IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/joupea/v36y1999i6p709-727.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hurting Stalemate or Mediation? The Conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, 1990-95

Author

Listed:
  • Moorad Mooradian
  • Daniel Druckman

    (Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University)

Abstract

The impacts of six attempts to mediate the conflict over the political status of Nagorno-Karabakh in the Caucasus region of the former Soviet Union were compared. Each mediation was intended to get the direct parties - Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh - to the negotiating table. Nearly 4,000 events were recorded for a six-year period from 1990 through 1995. Each event was coded in terms of a six-step scale ranging from a significant action toward peace (+3) to substantial violence directed at an adversary (-3). Time-series analyses of changes in the extent of violence showed no change from before to after any of the mediations. A significant change did occur, however, between the months preceding and following the period of intensive combat between April 1993 and February 1994. These results support the hypothesis that a mutually hurting stalemate is a condition for negotiating a ceasefire and reduced violence between warring parties. A number of theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Moorad Mooradian & Daniel Druckman, 1999. "Hurting Stalemate or Mediation? The Conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, 1990-95," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 36(6), pages 709-727, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:36:y:1999:i:6:p:709-727
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/36/6/709.abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arnaud Stimec & Patrice Guillotreau & Jean Poitras, 2011. "Ripeness and Grief in Conflict Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 489-507, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:36:y:1999:i:6:p:709-727. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.prio.no/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.