A Humanitarian Crisis in South Caucasus: Assessing International Responsibility of the Actors of Nagorno-Karabakh Conflicts

Farhad Talaie; Mohammad Amin Ahmadi

doi:10.63053/ijrel.76

Authors

Farhad Talaie Ph.D (Corresponding Author), Associate Professor of International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, IRAN https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9553-5689
Mohammad Amin Ahmadi LL.M. in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, IRAN https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7366-1307

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63053/ijrel.76

Keywords:

Nagorno-Karabakh, International Responsibility, Fourth Geneva Convention 1949, International Humanitarian Law, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Non-State Armed Groups.

Abstract

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts are recognized as among the most complex conflicts with respect to determining the nature and classification of the hostilities, raising important questions such as the characterization of the conflicts, the violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) committed by the parties to the conflict, and their international responsibility for breaches of their international obligations. This study first examines the armed conflicts between Armenian non-state armed groups (NSAGs) and the military forces of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic during the years 1988–1991, and then turns to the examination of the 1991 conflicts between the Republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia, which laid the groundwork for the 44-day hostilities of 2020. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this article examines reports, cases, and resolutions issued by the Security Council, as well as statements by international bodies, in order to assess the violations committed by the parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts. By taking the Draft Articles on State Responsibility as its point of reference for attributing the violations committed, Fourth Geneva Convention 1949, and relying on credible international evidence, the present study seeks to hold the governments of Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as the members of Armenian NSAGs responsible for their acts in violation of IHL.

References

[1] Bartels, R. (2018). A fine line between protection and humanisation. In Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 2017 (Vol. 20, pp. 37-74). TMC Asser Press, pp. 37, 50.

[2] Denber, R. (1993). Bloodshed in the Caucasus: Indiscriminate bombing and shelling by Azerbaijani forces (Vol. 5, No. 10). Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, pp. 3-5.

[3] Helsinki Watch. (1992). Bloodshed in the Caucasus: Escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, p. 67.

[4] Op. Cit. [1], p.52.

[5] Krüger, H. (2010). The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: A legal analysis. Springer, p. 93.

[6] Suyundikov, S. (2021). Dağlik Karabağ savaşi’nin çözümü bağlaminda Türkiye ve Rusya. Uluslararası Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 132-145, pp. 133, 134.

[7] Ibid, p. 134.

[8] Derin, E. (2023). Azerbaycan ile Ermenistan arasındaki 2020 Tovuz çatışması ve 2. Dağlık Karabağ Savaşı’nın Türkiye’nin bölgesel politikasına etkileri, p. 30.

[9] UNSC Res 822 (30 April 1993) UN Doc S/RES/822 (1993); UNSC Res 853 (29 July 1993) UN Doc S/RES/853 (1993); UNSC Res 874 (14 October 1993) UN Doc S/RES/874 (1993); UNSC Res 884 (12 November 1993) UN Doc S/RES/884 (1993).

[10] Erarslan, F., & Özdemir, F. N. (2021). Azerbaycan-Türkiye ilişkilerinde önemli bir kavşak: İkinci Karabağ Savaşı. Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, 129(255), 315-334, pp. 315, 323–324.

[11] Vines, D. (2025). The media frames the discourse: De facto state development [Doctoral dissertation], pp. iv.

[12] Montevideo Convention. (1933). Rights and Duties of States, 165 LNTS 19, art 1.

[13] Minasyan, E. (n.d.). The process of proclamation of the independence of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, p.75.

[14] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 3 (Protocol I) art 1.

[15] Soviet Union Constitution. (n.d.). International Constitutional Law (ICL) , p. 11.

[16] Op. Cit. [13], p. 60.

[17] Op. Cit. [6], p. 133-134.

[18] Human Rights Watch/Helsinki. (1994). Azerbaijan: Seven years of conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, p. 1.

[19] Abilov, S., & Isayev, I. (2016). The consequences of the Nagorno–Karabakh war for Azerbaijan and the undeniable reality of Khojaly massacre: A view from Azerbaijan. Polish Political Science Yearbook, 45, 291-303, p. 294. https://doi.org/10.15804/ppsy2016022

[20] Remler, P. (2016). Chained to the Caucasus: Peacemaking in Karabakh, p. 21.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Op.Cit. [18], p. 1.

[23] Görgülü, A. (2012). The dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh: A protracted conflict. Review of Armenian Studies, 25, 47-66, p. 50.

[24] Gökbel, A., & Aghaddinli, M. (2022). Karabağ sorunu içerisinde Zengezurun yeri ve önemi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 7(1), 56-71, p. 63.

[25] Demirbaş, Y. (2018). Dağlık Karabağ sorunu ve soruna çözüm arayışları [Master's thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi], pp. 173-175.

[26] Op. Cit. [3], p. 12.

[27] Op. Cit. [3], p. 13.

[28] Amnesty International. (1993). Azerbaydzhan: Hostages in the Karabakh conflict: Civilians continue to pay the price (AI Index EUR 55/08/93), p. 6.

[29] Yerdelen, B. K. (Ed.). (2019). III. Hocalı Soykırımı ve Türk Dünyası Sempozyumu, pp. 187–188.

[30] United Nations Human Rights Council. (2020, April 8). Note verbale dated 4 March 2020 from the Permanent Mission of Azerbaijan to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN Doc. A/HRC/43/G/22), p. 2.

[31] Bagırov, S. (2023). Analysis of the Khojaly genocide from the prism of substantive and procedural legal norms. Часопис Київського університету права, 2, 245-256, p. 247.

[32] Abilov, S., Abdullayev, N., & Hamzali, E. (2024). Sumgait vs. Khojaly. Insight Turkey, 26(4), 279-300, p. 281. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2024264.13

[33] Huseynov, V. (2025). Opinion: The world must know more about the Khojaly genocide, p. 1.

[34] Abdullahzade, C. (2020). Dağlık Karabağ sorununda Ermenistan'ın rolü ve sorumluluğu. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 69(4), 1541-1568, p. 1548. https://doi.org/10.33629/auhfd.898498

[35] Makili-Aliyev, K. (2007). Enforcement of international law in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, pp. 49–50.

[36] International Crisis Group. (2020, December 22). Improving prospects for peace after the Nagorno-Karabakh war (Europe Briefing No. 91), p.2.

[37] Petrosyan, P. (2020). Nagorno-Karabakh conflict aftermath, pp. 34–35.

[38] Galstyan, H. (2021). Disputed land, disputed lives: Transnational and regional coverage of the humanitarian situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, p. 8.

[39] Ibid, p. 10.

[40] Anjani, N. R., Pramesti, A. L., & Gunawan, M. Y. (2018). Human rights violations in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh armed conflict under international law. International Conference on Recent Innovations in Electrical, 14-16, pp. 15–16.

[41] Amnesty International. (2022). Last to flee: Older people’s experience of war crimes and displacement in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, p. 6.

[42] Karlinsky, A., & Torrisi, O. (2023). The casualties of war: An excess mortality estimate. Population Research and Policy Review, 42(3), 41, pp. 9, 12.

[43] Op. Cit. [10], p. 325.

[44] Amnesty International. (2021). In the line of fire: Civilian casualties from unlawful strikes in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, pp. 9-12.

[45] Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman) of the Republic of Azerbaijan. (2020). Second interim report on violations by Armenia of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in the course of new armed aggression against Azerbaijan, 27 September–11 October 2020, p. 3.

[46] Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. (2021). Humanitarian consequences of the conflict (Doc. 15363), pp. 15-16.

[47] Op. Cit. [45], p. 30.

[48] Bal, A. (2006). Devletin uluslararası sorumluluğunun doğması [Master's thesis, Dokuz Eylul Universitesi], pp. 3,114.

[49] Ibid, p. 87.

[50] Op. Cit. [3], pp. 10-11.

[51] International Court of Justice. (2007). Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), para 209, p. 90.

[52] International Law Commission.(2001), Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries, art. 12.

[53] Op. Cit. [3], pp. 35, 40, 42, 43, 48.

[54] Allahverdiyev, T. (2010). Azerbaycan ve Ermenistan arasındaki Karabağ sorunu [Master's thesis, Bursa Uludag University], p. 86.

[55] Chiragov and Others v. Armenia, (2015), The European Court of Human Rights concluded that Armenia exercised effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh through its military, political, and financial support, paras. 180-186.

[56] Op. Cit. [52], arts. 1, 2, 4.

[57] Op. Cit. [52], arts. 40, 41.

[58] Op. Cit. [38], p. 10.

[59] Op. Cit. [40], pp. 14-15.

[60] Op. Cit. [38], p. 10.

[61] Fact-Finding Group. (2022). Human rights violations during the 44-day war in Artsakh, pp. 6-9.

[62] Protocol Additional I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, art. 48, 51, 52.

[63] Geneva Conventions (1949), common art. 3; Geneva Convention IV (1949), art. 27.

[64] Op. Cit, [62], art. 37.

[65] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (1998). 2187 U.N.T.S. 90, art. 8(2)(b)(vii).

[66] Op. Cit. [62], art. 18, 38.

[67] Op. Cit. [62], art. 77.

[68] Hrnjaz, M., & Radončić, M. (2024). Geneva, we have a problem: Internationalisation of armed conflicts. Israel Law Review, 57(1), 102-134, p. 121.

[69] International Committee of the Red Cross. (n.d.). Customary IHL: Volume 1—Rules. Retrieved August 14, 2025, from ICRC Customary IHL Database

[70] International Committee of the Red Cross. (2020). Commentary of 2020: Article 3: Conflicts not of an international character (GCIII). International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved August 14, 2025, from ICRC Commentary on Article 3 (2020), p. 46.

[71] Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić. (1995). Decision on Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, IT-94-1-AR72, paras 98, 129.

[72] Prosecutor v. Akayesu. (1998). Trial Judgment, ICTR-96-4-T, para 608.

[73] Ibid, para 218.

[74] Prosecutor v. Norman. (2004). Decision on Preliminary Motion, SCSL-2004-14-AR72(E), para 22.

[75] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 1125 U.N.T.S. 609 (adopted June 8, 1977), art. 1.

[76] Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Geneva Convention III), 75 U.N.T.S. 135 (adopted August 12, 1949), art. 3.

[77] Op. Cit. [70].

[78] Op. Cit. [75], art. 1.

[79] Op. Cit. [65], art. 25.

[80] Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. (2014). Appeal Judgment, ICC-01/04-01/06 A5, para 8.

[81] International Law Commission. (1950). “Principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal.” Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Principle I.

[82] United Nations. (2007). Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (as amended in 2007), arts 4–5.

[83] Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. (2002), art. 1.

[84] Hodgson, N. (2021). Exploring the International Criminal Court’s deterrent potential: A case study of Australian politics. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19(4), 913-936, p. 914.

[85] Jo, H., & Simmons, B. A. (2016). Can the international criminal court deter atrocity? International Organization, 70(3), 443-475, pp. 447-454.

[86] International Law Commission. (2001). Draft articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, with commentaries (UN Doc. A/56/10).