comment on Active: Following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, the Azerbaijan: Artsakh conflict entered a calmer period in 2021. Though the dyad 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 Dyad Archive
Comment on Active: Tensions persisted in 2022 between Azerbaijan and Armenia, a secondary warring party supporting the Republic of Artsakh, 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 Dyad Archive
Comment on Active: 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
Victorious side: a
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: Victory
Date of termination: 2023-12-31
2024 Dyad Archive
Terminated: NO