In a new paper, Ukrainian political scientist and columnist Viktor Taran.
As he points out, on September 18, in Wiesbaden, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan was honored with the Hesse Peace Prize. An official statement cited his “outstanding contribution” to the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which the organizers described as one of the most significant political developments in the South Caucasus in recent years. “However, this peace was not a unilateral effort by Pashinyan,” Tarán comments.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
On August 8, 2025, in Washington, Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev signed a joint declaration. The ceremony took place at the White House, in the presence of Donald Trump, with the U.S. side presenting it as an agreement between two states following decades of conflict.
Up until Wiesbaden, international awards had followed the same logic. In February 2026, Pashinyan and Aliyev jointly received the Zayed Award for Human Fraternity, with the organizers specifically highlighting their joint efforts to consolidate peace. In the spring, the Guernica Prize for Peace and Reconciliation was also awarded to the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace agreement, with explicit reference to the negotiating efforts of both leaders.
“Hesse chose a different path: from a bilateral process, it singled out a single recipient. Azerbaijan remained a party to the peace agreement, but ceased to be part of the narrative surrounding the award,” Tarán notes in his analysis.
“Pashinyan referred to this paradox, but that was as far as it went. He did not refuse the personal award; he traveled to Wiesbaden for the ceremony and, upon receiving it, stated: ‘I would also like to express my appreciation to Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan, who is equally deserving of this award.’
Both leaders signed the Washington Declaration, and previous international awards had recognized both of them—yet Hesse chose only one. This might perhaps be explained by the nature of this particular award, had the organizers limited themselves to Pashinyan’s personal contribution to the negotiations. It is interesting, however, to examine their rationale, according to Ukrainian political scientist Taran.
An Award Not Just for Peace
In its official statement, the Hessian state parliament praises Pashinyan not only for the settlement with Azerbaijan. The organizers also highlight his efforts to build democratic institutions and bring Armenia closer to the European Union. The invitation to the ceremony articulates this political trajectory even more clearly: since the “Velvet Revolution,” it states, Pashinyan has been leading the country on the path toward Europe.
“And this is precisely where the story of a paradoxically awarded peace prize becomes much more interesting. Because in 2026, the claim of a stable democratic consolidation in Armenia proved to be far less clear-cut than the Hesse press release suggests,” comments Tarán.
During the parliamentary elections on June 7, international observers documented a whole range of violations and described a highly contentious election campaign. They pointed to unequal conditions of competition, pressure on public sector employees, and numerous criminal prosecutions against opposition candidates and activists. Fara Karimi, head of the OSCE’s short-term observer mission, put the problem even more succinctly: the concentration of arrests and criminal prosecutions against opposition figures, she said, “contributed to perceptions of selective justice.”
According to data from the Armenian Prosecutor General’s Office itself, by election night, 210 criminal proceedings had been initiated since the start of the electoral process, and public criminal charges had been filed against 349 individuals. On the eve of the elections, the Anti-Corruption Commission reported 194 separate detentions; 84 defendants were placed in custody or under house arrest.
A series of cases against the opposition
On June 6—one day before the parliamentary elections—the authorities obtained authorization to prosecute and arrest six candidates from the “Strong Armenia” bloc in a case involving alleged vote-buying, material inducements, and money laundering. In the weeks that followed, several candidates were remanded in custody. Nevertheless, the bloc finished second with 23% of the vote and won 29 seats in parliament.
On July 6, Gagik Tsarukyan, leader of the “Prosperous Armenia” party, was arrested. He was charged with fraud and money laundering and was remanded in custody for two months.
On August 25, former President Robert Kotcharian, leader of the “Armenia” parliamentary bloc, and his son, Sentrak, were arrested. Kocharian was charged with abuse of power, accepting bribes on a particularly large scale, and money laundering. Both deny the charges and remain in custody.
In early September, former Finance Minister Gagik Khachatryan was wheeled into court on a stretcher. Lawyers for the 71-year-old former minister, who suffers from a serious spinal condition, stated that he was in severe pain during his transport. The court ordered his detention for two months in connection with a bribery and money laundering case.
On September 8, a court extended the detention of “Mother Armenia” party leader Andranik Tevanyan and his associate Aregnaz Manukyan. Tevanyan is charged, among other things, with high treason, and Manukyan with disclosing state secrets. The defense disputes the charges.
Meanwhile, the conflict between the Pashinyan government and the Armenian Church continues to escalate. In February, criminal proceedings were initiated against Catholicos Karekin II, who was also barred from leaving the country; a court later lifted that restriction.
Formally, political scientist Taran notes, “all these cases are distinct—in terms of circumstances, charges, and defendants. However, their political significance also lies in their cumulative impact: one high-profile case follows another, and prominent opposition figures appear again and again among the defendants. It was precisely this concentration that OSCE observers highlighted when they spoke of perceptions of “selective justice.” This aspect of Armenia’s political reality was omitted from Hesse’s official statements regarding the country’s democratization.”
What exactly did Hesse commend?
In his analysis, Tarán asks whether “does Pashinyan really deserve recognition for his role in the peace process? His contribution is well-documented and obvious. The question is a different one: for what exact reason was he chosen to be honored on his own?
If the award is indeed dedicated to peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the decision to honor only one of the two parties involved requires an explanation. All the more so, in fact, since other international awards have recognized both leaders, and Pashinyan himself acknowledged in Wiesbaden that Aliyev had contributed equally,” he remarks pointedly.
He argues that it was the organizers who gave a different interpretation to the meaning of the award: “in a single justification, they combine the peace process, the democratic transformation in Armenia, and the country’s rapprochement with the EU. Within this context, the award no longer appears to be merely a recognition of peace efforts, but also a political message to Yerevan’s current leadership.
A joint achievement of two countries has, in the end, been personalized in favor of a single leader. In Washington, the peace was sealed by Aliyev and Pashinyan; other awards recognized both of them. The Hessian parliament, however, recognized only one of them.”
*Photo credit: Nikol Pashinyan’s Facebook account
