The relevance of this study stems from the fact that security in the Caspian region is increasingly linked to the control of cross-border flows, the stability of transport corridors, the protection of energy and port infrastructure, and the fight against terrorism and transnational crime. The aim of this article is to define the role of the Council of Border Troop Commanders in shaping the Eurasian security architecture of the Caspian region. The study is based on an institutional approach, a comparative analysis of publicly available CIS documents, materials from the CIS Executive Committee and the CIS Anti-Terrorism Centre, reports on Council meetings, as well as academic and analytical works on Caspian security. Methodologically, the focus is on comparing the Council’s formal powers with the practices of inter-agency coordination. It is demonstrated that the Council is not a universal regulator of the Caspian Sea and does not replace national border services. Its significance lies in the regular exchange of information, the harmonisation of threat assessments, the preparation of joint actions, personnel cooperation, and long-term programme planning. It is concluded that border security in the Caspian Sea constitutes a practical element of the Eurasian security architecture, as the stability of routes, ports, coastal territories and critical infrastructure depends on coordination between border agencies.

The relevance of this study stems from the fact that security in the Caspian region is increasingly linked to the control of cross-border flows, the stability of transport corridors, the protection of energy and port infrastructure, and the fight against terrorism and transnational crime. The aim of this article is to define the role of the Council of Border Troop Commanders in shaping the Eurasian security architecture of the Caspian region. The study is based on an institutional approach, a comparative analysis of publicly available CIS documents, materials from the CIS Executive Committee and the CIS Anti-Terrorism Centre, reports on Council meetings, as well as academic and analytical works on Caspian security. Methodologically, the focus is on comparing the Council’s formal powers with the practices of inter-agency coordination. It is demonstrated that the Council is not a universal regulator of the Caspian Sea and does not replace national border services. Its significance lies in the regular exchange of information, the harmonisation of threat assessments, the preparation of joint actions, personnel cooperation, and long-term programme planning. It is concluded that border security in the Caspian Sea constitutes a practical element of the Eurasian security architecture, as the stability of routes, ports, coastal territories and critical infrastructure depends on coordination between border agencies.