The relationship between the government, international institutions and the civil society sector in Armenia, as in many other post-communist states that became independent with the fall of Soviet Union, reveals some unexpected outcomes of democracy promotion and raises new and interesting questions about the prospects for democratization within such states' typically autocratic and semi-authoritarian systems. In the 1990s, when USSR split into newly independent, officially democratic states, many observers rather optimistically held up these small, politically weak republics to serve as promising test grounds for potential best practices from Western norm-exporting institutions as well as aid programs also largely designed to support the development of democratic governance and market economies. On the institutional level, the European Union (the "EU"), over time, has garnered recognition and some praise as a successful agent of democratization in third countries.

Perhaps EU's most notable achievements so far, the 1980s transitions of Greece, Spain and Portugal coupled with the most recent successful advancements in the Eastern post-communist space, have given it grounds to proclaim its success and universalize this approach with regards to all subsequent post-communist cases . The European Neighborhood Policy (the "ENP") and the European Partnership (EaP) are EU's modern `vehicles' for normative transfer. Through these relatively new programs, the EU attaches incentives for successful political and economic reform and a transfer of norms though increasing and deepening interaction with domestic actors. In particular, the EU's interaction with domestic civil society organizations ("CSOs") and the confluence of these CSOs with the semi-authoritarian Armenian state and other non-state actors, such as the large Armenian Diaspora, present a rich phenomenon to examine.

In my thesis, I argue that the policies employed by the ENP and the EaP are insufficient and incongruent in context of the Armenian state and civil society organizations. Further, using a case study involving an Armenian democratically minded NGO and an analysis of the successes and failures of its diverse civic initiatives targeting state violations of human and civil rights, I demonstrate the anemic nature of the proliferating, yet utterly ineffective Armenian civil society. Ultimately, my research suggests that the chances of developing a stronger Armenian civil society as well as the potential for Armenia's democratization in general, can be markedly improved with the help of a more proactive, inclusive, and punitive as well as rewarding EU.