As Armenia and Azerbaijan navigate another fragile ceasefire, one question looms: Will it hold?
The 2020 Karabakh War and subsequent events, including the 2023 forced displacement of ethnic Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, have solidified Azerbaijan's position as a victorious authoritarian state with growing regional influence. Meanwhile, Armenia, a fragile democracy, grapples with internal instability and external pressures threatening its sovereignty. This stark power imbalance raises a critical question: Can peace be built between an authoritarian victor and a defeated democracy? If we embrace Tatsushi Arai’s theory on functional coexistence (Arai, 2022) I believe that it can.
For the past 30 years, peacebuilding efforts between Armenian and Azerbaijani have largely been driven by Western-funded initiatives advancing “liberal peace” models, founded on rapid democratization, rule of law, universal human rights, free markets and other neoliberal concepts. However, these efforts have struggled to resonate with local leadership and societies, failing to prevent conflict escalation.
But what if it isn’t that peace is unattainable, but that the dominant approach to peacebuilding keeps failing to deliver it?
Instead of repeatedly pursuing a model that struggles to take root, a more viable approach may lie in recognizing the realities on the ground—rather than forcing reconciliation in an environment not yet suited for it. Tatsushi Arai offers an alternative vision of peacebuilding through his theory of functional coexistence, which acknowledges that in deeply intractable conflicts, achieving a stable, if imperfect, peace may be more realistic than premature efforts to impose a fragile liberal peace. Unlike the liberal peace model, which prescribes universalist solutions through democratization and externally enforced human rights standards (Richmond, 2006), Arai’s functional coexistence approach prioritizes local agency, consciousness-building, and historical awareness. By integrating bottom-up, top-down, and middle-out strategies, this model fosters sustained dialogue and exchange rather than rushing toward reconciliation. It also recognizes that elite competition plays a significant role in shaping conflict dynamics, while divisions among grassroots and civil society actors are generally less severe. Functional coexistence promotes interventions that are resilient, context-sensitive, and capable of facilitating democratization without endangering those involved (Arai 2022, 141-43).
Changing our approach to peacebuilding is critical at this juncture due to recent developments in the region that present significant risks for renewed escalation. While both sides claim to be close to signing a peace agreement, Azerbaijani officials’ continued interest in the “Zangezur corridor” calls for restricting Armenia's military capacity, and the withdrawal of the EU monitoring mission. Additionally, “Western Azerbaijan” discourse is increasingly used as a tool to pressure Armenia and undermine its sovereignty—gaining international recognition in Türkiye, where there is growing representation. In these circumstances, however, it is crucial to refrain from using force to resolve disputes. Preventing border clashes from escalating must be the top priority—and doing so requires a peacebuilding strategy that acknowledges, rather than ignores, the entrenched realities of the conflict.
What Does Functional Coexistence Look Like?
A crucial step toward conflict de-escalation and the establishment of functional coexistence on the ground, can be introducing direct communication channels between security forces along the border. This could help contain minor incidents before they spiral into larger conflicts and ensure the safety of border communities. With such a system, farmers would be able to work their fields without fear, and mechanisms would be in place for retrieving stray animals. Addressing these seemingly small but significant issues could help restore a sense of normalcy and trust. At the same time, implementing mutual arms control measures and joint investigations of border incidents, would help to enhance transparency and reduce the risk of further escalation.
Beyond security measures, restoring mutual respect for cultural heritage is equally vital for functional coexistence. Protecting gravesites from vandalism and desecration can foster recognition of shared histories. Joint efforts to restore cemeteries, religious sites, and cultural landmarks would not only preserve historical legacies but also signal each side’s commitment to coexistence. Establishing mechanisms for safe visits to these sites, monitored by a neutral international body, could further build confidence between communities and pave the way for broader reconciliation efforts.
Finally, functional coexistence requires a deeper understanding of the conflict’s historical dimensions and a willingness to move beyond one-sided national narratives that reinforce mutual victimhood and leave little room for self-reflection or acknowledgment of the other’s suffering. To break this cycle, efforts must be made to create spaces where history can be critically examined—not to impose a singular, reconciliatory narrative but to encourage an appreciation of complexity and the ways in which the past continues to shape present attitudes and policies. Encouraging civil society-led discussions, oral history projects, and archival collaborations can help challenge deeply ingrained stereotypes and provide a more balanced understanding of historical grievances. Without such efforts, societies risk remaining trapped in rigid, zero-sum perceptions of the past, rendering any attempts at coexistence fragile and susceptible to reversal in moments of heightened tension.
Embracing a new peacebuilding approach rooted in functional coexistence theory will help both societies transcend the limitations of the current liberal peace model. Functional Coexistence offers a more pragmatic and locally grounded approach to peace. By prioritizing practical steps toward stability while fostering historical awareness and local agency, Armenia and Azerbaijan can work toward a future where coexistence is not merely an imposed obligation but an evolving, organic, and self-sustaining process.
Bibliography
Arai, Tatsushi. "Functional coexistence in intractable conflict: A decades‐long view of conflict intervention." Peace & Change47, no. 2 (2022): 118-151.
Richmond, Oliver P. "The problem of peace: understanding the ‘liberal peace’." Conflict, security & development 6, no. 3 (2006): 291-314.