Peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia: a chance for lasting peace

The signing of a peace declaration between Azerbaijan and Armenia at the White House has captured global media attention. The document, comprising seventeen points, remains partially undisclosed. However, it is known that both parties have affirmed mutual recognition of sovereignty and territorial integrity, agreed to foster economic cooperation, and established the opening of a transit route, dubbed the "Trump Route," connecting mainland Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan. Media reports indicate the declaration also includes a mutual renunciation of international legal claims and a prohibition on deploying third-country troops along the border.

At first glance, this appears to mark the end of a conflict that began in 1987. Yet, the history of global politics and international relations suggests that a signed treaty is merely a formal framework that may enshrine peace on paper but does not guarantee it in reality. Decades of confrontation have left deep wounds, devastated communities, and memories of violence and loss on both sides, which will not vanish simply because leaders have signed an agreement.

For this reason, transitional justice is a critical tool for ensuring lasting peace. Far more than a set of legal procedures, transitional justice is a comprehensive approach that combines accountability for those responsible for international crimes or gross human rights violations with measures to restore societal trust. It encompasses truth-telling about the past, honoring victims’ memories, restoring justice, and implementing institutional reforms to prevent conflict recurrence. Transitional justice does not merely "close" the chapter on war but helps societies process trauma and find grounds for coexistence. For Azerbaijan and Armenia, this could be the most promising path forward. This approach is equally vital for Ukraine, which faces the challenge not only of defending its territory but also of building conditions for a durable and just peace in the future.

However, media reports suggest that both parties have waived mutual legal claims, making full implementation of transitional justice impossible. An alternative approach to consider is consociationalism, a model of governance that emphasizes power-sharing among key societal groups to ensure none feel marginalized or disenfranchised. Consociationalism can serve as an alternative to transitional justice: it does not address accountability for past wrongs but establishes institutional mechanisms to reduce the likelihood of new conflicts. This approach is particularly useful when parties are unwilling to pursue judicial reckoning for past events but seek to consolidate peace. It is based on inclusive decision-making, mutual veto rights on issues affecting fundamental interests, and autonomy in internal affairs. This model proved effective in reducing violence in Northern Ireland, where the 1998 Good Friday Agreement created mechanisms for shared governance between Catholic nationalists and Protestant unionists. While it did not resolve all tensions, it transformed armed conflict into political dialogue.

Admittedly, classical consociationalism typically addresses intra-state issues, making it less directly applicable to regions like Karabakh or Syunik. However, adapting its principles could strengthen the outcomes of the peace agreement. This could involve:

1. Interstate Level: Establishing permanent joint commissions with equal representation and veto powers to address security, economic, and cultural heritage preservation issues.
2. Diaspora and Humanitarian Dimension: Guaranteeing the preservation and unrestricted access to cultural heritage sites, religious landmarks, and ancestral graves for Azerbaijanis in Armenia and Armenians in Azerbaijan.
3. Economic Sphere: Creating joint border economic zones and implementing major infrastructure and energy projects, such as transport corridors, that align the resources and interests of both nations with self-governing mechanisms.

Achieving lasting peace while entirely bypassing transitional justice is possible but significantly more challenging. Approaches like consociationalism or the Northern Ireland model offer viable alternatives, though they often incorporate elements of acknowledgment, dialogue, or restorative justice, even if not in a formal judicial format. Instead of investigations and punishment for past wrongs, consociationalism provides guarantees of future security and cooperation through institutionalized frameworks. Rather than apologies or reparations, it offers mechanisms for equal representation in addressing shared issues, reducing the risk of renewed conflict due to political exclusion or revanchism.

Peace is always more than a diplomatic document. It is a process where every step matters: from acknowledging the truth and honoring victims to creating a political system capable of withstanding conflicting interests. History shows that without these elements, even the most detailed agreements risk becoming mere words on paper. True peace emerges when societies are ready not only to coexist but to see each other as equal and worthy partners in a shared future.