Research | Հետազօտութիւն

by

Right of Return of the Armenians of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh)

Right of Return of the Armenians of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh)

Yeghia Tashjian, Salma Waheedi, Thomas Becker, Nareg Seferian

This work examines the forced deportation of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh
(also known as Artsakh in Armenian) by Azerbaijan, defining it as ethnic cleansing.
Drawing on Freedom House’s comprehensive report on the topic, and the resolution
passed by the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) on Nagorno-
Karabakh on September 20241, we conclude that Azerbaijan’s systematic attacks, forced
displacement, and destruction of cultural heritage are elements of a premeditated
campaign to expel Nagorno-Karabakh of its ethnic Armenians that triggers international
legal obligations, including a sustainable right of return. It brings together perspectives
from Armenian and international experts in political science and human rights law to
analyze the historical, legal, and geopolitical dimensions of the crisis. The paper
discusses the Armenian presence in the region from antiquity to the establishment of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast under Soviet rule, the independence movement,
and subsequent wars, focusing on the 2020 and 2023 conflicts.

The international response, including statements from the EU, UN, and ICJ,
highlights the obligation to ensure safe repatriation and the protection of Armenian rights
and cultural heritage. It underscores key violations of international law, including breaches
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ICCPR, and Geneva Conventions, and
advocates for accountability in international legal forums.

The paper offers actionable recommendations for the United States government
to support the right of return, including securing international guarantees, advocating for
the preservation of Armenian cultural sites, and holding Azerbaijani officials accountable
for war crimes. It emphasizes the necessity of sustained international engagement, legal
mechanisms, and Armenian government support to ensure the dignity, security, and
cultural legacy of the displaced ethnic Armenians, laying the groundwork for a just
resolution and enduring peace in the region.

read the rest / download the report

by

Caucasus Analytical Digest No. 136: Iran and the South Caucasus after the Second Karabakh War

Caucasus Analytical Digest No. 136: Iran and the South Caucasus after the Second Karabakh War

Special Editor: Nareg Seferian
Authors: Elaheh Koolaee, Ahmad Rashidi, Alexander Yeo, George Sanikidze, Nareg Seferian

The papers in this issue address the regional dynamics following the Second Karabakh War of 2020. Iran has found itself having more and more of a foot in the South Caucasus as a result. The prospects and modalities of the so-​called ‘Zangezur Corridor’ (a proposed land connection between Azerbaijan proper and its exclave of Nakhchivan/Nakhichevan) include economic, geopolitical, strategic, cultural, and ideological components, perceived in various ways in Baku and Yerevan, in Tbilisi and Tehran. Besides the security outcomes and aftermaths since 2020, the contributions in this issue also take on historical developments and how they impact current bilateral ties.

access the issue

by

Report in Short: A “Frozen Conflict” Boils Over

Report in Short: A “Frozen Conflict” Boils Over

On September 19, 2023, Azerbaijani forces initiated a massive attack on Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian-populated and effectively self-governing region inside internationally recognized Azerbaijani territory. Within 24 hours, the Nagorno-Karabakh leadership gave in, and, for the first time, Baku could claim full control over the contested territory. Despite being portrayed in the West as a “frozen conflict,” there had long been a risk of renewed violence in Nagorno-Karabakh. In this episode of Report in Short, Walter Landgraf and Nareg Seferian join Aaron Schwartzbaum to discuss their recent report “A ‘Frozen Conflict’ Boils Over: Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 and Future Implications.

listen to the podcast

by

A “Frozen Conflict” Boils Over: Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 and Future Implications

A “Frozen Conflict” Boils Over: Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 and Future Implications

Walter Landgraf, Nareg Seferian

This report has two objectives: first, to present an account of the conflict with an emphasis on analytically useful categories and context up to the present, and second, to discuss local, regional, and global consequences of the latest developments of the dispute, including policy implications and recommendations.

An Account of the Conflict

  • Azerbaijan’s lightning attack on Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023 ended three decades of de facto independence for the breakaway region. Previously, the Armenian-populated Nagorno-Karabakh Republic had shown remarkable durability, enabled by support from Armenia and Russia, the latter more after the Second Karabakh War of 2020. However, changed regional and global power dynamics since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 encouraged an opportunistic Azerbaijan, backed by Turkey, to deliver the death knell to Nagorno-Karabakh.
  • Prior to Azerbaijan’s latest assault, two wars had been fought over Nagorno-Karabakh. The first began as a limited conflict, which turned into a larger-scale war when the USSR dissolved. Its ceasefire in 1994 resulted in the establishment of the de facto independent Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The second war, in 2020, resulted in Azerbaijan reversing the gains of the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians and further isolating the territory. Russia mediated the ceasefire and thereafter stationed peacekeepers in the region.
  • Many issues are still unresolved in this long-running conflict. The biggest concern is directing much-needed humanitarian aid to those displaced by the latest violence. There also remains potential for future Azerbaijani incursions into Armenia to secure a path to its exclave of Nakhchivan.

Consequences of the Dispute’s Latest Developments and Implications

  • Nagorno-Karabakh has important implications for other international conflicts grappling with the competing principles of territorial integrity and national self-determination. The principle of nonuse of force is also affected by the fall-out of this dispute, risking the normalization of international violence with impunity.
  • The US has limited foreign policy options to affect the current situation on the ground. One approach is to expand the American diplomatic footprint in the region to reinforce its influence. More consequentially, it should work with the European Union and regional players to implement an enduring monitoring mechanism to prevent renewed escalation. This effort should focus on reducing human suffering while improving the quality of life of people displaced by violence, and be pursued with a presence on the ground in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh to facilitate the potential return of refugees to their homes.

read the rest

by

Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict – Overview, Analysis, Resources

Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict – Overview, Analysis, Resources

Hello. My name is Nareg Seferian. I recently completed my doctoral studies at the School of Public and International Affairs at Virginia Tech.

Part of my dissertation had to do with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

I wanted to make this video for a few reasons, mainly to present an overview of the dispute – a backgrounder or explainer.

Right at the outset I have to emphasise that, as with many conflicts around the world, the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh is complex. It has numerous dimensions. There are many sensitive layers to it which I will not address in this video.

I intend to provide some general information, offer a little bit of analysis, and suggest some resources for those interested in learning more.

Continue reading →
by

Shifts in Territorial Discourse over Southern Armenia

Shifts in Territorial Discourse over Southern Armenia

On November 16, 2021, clashes erupted between Armenian and Azerbaijani armed forces near the town of Sisian in southern Armenia, in the province of Siunik. This episode of fighting was notable as the worst altercation since the end of the Second Karabakh War of 2020. The Armenian side reported six soldiers killed and 13 taken captive, with 24 missing, while seven killed and ten wounded was the official count from Azerbaijan. Russian mediation resulted in a halt to the hostilities.

What happened in Siunik – indeed, what has been happening across that border region since May, 2021 – is directly related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh has numerous complexities. One is the inter-play between claimed borders and effective control. The unrecognised authorities in Stepanakert claimed the territory of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) of Soviet Azerbaijan, plus the Shahoumyan region to the north. Following the cease-fire in 1994, though deprived of some slivers of NKAO territory in the east and north-east, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or Artsakh had at the same time effective control, in whole or in part, over seven additional districts of what used to be Soviet Azerbaijan proper – the areas marked in light beige on the map below outside the lines of the former NKAO.

read the rest

by

Scenarios of Power in De Facto States: Karabakh’s 2020 Presidential Inauguration

Scenarios of Power in De Facto States: Karabakh’s 2020 Presidential Inauguration

Gerard Toal & Nareg Seferian

All states have their iconographies and rituals designed to project their legitimacy and power. They organize space as sacred patrimony and time as memory, anniversary and the eternal. Presidential inaugurations are occasions where we see this process in scenarios and ceremonies of power. The United States has an oath-taking in front of dignitaries and a majestic Capitol building. France and Russia have public ceremonies featuring the journey of the elected leader to regal buildings of power, these very setting and their elaborate interior décor signifying a treasured and transcendent patrimony of the nation and state.

It is hardly a surprise that de facto states – states that have established territorial control and internal legitimacy in a contested region, but lack recognition in external legitimacy as states among other states in the international community – look to the ceremonies of established states when inventing their own ceremonies of power. How they do so is an interesting window into their prevailing constructions of the time-space of their visions of their territorial nation-stateness.

read the rest

by

From “Intervention” to “Protection”: The Power of Discourse in International Affairs

Paper for a course on theories of power and policy (Chad Levinson)

From “Intervention” to “Protection”: The Power of Discourse in International Affairs

What is the relationship between discourse and power? Once an issue makes it to the agenda, how do its framing and the specific terms used to discuss it influence policy outcomes?

This paper will attempt at providing an overview of how discourse relates to power dynamics in international affairs by taking up in particular the concept of the responsibility to protect or “R2P” and how discourse on intervention preceding it shifted in the 20th century. Continue reading →

by

Contentious (S)Parks: Reclaiming Public Space in Yerevan and Istanbul

Paper for a course on social movements (Ariel Ahram)

Contentious (S)Parks: Reclaiming Public Space in Yerevan and Istanbul

Introduction

Neither Armenia nor Turkey have enjoyed reputations of being states with stable democratic regimes. Turkey has had experience as a pluralist republic over the course of many decades, though often punctuated with military coups. Armenia, for its part, has managed to carry out free and fair elections on only a few occasions since independence following the collapse of the USSR in 1991. Both countries have on the whole demonstrated much more undemocratic tendences in the recent past. Armenia and Turkey were consistently categorised as “Partly Free” by Freedom House from 2005 to 2015, with medium-to-low rankings of political rights and civil liberties (Freedom House, n.d.). The two countries have been variously characterised as illiberal republics, outright authoritarian, or unconsolidated or competitive authoritarian states at different points during the past two decades.

At the same time, both Armenia and Turkey have managed to develop substantial civil society sectors, with robust social movements galvanising segments of the population in order to influence decision-making from the streets. Ranging from leftist or feminist claims to ecological or human rights concerns, numerous protest movements have marked shifts in the political winds in Armenia and Turkey since the 1990s and 2000s.

This brief study will first discuss conceptual approaches to understanding social movements drawn from Tilly and Tarrow (2015) and Steinberg (1998). The two cases of the Mashtots Park protests in Armenia in 2012 and the Gezi Park protests in Turkey in 2013 will then be outlined. The discussion section that follows will compare and contrast how contentious politics over public space in those two urban centres played out. Included among the sources for the discussion are two interviews with first-hand observers and participants (see Appendix B). Finally, concluding thoughts on the causes and consequences of Mashtots and Gezi will be fleshed out in detail. Continue reading →

by

Questions of Academic Freedom in Armenian Studies and Turkish Studies in the United States

Essay for a course on the academy and academic life (Joel Peters)

Questions of Academic Freedom in Armenian Studies and Turkish Studies in the United States

The principle of academic freedom may appear on the surface to offer a carte blanche for all matters of scholarly pursuit, whether to instructors or students, and perhaps even to university administrators. There are a few key questions around which that principle hinges. This essay will take up some of them by investigating the history of the development of Armenian Studies and Turkish Studies in the United States and the controversies that have arisen within and across those disciplines.

Brief Overview

This section draws upon Mamigonian (2013), Ergüneş (2018), Reed (1997), and the websites of the Institute of Turkish Studies, the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association, the Society for Armenian Studies, and the Middle East Studies Association.

Armenian Studies and Turkish Studies have been systematically pursued by European scholars initially under the broader Oriental Studies umbrella since even as early as the late 18th century. It is not difficult to point out the political interests that evidently led to and supported the study of language, culture, religion, and society of the Balkans, Anatolia, Asia Minor, and the Levant. The Great Powers were keen to extend their holdings – the so-called “Eastern Question”. In fact, studying Persian, Arabic, or Turkish philology had an immediate association in many capitals with a career in the foreign service (and in espionage). The Diplomatic Academy of Vienna was founded by Empress Maria Theresia as the Oriental Academy in 1754, serving as a sort of prototype. Well into the 20th century, Oriental Studies university programmes were feeders for the KGB in the USSR. Continue reading →