Dr. Armine Tigranyan, Ph.D. in History and expert in cultural heritage and cultural rights, examines the September 2023 displacement of over 100,000 Armenians from Artsakh through the lens of international humanitarian law, analyzing how fear, coercion, and the destruction of civilian infrastructure constitute forced displacement under the Rome Statute and established legal precedent.
On September 19, 2023, Azerbaijan launched military aggression, accompanied by war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and acts of genocide, which resulted in the forced displacement of tens of thousands of Armenians of Artsakh from their historical homeland. The causes of displacement are deep and multifaceted – on the one hand, they are linked to the 44-day war of 2020, the targeting of civilian settlements, the killings, abductions, and executions of civilians; on the other hand, they are rooted in the ten-month blockade of the Lachin Corridor, the prolonged endurance of starvation and lack of minimum living conditions, fear, despair, mass violations of human rights, as well as Azerbaijan’s state-led and deliberate policy of discrimination, the eradication of identity, and the destruction of cultural monuments. As a consequence of Azerbaijan’s state-led and deliberate policies, the people of Artsakh were severed from their own social and cultural values.
The forced displacement began on September 24, 2023, and lasted until October 4.
Within 10 days, 100,600 people were forcibly displaced from the Askeran and Martuni districts, the city of Stepanakert, the villages of Martakert, and other regions of Artsakh.
Before the mass displacement of September 2023, the forced displacement of Armenians of Artsakh had already taken place during the 44 days of the 2020 war and in its immediate aftermath, when people lost their homes and no conditions were created to envision the existence and development of the community within a zone of fear and danger. As a result of Azerbaijan’s war crimes, as well as the socio-economic and humanitarian crisis caused by the war, more than 40,000 people were displaced from Shushi, Hadrut, Shahumyan, Kashatagh, and several villages in the Martakert and Askeran regions.
It should be emphasized, however, that during 2020–2023, more than 150,000 people in total were forcibly displaced from Artsakh. Following this mass exodus, the Armenians of Artsakh temporarily settled in various regions of the Republic of Armenia, concentrating mainly in different cities and communities of the Kotayk, Ararat, and Armavir regions.
Why did the Armenians of Artsakh leave their historical homeland?
The Rome Statute qualifies forced displacement as a grave crime against humanity. Thus, Article 7(1)(d) of the Statute defines deportation or forcible transfer of population as “forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law.” It is established that the elements of the crime may include both physical force and the threat of violence. The Elements of Crimes specify that the term “forcibly” in this context “is not restricted to physical force. It may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power,” and describes a situation in which individuals are deprived of any genuine choice to remain in their place of residence․
Fear influences human decision-making. As established during the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) trial of Milorad Krnojelac, forcible displacement is the act of removing individuals against their will or without a real choice․ In the case of Prosecutor v. Naletilić and Martinović, the Tribunal also affirmed that consent obtained through threats of force should not be considered genuine consent: “Fear of violence or psychological pressure may compel individuals to leave their habitual residence, creating an environment in which there is no other alternative but to depart, and the decision to leave in such circumstances amounts to forcible displacement.”
In its judgment in the Prlić et al. case, the ICTY ruled that “the mere threat of force, physical, mental, or moral coercion may be sufficient to characterize displacement as forcible. It is the absence of a genuine choice that renders the displacement unlawful.”
It is crucial to emphasize that even if the civilian population of Artsakh left the area for reasons of security and military necessity, such displacement still cannot be considered “voluntary” and “lawful” ․
Moreover, even if the displaced persons wished to be, and in fact requested to be, evacuated from the territory, this does not mean that they had a genuine choice․
In the case of the trial of Milan Simic, the Trial Chamber considered it important to determine the coercive or forcible nature of the displacement, to focus on the “genuine intention” of the person. According to this reasoning, evidence of coercion may be found in “the involuntary nature of the displacement and the absence of genuine choice by the persons subject to the displacement.”
From this case, we may conclude that an Artsakh civilian becomes a forcibly displaced person if they have no genuine choice between leaving and remaining in the area. Analyzing the scope of this precedent, we may state that if a person had willingly remained “in the absence of discrimination or persecution,” then the displacement is deemed to be forcible, as was affirmed by the Court in the case concerning the former Yugoslavia․
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Simic case even emphasized that threats of criminal conduct may suffice to establish the absence of genuine choice. Moreover, Matt Brown stresses that even the act of civilians boarding evacuation buses cannot be interpreted as a voluntary decision to leave the area, because organized consent designed to facilitate evacuation cannot amount to genuine consent․
Taken together, these findings confirm that the displacement of the population of Artsakh must be characterized as “forcible,” since people, under an atmosphere of fear, were deprived of the possibility of free choice. The targeting of cultural heritage, as a significant aggravating factor, further influenced people’s decisions to leave.
The bombardment of populated areas and the targeting of infrastructure essential to the civilian population, including cultural heritage, may constitute coercive measures equivalent to an “order” of displacement. The Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court, in the Ntaganda case, concluded: “The conduct by which the perpetrator forces civilians to leave a particular area is not limited to an order. Otherwise, the factual circumstances of the evacuation of civilians during armed conflict would be unduly restricted.” Accordingly, despite the explicit wording of the Rome Statute, the Court in Ntaganda upheld a consistent position that forced displacement constitutes a war crime even in the absence of a direct order․
The characterization of displacement as “forcible” refers to situations in which individuals lack a free or “genuine” choice to remain in the area in which they were located․
Even in the absence of a clear written or oral order, this process may be assessed as forced displacement, since the destruction of civilian infrastructure — including residential areas, health and social infrastructure — the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage, and the spreading of an atmosphere of fear, all of which are used as methods of warfare, already constitute a de facto order for forcible displacement.
The prohibition of forced displacement under international law
The prohibition of forced displacement is one of the fundamental components of both international humanitarian law and the human rights protection system, and it has acquired the status of binding customary international law. Forced displacement is prohibited under customary international law. Some scholars have gone further, proposing that “mass forced displacement” be defined as a distinct international crime.
Article 4(3)(1) of the 1963 Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights provides:“No one shall be expelled, by means of either an individual or a collective measure, from the territory of the State of which he is a national.” Similarly, Article 22(5) of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights stipulates: “No one can be expelled from the territory of the State of which he is a national or be deprived of the right to enter it.”
Article 5(d) of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia of 1993 provides that the displacement of the civilian population constitutes a crime against humanity when committed in the context of an armed conflict and directed against the civilian population. According to Article 2(g) of the same document, the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the unlawful deportation or transfer of civilians, which constitutes a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV.
Several international organizations dealing with the processes of the crime of displacement — including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre and the International Organization for Migration, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and various humanitarian agencies — hold the conviction that respect for international humanitarian law may reduce the number of displaced persons worldwide. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that Azerbaijan continues to disregard its gross violations of the aforementioned rights.
The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirmed that human rights are inherent to all people equally. The recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family constitutes the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world. Through this Declaration, the international community, irrespective of nationality, place of residence, national or ethnic origin, religion, language, or any other status, undertook the obligation to protect the dignity of all and to establish that human rights, as the highest values of humanity, cannot be taken away by anyone. Member States, including Azerbaijan, are bound to cooperate with the United Nations in securing universal respect for human rights. In this sense, it is clear that the people of Artsakh must enjoy the same guarantees and equal opportunities for the protection of their rights as all other peoples of the world, both collectively and individually.
The right of return in the spotlight of the international community
The right of return of displaced peoples is enshrined in international law and diplomatic norms. This principle has been confirmed by numerous legal precedents and international resolutions, including the International Court of Justice of November 2023 and the European Parliament resolutions of March and October 2024.
In particular, on November 17, 2023, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Azerbaijan is obliged to ensure the “safe, unhindered and prompt return” of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh and to prevent future displacement by force or intimidation.
On September 2, 2024, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) adopted a resolution on Nagorno-Karabakh.
The resolution recognizes that the blockade of the Lachin Corridor from December 2022 to September 2023 created living conditions intended to destroy the ethnic Armenian population and caused severe physical and psychological harm, which, under the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, constitutes genocide. The bombing of civilian settlements, as well as the torture and killing of Armenian prisoners of war and civilians, are qualified as violations of international humanitarian law. Finally, it calls on the international community to take effective measures to guarantee the safe return of Armenians forcibly displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh, as affirmed by the ICJ in its order of November 17, 2023.
On October 23, 2024, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on “The situation in Azerbaijan, violations of human rights and international law, and relations with Armenia.”
In its Article 15, the resolution calls for the full implementation of all rulings of the International Court of Justice, including the order of November 17, 2023, and reiterates its call on the Azerbaijani authorities to allow the safe return of the Armenian population to Nagorno-Karabakh, providing strong guarantees for the protection of their rights, including land and property rights.
Furthermore, the resolution urges Azerbaijan to ensure the protection of the identity of the forcibly displaced persons, as well as their civil, cultural, social, and religious rights, and to refrain from any rhetoric that could incite discrimination against Armenians.
The forced displacement of over 150,000 Armenians from Artsakh clearly constitutes a crime under international law, as established by ICTY precedent and the Rome Statute's definition of forcible transfer. The convergence of international legal opinion—from the International Court of Justice's binding order to the European Parliament's resolutions—provides an unambiguous legal framework condemning these actions and mandating the right of return. Yet legal precedent and international resolutions remain meaningless without enforcement, leaving the displaced Armenians' fundamental rights dependent on the international community's commitment and the political will that has yet to materialize.
Join us on Telegram