Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
News

Document: The Mandate of the co-Chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Process

13 October 2020

As fighting rages on in the South Caucasus between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, the role of the co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group is often discussed. Who gave this group and the mandate to mediate in the conflict? This was done by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 1995. The mandate was issued by the Chairmanship of the organisation for that year, which was Hungary. Since the original mandate was envisaged that the process will end with a peace conference in Minsk, the group became known as the Minsk Group.

The mandate reads as follows


Mandate
 of the Co-Chairmen of the Conference
on Nagorno Karabakh under the auspices of the OSCE
("Minsk Conference")

The Co-Chairmen are appointed by the Chairman-in-Office;

The Co-Chairmen will be guided in their activities by the principles and norms of the
OSCE, the United Nations Charter, decisions of the OSCE fora, including the decisions by the
Council of Ministers on 24 March 1992 and particularly the Budapest Summit Decision, and as
applicable resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

The Co-Chairmen will in their work be guided by the objectives of the Minsk Conference,
e. promoting a resolution of the conflict without the use of force and in particular facilitating
negotiations for a peaceful and comprehensive settlement, according to the rules of procedure as
these are stated in the decisions of the 10th meeting of the CSO of the CSCE.
The Co-Chairmen will realize full co-ordination in all mediating and negotiating activities,
harmonizing them into a single coordinated effort within the framework of the OSCE;

The Co-Chairmen will, jointly and in full parity, on the basis of impartiality:

1. make joint efforts in order to strengthen the cease-fire;

2. develop a common basis for negotiations with the parties to the conflict;

3. conduct negotiations with the parties to the conflict for the conclusion of a political
agreement on the cessation of the armed conflict, drawing upon the progress achieved in
previous mediating activities;

4. promote direct contacts, as appropriate, including substantial talks. among the parties to
the conflict;

5. continue working with the parties to the conflict on confidence-building measures,
particularly in the humanitarian field, synchronizing them with the political process;

6. assist the Chairman-in-Office in developing a plan for the establishment, composition and
operation of a multinational OSCE peace-keeping force;

7 forward to the Chairman-in-Office the received approvals and formal requests by the parties
to the conflict concerning the OSCE peace-keeping operation;

8. Report to the Chairman-in-Office on the process of negotiations with the parties to the
conflict on a draft mandate, Memoranda of Understanding and provisions of guaranties for
the safety at all times of personnel involved;
The Co-Chairmen will:

9. jointly chair the regular consultations of the Minsk Group, dispatch jointly to the Minsk
Group members, documents, information and proposals, including proposals on the dates
and venues of the Minsk Group meetings and the set of issues to be discussed;

10. jointly and continuously inform and consult with the OSCE Chairman-in-Office and jointly
inform, on a regular basis, the Permanent Council of the OSCE on the progress of their
work;

11. after consultations with the CiO, jointly inform, the President of the United Nations Security
Council and the United Nations Secretary-General on the progress of the Minsk process
and on all aspects of the situation on the ground, on the implementation of its relevant
resolutions as well as on the present and future co-operation between the OSCE and the
United Nations in this regard; when necessary, and after appropriate consultation with the
CiO, present to the United Nations considerations and proposals concerning new
resolutions that might be adopted by the United Nations Security Council in the interests of
the peaceful settlement of the conflict;

12. visit jointly, or when appropriate separately, on an agreed basis, the region of conflict to
maintain contacts with parties to the conflict concerning the above-mentioned and other
related issues;

13. upon consultation with the CiO, maintain necessary contacts with the !CRC, the UNHCR
and other relevant international and regional organizations and institutions.

14. jointly chair the Minsk Conference and the preparatory meetings leading to it.

15. The Co-Chairmen will co-operate with the Personal Representative of the Chairman-inOffice in accordance with provisions, contained in the Mandate of the Personal
Representative.

You can also read the mandate on the OSCE website here

source: commonspace.eu with osce.org

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut