ABSTRACT
Even though the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has performed mediation efforts in Eurasian secessionist conflicts, its role has been neglected by mainstream international relations (IR) and conflict mediation literature. To fill in this gap, this article examines OSCE mediation strategies in two major secessionist conflicts: the Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Drawing on Zartman’s conceptual framework, this study posits that OSCE mediation strategies were constrained given its weak organisational capacity, lack of legal empowerment and adverse geopolitical environment. Due to these structural limitations, the OSCE can be said to have been more effective in containing conflict than contributing to conflict resolution. This article aims to contribute to conflict mediation research by highlighting the importance of context for understanding the role of international organisations (IOs) as mediators.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 “IOs” refer to intergovernmental organizations or IGOs.
2 A direct format of negotiations in the form of a bilateral meeting between the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan was established in 2004 (International Crisis Group Citation2005).
3 An alternative interpretation of the “freezing role” offered by a reviewer is that while freezing is worse than resolution, it is better than resumption of war which might have taken place without the OSCE in place.