Pashinyan was the first to announce this at a press conference in Yerevan, stating that as an interim step, the signing of a protocol to initial the agreement’s text was under consideration. Later, at the Shusha Global Media Forum, President Ilham Aliyev confirmed this, noting that the initiative to initial the agreement came from the Azerbaijani side.
Hikmet Hajiyev, the Azerbaijani President’s foreign policy advisor, also clarified at the forum that Azerbaijan proposed initialing the peace agreement as a provisional measure. According to Hajiyev, this could be done even before the OSCE Minsk Group is formally dissolved and before Armenia’s constitution is amended. He emphasized that since negotiations are ongoing, it is premature to talk about exact dates for the initialing.
It is worth recalling that the draft peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia was finalized as early as March this year, marking the end of the second stage of the treaty process—following its drafting and mutual approval. In diplomatic practice, treaty preparation involves appointing negotiators—in this case, the foreign ministers of both countries—who have already held a series of direct meetings to develop the final version of the document.
However, for the agreement to acquire official status, it must be signed by the heads of state. This step remains unlikely at present, as Azerbaijan insists on two additional preconditions: the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group and the removal of any mention or claims regarding Nagorno-Karabakh from Armenia’s constitution. These demands were reiterated by President Aliyev at the media forum in Shusha, where he stressed that a peace deal cannot be signed until these conditions are met.
Under these circumstances, initialing the finalized text appears to be the most rational and realistic path forward. In diplomacy, initialing typically signals that both sides agree to the final version of a document. It prevents further amendments, distortions, or the addition of new provisions, effectively safeguarding the integrity of the text.
Once initialed, the text is submitted to the heads of state for final signatures, at which point it gains legal force. In substance, an initialed and signed treaty are identical—the difference lies in their legal standing: a signed treaty becomes binding, while an initialed one represents preliminary consent.
The term initialing derives from the French paraphe, meaning “initial” or “signature,” itself rooted in the Greek paragraphos. In diplomatic language, it distinguishes between negotiators’ signatures and those of heads of state. Thus, initialing serves as a non-binding endorsement of the agreed text.
If Armenia and Azerbaijan succeed in initialing the peace agreement, it will not signal the achievement of lasting peace but will constitute a vital step toward it. Initialing by the foreign ministers means the document will remain unchanged and be signed in the exact form approved by both sides.
It should be noted that even initialed agreements do not always proceed to full signature. There are precedents in international practice where initialed treaties were never finalized. However, under current conditions, initialing appears to be the most realistic opportunity for advancing the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Otherwise, the process would have to wait for constitutional amendments in Armenia—something that may not happen until next year, if at all. Moreover, should the proposed new Armenian constitution fail in a national referendum, it could stall or derail the peace process entirely.
At this stage, the United States is actively involved in mediation, both directly and through Turkey. After the Abu Dhabi talks, President Donald Trump publicly stated twice that peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia is within reach thanks to Washington’s support. This reflects the U.S. administration’s expectation of tangible progress in the near future. Some speculate that Trump sees the South Caucasus peace deal as a potential stepping stone toward receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.
Given Armenia’s current refusal to meet Azerbaijan’s two key demands, the signing of a final peace treaty remains unlikely in the coming months.
Nevertheless, initialing the agreement stands out as the most feasible option—not only from Baku’s point of view, but also from that of the White House, as it could serve as a symbol of meaningful progress toward lasting peace.
If initialing is achieved, only two steps will remain: formal signing of the treaty by the heads of state, and its ratification by the parliaments of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia.
Farhad Mammadov
Translated from haqqin.az
