The history of Artsakh is one of the most striking examples of the contradictions within modern international law.
Historically an Armenian land, inhabited predominantly by Armenians since ancient times, Artsakh was successively detached from historical Armenia as a result of imposed geopolitical decisions, and later abandoned by international powers under the guise of “regional stability,” which over time became a justification for inaction.

The mass exodus of the Armenian population of Artsakh in 2023 was not only a humanitarian and civilizational catastrophe, but also a profound moral and legal failure of the international community.

Artsakh as a Historical Armenian Reality

Artsakh was one of the historical provinces of the ancient Armenian kingdom.
Armenian, Byzantine, Persian, and Russian chronicles attest that the Armenian people have lived in this region for more than two millennia.

During the Middle Ages, the Armenian principalities of Artsakh—the melikdoms—preserved their relative autonomy despite successive invasions.
Even under Persian and later Russian rule, the Armenian identity of the region remained dominant and indisputable.

Between 1918 and 1920, following the collapse of the Russian Empire and the Caucasian conflicts, the Armenians of Artsakh openly rejected the authority of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic.

In February 1920, the 9th Congress of Nagorno-Karabakh, convened in Shushi, proclaimed an Armenian autonomous administration pending a final international resolution of the region’s status.

Thus, at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Sèvres (August 10, 1920), the issue of Artsakh remained legally open, and no international agreement recognized Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over this territory.

Sovietization: A Political, Not Legal Decision

The incorporation of Nagorno-Karabakh into the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic did not occur through an international legal process, but rather through a political decision of the Caucasian Bureau (Kavburo) of the Bolshevik Party in July 1921.

This decision:

• was never ratified by any international treaty,
• did not stem from a popular referendum,
• was imposed against the will of the majority of the local Armenian population.

Thus, the Soviet Union reduced a historical and national issue to a simple administrative matter.
The right of peoples to self-determination was sacrificed to the geopolitical balance between Moscow and Kemalist Turkey.

Violence Against Armenians: From Massacres to Cultural Erasure

Even before the open war of the 1990s, Armenians were subjected to systematic violence in Sumgait, Kirovabad, and Baku.

These massacres convinced the Armenian population of Artsakh that safe coexistence under Azerbaijani authority was no longer possible.

On April 10, 1992, the Armenian village of Maragha was attacked by Azerbaijani forces.
Dozens of civilians were killed, tortured, or taken hostage.

Observers and humanitarian organizations characterized these events as a deliberate massacre against the Armenian civilian population.
This tragedy remains one of the most severe and least recognized episodes of the conflict.

Alongside physical violence, a policy of gradual destruction of Armenian heritage was carried out.

In December 2005, the vast medieval Armenian cemetery of Julfa in Nakhichevan was systematically destroyed.
Thousands of khachkars—among the oldest stone crosses in the Christian world—were demolished under military supervision.

Despite video evidence and international protests, no independent heritage mission was allowed access to the site.

This destruction was not only a blow to Armenian heritage, but also a grave violation of international principles for the protection of humanity’s cultural heritage.

International Law Confronting Its Contradictions

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Armenians of Artsakh exercised a right recognized even by Soviet legislation.

On December 10, 1991, a referendum on self-determination was held in accordance with the Soviet law of April 3, 1990, concerning the secession of union republics.

The population voted overwhelmingly in favor of independence.

However, the international community chose to apply exclusively the principle of territorial integrity in Azerbaijan’s case, ignoring:

• the right to self-determination,
• anti-Armenian persecution,
• the indigenous status of the Armenian population of Artsakh,
• and their historical rejection of rule from Baku.

The United Nations Security Council resolutions of 1993 (822, 853, 874, and 884) never explicitly recognized Azerbaijan’s legal sovereignty over Artsakh.

They primarily called for a cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of Armenian forces from surrounding territories.

Nevertheless, over time, these resolutions were politically interpreted as indirect confirmation of Azerbaijan’s position.

The Political Abandonment of Artsakh

From the 2010s onward, numerous French municipalities adopted friendship charters with Artsakh to support cultural cooperation and recognition of peoples’ rights.

However, in 2019, due to diplomatic pressure and legal actions initiated by the French state, many of these charters were annulled or rejected by French administrative courts, on the grounds that a local authority cannot recognize an entity not recognized by the French state.

This development symbolized the gradual retreat of international political support for Artsakh.

A turning point occurred on October 6, 2022, during the Prague meeting organized under European mediation.

There, the authorities of Armenia politically recognized the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan based on the 1991 Soviet borders.

However, this recognition:

• did not stem from any ratified international treaty,
• was not subjected to consultation with the population of Artsakh,
• was not based on any international judicial decision,
• and completely ignored the self-determination rights of the indigenous Armenian population.

Thus, a complex historical and international issue was reduced to a simple reading of former Soviet administrative borders.

Violation of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Self-Determination

The case of Artsakh represents a clear violation of fundamental principles, including:

• the UN Charter,
• international covenants on civil and political rights,
• the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
• and the right of peoples to self-determination.

The Armenians of Artsakh:

• were a historically rooted indigenous population,
• had their own political institutions,
• had democratically expressed their political will,
• and faced ongoing threats to their security and collective existence.

Nevertheless, their right to self-determination was consistently subordinated to geopolitical interests.

Thus, international law adopted a selective approach:

• contested territorial integrity was treated as absolute,
• while the rights of peoples and the protection of minorities were ignored.

2023: The Collapse of an Abandoned People

Following the blockade of the Lachin corridor and the military operations of September 2023, nearly the entire Armenian population of Artsakh was forced to flee.

Within just a few days:

• a millennia-old Armenian presence vanished,
• churches, monasteries, and cemeteries were left unprotected,
• an entire people abandoned their ancestral land.

The international community responded only with diplomatic statements, without enforceable measures.

• No international force was deployed,
• no significant sanctions were imposed,
• no guarantee of collective return was enforced.

Thus, Artsakh became a symbol of the gap between the proclaimed principles of international law and their actual implementation.

The Disgrace

The tragedy of Artsakh is not only the loss of territory.
It is the collapse of the moral credibility of international institutions.

When:

• the right to self-determination is ignored,
• the rights of indigenous peoples are sacrificed,
• historical guarantees are forgotten,
• civilian populations are abandoned,
• and geopolitical interests prevail over legal principles,

then international law ceases to be a means of protecting peoples and becomes an instrument of power relations.

Artsakh reveals a troubling truth: peoples without military power or geopolitical support remain vulnerable, even when their history, presence, and rights are well established.

Artsakh will remain in history as one of the greatest political and moral abandonments of the 21st century.

Beyond diplomatic debates, one question will continue to resonate: how could an indigenous people, living on its land for centuries, disappear before the eyes of the entire world without real protection?

The international silence regarding the fate of Artsakh is less an Armenian defeat than a universal warning: a system of rights that no longer protects endangered peoples ultimately loses its own legitimacy.

Between disgrace and Artsakh, I chose Artsakh.

Armenag Aprahamian
President of the Republic of Western Armenia