DOCSLIB.ORG

Azerbaijan's Perspectives on the Osce Minsk Group

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Azerbaijan's Perspectives on the Osce Minsk Group security and human rights 27 (2016) 442-466 brill.com/shrs Azerbaijan’s Perspectives on the osce Minsk Group Complicity in the Status Quo? Zaur Shiriyev Academy Associate at the Royal Institute of International Affairs ( Chatham House) in London Abstract The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (osce) led Minsk Group – the principal mediator tasked with the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, is often criticised by Azerbaijan, due to the stalemate in negotiations. The intensive period of engagement between 2006 and 2009 brought first the initial and then the “updated” Madrid Principles. This was the chief working document that set forth the basic principles for peaceful resolution. The inactivity of the Minsk Group is often con- ceded as the result of maintaining “minimalist goals” – preventing full scale war and trying to bring conflict parties to the negotiating table. The April war in 2016 tested the fragility of the first goal: preventing skirmishes from leading to larger scale conflict. Similarly, after the April 2016 war, the attempt to revitalise the second goal – i.e. bring- ing the parties to the negotiating table – also collapsed, due to the increased mistrust between the parties after the war. The article will evaluate the geopolitical changes and their impact on the Minsk Group’s work since 2008, the reasons for the demands to change the format of the Minsk Group, and finally Azerbaijan’s perspectives on the limitations of the Minsk Group’s current mandate and mechanisms. Keywords Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict – Nagorno-Karabakh conflict – fragile peace – April War * Zaur Shiriyev is an Academy Associate at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) in London. His areas of expertise include security issues and conflict resolution in the post-Soviet space, Turkish foreign policy, and the foreign and national security policies of the South Caucasus states, with an emphasis on the domestic determinants of such policies. © nhc, 2017 | doi 10.1163/18750230-02703016 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 04:12:18PM via free access <UN> Azerbaijan’s Perspectives on the osce Minsk Group 443 Introduction In the last decade, the Minsk Group’s (mg) mediation efforts has seen ups and downs. The peak was the harmonisation of the Co-Chairs’ (us, France and Russia) work, whereby all Co-Chairs were all on the same page and shared the same goal of achieving the basic principles framework for the resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This resulted in the Madrid Principles – the origi- nal version put forth in 2007, and the updated version in 2009, which aimed to provide the basic principles for a peace agreement. This represented a breakthrough following the silence since the end of the 1990s, when the Minsk Group produced three diffirent proposals: the ‘package solution’, the ‘step by step solution’ and the ‘common state solution’. Azerbaijan and Armenia could not agree on the same option. The Madrid Principles, unlike the 1990’s conflict resolution proposals, were aimed at substantive talks based on step-by-step agreement on the Basic Principles – thus solving all major problems via the Peace Agreement, and then the implementing the agreement step-by-step. This was a compromise; the implementation of the whole peace agreement will take longer, allowing the conflict sides to build trust, develop communica- tion channels, and move beyond the enmity. The introduction of the Madrid Principles and ongoing negotiation process led Baku to believe that the process was satisfactory and met expectations for progress on conflict resolution and that tangible results were on the horizon. However, the 2008 Russian-Georgian August War and annexation of Crimea in 2014 affected the Minsk Group’s mediation capabilities. This turn of events changed and weakened the intentions of the Co-Chair countries and their engagement with the negotiations. At the beginning, Russian mediation ef- forts during 2008–2012, in the trilateral format with Azerbaijan and Armenian Presidents, stimulated the Minsk Group’s work. But by end of 2009, Moscow’s mediation became a parallel process : a unilateral mediation effort separate to the Minsk Group’s activities, effectively paralyzing the role of the Minsk Group’s Co-Chairs to act as a mediating body. With the end of the Russian “trilateral format” in 2012, the Minsk Group Co-Chairs failed to bring conflict parties to the negotiating table. This led to changes in the “military status-quo” on the ground, namely by increasing the skirmishes between the Azerbaijani and Armenian armies. This resulted in rising disappointment in Azerbaijan, in particular regarding the approach of preserving the “military status-quo”, and waiting for the conflict parties to be ready to negotiate (i.e. putting the responsibility for the status of negotia- tions on the conflict parties alone). The failure to make efforts to convince the conflict sides to enter into substantive talks – even after the war in April 2016 – was very unsatisfactory to Baku. security and human rights 27 (2016) 442-466 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 04:12:18PM via free access <UN> 444 Shiriyev The article aims to analyze Azerbaijan’s attitude towards the Minsk Group’s mediation efforts over the last decade, by analyzing the impact of geopolitical changes that effected the Minsk Group’s work and Azerbaijan’s perceptions of such changes. The second part of the paper looks at the rising demands to change the structure of meditation efforts – the Minsk Group’s format, ra- tionale, and perspectives. Finally, the Minsk Group’s work from Azerbaijan’s perspective are assessed, and policy recommendations are provided. Impact of Geopolitical Transformations on the Cohesion of the Minsk Group’s Mediation Efforts The August war between Russia and Georgia in 2008 came at a critical point in the Minsk Group’s mediation work. The introduction of the Madrid Prin- ciples in 2007 had marked a major achievement with regard to establishing the basic principles for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Following the August war, the initial concern in Azerbaijan emerged from the twin assump- tions that the conflict would destroy ties between Russia and the West, and damage the ongoing collaboration of Moscow and Washington. Baku saw the original Madrid Principles of 2007 as a us-backed process, in which Moscow had collaborated. According to Matthew Bryza,1 former u.s. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia (2005–2009), this process came “from an effort launched from the White House in 2004, which received personal and direct support from then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and by extension, President George W. Bush […] such top-level support was of great assistance in convincing the Russian Foreign Minister and President to play constructive roles”. The us impetus was in the interest of Azerbaijan at that point, considering Baku’s Westernised approach to foreign policy decision-making at that time, as indicated in the country’s first National Security Concept in 2007. However, the original Madrid Principles did not fully satisfy Baku. The Principles themselves were essential to striking a balance between the Helsinki Final Act’s fundamen- tal principles of the territorial integrity of states, self-determination of peoples, and the non-use of force. For Azerbaijan, the priority was territorial integrity – Baku sought to capitalise on this in the international arena by gaining support from international organisation. This led to tensions with the Minsk Group Co-Chair countries, who did not appreciate Azerbaijan’s way of presenting 1 E-mail interview with former Ambassador Matthew Bryza, nonresident Senior Fellow, Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center and Global Energy Center, Atlantic Council, May 2017. security and humanDownloaded rights from 27 Brill.com09/29/2021(2016) 442-466 04:12:18PM via free access <UN> Azerbaijan’s Perspectives on the osce Minsk Group 445 this approach. These tensions emerged following the United Nations Gen- eral Assembly resolution number S/62/243 in March 2008, which reaffirmed Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and demanded the immediate withdrawal of all Armenian forces from the occupied territories.2 The Minsk Group Co-Chair countries voted against the resolution. Baku was deeply dismayed by this; in response, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan, Araz Azimov, simply stated that “Azerbaijan will work with [the] Minsk Group [and their proposal] based on the position that has been reaffirmed by United Nations”.3 However, until the August War, Azerbaijan did not see the differences within the Minsk Group Co-Chairs as a something that could potentially destabilise the mediation process. After the 2008 war, there were initial concerns about Russia’s attitude – the August War was followed by Moscow’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, deeply worrisome for Baku. After the war, Russia’s assertiveness in regard to playing a role in conflict resolution was questioned, as it entailed working with the Western Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group. How- ever, these concerns were assuaged via Moscow’s engagement with the peace process at the presidential level. This began with the November 2008 “Moscow Declaration”. The significance of the Azerbaijan, Armenian and Russian Presi- dents’ declaration was not just that it was the second document signed since the 1994 Ceasefire agreement, but also that it was based on the main provisions of the Helsinki Final Act, and the core elements of the Madrid Principles: non- use of force, respect for territorial integrity, and the right to self-determination. Baku believed that Russia’s involvement was motivated by the fact that, after the August war Russia wanted to invest in “image building”. After the August war Moscow pursued an image demonstrating that Moscow was non- violent in regional affairs and a facilitator of peaceful processes – and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution process under Russian President Dmitry Medvedevwas part of this.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Irīna Ivaškina
    IRĪNA IVAŠKINA Title: Ms. Citizenship: Latvia Mobile Phone: (+371) 28252237 Email: [email protected] EDUCATION Riga Stradins University Riga, Latvia September 2008 – Master’s Degree of Social Science in Politics, Academic study program: International Relations Riga Stradins University Riga, Latvia September 2003 - June 2007 Bachelor’s Degree of Social Science in Politics, Academic study program: International Relations- European studies Academic papers: Latvian development cooperation policy towards Georgia (2005) European Neighbourhood Policy towards Georgia: opportunities and constraints (2006) Georgia’s social identity in relationship with the EU and Russia after the Rose revolution (2007) WORK EXPERINCE Latvian Transatlantic Organisation (LATO) Riga, Latvia February 2008 – present Project Manager Main responsibilities: project management; public relations; communication with international partners; office work. Main projects: Riga Conference (2008, 2009, 2010) www.rigaconference.lv Public discussion “NATO’s Future: A Baltic View” (June 1, 2010, Riga) Akhaltsikhe International Security Seminar 2008 (November 24-26, 2009, Tbilisi, Georgia) Association ‘’Georgian Youth for Europe’’ Rustavi, Georgia July 2007 – January 2008 European Volunteer Service, Volunteer Main responsibilities: Education of youngsters about the EU and NATO; Promotion of the “Youth in Action” programme among local youngsters; Assisting in implementation of projects. 1 Latvian Transatlantic organisation (LATO) Riga, Latvia September – December 2006
    [Show full text]
  • Baku Airport Bristol Hotel, Vienna Corinthia Hotel Budapest Corinthia
    Europe Baku Airport Baku Azerbaijan Bristol Hotel, Vienna Vienna Austria Corinthia Hotel Budapest Budapest Hungary Corinthia Nevskij Palace Hotel, St Petersburg St Petersburg Russia Fairmont Hotel Flame Towers Baku Azerbaijan Four Seasons Hotel Gresham Palace Budapest Hungary Grand Hotel Europe, St Petersburg St Petersburg Russia Grand Hotel Vienna Vienna Austria Hilton DoubleTree Zagreb Zagreb Croatia Hilton Hotel am Stadtpark, Vienna Vienna Austria Hilton Hotel Dusseldorf Dusseldorf Germany Hilton Milan Milan Italy Hotel Danieli Venice Venice Italy Hotel Palazzo Parigi Milan Italy Hotel Vier Jahreszieten Hamburg Hamburg Germany Hyatt Regency Belgrade Belgrade Serbia Hyatt Regenct Cologne Cologne Germany Hyatt Regency Mainz Mainz Germany Intercontinental Hotel Davos Davos Switzerland Kempinski Geneva Geneva Switzerland Marriott Aurora, Moscow Moscow Russia Marriott Courtyard, Pratteln Pratteln Switzerland Park Hyatt, Zurich Zurich Switzerland Radisson Royal Hotel Ukraine, Moscow Moscow Russia Sacher Hotel Vienna Vienna Austria Suvretta House Hotel, St Moritz St Moritz Switzerland Vals Kurhotel Vals Switzerland Waldorf Astoria Amsterdam Amsterdam Netherlands France Ascott Arc de Triomphe Paris France Balmoral Paris Paris France Casino de Monte Carlo Monte Carlo Monaco Dolce Fregate Saint-Cyr-sur-mer Saint-Cyr-sur-mer France Duc de Saint-Simon Paris France Four Seasons George V Paris France Fouquets Paris Hotel & Restaurants Paris France Hôtel de Paris Monaco Monaco Hôtel du Palais Biarritz France Hôtel Hermitage Monaco Monaco Monaco Hôtel
    [Show full text]
  • Travelling Across the Caucasus by Train Azerbaijan, Georgia And
    Travelling across the Caucasus by train from Baku to Batumi (by way of Yerevan) Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia 1st to 25th July 2019 This journey seeks to connect the three very distinct countries which together form the Caucasus. What links them culturally? They were vibrant places during the later Russian Tzarist period. They have been places of seismic change: oil in Baku, Stalin was born in Georgia and the first Christain state was born in Armenia. They lie between hospitable Asia and the descendents of Byzantium. They also sit between Russia and Iran. They are places which have been influenced by their overbearing neighbours: invaded by Russia, Iran and the Ottoman Turks. Their geography varies from some of the highest mountains in Europe to deserts, from the Mediterranean climate of the Black Sea to the perpetually snowy peaks of the Greater Caucasus. The area may rightly claim to be the birthplace of the grapevine and very early mastery of goldsmithing. Nowadays a train line links these three fascinating countries. The party will be restricted to 11 of us in total. Travelling across the Caucasus by train The itinerary Day 3: After breakfast we’ll start the imposing mansions of the oil our Baku city tour. Visit Martyrs’ barons, built during the oil boom of Day 1: Flights from London and Alley, enjoy the panoramic view 1870-1914. After lunch we’ll drive to Edinburgh into Istanbul. Transfer by of Baku bay. Then we’ll visit the see the Gobustan rock paintings, 65 metro to Sultanahmet, the heart of Icheri Shekher (Inner town) with km from Baku, and then return to ancient Constantinople/Istanbul to its historical buildings and narrow the city by way of the Bibi Heybat our comfortable three star hotel for lanes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Luxembourg Rail Protocol
    Passengers, goods and dangerous goods OTIF Workshop Baku, Azerbaijan 3rd – 4th May 2016 The Luxembourg Rail Protocol How it will change the rail industry Howard Rosen Chairman, Rail Working Group Zug, Switzerland Setting the Scene Railways in the 21st Century •Transportation mode of preference for policy makers for good economic, environmental and social reasons •Cross border operation essential to serve global markets •But significant underinvestment •No level playing field Setting the Scene Achieving key objectives means •Major modal shift from Road to Rail •Structural changes to make rail more competitive •Major costly infrastructure development •Significant investment in technology and rolling stock Setting the Scene – the Berger Report EUR 13.3 bn p.a. spent in Europe on new rolling stock 370 procurement projects 88% of rolling stock procurement in Europe state financed or underwritten Direct correlation between liberalisation and private finance Setting the Scene Regional considerations •“The connection bridge of Asia with Europe” - Baku-Tbilisi-Kars • Iran and “silk routes” •New rolling stock technology critical •Investment needed – and being committed but resources limited •Where’s the money? The different private finance options Conventional • Manufacturer credit sources of private • Banks funding: • Lessors • Capital markets Not so • Private equity conventional sources: • Pension funds and institutions Problems of bringing in private capital No national title or security registry Identifiers unstable (from a creditor’s perspective)
    [Show full text]
  • Bgr
    Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 09/28/2020 4:52:04 PM From: Tavlarides, Mark <mtavlarides(a)bgrdc.com> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 4:39 PM To: Tavlarides, Mark <mtavlarides(q>bgrdc.com> Subject: Azerbaijan Update Good afternoon, I wanted to bring to your attention a press release from the Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan on the recent attacks by Armenia on Azerbaijani civilians. It can be found here. Since yesterday, September 27, Armenia has launched a large-scale provocation against Azerbaijan, targeting residential areas and the armed forces of Azerbaijan. As a result of massive shelling of Azerbaijani villages, 8 civilians were killed and many more injured. The Azerbaijani Army, using the right of self-defense and in order to protect civilians, reacted through counter-offensive measures. Azerbaijan's operations are conducted within its internationally recognized sovereign territories, and Azerbaijan is abiding by its commitments under international humanitarian law. Azerbaijan has long expressed warnings that it expects larger military provocations by Armenia at any time. Open provocations by the Armenian leadership, especially by Prime Minister Pashinyan; recent intensified reconnaissance; and sabotage activities by Armenia, including using tactical drones against Azerbaijani positions, demonstrate that Armenia was preparing to launch another attack. Armenia has violated all the norms and principles of international law by occupying internationally recognized territories of Azerbaijan, which was condemned by four UN Security Council Resolutions. Against this background, please see attached for relevant information on the latest developments, including the list of Armenian provocations for the last 2 years. Please let me know if you have any questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Dräger in the Mediterranean, Caspian and Black Seas
    Dräger in the Mediterranean, Caspian and Black seas 6 6 Moscow 3 3 1 9a1 2 2 3 1 3 1 4 4 3 1 9b1 5 7 5 1 1 8 Reference Visit website Country Main Head office address Main Service Address 1 Spain Dräger Safety Hispania, S.A. Dräger Safety Hispania, S.A. C/ Xaudaró, C/ Xaudaró, 5 28034 Madrid 5 28034 Madrid Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Telephone: +34 91 728 34 00 Telephone: +34 91 728 34 00 www.draeger.com Atn. al cliente: 90 211 64 24 Atn. al cliente: 90 211 64 24 2 Italy Draeger Safety Italia SPA Draeger Safety Italia SPA Via Galvani 7 Via Galvani 7 20094 Corsico (Milano) 20094 Corsico (Milano) ITALIA ITALIA 20094 20094 www.draeger.com Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Telephone: +39 02 45872.1 Telephone: +39 02 45872.1 3 France Dräger France SAS Dräger France SAS 3 c, route de la Fédération Agence de St Egrève 67025 Strasbourg cedex 10 rue des Platanes France 38120 SAINT EGREVE Email: [email protected] Email : [email protected] www.draeger.com Telephone: +33 (0)3 88 40 76 76 Telephone : +33 (0)4 76 90 71 01 3 Dräger France SAS Agence d’Antony 25 rue Georges Besse 92160 ANTONY Email : [email protected] Telephone : +33 (0)1 46 11 56 00 3 Dräger France SAS Agence de Chateauneuf 29 avenue de Lardière 13220 CHATEAUNEUF LES MARTIGUES Email : [email protected] Telephone : +33 (0)4 42 39 44 01 Reference Visit website Country Main Head office address Main Service Address 4 Romania Dräger Safety Romania SRL Dräger Safety Romania SRL Str.
    [Show full text]
  • A Final Status Vote for Nagorny Karabakh: Choosing Politics?
    Discussion Paper May 2018 A final status vote for Nagorny Karabakh: Choosing politics? Logo using multiply on layers Logo drawn as seperate elements with overlaps coloured seperately Cover photo: Nagorny Karabakh. © Conciliation Resources A final status vote for Nagorny Karabakh: Choosing politics? • 3 Nagorny Karabakh © Conciliation Resources A vote to decide the final political status of This concern is central to the clash between “step- Nagorny Karabakh (NK), the territory at the heart by-step” (phased) or “package” (simultaneous) of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, would mark the approaches to implementing a peace agreement culmination of the Minsk Process, mandated by that has complicated Armenian-Azerbaijani the Organisation of Security and Co-operation negotiations from the outset. in Europe (OSCE). A final status vote would, in In the current climate of militarisation, escalation theory, supersede NK’s preceding interim status, and the possible threat of all-out war, a NK final legitimate its final political identity and bring status vote appears not only an unlikely prospect the 30-year old Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict to but even an inflammatory one. The idea of an open- an end. ended vote on the status of NK strikes at the heart The idea of a final status vote is one of several of the Armenian and Azerbaijani narratives that principles comprising the current peace proposal focus on exclusively retaining or reclaiming control developed by the Minsk Group Co-Chairs for more of the territory respectively. But a final status vote than a decade, known as the Madrid Principles. also offers the only route to a popular mandate and It is the most vulnerable single principle as it is locally generated solution to the conflict, even if this envisaged as being chronologically the last to be looks a distant prospect today.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Azerbaijan (Textbook)
    DILGAM ISMAILOV HISTORY OF AZERBAIJAN (TEXTBOOK) Azerbaijan Architecture and Construction University Methodological Council of the meeting dated July 7, 2017, was published at the direction of № 6 BAKU - 2017 Dilgam Yunis Ismailov. History of Azerbaijan, AzMİU NPM, Baku, 2017, p.p.352 Referents: Anar Jamal Iskenderov Konul Ramiq Aliyeva All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means. Electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner. In Azerbaijan University of Architecture and Construction, the book “History of Azerbaijan” is written on the basis of a syllabus covering all topics of the subject. Author paid special attention to the current events when analyzing the different periods of Azerbaijan. This book can be used by other high schools that also teach “History of Azerbaijan” in English to bachelor students, master students, teachers, as well as to the independent learners of our country’s history. 2 © Dilgam Ismailov, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword…………………………………….……… 9 I Theme. Introduction to the history of Azerbaijan 10 II Theme: The Primitive Society in Azerbaijan…. 18 1.The Initial Residential Dwellings……….............… 18 2.The Stone Age in Azerbaijan……………………… 19 3.The Copper, Bronze and Iron Ages in Azerbaijan… 23 4.The Collapse of the Primitive Communal System in Azerbaijan………………………………………….... 28 III Theme: The Ancient and Early States in Azer- baijan. The Atropatena and Albanian Kingdoms.. 30 1.The First Tribal Alliances and Initial Public Institutions in Azerbaijan……………………………. 30 2.The Kingdom of Manna…………………………… 34 3.The Atropatena and Albanian Kingdoms………….
    [Show full text]
  • Armenia-Azerbaijan Wars: Looking for Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
    Armenia‐Azerbaijan Wars: Looking for Nagorno‐Karabakh Conflict Resolution Air University Advanced Research Program Next Generation Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance Aigerim T. Akhmetova Squadron Officer School Class – 21C March 31, 2021 "Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency." Abstract The Nagorno‐Karabakh territorial dispute is one of the longest inter‐ethnic conflicts from the former Soviet Union, devastating Azerbaijan and Armenia since 1988. The geographic location complicates the situation from a geopolitical perspective by bringing several outside stakeholders to the discussion table. The efforts of one key organization to mitigate the conflict, the Minsk Group, have been questioned by both Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Minsk Group was established in 1992 to provide a peaceful resolution to this territorial dispute by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Competing regional and international interests further complicate this stalemate and finding a single resolution that fits all involved parties’ interests has been an arduous path. This paper explores the complexities of this conflict, discusses if Minsk Group should continue leading negotiation efforts, and proposes possible courses of actions for the international community to take with these countries. Background and Involved Parties The inter‐ethnic tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Karabakh region can be traced back to the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union era (Migdalovitz 2001, 6). For a brief period in 1921, Nagorno‐Karabakh (NK) was part of Armenia before Stalin acknowledged their ties to Azerbaijan (ibid).
    [Show full text]
  • Nagorno-Karabakh Security Situation 5 2.3 Countries Briefing on Armenia and Azerbaijan 6 2.4 Eu Approach and Instruments: a Role for the Eu 7 2.5 Overview 7
    DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES OF THE UNION DIRECTORATE B POLICY DEPARTMENT WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND DEFENCE NAGORNO KARABAKH: SECURITY SITUATION WORKSHOP Held on Wednesday 20 June 2012 14.30 - 16.30 Room: Altiero Spinelli (ASP) 3E2 EXPO/B/AFET/FWC/2009-01/Lot6/18 July 2012 PE 433.836 EN Policy Department DG External Policies This workshop was requested by the European Parliament's Sub-Committee on Security and Defence. AUTHOR: Marco SIDDI, Marie Curie researcher under the Marie Curie Integrated Training Network on EU External Action (EXACT), TEPSA, BELGIUM ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSIBLE: Ulrich KAROCK Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union Policy Department Altiero Spinelli Building (ASP)03F374 rue Wiertz 60 B-1047 Brussels Editorial Assistant: Elina STERGATOU LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Editorial closing date: 25 July 2012. © European Union, 2012 Printed in Belgium ISBN 978-92-823-3790-5 DOI 10.2861/96049 The Information Note is available on the Internet at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies.do?language=EN If you are unable to download the information you require, please request a paper copy by e-mail : [email protected] DISCLAIMER Any opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation, except for commercial purposes, are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and provided the publisher is given prior notice and supplied with a copy of the publication. 2 Workshop Nagorno - Karabakh: security situation TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Brief
    June 2021 An up-to-the-minute guide to developments in the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Foreig national traveling to Azerbaijan In this issue, we woul like to bring required to have a COVID-19 passport to your attention the following information : On June 09, 2021 Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Azerbaijan adopted a Decree on amendments to the “Temporary Rules for ► Foreigners and stateless persons Organization of Flights and Passenger Air Transportation in the Republic traveling to the Republic of of Azerbaijan during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic” (hereinafter Azerbaijan are required to have a referred to as the “Amendments”). COVID- 19 passports Amendments introduced the following requirements for foreign nationals and stateless persons arriving in Azerbaijan by air transport: • Persons over the age of 18 should have (i) COVID-19 passport (a document confirming full vaccination against COVID-19 or immunity to COVID-19); and (ii) Medical certificate confirming a negative COVID-19 PCR test result issued at most 72 hours before the flight; • Passengers aged 1 to 18 years should have medical certificate confirming a negative COVID-19 PCR test result issued at most 72 hours before the flight. As for returning nationals of Azerbaijan, they shall be allowed to travel with a document confirming the negative result of the PCR test issued at most 72 hours before the flight. Əlaqə üçün: Legislative alert | June 2021 Contacts About EY We hope that you will find this overview helpful. For more detailed information, EY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services.
    [Show full text]
  • Nagorno-Karabakh: the Endless Conflict in the Black Garden—Backgr…S of a Seemingly “Unsolvable” Dispute | Toynbee Prize Foundation 24/05/2021, 716 PM
    Nagorno-Karabakh: The endless conflict in the Black Garden—Backgr…s of a seemingly “unsolvable” dispute | Toynbee Prize Foundation 24/05/2021, 7*16 PM Toynbee Prize Foundation Article |May 20, 2021 Nagorno-Karabakh: The endless conflict in the Black Garden—Backgrounds and perspectives of a seemingly “unsolvable” dispute Roland Benedikter is a Toynbee Prize Foundation Trustee, Co-Head of the Center for Advanced Studies of Eurac Research Bozen-Bolzano, Autonomous Province of South Tyrol, Italy, and Research Professor for Multidisciplinary Policy Analysis in residence at the Willy Brandt Center of the University of Wroclaw-Breslau, Poland. https://toynbeeprize.org/posts/nagorno-karabakh-backgrounds-and-perspectives-of-a-seemingly-unsolvable-dispute/ Page 1 of 15 Nagorno-Karabakh: The endless conflict in the Black Garden—Backgr…s of a seemingly “unsolvable” dispute | Toynbee Prize Foundation 24/05/2021, 7*16 PM Following U.S. President Joe Biden’s April 2021 recognition of the mass murder of Armenians in the 20th century as genocide, there is new movement in the Caucasus. Both Turkey and Armenia are involved in the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, the “mountainous black garden” in the South Caucasus. In 2020, the latest war between Azerbaijan and Armenia occurred in a seemingly endless history of conflict. The situation seems intractable to many. The war over the territory has hardened the fronts and plunged Armenia, the losing nation, into chaos. Many questions remain unresolved. Nevertheless, there are (limited) prospects, including the diplomatic initiatives of the OSCE as well as individual states such as Russia. A very special institutional-regulatory model of pacification has been repeatedly brought into play since the 1990s: South Tyrol.
    [Show full text]