After the occupation of Artsakh and the forced displacement of the indigenous population, the rights of the people of Artsakh and the legal standing of Artsakh are not only ignored, but are also deliberately directed in a fruitless direction.
Against the background of the lack of political will and effective steps by the RA government to protect the rights of Artsakh and the people of Artsakh, actions are taking place in the legal and public space aimed at protecting those guilty of rights violations from political and legal responsibility.
Thanks to Armenian lobbying, the parliaments of a number of countries, including France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, as well as international courts, have adopted decisions and resolutions recognizing the fact of ethnic cleansing in Artsakh and the right of Armenians to return. However, the resolutions and decisions do not give a political assessment of ethnic cleansing and do not define the conditions for return.
The latest example of such a controversial political assessment is the fifth periodic report on Azerbaijan by the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of the Council of Europe.
It states that “Azerbaijan has re-established its effective control over Karabakh, as well as over seven adjacent regions. At the same time, more than 100,000 Armenians have left the region following the almost ten-month blockade of the Lachin corridor, the military operation by the Azerbaijani authorities in September 2023 and the sudden reopening of the corridor.” As a recommendation for immediate action, the Advisory Committee calls on the authorities to create the political, legal and practical conditions necessary for the safe, unhindered and sustainable return of Armenians displaced from Karabakh, as well as to establish a specific mechanism to deal with property issues.
In other words, the CoE Committee considers Azerbaijan’s restoration of control over Nagorno-Karabakh to be “effective”, calling only for the return of Karabakh residents and the establishment of a mechanism to resolve property issues.
Where are the Europeans and Armenian leaders calling for Armenians to return to? To Karabakh, where Azerbaijan “effectively restored control”? Baku does not deny the right of Armenians to return, putting forward its own conditions: acceptance of Azerbaijani citizenship and laws. Moreover, Baku ignores all forms of self-determination of Armenians in Karabakh, although in 1921 Karabakh and Nakhichevan were incorporated into Azerbaijan as Armenian autonomies. And, since international bodies and Armenian politicians do not deny Baku’s conditions, insisting on the return of Armenians to Artsakh, it turns out that they tacitly recognize Azerbaijan’s right to “reestablish control” by force and occupy Artsakh through genocide and deportation. “Occupation,” “genocide,” and “deportation” are serious crimes in international law, which entail serious political and legal responsibility. But these words are not in the vocabulary of the Armenian establishment. The authorities are mostly silent about political assessments, trying to quickly conclude a “peace agreement” in which there will be no mention of Artsakh. And the opposition, represented by the “Oskanian Committee”, preferred to deal not with occupation, genocide and violation of the right to self-determination, but with the issue of ethnic cleansing and recognition of the right to return.
Meanwhile, in international law, the concepts of “ethnic cleansing” and “right to return” are not considered full-fledged categories.
International law specialist Ara Ghazaryan noted in an interview with Forrights: “There are studies on the right to return and it has a clear normative nature in international law, although not in that expression, but in terms of the right to movement. It is enshrined in three branches of international law: customary, human and humanitarian. That is, it has a clear normative nature, but it is not called return, but is viewed under the right to movement. And, there are disputes in terms of ethnic cleansing. Some experts define it as a political term, but in legal and judicial acts the concept of ethnic cleansing falls under both racism and war crimes, but it does not have a specific normative nature.”
Other experts say the same, citing the Convention on Human Rights, which states that returning to one’s “own country” is permissible, but does not define what “one’s country” is and what it has to do with territory.
The question arises: why is the Armenian lobbying making so much effort to achieve fruitless results? What does the recognition of ethnic cleansing and the right to return give Armenians? Isn’t it a trick to bypass political rights and demands, removing responsibility from internal and external criminals and finally closing the Artsakh issue?
Naira Hayrumyan