تبیین درگیری قره‌باغ از دیدگاه نظری با ‌تأکید بر مناظرۀ نو- نو

Introduction: The collapse of the Soviet Union was accompanied by border, ethnic and geopolitical crises in the territories that subsequently became independent. The resulting power vacuum led to the formation of a region with an anarchic structure. The diversity of ethnicities, religions and linguistic issues in this region and the imposed and heterogeneous borders, coupled with this ethnic, religious and linguistic plurality and the lack of development of the state-nation building process, have confronted this region with challenges that have resulted in wars in recent decades. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which began in 1988 and continues to this day, is one of the most important crises in the region and has regional and international dimensions. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict led to the loss of about 20% of the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the forced displacement of Azeris in this region. The Karabakh region, which had an independent parliament, voted for the region’s independence and its annexation to Armenia and the Artsakh government was supported by Armenia, despite international institutions especially the United Nations Security Council, emphasizing it through numerous resolutions. Karabakh and its surrounding areas belong to the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Armenia was asked to use its influence over the Armenians of Karabakh to force them to comply with the Security Council resolutions, but various factors prevented the peaceful return of the occupied territories to the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Research question: The main issue that arises is how can the Karabakh crisis and its beginning and end be explained from the perspective of the Neo-Neo debate?
Research hypothesis: The main hypothesis is that the military solution to the Karabakh crisis and the ineffectiveness of institutions such as the Minsk Group demonstrate the superiority of neorealism indicators (self-help, power maximization in an anarchic environment) over neoliberalism (cooperation and international institutions) in explaining this conflict.


Methodology and theoretical framework: This research is a qualitive research type, using a descriptive - analytical approach based on the neo-neo debate, examining the Karabakh conflict.
Result and discussion: The analysis of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through the lens of neorealism and neoliberalism reveals that, within the anarchic structure of the international system and the absence of effective mechanisms to enforce legal norms, neorealist explanatory indicators hold greater persuasive power. The failure of international institutions such as the Minsk Group to manage the crisis over three decades, coupled with the conflict’s eventual resolution through the 2020 war and Azerbaijan’s use of force, underscores the limitations of liberal institutions in mitigating tensions when states prioritize self-help and power maximization as the primary means to achieve national security. From a neorealist perspective, the behavior of the involved states in Nagorno-Karabakh can be understood through the logic of power balancing, security competition, and structural distrust. Armenia’s efforts to assert regional hegemony by supporting Artsakh and Azerbaijan’s military driven campaign to reclaim territories bolstered by alliances with extra-regional actors like Turkey and Israel reflect the primacy of “security through power” over “security through cooperation.”  Conversely, neoliberalism, which emphasizes the potential for cooperation in an anarchic system and the role of institutions in reducing negotiation costs, failed to validate its assumptions in this conflict. The Minsk Group’s ineffectiveness, as a symbol of liberal institutionalism, stemmed not only from structural weaknesses but also from the actors’ reluctance to bear the costs of collective commitments. When hardcore national interests (such as territorial integrity) clash with international norms, states prefer unilateral security strategies rooted in self-help and temporary alliances over multilateral mechanisms.  This study demonstrates that in deeply rooted geopolitical disputes characterized by a “zero-sum game” dynamic, classical realist theories-particularly those emphasizing hard power and national sovereignty remain a more robust analytical framework for explaining state behavior. However, this conclusion does not wholly negate the utility of international institutions. Rather, it highlights that their efficacy depends on a minimal level of trust and shared interests among actors a condition conspicuously absent in the Nagorno-Karabakh case. The conflict ultimately reaffirms that in anarchic systems where distrust prevails, states gravitate toward power-centric realism, even as institutional cooperation retains potential in less adversarial contexts.  
Conclusion: The findings of this research show that despite the efforts of international organizations and institutions to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis in the Caucasus, these measures have not been successful and the countries involved in this crisis resorted to military measures against each other, so this shows that in the Caucasus region and in relation to the Karabakh crisis, Neo-Realist approaches have dominated the policies and actions of the countries involved in this region and the Neo-Liberal approaches that emphasize cooperation and the role of international institutions have failed to be effective in resolving this crisis.