Dr. Hrair Balian, born in Beirut, Lebanon, is an experienced peacebuilding practitioner, negotiator, and mediator whose career has taken him across the globe. From conflict zones to diplomatic corridors, he has worked with the United Nations, OSCE/ODIHR, and a range of international NGOs, dedicating his life to the pursuit of peace and justice.
Over the years, Dr. Balian has held leadership roles at esteemed institutions around the world. His work has taken him from the Covcas Center for Law and Conflict Resolution in Geneva to the International Crisis Group in Sarajevo, to the Carter Center in Atlanta. He has also served in senior positions with the UN Office of the High Representative for Elections in Abidjan, and with OSCE/ODIHR in Warsaw, among others.
In addition to his fieldwork, Dr. Balian practiced law in the United States and has shared his expertise through lectures at universities and academic institutions worldwide. His current focus is on the South Caucasus and the Levant.
He is the author of the forthcoming book, Anatomy of Peacemaking: Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict and Missed Opportunities, to be published in both English and Armenian in Spring 2026.
My career has brought me face-to-face with many exceptional figures, but also with leaders whose hands are stained with blood. This too is part of the work—in conflict resolution, we must be willing to sit across from anyone.
Q: Thank you for taking the time to share your insights on conflict resolution, a subject that has become even more relevant to Armenians, both internally and externally. But first, let’s begin with your own trajectory. What initially drew you to the field of conflict resolution? Could you also share some of your experiences working with senior diplomats and with President Jimmy Carter?
A: Conflict has shaped my life from the beginning. Growing up in an Armenian family in Lebanon, I was surrounded by stories of atrocity, genocide, deportation, and political upheaval—not as distant history, but as living memory woven into daily conversation. Violence wasn’t just discussed; it was ever-present. These realities became part of who I am.
As a young adult in Beirut, I threw myself into both Armenian community affairs and Lebanese politics, driven by an urgent need to contribute but uncertain how to channel that passion toward resolution of conflict rather than perpetuation. When I moved to the United States in 1970 for university, it took years before I understood that law school would provide the tools I needed. The path was long and winding, but in 1990, I finally pivoted to a professional career in conflict resolution.
Over the past 35 years, I’ve had the extraordinary privilege of working alongside remarkable leaders. President Carter stands apart—a man of profound dignity, integrity, and humility who taught me more than I could have imagined. I remain deeply grateful for the opportunity to work both for him and with him so closely.
My career has brought me face-to-face with many other exceptional figures, but also with leaders whose hands are stained with blood. This too is part of the work—in conflict resolution, we must be willing to sit across from anyone.
Q: You’ve held prominent roles with the UN, OSCE, International Crisis Group, and in election observation missions—including in Bosnia, Côte d’Ivoire, and the Balkans. What key conflict resolution practices did you find most effective in each of these contexts?
A: While every conflict presents unique challenges demanding fresh tactical thinking, certain fundamental principles transcend individual cases. These core lessons, refined through practice, form the bedrock of effective mediation.
Humility stands as the first and most crucial principle. No third-party mediator, regardless of experience, should assume they understand a conflict better than those living it. The protagonists possess insights into their situation that no outsider can fully grasp.
Inclusivity represents the second imperative—talk to everyone. Never exclude participants simply because they’ve been labeled “terrorists,” “extremists,” or placed in other undesirable categories. Those shut out of negotiations invariably return to disrupt whatever agreements emerge. History teaches us that sustainable peace requires even the most difficult voices at the table.
The third principle involves temporal focus—resist the gravitational pull of past grievances and instead concentrate on building a different future. This forward momentum becomes possible when mediators help parties distinguish between their fundamental needs and their negotiable wants. Problem-solving flourishes when discussions center on addressing core requirements rather than maximizing wish lists.
Finally, mediators must help parties reclaim the word “compromise.” Far from signaling weakness or betrayal, compromise represents the courage to choose progress over perfection. It transforms zero-sum thinking into collaborative problem-solving.
These principles barely scratch the surface of effective mediation, but they provide essential guardrails for navigating even the most intractable disputes.
Q: How do conflict resolution practitioners establish trust and maintain neutrality during mediation processes? Additionally, how do they ensure that the rights and dignity of the less powerful party (losing side) are protected in the outcome?
A: While each mediation demands innovative thinking and an open mind, certain foundational practices consistently prove essential.
What’s key is building rapport and establishing trust. Establishing genuine connection with all parties forms the cornerstone of successful mediation. This begins with active listening—asking open-ended questions, reflecting and paraphrasing responses, acknowledging emotions, and summarizing key points to demonstrate true understanding. Mediators must validate each party’s experiences and emotions without necessarily endorsing their positions.
Trust develops through transparency and safety. Clearly explaining confidentiality protocols, establishing ground rules for respectful communication, and creating space for honest expression without fear of judgment or retaliation become prerequisites for meaningful dialogue. Mediators build credibility by being upfront about their role, the process, and any potential conflicts of interest.
Here, personality matters profoundly. Leaders like President Jimmy Carter and Senator George Mitchell have succeeded not merely through process expertise, but through their ability to inspire confidence in their integrity and competence. When parties trust the mediator’s character and capability, they become more willing to engage authentically.
It’s also important to manage bias and neutrality. Effective mediators maintain vigilant self-awareness about their own biases—personal, cultural, and social—while actively preventing these from influencing the process. This requires shifting conversations away from personal attacks and blame toward underlying interests and needs, fostering more objective and productive dialogue.
Equally valuable is addressing power imbalances. International mediation often involves significant power disparities between parties. Skilled mediators employ specific strategies to protect the dignity and rights of weaker parties. They create genuinely neutral spaces where all participants can engage without fear of prejudice, ensuring equal opportunity for expression while actively validating the concerns of less powerful parties.
Sometimes this means building capacity—coaching weaker parties on negotiation skills or clarifying their rights and options. Credible mediators also intervene to prevent coercive tactics, ensuring any agreement stems from informed consent rather than intimidation. By focusing on underlying interests rather than hardened positions, mediation encourages creative solutions that address everyone’s fundamental needs within international law and established norms.
Q: In your view, why did conflict resolution efforts in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict fail?
A: The failure of more than three decades of Nagorno-Karabakh mediation defies simple explanation. After two years of intensive research, I have completed a 400-page analysis that will be published in English in 2026, with an Armenian translation to follow. Through this investigation, I identified nine principal factors that contributed to this diplomatic collapse.
First, the war offered Azerbaijan a superior alternative to negotiated settlement. Military action ultimately delivered what diplomacy could not. Next, both sides remained trapped by maximalist positions. Neither party demonstrated the flexibility necessary for meaningful compromise. Another factor was Armenia’s inconsistent approach to the negotiations during the final six years before the fall of Artsakh. Moreover, leaders and mediators did not prepare their populations for peace. Without public buy-in, even successful negotiations would have faced domestic resistance. Add to this Artsakh’s exclusion from negotiations which proved counterproductive. Those most affected by any agreement had no voice in shaping it.
There’s also something to be said about how the mediators inadequately addressed the conflict’s root cause—security. Tech-nical solutions cannot resolve existential fears. Plus, classic conflict resolution tools remained underutilized. Proven mediation techniques were either ignored or poorly applied. Moreover, mediators operated with conflicting interests. Competing agendas undermined unified diplomatic effort. Lastly, realpolitik overwhelmed international law and principle. Double standards replaced consistent application of legal frameworks, while political calculations trumped justice.
Each factor reinforced the others, creating a web of dysfunction that ultimately made peaceful resolution impossible.
Q: What is your perspective on the current mediation efforts between Armenia and Azerbaijan? Do you believe they are on a constructive path?
A: The imperative for negotiation remains undeniable—the alternative is war, which must be avoided. Armenia must therefore engage with Azerbaijan, but the critical questions are how and on what terms.
Over the past two years, Azerbaijan has repeatedly shifted the goalposts of peace negotiations, introducing new conditions each time Armenia accepted their demands. This pattern raises the question of Azerbaijan’s commitment to a lasting peace and a reset in its relations with Armenia.
On August 8, Armenia and Azerbaijan signed and initiated multiple agreements, witnessed by the U.S. President. In an article published on August 16, I wrote that these agreements could end Aliyev’s incessant demands for new preconditions and suspend the imminent threats of Azerbaijani aggression against Armenia. However, lasting peace remains elusive unless the U.S., as broker, urgently addresses major gaps through further diplomacy. Three omissions can impact the agreement’s long term sustainability.
First, detailed terms for the 99-year U.S. land lease to build the 43.5-kilometer “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP) across Armenia’s southern Syunik region, and the “reciprocal benefits” Armenia would receive through Azerbaijani territory remain unspecified.
Second, the fate of 23 Armenian hostages in Baku, without proper defense or independent observers, is ignored.
Third, the international rights of indigenous Armenians expelled from Nagorno-Karabakh in October 2023 following Azerbaijan’s assault, including their ability to return and protection of historic heritage, are unaddressed.
In conclusion, success requires genuine diplomacy addressing the three critical gaps—detailed TRIPP terms ensuring Armenian sovereignty and reciprocal benefits, immediate release of Armenian hostages, and protection of displaced Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians’ rights. Without resolving these key issues, Washington’s foundation for lasting stability in the South Caucasus is on shaky ground.
Q: What do you believe is the most realistic path toward securing the return of prisoners of war (POWs) in the current Armenia–Azerbaijan context?
A: The 23 Armenians imprisoned in Baku are not prisoners of war—they are hostages. International law reserves POW status for captured combatants, yet most of these individuals were detained simply for being Armenian, including eight former Artsakh leaders. Their trials in military courts violate international human rights law and constitute nothing more than judicial theater.
Extensive documentation exists detailing Azerbaijan’s flagrant violations of its international obligations regarding detention and fair trial standards. Reports and declarations from human rights organizations have thoroughly catalogued these abuses, yet the response remains inadequate.
The official response falls short; the government has rarely spoken about these hostages. There has been no persistent outcry from the Armenian public, which also emboldens Azerbaijan to proceed unhindered with its faulty proceedings.
Western states, despite their professed commitment to human rights, could do far more to signal that Azerbaijan’s actions are being monitored. A simple gesture—sending embassy observers to these trials—could help restrain the clear violations of fair trial rights guaranteed under international law. Such oversight becomes even more critical following the expulsion of the International Committee of the Red Cross from Azerbaijan.
The harsh reality is that, without sustained pressure from Armenia, the international community, and civil society, the rights of these Armenian hostages will continue to be unprotected and subject to Azerbaijan’s control.
