Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide or Displacement?

Listen to the article.

From September 2020 to September 2023, Azerbaijan applied a combination of tactics, both hard and soft, and military and hybrid, to depopulate Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) of its indigenous Armenian population.

Different terms are used by various official, policy and academic circles to describe the de-Armenization of Nagorno-Karabakh. The choice of term often depends on their stance, beliefs, interests and expertise. These terms include “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing”, “forced displacement”, “displacement”, “exodus”, “voluntary exodus”, “migration”, among others. Some also use terms that mock or deny the genocide and ethnic cleansing.

This article explores the most accurate term to describe the de-Armenization of Nagorno-Karabakh. It does this by comparing various perspectives and examining the legal and political applicability of these terms. The article also revisits the methods and scenarios employed by Azerbaijan, which resulted in the depopulation of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenians.

Various Positions and Perspectives 

Armenian officials, including the diplomatic corps, most of Armenian civil society, as well as many non-Armenians in international political, policy and academic circles, refer to the displacement of Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh and the preceding events an “ethnic cleansing”. During a hearing at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on April 16, 2024, regarding the Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (Armenia v. Azerbaijan) filed in September 2021, Yeghishe Kirakosyan, Armenia’s Representative for International Legal Cases, stated: “After threatening to do so for years, Azerbaijan has completed the ethnic cleansing of the region and is now systematically erasing all traces of ethnic Armenians’ presence.” 

Many Armenians, particularly from Nagorno-Karabakh and the Diaspora, as well as international human rights lawyers and watchdogs, characterize the displacement of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh as genocide, and as such, a continuation of the Armenian genocide carried out by the Ottoman Empire and commencing in 1915. According to a report published in August 2023 by the first prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno Ocampo, the blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians was evolving into a starvation genocide. 

The Lemkin Institute uses both terms — genocide and ethnic cleansing — for the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. Its director, Dr. Elisa von Joeden-Forge, urges the international community to call it a genocide. She refers to the impossible conditions for livelihood created by Azerbaijan for Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, and to the threats and Armenophobic language used by Azerbaijan’s President Aliyev and other key figures, as indicators of genocidal intent. 

The Center for Truth and Justice (CFTJ), an American-Armenian NGO with international reach, has prepared a detailed report entitled, “The Planning, Inciting, Ordering, Instigating, and Implementing of Genocide by President Ilham Aliyev and Other High Ranking Officials”. This report is intended to prove the state-planned nature of Azerbaijan’s actions, another criterion under the Genocide Convention. On April 18, 2024, CFTJ submitted evidence to the ICC.

The European Parliament (EP) and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) have used the term “ethnic cleansing” in resolutions adopted since October 2023. They urge the creation of a climate of trust and conditions to ensure the return of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. However, it is clear that Armenians will not return without minimal conditions, such as an international multilateral (UN or EU) presence and a level of self-governance, to which Azerbaijan will not agree.

The U.S., the EU and the governments of its member states, and international intergovernmental organizations like the UN use more neutral and reserved language. They use terms like “displacement” or “exodus” to describe the de-Armenization of Nagorno-Karabakh. The UNHCR refers to Armenians who have fled Nagorno-Karabakh as “refugees” or “refugee-like persons”. This suggests forced displacement under the Refugee Convention, which defines refugees as those “unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality[…]” 

Azerbaijan denies allegations of ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. After the mass exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan and its lobbyists began asserting that the exodus of Armenians was voluntary and based on their “personal and individual decision” and rejection of Azerbaijan’s offer of “reintegration”. 

Azerbaijan and its advocates also denied the existence of the blockade against Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh preceding the military offensive. They spread disinformation and false narratives, even claiming that the situation was self-imposed, inventing the term “self-genocide”.

Azerbaijani narratives have implied that Azerbaijan conducted military operations without harming civilians. They suggested that Armenians feared reprisal for the First Nagorno-Karabakh War and harbored “ethnic hatred towards Azerbaijanis and that is why they did not want to co-exist with them.” A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson echoed the Azerbaijani perspective, stating the lack of evidence of ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh. 

On April 15, 2024, Azerbaijan urged the ICJ to dismiss the Armenian case under the CERD, while continuing to pursue its mirroring case against Armenia under the same Convention. Its experts and supporters argue for the dismissal of Armenia v. Azerbaijan at the ICJ, denying the allegations of ethnic cleansing. This is part of Azerbaijan’s war of narratives and lawfare against Armenians. 

Lastly, Azerbaijan is reportedly pressuring Armenia to withdraw its claim at the ICJ as a precondition for a peace agreement. This was reflected in official statements from President Aliyev and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) in early 2024, claiming that the lawsuit indicates a territorial claim by Armenia to Azerbaijan. 

During a press conference on March 12, 2024, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan admitted that the withdrawal of lawsuits between the two countries was being considered during peace treaty negotiations. Human rights lawyers and defenders from both conservative and liberal camps in Armenia have expressed strong opposition to the withdrawal of inter-state lawsuits of Armenia v. Azerbaijan from international legal bodies such as the ICJ and the European Court of Human Rights.

The Applicability of the Terms “Ethnic Cleansing” and “Genocide”

The term “ethnic cleansing” means “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group, which is contrary to international law.” 

Ethnic cleansing has not been fully recognized as a distinct crime under international law. The term first appeared during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s; it’s believed to derive from a literal translation of a Serbo-Croatian expression. Although it has been used in the UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and recognized in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) judgments and indictments, it has not constituted a count for prosecution. 

A UN Commission of Experts defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as “… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.” In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.” 

The Commission identified several coercive practices that could be used to remove a civilian population. These include murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others. The Commission of Experts added that these practices can “… constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.”

Later, ethnic cleansing was classified as a crime against humanity, alongside genocide, mass atrocities, and war crimes in the Responsibility to Protect principle (R2P). UN member states endorsed R2P at the 2005 World Summit as a global political commitment. This principle further evolved with the 2009 UN SC Resolution 1894 on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. 

However, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) and the 1998 Rome Statute of the ICC (Rome Statute), which criminalize genocide, do not specifically mention ethnic cleansing. The Genocide Convention defines genocide as any of the five acts deliberately inflicted on conditions of life for a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, with the intent to physically destroy it, in whole or in part. These five acts include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was founded in 2002 on the basis of the Rome Statute to prosecute individuals for perpetrating the most serious international crimes. These crimes include genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, but the mandate doesn’t specifically mention ethnic cleansing. 

The term “Ethnic cleansing” is not mentioned in the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute, making it more of a political than a legal term. However, it is based on ethnic discrimination and is therefore covered by the CERD. This is how Armenia filed a lawsuit against Azerbaijan in the ICJ in 2021, following the 2020 Karabakh war. 

Initially the case aimed to prevent impunity for Azerbaijan’s 2020 military aggression in Nagorno-Karabakh, accompanied by war crimes against Armenians based on their ethnicity. It also sought to prevent further discrimination and execution against them in the territory. However, it was unable to prevent their forced displacement. The slow pace of the trial, the lack of enforcement mechanisms, and the geopoliticization of the UN Security Council, expected to follow up on ICJ decisions, meant the provisional measures adopted by the ICJ in 2021-2023 did not ensure the protection of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Some human rights defenders and genocide watchdogs disagree with the term “ethnic cleansing”, considering it a “euphemism to deny and whitewash the genocide,” thereby avoiding criminal responsibility. They argue that the term was invented by Slobodan Milosevic and his propaganda machine to cover up his regime’s genocidal crimes. Advocates of this perspective assert that the choice between “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide” should not depend on the number of people killed. They also suggest that whether atrocities are labeled “ethnic cleansing” or “crimes against humanity” instead of “genocide” is determined by the willingness to take forceful action to stop it.[1] 

That Might Have Happened in the 1990s if Armenia Hadn’t Intervened?

Azerbaijan attempts to dismiss the Armenia v. Azerbaijan case at the ICJ by claiming that Armenia is an aggressor that occupied part of Azerbaijan’s territory. This narrative forms the basis of Azerbaijan’s lawfare against Armenia. It relies on autocratic legalism, misusing notions of sovereignty and territorial integrity to justify its methods. 

Azerbaijan initiated the massacres of Armenians in its cities and military operations. Further massacres and forced deportation of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh occurred between 1988 and 1991. These actions were in response to the peaceful self-determination movement of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1990. This period also saw Soviet Azerbaijan abolish the autonomous status of the Nagorno-Karabakh region in 1991. 

The escalation of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which began in the late 1980s, bears obvious resemblance to the initial dynamics of the Kosovo conflict in the same period, in particular the claim for self-determination, the reduction of Kosovo’s autonomous status and a series of military operations and massacres by the Milosevic regime against Kosovo Albanians. However, the scenarios diverged significantly after NATO’s military intervention against Belgrade and deployment in Kosovo to protect civilians. This was succeeded by the establishment of a multi-pillar UN-mandated international peacekeeping mission.

In contrast, there was no substantial international intervention to protect Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia, as a regional power, was present on the ground but its role was ambivalent and controversial. The Soviet special purpose militia units (OMON) not only abstained from intervening to prevent massacres in Sumgait and Baku, but they also assisted Azerbaijanis in Operation Ring and the Maragha massacre. Gorbachev’s administration covered up the scale of these massacres. 

The presence of an international multi-lateral operation in Kosovo and its absence in Nagorno-Karabakh resulted in different subsequent dynamics in those two conflicts. Armenia was compelled to intervene in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Armenians in the territory through massacres and military operations by Azerbaijan. Amid the war, with Azerbaijan blocking the Lachin Road and bombarding Stepanakert from Aghdam, Armenian armed groups took control of Nagorno-Karabakh and its surrounding regions. This created a buffer zone, resulting in the depopulation of Azerbaijanis from these areas. 

While these dynamics enabled Armenians to achieve a military victory, they also undermined their case’s legitimacy. It allowed Azerbaijan to portray themselves as victims and Armenians as aggressors, despite Azerbaijan initiating military operations and massacres with an apparent aim of ethnically cleansing Armenians. During this period, ethnic cleansing would have been inevitable if Azerbaijan had gained control. It is also likely that it would be executed through much harsher methods than those used in the 2020s, such as large-scale massacres of civilians potentially reaching the threshold of genocide. 

Large-Scale War in 2020

At first glance, Armenians suffered fewer than 100 civilian casualties during the 2020 war. However, most of the over 4,000 casualties on the Armenian side were conscript soldiers aged 18-20, not professional servicemen from either Nagorno-Karabakh or Armenia. This loss constitutes a substantial reduction in a generation of a small nation already facing demographic issues.[2] Reportedly, in 2022, Armenia’s population was  2.78 million compared to Azerbaijan’s 10.14 million. As a result of the 2020 war, Nagorno-Karabakh’s population decreased from 150,000 to 120,000, as 30,000 displaced Armenians did not return. The war also saw various violations of international humanitarian, customary and human rights law, including attacks on kindergartens, schools and monasteries, and medical facilities, including a maternity hospital. 

Genocide Criteria Met by Azerbaijan in 2022-2023 

One of the criteria under the Genocide Convention is “imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group.” This criterion closely aligns with the methods used by Azerbaijan, particularly from February 2022, and intensified during the blockade between December 2022 and September 2023. These methods included the weaponization of energy (gas and occasionally electricity), food and humanitarian assistance.

The lack of fuel, which limited freedom of movement within Nagorno-Karabakh, prevented access to maternity clinics and hospitals for months. This could have “caused serious bodily and mental harm,” fulfilling another genocide criterion. 

Restricted access to maternity clinics led to documented miscarriages. Moreover, numerous social media posts suggest that many young women in Nagorno-Karabakh chose not to conceive during this time.[3] This meets a third genocide criterion –– “preventing births.” 

For an act to constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of the perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Statements from Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev and other leaders systematically incite ethnic hatred against Armenians, thus demonstrating such intent. There is overwhelming evidence that all actions in Nagorno-Karabakh, including pseudo-protests of environmental pseudo-activists, were state-sponsored. 

Although Azerbaijan did not commit mass civilian massacres in September 2023, the rapid mass exodus of Armenians eliminated that necessity. Furthermore, Azerbaijan would likely avoid mass civilian massacres even if Armenians remained, due to warnings from the international community, particularly, the U.S. and EU. Large-scale massacres in 2023 would stigmatize Azerbaijan and result in significant political costs. Instead, Azerbaijan would employ a manipulative policy of “integration” severing the links between Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians and Armenia, suppressing their ethnic identity, and stripping them of political and civil rights, leading to their complete subjugation. Eventually, it would result in either resistance and new casualties, or displacement.

Lastly, the deliberate starvation of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh by Azerbaijan from July to September 2023 mirrors other examples of the “genocide by starvation” tactic. This was used by the Ottoman Empire during the Armenian genocide, the Nazi regime in concentration camps and Staliningrad, and the Stalin regime during the Holodomor in Ukraine, as well as the Milosevic regime during the Sarajevo and Srebrenica sieges. Ocampo described the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh as a genocide when the blockade reached a critical stage, leading to impossible living conditions, particularly starvation. He noted that people would start dying in significant numbers after a few weeks.

The Rome Statute stipulates “[i]ntentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. The ICJ ruled that “deprivation of food, medical care, shelter or clothing” in Bosnia have constituted Genocide within the meaning of Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention. 

The starvation of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh was met with increasing international criticism, including at the UN Security Council meetings in August 2023. Surprisingly, the primary reason for Baku’s decision to initiate a military offensive in September 2023 likely stemmed from a desire to avoid accusations of causing mass civilian deaths and potential charges of genocide. The offensive was launched when the resilience of the people had been worn down as a result of the starvation.

Methods Used by Azerbaijan in 2021-2023 Which Meet the Criteria of Ethnic Cleansing

Azerbaijan tested different scenarios, employing a combination of methods that meet the criteria of ethnic cleansing. This included Balkan-style military offensives and sieges, forced displacement similar to the displacement of Finns from Karelia in 1944, and transforming Stepanakert into a ghost town akin to Varosha in Northern Cyprus. The Azerbaijani leadership stated that Armenians could return, but its leadership and security forces are conducting actions in Nagorno-Karabakh making their return impossible: changing all Armenian names to Azerbaijani, conducting military parades and central elections, demolishing public buildings, and destroying or appropriating cultural monuments, and destroying private residences. 

In relation to “military attacks, targeting civilians,” and “murder, torture, extrajudicial executions, severe physical injury to civilians,” 27 Armenian civilians, including women and children, and more than 200 Armenian military were killed in addition to those Armenians who were killed, injured and tortured in the 2020 war. A further 200 civilians and 400 military were injured during the military offensive of September 19-20, 2023. Some civilians, including children, were reportedly tortured and killed deliberately. At least 218 more people were killed and around 240 injured in the fuel depot explosion on September 25 in Nagorno-Karabakh. The majority of the victims, all men, were queuing for fuel for their vehicles on their way to Armenia. Sixty-four more people died during the mass exodus in the last week of September 2023, unable to endure the difficult journey after a long-term blockade and starvation. In one week, more than 100,000 Armenians fled Nagorno-Karabakh, leaving behind only a dozen Armenians, mostly elderly.

Regarding the “confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas,” Azerbaijan, in collaboration with Russian peacekeepers lacking an international mandate, had been increasingly turning Nagorno-Karabakh into a gray zone since February 2021. They had progressively prohibited the entry of international NGOs and journalists. This was followed by a nine and half month blockade starting in December 2022, which initially was partial, but later became total, effectively turning Nagorno-Karabakh into a large concentration camp.

The arbitrary detentions of a number of Armenian men in Nagorno-Karabakh, including its political leadership, and reports of lists containing 300 to 30,000 names of individuals to be detained, along with the construction of a large prison in Aghdam, led to the mass exodus of the population after the offensive. Several men were kidnaped from ICRC vehicles, which also falls under the criteria of ethnic cleansing. Baku created an atmosphere of fear among Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, making them believe that if they stayed, they would be killed or detained, particularly the male population.

The incitement of ethnic hatred against Armenians at the official level and cognitive warfare (psychological intimidation of Armenians to make them leave) also played a significant role in the exodus of Armenians. 

Conclusions

The methods, tools and scenarios used by Baku demonstrate an explicit intent and a complex set of actions aimed at creating impossible conditions for life of Armenians, forcing them to flee their indigenous homeland. 

To accomplish its strategic goal, Azerbaijan carried out large- and small-scale military operations, weaponized blockade, energy, food and humanitarian assistance, arbitrary executions, detention and trials of civilians. It stripped them of their right to self-governance and self-defense under the false promise of “integration”. To legitimize these methods, it engaged in lawfare, cognitive warfare, and spread false narratives and disinformation. The process of revising and falsifying history, destroying and appropriating Armenian cultural heritage and material property continues, with the aim to erase any traces of an Armenian presence and prevent their return to Nagorno-Karabakh.  

Azerbaijan refrained from committing mass massacres of civilians, likely to avoid international condemnation. However, its military operations did target civilians. The conditions during the blockade and exodus resulted in significant casualties, affecting demographics, and potentially causing long-term health issues, including reproductive problems, which are also indicators of genocide. It seems Azerbaijan shifted its strategy from deliberate starvation to a brief but intense military offensive to avoid the stigma of haveing carried out genocide by starvation. 

The overwhelming evidence about the forced nature of the displacement of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh proves the occurrence of ethnic cleansing. Nonetheless, caution must be exercised in overusing the term “genocide” and in considering the application of the Genocide Convention instead of CERD, as seen in The Gambia v. Myanmar case regarding atrocities against the Rohingya. The international political, legal and academic community is conservative and reserved in applying the term “genocide” to prevent its overuse. Given the higher intensity of Russia’s war in Ukraine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, their focus remains on those cases, making an additional genocide case potentially unwelcome. Although in theory, the number of the killed should not define genocide, in practice, it defines the scope of the tragedy and defines the positions of key international actors. It is fortunate that the majority of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians were spared. Labeling the ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh a genocide may also undermine the cause of the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire, rather than proving to be its continuation.

Armenia should consistently pursue its interstate case at the ICJ under CERD as ethnic discrimination and hatred have led to the ethnic cleansing of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh and actions that may be considered genocidal. If circumstances change, Armenia may also consider a claim to the ICC for holding the masterminds and organizers of ethnic cleansing accountable. The non-use of the term “ethnic cleansing” in legal conventions is not an issue because it falls under the category of “crime against humanity” that is criminalized in both the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute.

Armenia should not withdraw its inter-state lawsuit against Azerbaijan at the ICJ under any coercion or peace agreement. Azerbaijan’s claim that Armenia’s lawsuit is a territorial claim is unjustified. It is a human rights, criminal and restorative justice issue in the same manner as The Gambia v. Myanmar case in protection of Rohingya or the South Africa v. Israel case in protection of Palestinians’ rights. As Armenian human rights defenders have asserted, “protection of the rights claimed by lawsuits cannot be subordinated to or replaced by political processes and political documents, peace cannot be positive and sustainable without restoration of justice, and withdrawal of interstate applications will lead to total impunity of Azerbaijan for human rights violations and crimes committed, will serve the confirmation of its false narratives, and will enable new violations and crimes.” 

The international community should not shy away from calling the de-Armenization of Nagorno-Karabakh as ethnic cleansing and should underscore the forced nature of the displacement of Armenians from the territory. The failure to prevent it in Nagorno-Karabakh has already undermined the global governance system, the decisions made by the ICJ and the role of the UN Security Council by not enforcing them. Failure to accurately label ethnic cleansing and its normalization doesn’t save the reputation of key international actors for their inability and failure to prevent this crime against humanity. Instead, it strengthens popular stereotypes and suspicions about the prioritization of geopolitical interests over human rights by key international actors and legitimizes the use of coercion versus international law, leading to impunity and setting dangerous precedents for other conflicts. 

Footnotes: 

[1] Rony Blum, Gregory Stanton, Shira Sagi, Elihu Richter (April 2008). Ethnic cleansing’ bleaches the atrocities of genocide. European Journal of Public Health, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 204-209,  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckm011
[2] Karlinsky, A., & Torrisi, O. (2023). The Casualties of War: An Excess Mortality Estimate of Lives Lost in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. Population research and policy review, 42(3), 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-023-09790-2
[3] Social media monitoring of the posts by young women from Nagorno-Karabakh.

EVN Security Report

See all the Security Reports here. 

Politics

Opinion

Raw & Unfiltered

EVN Report
Media Festival

This year, the EVN Report Media Festival will be held at the Henrik Igityan National Centre for Aesthetics (NCA) and the Small Theater located next to each other in the heart of Yerevan (13 & 11 Abovyan Street). 

See the Program.
Register for the events you would like to attend.

Sincerely Yours,
EVN Report