Abstract
The article compares elements of an internationally recognized basis for the Syrian crisis settlement. The latter is comprised of documents adopted during discussions in the framework of various international formats: Kofi Annan Plan (2012), Geneva Communique (2012), United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254 (2015). The paper analyses the nature of Russian-American differences in interpretation of the three documents provisions as well as links between those decisions and various collective formats including UN Security Council, Action Group for Syria and International Syria Support Group (ISSG). The author looks into negotiation process to which these documents served as a basis, first and foremost intra-Syrian talks in Geneva, and specifies Russian and American positions on the issue of the so called political transition in Syria; identifies strong and weak points of relevant decisions, and contemplates if they could be used as an effective instrument of collective search for a Syrian conflict settlement formula. Syrian authorities’ stance towards these documents and decisions is also analysed, as it defines the behavior of the Syrian government delegation at intra-Syrian talks in Geneva under the UN auspices. The article explains why Damascus did not find acceptable provisions of the internationally-agreed document and refused to perceive them as a basis for the Syrian crisis solution. 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
