Abu Dhabi / Baku / Yerevan
On July 10, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan held another round of high-level peace talks in Abu Dhabi, marking a continuation of bilateral efforts to end decades of conflict. The meeting began in an extended format with both countries’ delegations and later proceeded behind closed doors in a one-on-one session between the two leaders.
The agenda remained focused on core issues that have long defined the trajectory of the peace process: border demarcation, the future of the Zangezur Corridor, the prospect of signing a final peace agreement, and ways to exit the prolonged period of mistrust and hostility. Both sides reaffirmed their readiness to continue dialogue at both the technical and political levels.
Two Main Obstacles to Final Agreement
Despite the constructive tone, experts caution that two unresolved issues continue to block the finalization of the agreement:
Armenia’s Constitution still contains territorial claims against Azerbaijan, a sticking point that Baku insists must be addressed before peace can be formalized.
The OSCE Minsk Group, although inactive in practice, still formally exists under international law—a situation that complicates efforts to close the conflict legally and diplomatically.
Former Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov, speaking to Vesti.az, said that no one seriously expected a signed agreement in Abu Dhabi, but the meeting did produce a key result:
“The atmosphere of the official statements from both sides was moderately positive. The most important outcome was confirmation that both parties are now close to the point of initialing the text of a peace agreement,” he said.
Constitution and Corridor: Political and Legal Dilemmas
Mammadyarov noted that there have been signs of movement from Yerevan regarding constitutional reform, though changes to foundational documents often face strong domestic resistance. Meanwhile, the future of the OSCE Minsk Group may remain unresolved until after a peace agreement is signed and ratified.
He also emphasized the importance of addressing technical but sensitive issues such as the demarcation of borders. While 12 km in the north have already been agreed upon, greater attention must now shift to the southern segment, particularly the Zangezur Corridor.
“To open the corridor—whether rail or road—requires operational customs, border, sanitary, and veterinary services. Without legally defined borders, that’s not feasible,” he warned.
Security is another concern. Under Point 8 of the 2020 trilateral agreement, Russia’s FSB Border Service is assigned to protect the corridor. But if a new peace treaty replaces the 2020 deal, what happens to that clause?
“If a passenger train is attacked or shot at, who takes responsibility? Without a new security framework—possibly involving international oversight—any such incident could spark escalation,” Mammadyarov said.
A Post-Moscow Era?
Mammadyarov argued that once a peace deal is signed, it should supersede the 2020 Russia-brokered ceasefire, effectively ending Moscow’s formal role as guarantor.
“This raises the question of where the peace deal should be signed. My position is that it should happen at the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, without foreign mediators. That would reflect the maturity and sovereignty of both nations,” he said.
The U.S. Role: Present, But Ambiguous
The United States has expressed public support for the peace process. Senator Marco Rubio recently urged the swift signing of a deal, and State Department spokesperson Temmi Bruce confirmed Washington’s involvement in “certain aspects” without elaborating. Analysts speculate that this may include logistical consulting or private sector involvement, such as American firms eyeing roles in the Zangezur Corridor.
But Mammadyarov was skeptical about such involvement, especially given the presence of Russian troops in the region and the continued operation of Russia’s military base in Gyumri.
“The peace process is moving, but many of the core mechanisms remain incomplete. There are no mutual legal guarantees, no final border agreements, and no clear security arrangements. Initialing the peace text is a symbolic step—but without consensus on key issues, it risks being just that: symbolic,” he concluded.
He added that maintaining direct, mediator-free dialogue between Baku and Yerevan is a positive trend, but now that process must be institutionalized through legal frameworks, roadmaps, and enforceable agreements.
