Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s statement acknowledging that the issue of legal claims remains a contentious issue within the peace talks with Azerbaijan, as well as his willingness to negotiate with Baku on ending such actions within international legal forums has sparked an uproar in international legal and rights circles.
During a presentation at the Atlantic Council on Tuesday Pashinyan signaled his willingness to withdraw international legal complaints against Azerbaijan as part of ongoing peace talks.
“Another article [is] about the complaints against each other in legal institutions,” Pashinyan said in elaborating on the two remaining articles in a draft peace treaty that remain a point of disagreement between Baku and Yerevan.
“And the idea is to call back all those complaints. In general, we are okay with that idea as well. But what is our proposal? Not only to call back all these complaints, but not to raise all those issues in bilateral relations as well,” Pashinyan added during the Atlantic Council presentation in response to a question on the unresolved articles of the draft peace agreement with Azerbaijan.
President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan also emphasized that legal claims currently pending in international courts, such as the International Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights, were one of points of contention for Baku.
“The result of this [Pashinyan’s] strategy is not likely to be peace – but further aggression,” said Join Eibner, the International President of Christian Solidarity International, in a post on X.
He said that Pashinyan is signaling that “Armenia’s strategy for achieving peace is to drop all efforts to hold Azerbaijan accountable for its ethnic and religious cleansing of Nagorno Karabakh, its holding of political hostages, and its military occupation of swathes of the Armenian borderlands.”
“Furthermore, the Armenian prime minister appears to be leaving Washington without the solid security guarantees that are needed to prevent more Azerbaijani aggression and the subversion of Armenian statehood,” Eibner pointed out.
“WRONG WAY,” exclaimed human right lawyer Karnig Kerkonian in a post on X, saying that Pashinyan’s willingness to withdraw the legal cases, “even as Armenia is winning them decisively—is wrong.”
“First, these legal cases are not bargaining chips; they are key international judicial actions engineered to uncover the truth of Azerbaijan’s aggression and atrocities against Artsakh and Armenia,” Kerkonian explained.
“To withdraw these cases now—when the outcomes establishing Azerbaijan’s violations of international law are clearly within reach—is to forfeit not only crucial legal narratives, but also moral authority, sovereign agency and, well, the truth,” Kerkonian added. To use the Pashinyan’s terminology from his speech, he said, “this would be “leveling down” (not up) of Armenian sovereignty.”
“Withdrawing these international cases will not bring peace—that much is certain. In fact, withdrawing the cases will only invite patent impunity from Azerbaijan, erasing hard-won legal victories that are publicly holding Azerbaijan to account,” Kerkonian said.
“The Prime Minister has the whole thing upside down: these cases must not be sacrificed at the bilateral “negotiating” table—they must be the very foundation upon which a genuine and lasting peace is actually built,” he added.
“Then, of course, there is the curious failure to understand the colossal lesson of the last century—that appeasement does not work. As we saw in Hitler’s snatching of the Sudetenland and Azerbaijan’s conquest of NagornoKarabakh, appeasement simply invites more aggression,” Kerkonian pointed out.
“In fact,” he said, “as both examples (and countless others) sadly demonstrate, appeasement invites ethnic cleansing and, ultimately, genocide. The truth is that durable peace is not borne of appeasement—but outright genocide is.”
“This is not the time to bargain away Armenia’s international legal cases. In fact, the international court decisions should aid Armenia in the peaceful resolution of conflicts by ensuring that the negotiated outcomes are based on established legal principles rather than brute force, political expediency, or actual duress,” Kerkonian emphasized.
“A peace agreement should not be a mechanism by which to nullify the international legal cases; a peace agreement should be the mechanism by which to implement the outcomes of these cases. In other words, a peace agreement should reflect the adjudicated truth, not whitewash it,” he said.
The international rights lawyer said that Pashinyan is “really wrong.”
“A country seeking genuine peace does not ‘deal away’ its international legal cases: it proceeds with them to their rightful conclusion—and then ensures that any peace agreement actually reflects and enforces the actual judicial outcomes,” Kerkonian stressed. “That is what a just and durable peace is. Anything else is just appeasement … yet again.”
Aram Hamparian, the Executive Director of the Armenian National Committee of America, pointed out that concessions to Baku lead to more demands from Azerbaijan’s leadership.
“There can be no peace absent accountability – a reckoning with Azerbaijan’s crimes, the release of Armenian hostages, the removal of Azerbaijani forces from Armenia, and the return of Armenians to Artsakh,” Hamparian said.
“Each unilateral concession by Pashinyan to Azerbaijan invariably leads to renewed Azerbaijani demands for yet more unilateral concessions – a relentless cycle of surrender that cedes ever more Armenian soil, security, and sovereignty,” he emphasized.
“The Armenian Legal Center advocates for the rule of law, believes that Azerbaijan should be held to account for its crimes in the interest of justice for its victims and as a deterrent to the repetition of such crimes against Armenians or any innocent civilian population,” said Ken Hachikian, ALC Chairman. “The ALC will continue to work with its partners to pursue justice for Azerbaijan’s war crimes committed against the Armenian people.”
Armenia’s former foreign minister, Vartan Oskanian, said that Pashinyan’s remarks “constitute a disgraceful retreat,” adding that “Pashinyan seems determined to put the final nail in Nagorno-Karabakh’s coffin. Withdrawing these legal cases will do exactly that.”
“His willingness to withdraw cases, despite Armenia’s clear legal victories, is nothing short of further capitulation. Azerbaijan has demanded this, and Pashinyan is complying,” Oskanian said of Pashinyan’s stated intentions.
“The legal cases Armenia has pursued are not mere bargaining chips; they are essential mechanisms for exposing Azerbaijan’s aggression, ethnic cleansing, and gross human rights violations,” Oskanian said.
He pointed out that the landmark November 17, 2023, ruling by the International Court of Justice for instance, affirmed the fundamental right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to return to their homeland.
“Desperate to erase this ruling, Azerbaijan is working to dismantle international legal scrutiny of its actions. Now, Pashinyan appears ready to hand Baku exactly what it wants,” Oskanian added.
“Let’s be clear,” Oskanian went on in his statement, “withdrawing these legal cases will not bring peace—it will embolden Azerbaijan and grant it impunity for its crimes.”
He said the withdrawal of cases “will nullify the hard-fought legal gains that have held Azerbaijan accountable before the world. By abandoning these efforts, Pashinyan is not only forfeiting Armenia’s moral standing, sovereignty, and legal agency—he is actively enabling Azerbaijan’s genocidal ambitions.”
Oskanian also invoked Luis Moreno Ocampo, the first prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, who explicitly accused Azerbaijan of genocide, citing Ilham Aliyev’s intent to destroy the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh.
“The ICJ’s November 17 ruling was a direct response to these crimes, ordering Azerbaijan to allow the safe and unhindered return of Armenians to their homeland. Pashinyan’s retreat from legal proceedings will not only undermine this ruling—it will send a dangerous message that international law can be ignored when it becomes inconvenient for a dictator,” Oskanian explained.
“A just and lasting peace cannot be built on the erasure of legal truths. International law is not a diplomatic concession—it is the bedrock of justice. Any peace agreement must uphold Armenia’s legal claims, not nullify them. Armenia must not only refuse to withdraw its cases but also escalate them,” Oskanian asserted.
“The Armenian government has a duty to initiate additional legal proceedings against Azerbaijan—not only for its past and ongoing violations but specifically for its ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian population. The mass displacement of 150,000 Armenians, carried out under the threat of extermination, is a textbook case of ethnic cleansing and must be recognized and prosecuted as such,” Oskanian said.
