The International Legal Implications of Conflict in the South Caucasus, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Armenia
By Alex Avaneszadeh, Project Manager, Fletcher Russia and Eurasia Program
On March 29, 2024, the Fletcher Russia and Eurasia Program, the Tavitian Scholars, and the Armenian Bar Association held a panel discussion on past and ongoing disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, human rights, and other related interstate issues. The conversation was joined by Yeghishe Kirakosyan, representative of the Republic of Armenia on international legal matters; Amir Farhadi, an associate at Foley Hoag LLP and counsel to the Republic of Armenia at the International Court of Justice (ICJ); Tom Dannenbaum, Associate Professor of International Law at The Fletcher School; and Tim Potier, Senior Fellow at the Center for International Law and Governance at The Fletcher School. The conversation was held under the Chatham House Rule.
After Azerbaijan initiated the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War against the de facto Armenia-backed Republic of Artsakh, the two countries have taken a series of international legal measures against each other initiated by Armenia. These legal actions have complicated an already-fraught peace treaty negotiation process. The mass exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia after Azerbaijan’s September 2023 offensive created additional human rights and humanitarian concerns. The international legal implications of this issue remain to be addressed.
The panelists discussed the nature of Armenia’s claims against Azerbaijan at the ICJ based on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Armenia filed its suit against Azerbaijan in September 2021, citing convention violations during and after the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. The panelists noted that since Armenia’s suit was filed, the ICJ instituted various provisional measures against Azerbaijan. One of these measures is refraining from hate speech at the public and governmental level. Another is to ensure unimpeded access to the Lachin Corridor, the only road connecting Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh amid Azerbaijan’s humanitarian blockade of the territory. Azerbaijan also requested a provisional measure against hate speech in Armenia, but the ICJ only included language to refrain from hate speech from private persons in Armenia, not public hate speech. The speakers noted that Azerbaijan’s counsel had likely not substantiated the accusation of systemic and public hate speech in Armenia. The panelists generally observed that the Court’s language toward Azerbaijan is stronger and more specific than the more general provisional measures instituted against Armenia.
The panelists also highlighted Armenia’s accession to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on February 1, 2024, making it the 124th state party to the ICC. Armenia granted the ICC jurisdiction retroactively to May 10, 2021, around the time when Armenia reported Azerbaijani encroachment onto its sovereign territory. However, no known proceedings have been initiated yet under the ICC.
The ongoing legal actions taken by Armenia and Azerbaijan against one another at the ICJ may be a primary issue in the attempts to normalize relations between the two countries. The panelists discussed whether or not Armenia should drop its cases, considering the implications such a decision would have on the enforceability of a peace treaty and the overall security of the region.
