The recent signing of a preliminary peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan provides for the opening of a land corridor through Armenia’s Syunik Province. This route will connect Azerbaijan’s main territory with the Nakhichivan Autonomous Republic —an exclave separated by Armenian and Iranian territory— and marks a milestone in bilateral relations. For the first time since the conflict began in the 1980s, both sides seem to be moving toward a formal normalization of ties.

Yet beyond diplomatic symbolism, the real scope of this understanding, its geopolitical implications, and its impact on national sovereignty continue to spark intense debates within Armenia, its diaspora, and the international community.

A Corridor with History: International Precedents

The idea of establishing transit corridors through third countries is not new. Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, various agreements have sought to facilitate trade, connectivity, or regional stability. Their success, however, has depended not only on the letter of the treaty but also on political context, mutual trust, and actual compliance.

Some notable cases:

• Danzig Corridor (1919 – Treaty of Versailles)
  After World War I, Poland obtained access to the Baltic Sea through the Danzig Corridor, administered by the League of Nations. Intended as a logistical solution, it became a flashpoint between Germany and Poland, fueling Nazi resentment and contributing to the outbreak of World War II.

• Berlin Airlift (1948–1949)
  During the Cold War, the West maintained an air corridor over Soviet-controlled territory to supply West Berlin. Though not a land route, it showed how control over strategic access can become a symbolic and political battlefield.

• Lachin Corridor (1994–2020)
  After the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, Lachin served as the only connection between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The November 10, 2020 ceasefire —brokered by Russia— placed it under the supervision of Russian peacekeepers, turning it into an internationalized passage. Control remains disputed, illustrating that a corridor without sovereignty guarantees can be turned into a tool of pressure.

• Transport corridors in the Balkans (2000s)
  Initiatives between Hungary, Romania, and Serbia succeeded technically thanks to clear bilateral agreements, mutual control mechanisms, and commitments to demilitarization.

These cases show that corridors can either bridge cooperation or deepen divisions, depending on how sovereignty, control, and trust are managed.

Sovereignty in Dispute: Who Will Control the Corridor?

The Armenian government insists that the route through Syunik will remain under full Armenian sovereignty, with customs, border control, application of national laws, and a security presence. According to Yerevan, this condition is non-negotiable, to avoid repeating the Lachin Corridor experience.

Azerbaijan, however, promotes the term “Zangezur Corridor” and seeks an internationally guaranteed right of passage, ensuring uninterrupted access to Nakhchivan even in the event of unilateral suspensions. This helps explain why Baku sees the project as a strategic priority, even if Armenia claims it will retain control.

Geography adds another layer of tension: Syunik is not only strategic but also symbolic, seen as Armenia’s “last frontier” linking it directly to Iran and the south. Any perception of territorial fragmentation feeds fears over national integrity.

More Than a Document: The Challenge of Reconciliation

History teaches that signatures alone do not secure peace.

• The Treaty of Campo Formio (1797) redrew Europe but did not halt the Napoleonic Wars.

• The Treaty of Trianon (1920) dismembered Hungary, leaving wounds still present today.

• The Oslo Accords (1993) promised peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but failed to eliminate mistrust.

For Armenia and Azerbaijan, the key question is not only whether the corridor will work, but whether institutionalized Armenophobia in Azerbaijan will end. Reports by the OSCE, NGOs, and human rights organizations have documented the promotion of hate speech in media, textbooks, and official events for years. Without a break from this narrative, any agreement risks becoming a bridge over fragile foundations.

“Peace is not measured by kilometers of road, but by the trust that travels along it.”

Opportunity and Challenge: Toward Sustainable Peace

The new corridor could symbolize regional cooperation, integrate markets, reduce isolation, and open the door to greater connectivity with Turkey, Iran, and Central Asia. However, for this to happen, the agreement must include:

• Impartial international monitoring mechanisms.

• Clear commitments against hate speech.

• Educational and cultural reconciliation programs.

• Guarantees of demilitarization.

Without these elements, the corridor will be just a paved road — functional, perhaps, but empty of meaning.

Conclusion: A Road Under Test

The opening of the Syunik–Nakhchivan Corridor could be historic. But it will not bring peace — it will only test it.
True reconciliation will not be measured by a ribbon-cutting ceremony, but by the ability of both peoples to face each other without fear, acknowledge the past, and build a shared future. In the end, a corridor does not unite nations — it is the people who choose to cross it with respect.