The Azerbaijani Democratic Republic (ADR), which existed for only 23 months between 1918 and 1920, occupies an extremely important place in the history of contemporary (Northern) Azerbaijan. So far a considerable amount of works including archival documents as well as academic studies investigating different aspects of this period has been produced. However, accepting the importance of chronological-historical (and partly descriptive) works made by national historians, this short experience should also be evaluated by using methods that the International Relations discipline presents. This kind of assessment, that would be especially meaningful in the centenary of its fall, will contribute to our understanding of the ADR experience. This article has been written as an introduction to such an assessment and includes some initial classifications and generalizations. The article is composed of three parts.

In the first part, the article identifies the general framework for the ADR foreign policy under three subtitles, namely, parameters, threats and periodization. In this sense, it classifies the following five fundamental parameters as shaping the ADR foreign policy: 1) de facto and de jure recognition of the state independence, 2) guaranteeing the general security and security of borders, 3) the search for allies (especially among great powers), 4) establishing political/economic/trade relations with neighbors and other states, 5) promotion of the idea of the Caucasian Confederation. Subsequently, the article identifies the following four main threats that threatened the existence and security of ADR: 1) the Baku Bolshevik Commune, 2) General Denikin’s Voluntary Army, 3) Violent tension with Armenia and local war in the borderland, 4) the Bolshevik Russia. The ADR somehow overcame the first two threats, tried to keep the third one under control, but failed to challenge the last. The article also divides the ADR foreign policy process into three periods: 1) (full) protection by the Ottoman state, 2) (semi) protection by Britain, 3) a period without protection (de facto independence).

In addition to these classifications, in the second part, the article deals with the practical side of ADR foreign policy, that is, bilateral relations with neighbors and regional and great powers and tries to summarize a general framework of policies and contacts. It seems that in a short time the ADR not only achieved the establishment of formal relations in all these levels, but also developed multidimensional (political, economic, military etc.) foreign engagement. Moreover, the article touches on some aspects on conduction of diplomacy by the ADR, that is, principles, instruments and institutionalization of diplomacy. It concludes that in a short period of time, the ADR founders tried to institutionalize diplomacy and to build an effective ministry having central apparatus and ad hoc as well as resident missions abroad. The ADR demonstrated all characteristics of a small state by focusing on multilateral diplomacy, integration with neighbors as well as defending principles of peaceful co-existence. The main idea that this article tries to develop here is that the ADR’s founders, though lacking state management experience, were able to quickly acquire capabilities that were necessary to conduct foreign policy in that time, gave priority to institutionalization in foreign policy and diplomacy, and used almost all diplomatic instruments in order to make the state independence recognized.

All of this, it can be said, was reflected on the diplomatic discourse and activities of Ali Merdan Topchubashi (1865-1934), who rightly deserves to be called the “chief diplomat” of ADR. In the last part, the article briefly illustrates Topchubashi’s diplomatic activities in Istanbul and Paris, and presents him as a zenith of ADR diplomacy.