Nagorno-Karabakh: 2020 war and the new geopolitical reality.
| Název práce v češtině: | Náhorní Karabach: válka v roce 2020 a nová geopolitická realita |
|---|---|
| Název v anglickém jazyce: | Nagorno-Karabakh: 2020 war and the new geopolitical reality. |
| Klíčová slova: | Náhorní Karabach, válka, Turecko, Rusko, geopolitika |
| Klíčová slova anglicky: | Nagorno Karabakh, war, Turkey, Russia, geopolitics |
| Akademický rok vypsání: | 2020/2021 |
| Typ práce: | diplomová práce |
| Jazyk práce: | angličtina |
| Ústav: | Katedra politologie (23-KP) |
| Vedoucí / školitel: | doc. Martin Riegl, Ph.D. |
| Řešitel: | skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem |
| Datum přihlášení: | 29.12.2020 |
| Datum zadání: | 29.12.2020 |
| Datum a čas obhajoby: | 19.09.2022 10:15 |
| Místo konání obhajoby: | Pekařská 16, JPEK312, 312, Malá učebna, 3.patro |
| Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: | 10.08.2022 |
| Datum proběhlé obhajoby: | 19.09.2022 |
| Oponenti: | Mgr. Bohumil Doboš, Ph.D. |
| Kontrola URKUND: | |
| Zásady pro vypracování |
| Topic characteristics / Research Question(s):
My thesis will focus on the following general research question: How the second Nagorno-Karabakh war of 2020 altered the geopolitical situation of the region. Nagorno-Karabakh is not only a unique case of a de facto state, but the conflict itself is a crossroad of interests of many external actors such as Russia, Iran, Turkey, USA, EU, etc. After three decades of advantageous positions of the Republic of Armenia following the victory in the first Nagorno-Karabakh war, in the aftermath of the second war, Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey, was able to take under its control the claimed surrounding seven regions and a part of Nagorno-Karabakh as well. Meanwhile, in the remaining part of the de facto state (Republic of Artsakh) Russian peacekeepers were located, resulting in substantial decrease of Armenian influence. The region has become more destabilized and vulnerable. Active military actions were ceased, but the tension remains especially in the process of new border demarcations. Besides, taking into account geopolitical aspirations of different actors, especially Turkey, the threat of war is still present. The deployment of terrorists from Syria and Libya via Turkey, which was confirmed by OSCE Minsk Group’s three co-chair countries (France, USA, Russia), has also increased the chances of terrorism inflow to the region with all possible consequences. Violations of international conventions and human rights, commitment of war crimes are all a part of this conflict and have not been addressed appropriately. I will try to show how the situation has changed since 1990s, which factors were crucial, why the second war started, what were the roles of the media and international community, what are the current threats for the region in general, as well as for different actors and discuss the possible consequences of the 2020 war. I will use scientific literature, online resources, media publications, and additionally collect some data myself. Working hypotheses: 1. Armenia failed to prepare for the war appropriately both from military and diplomatic perspectives. 2. Turkey extends its sphere of influence and has further geopolitical aspirations. 3. Russia gained the most in the aftermath of the second Nagorno-Karabakh war. Methodology: Mainly, the qualitative methodology will be used in this thesis, including observations, textual or visual analysis, different primary and secondary sources will be used, as well as narrative analysis will be conducted to analyze content from various sources. In order to identify cause-effect relationships between diverse factors and events such as political, economic or media, quantitative method will also be used. |
| Seznam odborné literatury |
| Butler, M. J. (2009). International Conflict Management. Routledge.
Collins, A. (2018). Contemporary Security Studies. Oxford. Engel F. (2013) The Karabakh Dilemma: Right to Self-Determination, Imperative of Territorial Integrity, or a Caucasian New Deal?. In: Kambeck M., Ghazaryan S. (eds) Europe’s Next Avoidable War. Palgrave Macmillan, London. Finnemore , M. (2004). The Purpose of Intervention. Manas Publications. Jackson, R. (1999). Sovereignty in World Politics: a Glance at a Conceptual and Historical Landspace. Political Studies, 431-456. Manasyan, A. (2017). HISTORY ARGUMENTS IN THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS OF KARABAKH CONFLICT RESOLUTION. Yerevan. Manasyan, A. (2019). Artsakh Conflict. Yerevan. O’Loughlin, J., Kolossov, V., & Toal, G. (2015). Inside the post-Soviet de facto states a comparison of attitudes in Abkhazia, Nagorny Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Transnistria. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 423-456. Sterio, M. (2010). On the Right to External SelfDetermination: “Selfistans,” Secession, and the Great Powers’ Rule. Minnesota Journal of International Law. Wallensteen, P. (2012). Understanding Conflict Resolution. Sage. |
| Předběžná náplň práce |
| 1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction 1.2 Research questions 1.3 Research methods 2. Historical overview 2.1 Historical roots of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict 2.2 First Nagorno-Karabakh war 2.3 Conflict between 1994-2020 2.4 Self-determination or territorial integrity? 3. External interests and actors 3.1 Russia 3.2 Turkey 3.3 Iran 3.4 EU 3.5 USA 4. 2020 War 4.1 Main developments 4.2 New factors and actors 4.3 Media and Propaganda 4.4 Terrorism, violations and war crimes 4.5 International institutions and community 4.6 Ceasefire 5. Aftermath of the war 5.1 New situation 5.2 Gainers and losers 5.3 Future threats 5.4 Predictions 6. Conclusion 7. Bibliography |
| Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce |
| 1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction 1.2 Research questions 1.3 Research methods 2. Historical overview 2.1 Historical roots of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict 2.2 First Nagorno-Karabakh war 2.3 Conflict between 1994-2020 2.4 Self-determination or territorial integrity? 3. External interests and actors 3.1 Russia 3.2 Turkey 3.3 Iran 3.4 EU 3.5 USA 4. 2020 War 4.1 Main developments 4.2 New factors and actors 4.3 Media and Propaganda 4.4 Terrorism, violations and war crimes 4.5 International institutions and community 4.6 Ceasefire 5. Aftermath of the war 5.1 New situation 5.2 Gainers and losers 5.3 Future threats 5.4 Predictions 6. Conclusion 7. Bibliography |