The Military Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution: Negotiation Dynamics in the Second Karabakh War
Abstract
Purpose: to examine how Azerbaijan’s military-political strategy shaped the international diplomatic landscape and contributed to the formulation of the eventual ceasefire agreement during the Second Karabakh War
Method: Qualitative research methods, such as Comparative Analysis, Synthesis and Case Studies.
Theoretical implications: Amid ongoing academic debates on conflict resolution and their eventual outcomes, the role and significance of negotiations have come to the forefront. Negotiations play a pivotal role in military conflicts, serving as instruments for de-escalation, conflict resolution, and post-war settlements. This paper examines the role of negotiations in one of the contemporary conflicts—the 44-day Second Karabakh War (2020) between Armenia and Azerbaijan—drawing on various negotiation theories. The study explores the mechanisms, challenges, and outcomes of negotiation processes in this war, with a particular focus on third-party mediation, diplomatic maneuvering, and the strategic use of dialogue in military diplomacy. The paper highlights the effectiveness of Azerbaijan's military-political strategy and how it influenced the international diplomatic landscape, ultimately shaping the final ceasefire agreement. By analyzing the interaction between battlefield realities and diplomatic efforts, this paper offers a novel perspective on conflict resolution and military diplomacy in the context of contemporary interstate wars. The research highlights the effectiveness of mediation efforts and explores their broader implications for conflict resolution. The findings make a valuable contribution to the academic discourse on defense diplomacy, offering insights into how negotiations influence wartime dynamics and shape post-conflict security environments.
Theoretical implications: This paper contributes to the theoretical discourse on conflict resolution, military diplomacy and negotiation theory by demonstrating how diplomacy and battlefield success can recalibrate negotiation dynamics in modern interstate conflicts.
Practical implications: The findings of this paper offer valuable insights for policymakers, defense strategists and diplomatic practitioners engaged in conflict resolution and post-war reconstruction.
Value: Using the Second Karabakh War as a modern case study, this paper makes a meaningful contribution to scholarly and policy-level discussions on conflict resolution, military diplomacy and negotiation strategies.
Paper type: theoretical.
Downloads
References
Atnashev, M. & Bell, A. (2024). Will a ceasefire remain elusive? Assessing negotiation readiness in the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia Matters, 25 September. Available at: https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/will-ceasefire-remain-elusive-assessing-negotiation-readiness-russia-ukraine-war (Accessed: 25 March 2025).
AzerNews. (2022). Azerbaijan's Ganja got bombed 5 times by Armenia... why world community remains silent? Available at: https://www.azernews.az (Accessed: 10 March 2025).
Bercovitch, J. & Jackson, R. (2009). Conflict resolution in the twenty-first century: principles, methods, and approaches. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Berridge, G.R., Keens-Soper, M. & Otte, T.G. (2001). Diplomatic theory from Machiavelli to Kissinger. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cottey, A., & Forster, A. (2004). Reshaping Defence Diplomacy: New Roles for Military Cooperation and Assistance. Oxford University Press.
Faizullaev, A. (2014). Diplomatic interactions and negotiations, Negotiation Journal, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp. 275-299. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12061.
Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. 3rd ed. New York: Penguin Books.
Foster, J.L. & Brewer, G.D. (1976). And the clocks were striking thirteen: The termination of war. The Rand Corporation and Yale University.
George, A.L. (1994). The limits of coercive diplomacy. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Guner, E., Iskandarov, K. & Gawliczek, P. (2022). Theories of war in practice: causes and termination (in the example of the Second Karabakh War). Wiedza Obronna, 281(4), pp. 53-70. https://doi.org/10.34752/2022-c281.
Hasanov, A.H., Iskandarov, K.I., & Sadiyev, S.S. (2019). The evolution of NATO's cyber security policy and future prospects. Journal of Defense Resources Management, 10(1), pp. 94-106. Available at: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=770728 (Accessed: 31 March, 2025).
Hayes, A. (2024). Game theory: a comprehensive guide. Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gametheory.asp?utm_source=chatgpt.com (Accessed: 2 April 2025).
Iskandarov, K. & Gawliczek, P. (2021a). Characteristic features of the second Karabakh war. Social Development and Security, 11(3), pp. 30-40. https://doi.org/10.33445/sds.2021.11.3.3.
Iskandarov, K., Gawliczek, P., & Dadashzade, V. (2024). The Theories of war in practice: possible outcomes and means for the termination of war. Case study: Russian war against Ukraine. Social Development and Security, 14(4), pp. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.33445/sds.2024.14.4.1.
Iskandarov, K., Gawliczek, P., & Gojayev, E. (2024). The Implementation mechanism of military diplomacy (the republic of Azerbaijan as a case study). Social Development and Security, 14(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.33445/sds.2024.14.2.1
Iskandarov, K., Gawliczek, P. & Tomasik, J. (2022). Termination of war: factors affecting the outcome (in the example of the Second Karabakh War). Civitas et Lex, 35(3), pp. 7-17. Available at: https://czasopisma.uwm.edu.pl/index.php/cel/article/view/7736/6136 (Accessed: 1 April, 2025).
Iskandarov, K., & Gawliczek, P. (2021b). The second Karabakh war as a war of new generation. Social Development and Security, 11(2), 91-99. https://doi.org/10.33445/sds.2021.11.2.9
Jackson, R. (2000). Successful Negotiation in International Violent Conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 37(3), pp. 323–343. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/425348.
Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lyons, S.W. (2019). Joint Declaration of Peace and Friendship between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-legal-materials/article/abs/joint-declaration-of-peace-and-friendship-between-eritrea-and-ethiopia/76C651A25602F6DF3E2D62B01BC5984E (Accessed: 24 April 2025).
Maschler, M., Solan, E. & Zamir, S. (2013). Bargaining games. In: Game Theory. Cambridge University Press. pp. 622-658.
Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Azerbaijan. (2020). The enemy is shelling our human settlements. 25 October. Available at: https://mod.gov.az/en/news/the-enemy-is-shelling-our-human-settlements-33301.html (Accessed: 26 March, 2025).
Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T. & Miall, H. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rojot, J. (1991). Negotiation: From theory to practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11445-0.
Schelling, T.C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press.
Shnirelman, V. (2021). A traumatic memory: How to study and to interpret it. Sibirskie istoricheskie issledovaniya, (2), pp. 13–23.
Zartman, I.W. (2008). Negotiation and Conflict Management: Essays on Theory and Practice. Routledge.
Abstract views: 13 PDF Downloads: 9
Copyright (c) 2025 Khayal Iskandarov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors agree with the following conditions:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication (Download agreement) with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors have the right to complete individual additional agreements for the non-exclusive spreading of the journal’s published version of the work (for example, to post work in the electronic repository of the institution or to publish it as part of a monograph), with the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal.
3. Journal’s politics allows and encourages the placement on the Internet (for example, in the repositories of institutions, personal websites, SSRN, ResearchGate, MPRA, SSOAR, etc.) manuscript of the work by the authors, before and during the process of viewing it by this journal, because it can lead to a productive research discussion and positively affect the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
