Editor’s Note: The following is the English translation of an article published on February 24, in Armenian, in “Aztag,” Asbarez’s sister publication in Beirut, Lebanon.
BY DR. KEVORK HAGOPJIAN, ESQ.
Up until now, to be realistic, international courts have proven to be weak instruments for restoring justice and holding states accountable. Their impact is limited because, unlike domestic courts, there are no established legal mechanisms or enforcement tools to ensure the execution of international court rulings. This means that even if an international or regional court issues a judgment, its full implementation largely depends on the political whims and interests of the states involved at the time. In cases of non-compliance, the pressure and sanctions imposed on a state are contingent upon the geopolitical interests pursued by the international community—in particular, the superpowers—which may include financial, diplomatic, criminal, or suspension penalties from international organizations.
Among many examples, it is worth recalling the ruling/provisional measure of the International Court of Justice on February 22, 2022, demanding that Azerbaijan open the Lachin Corridor—a ruling that Azerbaijan did not comply with. Not only did Azerbaijan ignore the court’s decision, but it also continued the blockade for over seven months, followed by committing the crime of aggression, occupying Artsakh, and forcefully displacing the Armenian population from their homeland. Neither the ICJ nor any other international courts were able to change the situation or prevent Azerbaijan’s genocidal policies and actions through ethnic cleansing.
Alongside this reality, it is essential to remember that just like any other legal case, international legal claims are difficult to predict. There is always the possibility of an unjust or incomplete verdict that might not satisfy all the demands and expectations of the claimant/plaintiff. In other words, there is no guarantee that international legal cases brought by the Republic of Armenia (RA) or individuals will necessarily result in favorable judgments or, more importantly, be enforced. So why place so much importance on these legal proceedings? Why oppose and condemn Nikol Pashinyan’s recent statement that the Republic of Armenia is ready to withdraw its international/regional legal processes?
Third, international courts differ from domestic courts due to the additional jurisdictional privileges and flexibilities enjoyed by states. For example, for a lawsuit to be litigated by the ICJ, there are four ways to involve the International Court of Justice in an interstate dispute:
- Both states agree to take their dispute to the ICJ and accept its jurisdiction,
- The issue is referred to the ICJ by the UN Security Council,
- The state is a party to an international treaty that allows for legal action in front of the ICJ.
- The state voluntarily accepts the jurisdiction of the court (Article 36(2)).
This means that neither any state nor the ICJ has broad discretion to bring a matter to substantive examination and adjudication. For instance, Armenia’s legal case against Azerbaijan was filed under alleged violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and there were no legal obstacles to bring the case to the ICJ. since both Armenia and Azerbaijan have ratified the convention.
Based on the three clarifications mentioned above, one might cautiously accept that in the context of regulating interstate relations and peace negotiations, the parties could possibly discuss the issue of abandoning international legal claims. It is also worth considering that if international legal processes are indeed weak instruments, then why not abandon them for the sake of peace and normalization of relations?
The answer is both simple and complex. For a vulnerable and exposed state like Armenia, relinquishing potential legal measures without clear and stable gains could have irreversible consequences. What alternative measures does Armenia have today to hold Azerbaijan accountable, ensure the rights of victims and survivors, restore justice, guarantee non-repetition of similar crimes, and secure sustainable peace? Armenia essentially has three ways to achieve these goals:
- Through military power, which is impossible under current circumstances due to the disproportionate and unequal balance of forces,
- Through political-diplomatic and negotiation avenues, which Armenia’s authorities are incapable of pursuing due to a lack of political will and competence. Additionally:
- Armenia does not negotiate as an equal but rather from a position of weakness and subjugation,
- The absence of a strategically influential ally and the numerous internal and external geopolitical challenges further weaken its stance.
It is equally naïve to believe that Azerbaijan will one day take responsibility, apologize, provide compensation, free prisoners of war and hostages, withdraw from Armenia’s sovereign territories, guarantee the safe return and self-determination rights of the people of Artsakh, and end its anti-Armenian genocidal policies to establish good neighborly relations. If Azerbaijan were genuinely willing to do all of this, then none of the legal processes would have been necessary… But there is not the slightest indication that Azerbaijan is ready to abandon its aggressive and racist state policies. Under current circumstances, international legal measures seem to be the only effective deterrent that can somewhat restrain Azerbaijan’s ambitions.
Therefore, in light of the current circumstances, the legal path is an irreplaceable (or at least a complementary) measure that, despite all the aforementioned limitations, continues to unsettle, worry, and pressure Azerbaijan. It is precisely for this reason that Azerbaijan, on one hand, demands that Armenia abandon its legal claims, while on the other hand, continues to file unfounded claims against Armenia in international legal forums, including the case presented before the International Court of Arbitration under the 1979 Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. If Azerbaijan was also willing to abandon its claims against Armenia, it would not have escalated its arbitration proceeding initiated back in 2023 into a lawsuit in February 2025.
One should not overlook the importance of individual legal claims either. Among many examples, it is worth mentioning that over a hundred prisoners of war who were released and repatriated in recent years have filed individual legal claims with the European Court of Human Rights to restore their rights and to demand justice from Azerbaijan. These cases are under examination, and abandoning state-level legal claims by the Republic of Armenia could indirectly (or even directly) negatively impact individual legal processes.
In addition, if Armenia were to make such a concession to Azerbaijan, Turkey would likely demand a similar precondition within the context of Armenia-Turkey relations, causing irreversible damage to all potential legal processes aimed at addressing and eliminating the consequences of the 1915 Armenian Genocide.
Simply put, given Armenia’s current vulnerable military, political, and diplomatic situation, it is absolutely unacceptable, even under pressure, to bring the tool of legal avenues to the negotiating table. On the contrary, international law is a fundamental pillar and a necessary precondition for achieving true justice and reconciliation among peoples and states. Theoretically, even if Azerbaijan and Armenia were to abandon their legal claims, the absence of judicial proceedings would not erase the crimes committed. On the contrary, injustice and impunity would persist, further deepening the culture of impunity and paving the way for future crimes.
Can you imagine the shocking message that would be sent to the world if Armenia were to abandon its legal claims without restoring justice or holding Azerbaijan accountable for its committed crimes? The message would be: Azerbaijan was legitimized in its decades-long anti-Armenian/Armenaphobic policies, ethnic cleansing, destruction of Artsakh and its cultural heritage, and Armenia is no longer willing to pursue any action to address these crimes and policies.
Therefore, under the current circumstances, legal avenues, despite their flaws and risks, are indispensable for holding Azerbaijan accountable and restoring justice. This is not merely about the effectiveness or immediate enforcement of international legal proceedings, but rather about documenting Azerbaijan’s state crimes, ensuring historical accountability, preserving collective memory, achieving historical justice, creating a crucial diplomatic leverage, restoring collective dignity, ensuring future reparations, and most importantly, securing lasting peace.
Dr. Kevork Hagopjian, Esq. is an attorney and human rights advocate with expertise in international law, minority rights, civil litigation, and community engagement. He holds a Ph.D. in Law from the University of Vienna, along with two LL.M. degrees in Public International Law from SOAS, University of London and U.S. Law from George Mason University as well as an LL.B. from University of Aleppo. His doctoral research led to the publication of a book on “The rights of Armenian minorities in Lebanon and Turkey under National and International law”. In addition to legal practice, he facilitates dialogue and peacebuilding efforts in divided or post-conflict communities. With experience spanning legal, intergovernmental, nonprofit and civil society sectors, Dr Hagopjian remains actively engaged in global conversations on justice, accountability, and human dignity.
