Table of contents introduction

Organizaton for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)

OSCE was established in 1975 (Moldakmet, 2019: 94). This organization, which was previously established as the “Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)”, carried out some successful works and was later named “OSCE” (Khalilov, 2008: 92). The Nagorno-Karabakh problem was characterized as a regional issue until 1992 and was predominantly under the control of the Russian Federation. With the membership of Azerbaijan and Armenia to the OSCE in 1992, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict took an international dimension, and various international security organizations, the USA, France, Turkey and Iran, along with Russia, made mediation attempts. On January 30, 1992, immediately after the membership of Azerbaijan and Armenia to the OSCE, OSCE representatives were sent to the region to solve the problems between them, the situation was determined and Karabakh was approved as belonging to Azerbaijan in the negotiations held in Prague on February 27-28, 1992. (Allahverdiyev, 2010: 112).

Since 1993, although Azerbaijan has approached the proposals for the continuation of peace negotiations within the framework of the OSCE positively, it has not come to an agreement with Armenia (Caferov and Aslanlı, 2016: 247). In 1994, as a result of pressure, a ceasefire was signed as of May, but a lasting peace could not be achieved as a result (Khalilov, 2008: 93).

At the OSCE Budapest Summit held in December 1994, the Minsk Group had a structural change and passed into the co-chairmanship system until then. During the meeting, Russia took the permanent co-chairmanship of the Minsk Group and thus its reaction was suppressed. It was tried to prevent the solution from leaving the OSCE framework and passing to Russia alone (Aliyev, 2006: 128). The United States, France, and Russia are ratified as co-presidential states. It is envisaged to create proposals for the peaceful resolution of this conflict to maintain and develop peace and the previous mediation initiative. It was decided that the said measures would be carried out within the framework of the principles determined at the Lisbon Summit of the OSCE. This decision, which is based on the basic principles of recognizing the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and Armenia, granting Nagorno-Karabakh the highest autonomy status in Azerbaijan, and ensuring the security of the population living in the region on the basis of the responsibility of the parties, was accepted by 53 states excluding Armenia. (Moldakmet, 2019: 101).

In the negotiations held within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group in 1995, a solution could not be developed as a result of the incompatible approaches of the Armenians. The approach of this Minsk Group and its member states has made no progress in solving the problem; in a sense, it was left to time (Khalilov, 2008: 93).

On 15-18 June 1996, a new negotiation was held in Moscow by the OSCE Minsk Group on the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani lands. During the talks, the evacuation of Shusha and Lachin and ensuring the security of the parties were brought to the agenda. The negotiation held in Stockholm on 1-5 July in the same year was also a continuation of these talks. Since the attitude of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs in the said two meetings shifted towards the demands of the Armenian side, all of the proposals presented were rejected by Azerbaijan (Aliyev, 2006: 132-133).

The OSCE Minsk group continued its work and submitted three separate proposals and proposals: “package solution” proposal in June 1997, “progressive solution” in October 1997 and “common state” projects in November 1998. Armenia rejected the first two offers and Azerbaijan rejected the last offer. In all of the aforementioned plans, articles such as signing a definitive peace treaty, leaving the Armenian troops out of the territory of Azerbaijan, leaving the former DKÖB troops from the territory of Azerbaijan, excluding Lachin, and ensuring the return of the Azerbaijani people to their lands were foreseen. The difference between the plans is only the stages in which the process will take place and the arrangement of the planned structure (Khalilov, 2008: 93-94).

As a result; The OSCE security concept is global and has no defense dimension. In addition, since it does not have the authority to order coercive measures, it has acted together with international institutions such as the UN, NATO, WEU and the EU, which have this mission. Despite making very ambitious promises, it does not seem capable of realizing them and has to cooperate with states. Since this was structured according to national interests, the system could not function as a result (Moldakmet, 2019: 106-107).

2.