Current Affairs

2 Week of April 2025

nd
 30 Maoists Shot Dead-
Naxalism Evolution
30 Maoists Shot Dead-Naxalism
Evolution
 Why in news?

• At least 30 Maoists were killed in

two separate encounters in the
Bastar region of Chhattisgarh
on March 20, 2025.
• The encounters were part of the
Indian government’s intensified
operations to combat left-wing
extremism under the Naxal
Mukt Bharat Abhiyan. This
major success comes amidst
increasing efforts by the
government to eradicate Maoist
influence in the region.
 Encounter 1
Encounter in Bijapur District:
• Location and Timing: The operation took
place in the dense forests near Andri village,
situated along the border of Bijapur and
Dantewada districts. The encounter
commenced around 7:00 AM.
• Operational Details: A joint team comprising
the District Reserve Guard (DRG), Special
Task Force (STF), Bastar Fighters, and
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
launched an anti-Maoist operation based on
specific intelligence inputs indicating the
presence of Maoist cadres in the area.
• An intense gunfight ensued, lasting several
hours, resulting in the neutralisation of 26
Maoists, including 15 women. During the
exchange, Raju Oyam, a DRG jawan from
 Encounter 2

Encounter in Kanker District:

• Location: The operation occurred in a
forested area near the Abujhmad jungle,
along the Kanker-Narayanpur border.
• Operational Details: A joint team of Border
Security Force (BSF) and DRG personnel
acted on intelligence regarding a significant
Maoist gathering. The ensuing firefight led to
the elimination of four Maoists, including a
woman cadre. No security personnel were
injured in this operation.
 Origins of Naxalism
• The Naxalbari Uprising (1967): The
genesis of Naxalism can be traced to the Nexalbari
Naxalbari village in West Bengal. In Village
March 1967, a sharecropper was attacked by
local landlords over a land dispute. This
incident ignited a peasant uprising led by
local communist leaders, notably Charu
Majumdar, Kanu Sanyal, and Jangal
Santhal. The revolt aimed at redistributing
land to the landless and challenged the
prevailing feudal structures.
• Ideological Foundations: The movement
drew inspiration from Mao Zedong’s
principles of agrarian revolution and
protracted people’s war. Charu Majumdar’s
“Historic Eight Documents” became the
ideological bedrock, advocating for armed
 Key
Developments
Formation of the Communist Spread and Intensification
Party of India (Marxist- (1970s–1980s):
Leninist) [CPI(ML)]: • Geographical Expansion: The
• Establishment (1969): The Naxalite movement rapidly
Naxalbari uprising spread to states such as Andhra
culminated in the formation of Pradesh, Bihar, Odisha, and
the CPI(ML) in April 1969. Kerala.
Announced by Kanu Sanyal in • In Andhra Pradesh, the
Calcutta, the party sought to Srikakulam peasant uprising
propagate the Naxalite became a notable extension of
ideology across India, the Naxalbari movement,
advocating for the overthrow where tribal peasants took up
of the bourgeoisie state arms against oppressive
through armed revolution. landlords.
Fragmentation and Resurgence (1980s–
2000s):
• Emergence of Factions: The late 1970s and early
1980s witnessed the fragmentation of the Naxalite
movement into various factions. Notably, the
People’s War Group (PWG) was formed in 1980
under the leadership of Kondapalli
Seetharamaiah, operating primarily in Andhra
Pradesh. Similarly, the Maoist Communist Centre
(MCC) became active in Bihar and Jharkhand. These
groups operated independently, each adhering to
Maoist ideology but differing in strategies and areas of
influence.
• Renewed Insurgency: During this period, Naxalite
groups intensified their activities, conducting guerrilla
warfare against state forces, attacking landlords,
Kondapalli Seetaramaiah
and targeting government infrastructure. The founder of the People's War
insurgency capitalised on issues like land alienation, Group of Naxalites
unemployment, and exploitation of tribal
 Formation of the Communist Party of
India (Maoist) [CPI(Maoist)]:

• Unification (2004): A
significant development
occurred in 2004 with the
merger of the PWG and
the MCC, leading to the
formation of the
CPI(Maoist). This unification
aimed to consolidate the
fragmented Naxalite
factions into a more
cohesive force, enhancing
their operational capabilities
and expanding their
influence, particularly in the
“Red Corridor” regions
spanning from West
 Govt. Actions

• Government Countermeasures: In response to the escalating insurgency, the Indian

government launched Operation Steeplechase in 1971, deploying the army and
paramilitary forces to suppress Naxalite activities. This operation led to the arrest
and killing of several Naxalite leaders, causing a temporary setback to the
movement.
• Greyhounds (1989): Established by the Andhra Pradesh government, the
Greyhounds are an elite anti-insurgency force specializing in guerrilla warfare tactics to
combat Naxalite activities in forested regions. ​
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) (1967): Utilised to declare Naxalite
groups, such as the Communist Party of India (Maoist), as terrorist organisations,
facilitating legal action against members and sympathisers. ​
• Integrated Action Plan (IAP) (2010): Launched to implement development projects
in 60 Naxal-affected districts, focusing on infrastructure development and service
delivery to address local grievances.
• Specialised Forces Deployment: The government has established and deployed
specialised units trained in guerrilla and jungle warfare to combat Naxalite insurgents:​
⚬ Commando Battalion for Resolute Action (CoBRA): Formed in 2008 under the
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), CoBRA specialises in counter-insurgency
operations in Naxal-affected regions.
⚬ District Reserve Guard (DRG): Established in 2008 in Chhattisgarh, the DRG
comprises local recruits, including former Maoists, leveraging their knowledge for
effective counter-insurgency efforts.
• Targeted Elimination Timeline: The Union Home Minister announced a goal to
eradicate Naxalism by March 31, 2026, emphasising coordinated efforts between
central and state governments.
 Founders of
Naxalism
Charu Majumdar (1918–1972)
• Born in 1918 in Siliguri, West Bengal, Charu
Majumdar was a prominent communist leader. He
authored the "Historic Eight Documents,"
which laid the ideological foundation for the
Naxalite movement, advocating for armed
revolution inspired by Maoist principles. In 1969,
Majumdar co-founded the Communist Party
of India (Marxist-Leninist) (CPI(ML)) and
served as its General Secretary. He was
arrested on July 16, 1972, and died in police
custody on July 28, 1972.

Charu-mazumdar – Communist
Party of India (Marxist-
Leninist)
 Founders of
Naxalism
Kanu Sanyal (1932–2010)
• Kanu Sanyal was born in 1932 in
Kurseong, Darjeeling district, West
Bengal. He joined the Communist
Party of India in 1952 and later
became a key leader in the Naxalbari
uprising of 1967, mobilising peasants
against landlords. Sanyal publicly
announced the formation of the CPI(ML)
in 1969. After being imprisoned from
1970 to 1977, he distanced himself
from violent methods and advocated for
participation in parliamentary politics. Kanu Sanyal
Sanyal died by suicide on March 23,
2010.
 Founders of
Naxalism
Jangal Santhal (1925–1988)
• Jangal Santhal was born in 1925 in
Hatighisa village, Darjeeling district,
West Bengal, and belonged to the
indigenous Santal community. As a
sharecropper, he was deeply involved in
peasant movements and played a
significant role in the Naxalbari uprising
of 1967, leading tribal communities in the
struggle for land rights. Santhal was
arrested multiple times and eventually
withdrew from active politics, passing away
on December 4, 1988. ​ Jangal Santhal – Communist
Party of India (Marxist-
Leninist)
 Aditya-L1 Mission
Captures Solar Flare
Aditya-L1 Mission
Captures Solar Flare
 Why in news?
India’s Aditya-L1 mission, launched by ISRO,
has made a groundbreaking observation using
its Solar Ultra-violet Imaging Telescope
(SUIT), capturing the first-ever image of a
solar flare kernel in the lower solar
atmosphere, specifically the photosphere
and chromosphere. This unprecedented
image was taken in the Near Ultra-Violet
(NUV) wavelength, marking a major leap
forward in understanding solar activity and its
potential impact on Earth.
The Aditya-L1 mission was launched on
September 2, 2023, aboard ISRO’s PSLV C-
57 rocket, and placed into a large halo orbit
around the Lagrange Point 1 (L1) on January
6, 2024, about 1.5 million km from Earth,
allowing for continuous observation of the Sun
 Key Observations & Scientific
Breakthroughs
1.First-Ever Image of a Solar Flare Kernel:
• On February 22, 2024, Aditya-L1 captured an X6.3-class solar flare, one of the
most intense solar eruptions observed.
• SUIT detected brightening in the NUV wavelength range (200-400 nm), providing
a level of detail that had never been achieved before in this wavelength range.
• The observation confirmed that the energy from the flare spread across different
layers of the Sun's atmosphere, offering insights into solar flare dynamics and their
impact on
2. Linkage space weather.
Between Solar Flares and Solar Corona:
• A key revelation from the data is that the localized brightening observed in the
lower solar atmosphere (photosphere and chromosphere) directly corresponded with
an increase in the temperature of plasma in the solar corona, the Sun's outermost
layer.
• This finding confirms the linkage between flare energy deposition and the
temperature evolution in the solar corona, validating long-standing theories and
offering new data for reshaping the understanding of solar flare physics.
 Aditya-L1 Mission
Overview
• Launch: September 2, 2023, using ISRO’s
PSLV C-57 rocket.
• Orbit: Placed in a halo orbit around the
Lagrange Point 1 (L1), which is 1.5 million
km from Earth, between the Earth and the
Sun, offering a clear, unobstructed view of the
Sun.
• Instruments Onboard:
⚬ Solar Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope
(SUIT): Captures high-resolution images in
11 different NUV wavebands, focusing
on the Sun's layers from the photosphere
to the chromosphere.
⚬ Solar Low Energy X-ray Spectrometer
(SoLEXS) and High Energy L1 Orbiting
X-ray Spectrometer (HEL1OS): Monitor
solar X-ray emissions, aiding in solar flare
 What is a Solar
Flare?
• Solar flares are sudden, intense
bursts of solar energy that occur
when the Sun’s magnetic fields
suddenly release energy. These
eruptions release light/radiation
and high-energy charged particles,
and they can have significant
impacts on space weather.
• Solar flares are typically classified
into categories based on their
intensity. The X-class is the most
powerful, capable of affecting
satellite communication, GPS
systems, and power grids on Earth.
 How Does Aditya-L1 Study Solar
Flares?
• Observation of Solar Flares:
During and before a solar flare, the
affected region of the Sun becomes
significantly brighter in UV and X-
ray wavelengths. SUIT, SoLEXS,
and HEL1OS onboard Aditya-L1
can observe these brightening
events, providing detailed
information about the solar flare
phenomena.
• Space-based Observation: Since
Earth’s atmosphere blocks
harmful UV and X-ray radiation,
these observations can only be
made from space. Aditya-L1’s
location at Lagrange Point 1 (L1)
provides a unique vantage point for
 Key Observations from
SUIT
1.X6.3-Class Solar Flare: of the Sun’s atmosphere, confirming
⚬ The X6.3-class flare observed on theories and offering data to refine the
February 22, 2024, was one of the understanding of flare physics.
most intense solar eruptions, with 3. Linking Lower and Higher Solar
SUIT capturing unprecedented detail Atmosphere:
in the NUV wavelength range (200- • The brightening captured in the lower
400 nm). solar atmosphere (photosphere and
2.Unique Observation in NUV Range: chromosphere) was directly linked to a
⚬ This was the first time that solar flare rise in the temperature of plasma in
dynamics were studied in such great the solar corona, confirming the
detail in the NUV range, a connection between flare energy and
SUIT (developed by Inter University
wavelength range that had previously temperature evolution.
Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics
been difficult to observe due to
(IUCAA) in collaboration with ISRO
limitations in ground-based
centres) is capable of capturing high-
telescopes.
resolution images across 11 different
⚬ The NUV observations from SUIT
wavebands in the NUV range.
offer new insights into how energy
Why is This Observation Historic?
• First-ever Solar Flare Kernel Image:
Wavebands: These wavebands range
The observation of the solar flare
from 214 nm (NB01) to 396 nm
kernel is historic because it provides
(NB08), with filters designed to study
unprecedented detail about the lower
specific regions of the Sun’s
solar atmosphere, particularly in the
atmosphere in fine detail.
photosphere and chromosphere.
• No Prior NUV Observations: Ground-
based telescopes cannot capture this
data because UV radiation is absorbed
by Earth's atmosphere. Aditya-L1's
SUIT is filling this gap by capturing NUV
data, which was nearly non-existent in
prior solar flare studies.
Appointment
Appointment and
and removal
removal of
of
Judges
Judges Issue
Issue
 Why in news?
• The Supreme Court has initiated an
internal investigation into Delhi High
Court judge Justice Yashwant
Varma after a fire broke out at his
official residence on 14th March 2025,
during which substantial amounts of
unaccounted cash were discovered by
firefighters.
• As an unprecedented step, CJI Sanjiv
Khanna asked to maintain the
transparency by making the case and
proceedings public on SC site.
• Justice Varma’s Response: Justice
Varma categorically denied any
knowledge of the cash, stating that
neither he nor his staff had any
knowledge of the presence of such a
 Immediate Actions
• The Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv
Khanna, responded swiftly, calling for a
meeting of the Supreme Court
collegium. CJI also instructed that Justice
Varma be placed on administrative
hold, with no judicial assignments being
given to him. A three-member
committee has been set up for an in-
depth investigation. Ordered a three-
member inquiry committee, consisting
of:
⚬ Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of
Punjab & Haryana High Court
⚬ Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief
Justice of Himachal Pradesh High
Court
⚬ Justice Anu Sivaraman, Karnataka
 Origin of the In-House Inquiry
Process
• The concept of the in-house inquiry
was established in response to a gap in
judicial accountability. The need for such
a procedure arose from the 1995 case of
Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M.
Bhattacharjee.
• The Supreme Court noted a critical gap
in holding judges accountable for
misconduct that did not meet the high
threshold of impeachment under the
Indian Constitution.
• A five-member committee was
constituted to design a mechanism for
addressing judicial misconduct, which led
to the creation of the in-house inquiry
procedure.
 In-House Inquiry
Process
Pre-2014 Process
• The procedure before 2014 was less
structured and more discretionary, largely
dependent on the interpretation and
decisions of the CJI and senior judges.
• The initial procedure allowed for:
⚬ Complaints to be received by the Chief
Justices or the CJI.
⚬ A preliminary screening of allegations.
⚬ Formation of an investigative
committee if necessary.
⚬ Recommendations for administrative or
disciplinary actions.
Post-2014 Process
• In 2014, after a sexual harassment complaint against a sitting judge of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court, the in-house procedure was significantly restructured.
• Justices J.S. Khehar and Arun Mishra outlined a seven-step process for handling judicial
misconduct, which includes:
a. Complaints are forwarded to the CJI by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court or the
President of India.
b. The CJI assesses the complaint and may request a preliminary report from the Chief
Justice of the concerned High Court.
c. If a deeper investigation is warranted, a three-member inquiry committee is formed.
d. The committee conducts a detailed investigation in line with natural justice principles.
e. The committee submits its findings to the CJI.
f. The committee’s findings are communicated to the judge under investigation.
g. The CJI decides whether to advise the judge to resign or retire voluntarily, or whether to
proceed with removal proceedings if the allegations are serious enough.
 Landmark Cases Shaping Judicial
Accountability in India

C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995):

• This case highlighted the gap between bad conduct and impeachable misconduct,
leading to the creation of the in-house inquiry process.
• The case arose from allegations of financial impropriety against Justice A.M.
Bhattacharjee of the Bombay High Court.

Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' v. Registrar General, High Court of
Madhya Pradesh (2014):
• This case dealt with a sexual harassment complaint against a sitting High Court judge,
prompting a revision of the in-house inquiry process.
• The seven-step process was introduced to ensure a more structured and transparent
approach to handling allegations of judicial misconduct.
 Appointment of Judges in
India
Constitutional Provisions for Appointment of
Judges
Supreme Court Judges: High Court Judges:
• Article 124: This article establishes • Article 217: This article details
the Supreme Court of India and the appointment and conditions
outlines the procedure for appointing of the office of a Judge of a
its judges.​ High Court.
⚬ Clause (2): States that every ⚬ Clause (1): Specifies that
Judge of the Supreme Court shall every Judge of a High Court
be appointed by the President by shall be appointed by the
warrant under his hand and President by warrant under his
seal after consultation with hand and seal after
such judges of the Supreme consultation with the CJI, the
Court and High Courts as the Governor of the State, and,
President may deem necessary. in the case of appointment of a
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is Judge other than the Chief
appointed based on the Justice, the Chief Justice of
 Evolution of the Appointment Process

The process of appointing judges in India has undergone significant changes, primarily
through landmark Supreme Court judgments known as the "Three Judges Cases," leading
to the establishment of the Collegium System.​
1.First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981): The Supreme Court ruled that
the term "consultation" in Articles 124 and 217 does not mean "concurrence,"
granting the Executive primacy in judicial appointments. ​
2.Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union
of India, 1993): This judgment overturned the First Judges Case, interpreting
"consultation" as "concurrence," thereby giving the judiciary primacy in
appointments. It led to the creation of the Collegium System, where the CJI, in
consultation with the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, would recommend
appointments and transfers of judges.
3.Third Judges Case (In re Special Reference 1 of 1998): The Supreme Court clarified
the Collegium System's functioning, stating that the Collegium would consist of the CJI and
the four senior-most judges for Supreme Court appointments, and the CJI and two senior-
most judges for High Court appointments. ​
 Collegium System

The Collegium System, established through the above judgments, is responsible for the
appointment and transfer of judges in the higher judiciary.​
• Composition:
⚬ For Supreme Court: Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges.
⚬ For High Courts: Chief Justice of the respective High Court and the two senior-
most judges.
• Functioning: The Collegium recommends names for appointment to the President,
who is bound by these recommendations. The system aims to maintain the
independence of the judiciary by minimising executive interference. ​

99th Constitutional Amendment Act

In an effort to reform the process of judicial appointments, the Parliament enacted the
99th Constitutional Amendment Act and established the National Judicial
Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2014. The NJAC was designed to replace the
existing Collegium System with a more transparent mechanism involving representatives
from the judiciary, executive, and eminent persons.
Composition of the NJAC Legal Challenge and Supreme Court Verdict
The NJAC was to consist of:​ • The constitutional validity of the NJAC Act and
• The Chief Justice of India (Chairperson, the 99th Amendment was challenged in
ex officio)​ the Supreme Court. Petitioners argued that
• Two senior-most Supreme Court judges the NJAC undermined the independence of
(Members)​ the judiciary by granting the executive and
• The Union Minister of Law and Justice other non-judicial members an equal role in
(Member)​ judicial appointments. ​
• Two eminent persons nominated by a • In a 4:1 majority decision, the Supreme
committee comprising the Prime Court struck down both the NJAC Act and the
Minister, the Chief Justice of India, 99th Amendment as unconstitutional.
and the Leader of Opposition in the The Court held that the inclusion of the Union
Lok Sabha. Law Minister and the provision for two
• One of the eminent persons was eminent persons in the NJAC violated
required to belong to Scheduled the principle of separation of powers
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other and the independence of the judiciary,
Backward Classes, minorities, or be which are part of the basic structure of the
a woman. Constitution. This was known as the “Fourth
 Removal of Judges in India

Constitutional Provisions for Removal of

Judges
Supreme Court Judges:
• Article 124(4): A Supreme Court judge can only be removed by an order of the
President after an address by both Houses of Parliament, supported by a majority of
the total membership of each House and by a majority of not less than two-
thirds of the members present and voting, on the grounds of proven misbehavior
or incapacity. ​
• High Court Judges: Article 217(1)(b): A High Court judge may be removed by the
President in the manner provided for the removal of a Supreme Court judge,
i.e., through
Grounds the process outlined in Article 124(4).
for Removal:
The Constitution specifies two grounds:​
• Proven Misbehaviour: This includes actions that violate judicial ethics, corruption, or
other serious misconduct.​
• Incapacity: This refers to physical or mental conditions that render a judge incapable of
performing judicial duties. ​
 Procedure of Removal

The procedure is elaborated in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968:​

1.Initiation of Motion: A removal motion can be introduced in either House of
Parliament.​
⚬ It must be signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of
the Rajya Sabha.
2.Speaker/Chairman's Decision: The Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha)
decides on admitting the motion.​ If admitted, a three-member Inquiry Committee is
constituted. ​
3.Inquiry Committee Composition: A Supreme Court judge, A Chief Justice of a High
Court and A distinguished jurist. ​
4.Investigation and Report: The committee investigates the charges and provides
the judge an opportunity to respond.​A report is submitted to the Speaker/Chairman. ​
5.Parliamentary Action: If the committee finds the judge guilty, the motion is debated
and voted upon in both Houses.​Each House must pass the motion with:​
￭ A majority of its total membership.
￭ A two-thirds majority of members present and voting.
6.Presidential Order: Upon successful passage in Parliament, the President issues an
 Notable Instances

While several motions have been initiated, none

have culminated in the removal of a judge:​
• Justice V. Ramaswami (1993): Faced
impeachment proceedings but survived as the
motion did not secure the required majority in
the Lok Sabha. ​
• Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): The Rajya
Sabha passed the removal motion, but he
resigned before the Lok Sabha could act. ​
• Justice P.D. Dinakaran: Resigned amid
allegations, preempting formal impeachment
proceedings.
Justice V.
Ramaswami
Supreme Court of
India
Azerbaijan-Armenia
40 years of conflict
Azerbaijan-Armenia
40 years of conflict
Why in news?

Azerbaijan and Armenia have

finalized a peace agreement
aimed at ending nearly four
decades of conflict, primarily over
the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh
region. The agreement has
resolved key issues that had
stalled previous negotiations, with
both sides expressing readiness
to sign the peace treaty. This
breakthrough is significant as it
marks a potential shift in regional
dynamics, involving major
international players such as
Russia, the EU, the US, and
Background
• Nagorno-Karabakh is a
landlocked region in Azerbaijan
with a majority ethnic-
Armenian population. The
conflict dates back to the late
1980s, when the region declared
independence from Azerbaijan,
supported by Armenia. Two
major wars occurred: one in the
early 1990s and another in
2020, both over control of the
territory.
• In September 2023, Azerbaijan
successfully regained control of
Nagorno-Karabakh following a
rapid military offensive,
displacing more than 100,000
• The Soviet Union's collapse
left both countries with
unresolved territorial disputes,
leading to periodic escalations.
• Historically, it has had a
majority ethnic Armenian
population, despite being
located within Azerbaijani
territory.
• The name "Nagorno-Karabakh" is
of mixed origin: "Nagorno"
(Russian for "mountainous"),
"Kara" (Turkic for "black"), and
"Bakh" (Persian for "garden").
 First Nagorno-Karabakh War (1992–
1994)
• The First Nagorno-Karabakh War • After Armenia and Azerbaijan declared
began in 1992, following the independence from the USSR, the
dissolution of the Soviet Union, when conflict escalated into a brutal and
full-scale hostilities erupted between bloody war involving ethnic
Armenia and Azerbaijan over the cleansing, large-scale displacement,
disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, and thousands of casualties on both
a territory internationally recognized as sides.
part of Azerbaijan, but mostly • By the end of the war in 1994, Armenian
populated and controlled by ethnic forces had gained control not only of
Armenians. Nagorno-Karabakh but also seven
• The conflict had its roots in the late adjacent districts of Azerbaijan,
1980s, when the Nagorno-Karabakh forming a territorial corridor between
Autonomous Oblast, then part of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
Soviet Azerbaijan, demanded • A Russia-brokered ceasefire was
unification with Armenia, leading to signed in May 1994, which ended the
escalating ethnic violence and political active fighting but did not lead to a
confrontation. peace agreement, leaving the conflict
• The war resulted in the displacement of around one million people, mostly
Azerbaijanis from Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories, and some
Armenians from parts of Azerbaijan.
Status Quo (1994–2020)
• From 1994 to 2020, the region led diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict,
remained under the control of ethnic but no lasting solution was achieved.
Armenian forces, backed by Armenia, • Despite the ceasefire, there were
despite being legally recognized as frequent border skirmishes, sniper
part of Azerbaijan by the international fire, and clashes between the two
community. sides, with occasional escalations, such
• The region declared itself an as the four-day war in April 2016.
independent republic known as the • The region remained a frozen conflict
“Republic of Artsakh”, although it was zone, with tense political rhetoric,
not recognized by any United Nations military buildups, and no progress on
member state, including Armenia. core issues like the status of Nagorno-
• The Organization for Security and Karabakh, return of displaced persons, or
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) recognition of territorial integrity.
Minsk Group, co-chaired by Russia,
 Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (September–November 2020)

• The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War • On November 9–10, 2020, a Russia-

began on September 27, 2020, when brokered ceasefire agreement was
Azerbaijan launched a major military signed between Armenia, Azerbaijan,
offensive to retake territory controlled and Russia, ending active hostilities.
by Armenian forces. • Under the terms of the ceasefire:
• The war was marked by heavy artillery ⚬ Armenia agreed to withdraw from
battles, drone warfare, and the remaining occupied Azerbaijani
advanced military technology, with territories.
Azerbaijan making extensive use of ⚬ Russian peacekeeping forces were
Turkish and Israeli drones. deployed to monitor the ceasefire
• Azerbaijan received military and and provide security along the Lachin
diplomatic backing from Turkey, corridor, the only route connecting
while Armenia had limited support and Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh.
found itself diplomatically isolated. • The war caused over 6,500 deaths and led
• Over the course of 44 days, Azerbaijani to thousands of new displacements, mostly of
forces recaptured significant portions of ethnic Armenians from territories retaken by
 Key Terms of the
Agreement 2023 Azerbaijani
Sovereignty Recognition
Armenia’s Recognition of Azerbaijan’s Offensive and Exodus
Sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh: • In September 2023,
• In a landmark move toward normalizing relations, Azerbaijan launched a 24-
Armenia officially recognized Azerbaijan’s hour military operation,
sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh in 2025. regaining full control over
This recognition is a significant shift in Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh.
policy and directly addresses one of Azerbaijan’s • The local ethnic Armenian
central demands following the 2020 ceasefire authorities surrendered,
agreement. leading to the dissolution
• This recognition also brings an end to the claims of of the unrecognized
Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence and the Republic of Artsakh.
Republic of Artsakh, which Armenia had • Over 100,000 ethnic
supported since the early 1990s. This is in line with Armenians fled to
Azerbaijan’s stance that Nagorno-Karabakh is an Armenia, citing fears of
integral part of its sovereign territory, despite the persecution and lack of
region's Armenian-majority population. guarantees.
 Key Terms of the
Agreement
• Armenia proposed that third-party
• As part of the peace deal, an agreement
peacekeeping forces be deployed in
specific areas where the border was reached that peacekeeping forces
demarcation between the two countries would be limited and placed only in
has been completed. These areas would areas where both countries mutually
be those where there is a high potential agreed, with the Russian
for dispute over territorial lines, and peacekeepers remaining in some areas
where both sides require neutral until a final agreement is established.
oversight. Armenia accepted this compromise, as it
• Azerbaijan, however, opposed the ensures security in sensitive regions
without undermining Azerbaijan’s
presence of any third-party forces, Legal Cases
arguing that they could undermine territorial claims.
• Withdrawal of Legal Cases in
Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and create International Courts: Over the course
the conditions for ongoing foreign of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
influence in its internal affairs. both Armenia and Azerbaijan pursued
Azerbaijan sought a blanket ban on the numerous legal cases in international
deployment of foreign peacekeepers, courts. These included allegations of
fearing that such forces could prevent human rights violations, war crimes,
 Key Terms of the
Agreement
and violations of international humanitarian
• As part of the 2025 peace agreement,
law during both the First Nagorno-
Karabakh War (1992-1994) and the both countries agreed to withdraw all
Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (2020). ongoing legal cases and renounce
• Armenia took Azerbaijan to the any future legal claims related to the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This
alleging the use of discriminatory agreement includes a commitment to
practices against ethnic Armenians in settle any disputes through diplomatic
areas under Azerbaijani control, means rather than legal battles, thus
including allegations of cultural preventing future escalations in
destruction, forced displacement, international courts.
• By renouncing these legal cases, both
and targeting of civilians.
• Azerbaijan also filed counterclaims Armenia and Azerbaijan aim to create a
regarding the treatment of Azerbaijanis clean slate for their bilateral relations
by Armenian forces, including and avoid the legal avenues that have
accusations of ethnic cleansing and been exploited in the past to fuel the
illegal occupation of Azerbaijani conflict.
territories during the 1990s.
 International Involvement

Russia's Role in the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

• Historical Alliances: Russia has on Armenia's behalf. This was a key
traditionally been an ally of Armenia, turning point, as Armenia expected a
providing military, political, and more direct intervention due to their
economic support. Armenia, for its part, • 2023 Conflict: The September 2023
CSTO membership.
has been a member of the Collective conflict marked a significant moment in
Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Russia's waning influence. Despite
a Russian-led military alliance of former Armenia’s longstanding relationship with
Soviet states. This alliance was intended Moscow, Russia failed to intervene or
to ensure mutual defense and security provide significant military support when
against external threats. Azerbaijan launched its rapid offensive to
• Moscow's Diminishing Influence: regain control of Nagorno-Karabakh. This
⚬ 2020 Conflict: During the Second failure led to Armenia suspending its
Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020, participation in the CSTO in early 2024,
Russia's role was limited to mediating citing dissatisfaction with Russia's
the ceasefire rather than actively inaction.
intervening
 International Involvement

European Union (EU) and United States (US)

Involvement
European Union’s Role: • Mediation Efforts: The EU, along with
• Diplomatic Engagement: The EU has other international actors, has taken part
been an important diplomatic actor in in negotiations to ensure lasting peace.
the peace process, consistently European Council President Charles
advocating for a peaceful resolution to Michel played a central role in
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The EU mediating between the two countries. In
has supported negotiations led by 2024, the EU successfully brokered
international organizations and has several ceasefire agreements between
called for respect for international law, Azerbaijan and Armenia.
including the sovereignty and United States’ Role:
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. • Mediating the Peace Process: The
• Humanitarian Assistance: Following United States has been involved in
the 2023 conflict, the EU provided peace efforts, primarily through the
substantial humanitarian aid to OSCE Minsk Group, which it co-chairs
Armenia to accommodate the influx of along with Russia and France. The US
over 100,000 displaced ethnic has advocated for peaceful
 International Involvement

negotiations, supporting Azerbaijan's Tensions Between EU, US, and

territorial integrity while encouraging Azerbaijan:
Armenia to address security concerns • Differing Views: While both the EU and
without violence. However, the US has often the US support Azerbaijan’s territorial
found itself at odds with Russia over the integrity, there has been tension
conflict's resolution. between the West and Azerbaijan over
• Diplomatic Tensions: Following the its relations with Turkey and its stance
2023 conflict, the US expressed concern on Armenia. Azerbaijan’s growing ties
over Azerbaijan’s military offensive and with Turkey (both of which are linked by
the human rights abuses that took ethnic and military bonds) and the
place. The US accused Armenia of cozying up to Russia on certain matters
harboring separatist sentiments, which it have complicated Western diplomatic
considered destabilizing to the region, efforts. Additionally, accusations that
especially after Armenia’s support for Armenia has been involved in
Nagorno-Karabakh’s de facto supporting separatism in the region
independence. The US and Azerbaijan (such as backing Artsakh’s
have been key strategic partners, with independence) have fueled US and EU
 Economic and Geopolitical
Implications
Economic Implications
• Trade Routes in the Caucasus
Region:
⚬ The Caucasus region is strategically
located between Europe and Asia,
making it a key area for global trade
routes. Before the conflict, the South
Caucasus corridor had the potential
to serve as a major transit route for ⚬ The peace agreement could allow for the
oil, gas, and goods between the reopening of regional trade routes,
Caspian Sea and Europe. such as the rail link between
⚬ With the Nagorno-Karabakh Azerbaijan and Armenia. The
conflict and the region’s Zangezur Corridor, a potential trade
militarization, key infrastructure route connecting Azerbaijan with Turkey
projects like the Baku-Tbilisi- via Armenia, would significantly reduce
Ceyhan oil pipeline and the South transportation costs and promote
Caucasus Gas Pipeline have been regional connectivity.
 Economic and Geopolitical
Implications
• Rebuilding and Economic ⚬ Armenia, having suffered the
Cooperation: economic impact of the conflict,
⚬ Azerbaijan has already set aside a would benefit from regional stability
substantial portion of its oil revenue by seeking participation in energy
for reconstruction efforts in Nagorno- pipelines and trade routes passing
Karabakh. In 2020, Azerbaijan through Azerbaijan and Turkey.
allocated over $2 billion for • Turkey’s Role in Economic and
rebuilding the recaptured regions. Diplomatic Support:
The peace agreement could provide ⚬ Turkey, a key ally of Azerbaijan, is
the political stability needed for likely to invest in the reconstruction
further economic investments. of Nagorno-Karabakh, given its strong
⚬ The development of Nagorno- political and economic ties with
Karabakh could provide Azerbaijan. Turkish companies have
opportunities in sectors such as already been involved in
infrastructure, tourism, and infrastructure projects in Azerbaijan,
energy. International investment in including roads and energy pipelines.
the region could be facilitated by
 Economic and Geopolitical
Implications
⚬ Following the peace agreement, Geopolitical Implications
Turkey may also assist Azerbaijan in Azerbaijan's Strengthened Alliances:
rebuilding military infrastructure • Azerbaijan is likely to deepen its ties
in Nagorno-Karabakh and fostering with Turkey and Israel following the
economic development in the peace agreement. Azerbaijan’s victory in
region, such as through investments Nagorno-Karabakh strengthens its
in construction, position in the South Caucasus and
telecommunications, and energy enhances its strategic importance to
sectors. Turkey, a key ally that shares common
⚬ Additionally, Turkey may help interests in countering Russia’s influence
Azerbaijan to reintegrate Nagorno- in the region.
Karabakh into the regional trade • Azerbaijan and Israel have had robust
network and further integrate relations, especially in the fields of
Azerbaijan into Turkish-led military cooperation and technology.
economic structures, including the Israel has provided Azerbaijan with
Organization of Turkic States, advanced weaponry and drones,
where both countries share strong which were crucial
 Economic and Geopolitical
Implications
during the 2020 war. Moving forward, the financial support to facilitate the
peace agreement may further cement reconstruction of its own war-torn
economic and technological exchanges, areas and integrate it into European trade
particularly in the cybersecurity and networks. The EU may also push for
energy sectors. democratic reforms in Armenia to enhance
Armenia’s Shift Toward the EU and
its relationship with the bloc.
Russia: • Armenia may seek further military
• Armenia, having lost control over
cooperation with Russia and
Nagorno-Karabakh, may seek to
enhanced economic partnerships
strengthen ties with Russia as a
with the EU, particularly in sectors such
strategic ally, as Russia has played a key
as agriculture, energy, and
role in providing peacekeeping forces to Impact on Regional Stability and
infrastructure development.
the region. Additionally, Armenia may Alliances:
leverage its relationship with Russia to • The peace agreement could lead to a
secure
• The military support
European Union hasand economic
expressed shift in the strategic alliances in the
assistanceover
concern for itsArmenia’s
reconstruction efforts
weakening South Caucasus. The region is
and stability.
position in the region, and the EU might traditionally influenced by Russia, but
offer Armenia Turkey and Iran also play significant roles.
 Economic and Geopolitical
Implications
• Turkey's influence in the South Caucasus pipelines, trade routes, and transport
is expected to increase, potentially corridors to be developed or expanded.
competing with Russian influence in The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, for
Armenia and other parts of the region. example, has already been a major conduit
• Iran, a neighboring country with for oil and gas from Azerbaijan to Europe,
historical ties to Armenia, could find and the resolution of this conflict could
itself navigating a more complex increase its strategic significance.
geopolitical environment. While it has • Azerbaijan may push for regional
historically supported Armenia in the economic integration through
conflict, it may now seek to maintain a cooperation with Turkey and Central
neutral position while preserving its Asian nations, positioning itself as a key
trade relations
Long-Term with both
Geopolitical andArmenia and
Economic player in the energy corridor between
Azerbaijan.
Repercussions Europe and Asia.
1.Regional Cooperation and • Armenia might seek to participate in
Integration: The peace agreement regional projects but would need to rely
opens doors for regional cooperation, on Russian support and possibly
with potential for energy European investments to rebuild and
restore economic stability.
 Economic and Geopolitical
Implications
Long-Term Peacebuilding
1.The agreement could help stabilize the 2. However, the return of refugees and the
region, reducing military expenditures integration of ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-
and allowing both Azerbaijan and Karabakh will be a significant challenge for
Armenia to focus on economic Azerbaijan. Managing these delicate
development. This could create a more demographic and cultural transitions could
favorable investment climate, attracting determine the success or failure of long-
both domestic and international term peace and stability in the region.
businesses to the region, particularly in
sectors like technology, agriculture, and
manufacturing.
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict up to
2025
Year Event/ Details
Development
Establishment of The Soviet Union creates the Nagorno-
1923 Nagorno- Karabakh Autonomous Oblast within the
Karabakh Azerbaijan SSR, despite the region's Armenian-
Autonomous majority population.
Oblast Nagorno-Karabakh's parliament votes to unify with
Ethnic Tensions
1988 Armenia, sparking protests in both Armenia and
and Protests
Azerbaijan. Ethnic clashes begin, escalating
tensions.
Declaration of The Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh)
1991 Independence by declares independence following the Soviet Union's
Nagorno- collapse, though it is not recognized by any
Karabakh country.
Armenian forces capture Nagorno-Karabakh and
First Nagorno-
1992- several surrounding Azerbaijani districts. Around
Karabakh War
1994 30,000 people killed and over 1 million
displaced.
Year Event/ Details
Development
A Russia-brokered ceasefire ends the first
Ceasefire war, leaving Armenia in control of Nagorno-
1994 Karabakh and surrounding territories. The OSCE
Agreement
Minsk Group attempts to mediate peace but
progress remains limited.

Despite the ceasefire, both sides engage in

Period of Fragile
periodic skirmishes, and the conflict remains
1994- Peace and
unresolved. International efforts, including by the
2020 Skirmishes
OSCE Minsk Group, fail to reach a lasting peace
agreement.
There are increasing clashes, especially along the
Increased Border
borders of Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan, backed
2000s Clashes and
by Turkey, demands Armenian withdrawal. The
Escalating
situation remains volatile.
Tensions
Year Event/ Details
Development
Azerbaijan, backed by Turkey, launches a major
military offensive in September, recapturing large
Second Nagorno- portions of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding
2020
Karabakh War territories. The war lasts six weeks and ends with
a Russia-brokered ceasefire on November 10,
2020, which mandates Armenian withdrawal.

Russian As part of the ceasefire, Russian peacekeepers

2020 Peacekeepers are deployed to Nagorno-Karabakh to monitor the
Deploy ceasefire and ensure peacekeeping operations.

While tensions remain high, both countries work on

Post-War post-war recovery. Azerbaijan strengthens its
2021 Recovery and control over the recaptured areas, and Armenia
Diplomatic grapples with internal political instability.
Efforts Diplomatic efforts by international organizations
continue.
Year Event/ Details
Development
In September 2023, Azerbaijan launches a swift
military offensive, effectively reclaiming
Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh and forcing the ethnic
2023
Reclaims Full Armenian population to flee the region. Over
Control 100,000 ethnic Armenians seek refuge in
Armenia, ending Armenian control in the region
after over 30 years.
Azerbaijan and Armenia finalize a peace
agreement, officially ending nearly four decades of
Peace Agreement
2025 conflict. The agreement includes provisions for
Signed
long-term stability, humanitarian aid, and steps
toward rebuilding trust between both nations.