In the seventh article in our “RSC Guest Analysis” publication series, entitled “Land for Peace: A Comparative Analysis of the Cases of Israel and Nagorno-Karabakh,” RSC Resident Fellow Lynette Hacopian offers an innovative comparative assessment of the concept of “land for peace” in the cases of Israel and Nagorno-Karabakh. Hacopian argues that “of the many aspects of the complex Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the core issues of self determination and territorial integrity have presented a challenging clash or even contradiction of key principles of international law. Within the framework of diplomacy and mediation, there is also a related issue of the need for concession and compromise, largely defined by the surrender of Armenian-held, or ‘occupied,’ territories of Azerbaijan proper beyond the borders of Nagorno-Karabakh, in exchange for the self-determination of Karabakh through a referendum on final status.”
She further states that “while this issue of ‘land for peace’ continues to be a highly charged and daunting aspect of the Karabakh peace process, there are interesting and pertinent lessons learned from other cases of the concept of land for peace, namely in the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, or more precisely, regarding the issue of Palestinian statehood in exchange for peace with Israel. Therefore, this analysis seeks to present specific lessons learned from the Israeli case and to demonstrate the comparative relevance to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.”
She concludes her analysis by contending that “due to Azerbaijan’s behavior and maximalist policy towards Armenia, a giveaway of the occupied territories, comprised of seven districts, to Azerbaijan will prove detrimental to the peace process and will put Armenia at a geographical disadvantage.”
http://regional-studies.org/images/pr/2016/december/02/RSC_Guest_Analysis_7_Hacopian_12.16.pdf