The process of delineating the state border between Azerbaijan and Armenia has again moved into the spotlight. Baku recently emphasized that the return of the villages Baghanis Ayrim, Ashagy Askipara, Heyrimli and Gyzyldzhyly in the Gazakh district represents a major diplomatic accomplishment. At the same time, the remaining enclaves — three villages in the Gazakh district and the Nakhchivan village of Karki — remain a priority issue that Azerbaijan insists must be resolved strictly within the mandate of the bilateral delimitation commissions.
On November 8, as Azerbaijan marked Victory Day, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan offered his own assessment. He stated that Armenia, through the delimitation process, expects to regain Artsvashen and other territories it describes as “sovereign.” Pashinyan also stressed that no Armenian leader can renounce what the government considers Armenian territory. He outlined two possible approaches: restoring the administrative borders of the Soviet period or keeping control based on the present reality on the ground. He acknowledged, however, that no agreement exists on either model.
Artsvashen is the Armenian name for the village of Bashkend in Azerbaijan’s Gadabay district, which came under Azerbaijani control in 1992. In principle, the delimitation process should settle such disputes once and for all, but in practice the issue is complicated by internal political tensions — especially during an election season in Armenia. Statements from Armenian officials are often contradictory: Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan has hinted that certain sections of the border might be delineated ahead of schedule to facilitate TRIPP infrastructure development, while parliamentary representatives describe a lengthy process involving protocols, border demarcation, and even the possibility of a referendum if a territorial exchange is proposed.
Inside Armenia, the idea of a territorial exchange is gaining traction, even among Pashinyan’s opponents. Many political actors in Yerevan openly oppose returning the village of Karki, noting its strategic location along a key roadway. As for Artsvashen, Armenian analysts frequently admit that no one would be willing to live in an enclave surrounded by Azerbaijani settlements.
This raises the question: could the issue of enclaves remain unresolved for many years? International practice suggests that such “suspended” disputes can last decades without preventing cooperation in other areas.
Yet there are deeper underlying problems. Armenia continues to accuse Azerbaijan of occupying “sovereign Armenian lands” near the town of Jermuk (historical name: Istisu). Whether these territories were ever Armenian to begin with is highly debatable. During the Soviet period, when borders were not physically marked, a steady shift of Armenian control into Azerbaijani lands occurred, especially on pastures and sparsely populated areas. This trend intensified during the years of occupation. Now these territories are being returned.
The first major example came during the initial round of border delimitation in the south, conducted with Russian mediation. As a result, Azerbaijan regained half of the village of Shurnukh, several strategic heights, and a section of the Yerevan–Meghri highway in the Gubadli district. The same logic applies along other parts of the border: historical maps and Soviet-era records carry significant weight, and Azerbaijan knows how to employ them effectively.
If Armenia now seeks to reclaim territories it never legally possessed — such as areas near Lake Garagel or the Bényük Ishygly volcano — the consequences could be far more serious than routine diplomatic disputes. It is increasingly evident that a significant portion of the Armenian political landscape is not yet ready for a genuine normalization of relations or a complete abandonment of territorial claims — neither on a large scale nor on a local one.
