★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★Open research. Global perspectives.
editor@theamericanjournals.comPublisher Home ↗
Political Science Law OPEN ACCESS

The Zangezur Corridor in The Architecture of Transport and Logistics Integration of The Organization of Turkic States

Tagayeva Faragat Begmirzayevna
Independent PhD Researcher at Tashkent State University of Oriental Studies, Lecturer at the Department of Social and Political Sciences, Diplomat University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
DOI Crossref DOI 10.37547/tajpslc/Volume08Issue10-06
tajpslc 2026
VOL. 8 / NO. 10 OCTOBER
FULL TEXT PP. 31-46
DOWNLOAD PDF

View all articles in this issue ↗

VOLUME 8
ISSUE 10
YEAR 2026
PAGES 31-46
RESEARCH OVERVIEW

Abstract

This study analyzes the significance of the Zangezur Corridor within the developing transport and logistics framework of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) and evaluates its potential impact on the development of the Middle Corridor. Drawing on OTS strategic and regulatory documents and relevant analytical literature, it argues that transport infrastructure serves as a system-forming (structural) element of Turkic integration rather than a supplementary sector. The Zangezur Corridor can be conceptualized as the missing land link in the Türkiye–Azerbaijan–Caspian–Central Asia axis, capable of reducing logistics costs, strengthening the resilience of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, and expanding layered connectivity through energy and digital infrastructures. Uzbekistan is emerging as a key actor in shaping transport integration within the Turkic space. This can be seen in its institutional initiatives within the OTS, its efforts to promote multimodal interoperability, and its contribution to developing digital transit tools and East–West connectivity. At the same time, the implementation of the corridor is influenced by political constraints, competition from alternative routes, and the differing interests of external actors. The study also suggests that transport could become a key area of project-based cooperation through OTS+. Overall, the Zangezur Corridor can be understood both as a potential strategic connectivity resource and as an indicator of the institutional maturity of the OTS.

RESEARCH TOPICS

Keywords

Organization of Turkic States Zangezur Corridor Middle Corridor

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
SOURCES & SCHOLARSHIP

References

  1. Abbott, K. W., Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A.-M., & Snidal, D. (2000). The concept of legalization. International Organization, 54(3), 401–419.
  2. Achkasov, V. A., & Lantsov, S. A. (2011). World politics and international relations. Moscow: Aspekt Press.
  3. Aliyev, I. (2024, July 6). Speech at the Informal Summit of the Organization of Turkic States in Shusha. https://president.az/en/articles/view/66441
  4. Akçay, N., & Changgang, G. (2023). Türkiye’s Middle Corridor and China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Identification and Assessment. Insight Turkey, 25(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2023251.4
  5. Asbarez. (2025, August 8). U.S. to control Syunik road for 99 years as Yerevan and Baku sign agreement to pursue peace. https://asbarez.com/u-s-to-control-syunik-road-for-99-years-as-yerevan-and-baku-sign-agreement-to-pursue-peace/
  6. Blackwill, R. D., & Harris, J. M. (2016). War by Other Means: Geoeconomics and Statecraft. Harvard University Press.
  7. Blank, S. (2022). The geopolitics of the Zangezur Corridor. Central Asia–Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program. https://silkroadstudies.org/resources/pdf/SilkRoadPapers/2022-02-Zangezur-Blank.pdf
  8. Brzezinski, Z. (1997). The grand chessboard: American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives. Basic Books.
  9. Buranelli, F. C. (2025). The Consultative Meetings of Heads of State of Central Asia: Local norms, institutions and the fundamentals of regional order. International Affairs, 102(1), 121–145.
  10. Caspian Post. (2025). Azerbaijan emerges as key bridge between Asia and Europe. https://caspianpost.com/analytics/azerbaijan-emerges-as-key-bridge-between-asia-and-europe
  11. Center for Analysis of Economic Reforms and Communication of the Republic of Azerbaijan. (2025). Turkic States Quarterly Economic Outlook: 2nd Quarter 2025, No. 14. Baku.
  12. Central Asia–Caucasus Analyst. (2023). Is the Aras Corridor an alternative to Zangezur? https://cacianalyst.org/publications/analytical-articles/item/13788-is-the-aras-corridor-an-alternative-to-zangezur.html
  13. Chedia, A. R. (2024). Zangezur Corridor: Economic potential and political constraints. Russia in Global Affairs, 22(1), 194–216. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2024-22-1-194-216
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2006). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  15. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  16. Cornell, S. E. (2001). Small nations and great powers: A study of ethnopolitical conflict in the Caucasus. Curzon Press.
  17. Çolakoğlu, S. (2019). China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Turkey’s Middle Corridor: A Question of Compatibility. Middle East Institute, 29 January. Available at: https://www.mei.edu/publications/chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-and-turkeys-middle-corridor-question-compatibility
  18. Fawcett, L. (2004). Exploring regional domains: A comparative history of regionalism. International Affairs, 80(3), 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2004.00391.x
  19. de Waal, T. (2021). Unblocking transport links in the South Caucasus: What do the 2020 ceasefire terms mean? Carnegie Europe. https://carnegieeurope.eu/2021/01/13/unblocking-transport-links-in-south-caucasus-what-do-2020-ceasefire-terms-mean-pub-83612
  20. de Waal, T. (2021). In the South Caucasus, Can New Trade Routes Help Overcome a Geography of Conflict? Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  21. Eldem, T. (2022). Russia’s war on Ukraine and the rise of the Middle Corridor as a third vector of Eurasian connectivity. SWP Comment, No. 64/2022. https://doi.org/10.18449/2022C64
  22. Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42–79. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00351
  23. Gawliczek, P., & Iskandarov, K. (2023). The Zangezur corridor as part of the global transport route (against the backdrop of power games in the South Caucasus region). Security and Defence Quarterly, 41(1), 36–53. https://doi.org/10.35467/sdq/161993
  24. Hashimov, E., Talibov, A. and Iskandarov, K. (2025). The Socioeconomic Impact of the Zangezur Corridor on the South Caucasus Region. Social Development and Security, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.33445/sds.2025.15.4.1
  25. Iskandarov, K., Gawliczek, P., & Sadygov, R. (2019). Transport corridors in the South Caucasus: Regional cooperation and geopolitical constraints. Caucasus Survey, 7(1), 7–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761199.2019.1572145
  26. Jamestown Foundation. (2023). Russia losing influence as the Middle Corridor expands across Eurasia. Eurasia Daily Monitor. https://jamestown.org/program/russia-losing-influence-as-middle-corridor-expands-across-eurasia/
  27. Jamestown Foundation. (2026). Azerbaijan joins Central Asian Consultative Meetings. Eurasia Daily Monitor. https://jamestown.org/azerbaijan-joins-central-asian-consultative-meetings/
  28. Kavtaradze, E. (2024). Armenia and Azerbaijan in a Geopolitical Battle: Zangezur Corridor. The Caucasus and the World. https://doi.org/10.52340/ijs.2024.29.12
  29. Keohane, R. O. (1988). International institutions: Two approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600589
  30. Koolaee, E., Rashidi, A., & Mohammadi, M. (2024). The Zangezur Corridor and regional power balance in the South Caucasus. Caucasus Survey, 12(2), 124–129.
  31. Koolaee, E., & Rashidi, A. (2024). The Zangezur Corridor and threats to the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the South Caucasus. Caucasus Analytical Digest, 136, 3–6. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000657553
  32. Khusanov, C. K., & Erkaboev, A. B. (2024). Prospects for the development of international outsourcing in Uzbekistan. Habitus Journal of Sociology, 5(5), 173–192. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/habitus/article/1414020
  33. Kwan, S. (2026). Freight volumes on Middle Corridor through Kazakhstan rise fivefold in seven years. The Times of Central Asia, 11 March. Available at: https://timesca.com/freight-volumes-on-middle-corridor-through-kazakhstan-rise-fivefold-in-seven-years/
  34. Latsabidze, A. (2025, August 14). The strategic importance of the Caspian and Black Sea regions for Europe’s energy security. Policy Brief. Carleton University, EU–East Europe Network. https://carleton.ca/eetn/wp-content/uploads/sites/44/2025/08/The-Strategic-Importance-of-the-Caspian-and-Black-Sea-Regions-for-Europes-Energy-Security.pdf
  35. Makhkamov, I. (2025). Interview with the Minister of Transport of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan Economic Bulletin, 1–2, 28–39. (in Russian)
  36. Mirziyoyev, Sh. (2023, November 3). Address at the Tenth Summit of the Heads of State of the Organization of Turkic States. Astana. https://president.uz/en/lists/view/6831
  37. Mirziyoyev, Sh. (2024a, November 6). Address at the Summit of the Heads of State of the Organization of Turkic States. Bishkek. https://president.uz/en/lists/view/7670
  38. Mirziyoyev, Sh. (2024b). Without Shusha there is no Karabakh; without Karabakh there is no Azerbaijan. Turkic World Magazine, Inside the Issue III, 21–25.
  39. Mirziyoyev, Sh. (2025, November 16). Speech at the Seventh Consultative Meeting of the Heads of State of Central Asia. Tashkent. https://president.uz/ru/lists/view/8674
  40. Omuraliev, K. (2025). Interview with the Secretary General of the Organization of Turkic States. Uzbekistan Economic Bulletin, 1–2, 12–23. (in Russian)
  41. Organization of Turkic States. (2021). Turkic World Vision–2040. https://www.turkicstates.org/en/haberler/turkic-world-vision-2040-adopted_2392
  42. Organization of Turkic States. (2022). OTS Strategy 2022–2026. Istanbul: OTS Secretariat. https://www.turkicstates.org/en/areas-of-cooperation-detail/1-political-cooperation
  43. Organization of Turkic States. (2024). Report of the Informal Summit of the Organization of Turkic States (Meeting of the Council of Heads of State), Shusha, Azerbaijan, 6 July 2024 (Note-2024-1683). Istanbul: OTS Secretariat.
  44. Organization of Turkic States. (2025). Gabala Declaration of the Twelfth Summit of the Organization of Turkic States. Gabala, Republic of Azerbaijan, 7 October 2025. Official document. https://turkicstates.org/u/gabala-declaration-.pdf
  45. President of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (2025, August 22). A meeting of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan leaders takes place. https://president.uz/en/lists/view/8405
  46. Rodrigue, J.-P. (2024). The Geography of Transport Systems. 6th ed. New York: Routledge. Available at: https://transportgeography.org/
  47. Sadiyev, S., & Iskandarov, K. (2018). Transportation corridors and geopolitics in the South Caucasus. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 9(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2017.12.004
  48. Tokayev, K.-J. (2024). The Turkic peoples should always be in solidarity. Turkic World Magazine, Inside the Issue III, 12–16.
  49. Valansi, K. (2025, June 2). Why the Middle Corridor matters amid a geopolitical resorting. Atlantic Council – Turkey Defense Journal. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/ac-turkey-defense-journal/why-the-middle-corridor-matters-amid-a-geopolitical-resorting/
  50. United Nations, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). (2021). Review of Developments in Transport in Asia and the Pacific: Towards Sustainable, Inclusive and Resilient Urban Passenger Transport in Asian Cities. Bangkok: United Nations.