The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled in favor of Armenia, rejecting all preliminary objections raised by Azerbaijan in a case concerning the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). The judgment, issued on November 12, 2024, at the Peace Palace in The Hague, allows Armenia’s case to move forward.
Armenia initiated proceedings on September 16, 2021, accusing Azerbaijan of violating CERD through acts such as murder, torture, inhuman treatment, and the arbitrary detention of ethnic Armenians. In 2023, Azerbaijan challenged the ICJ’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of Armenia’s claims, but these objections were overruled by the Court.
The Court affirmed its jurisdiction over Armenia’s claims, recognizing that Armenia had made genuine efforts to negotiate with Azerbaijan. These attempts included correspondence through letters, online and face-to-face meetings. However, negotiations were ultimately deemed unproductive as both sides remained steadfast in their positions. The ICJ determined that further negotiation efforts would not have yielded results.
Additionally, the Court rejected Azerbaijan’s assertion that Armenia’s claims fell outside its jurisdiction. The allegations put forward by Armenia”including acts of murder, torture, and inhuman treatment based on ethnic origin”were deemed to be within the scope of CERD. Furthermore, the Court dismissed Azerbaijan’s objections regarding jurisdiction ratione materiae, stating that Armenia’s claims fit entirely within the framework of the Convention, covering accusations of murder, torture, inhuman treatment, and arbitrary detention of ethnic Armenians. The ICJ also verified that the requirements of Article 22 of the Convention had been met. Specifically, it found that Armenia had engaged in meaningful negotiations on the interpretation and application of the Convention, which ultimately became futile by September 16, 2021, when Armenia submitted its application.
In a related decision, the ICJ considered Armenia’s objections to a case filed by Azerbaijan involving similar allegations under CERD. The Court addressed three primary objections from Armenia:
First Objection: Time Limits ” Armenia argued that Azerbaijan was not a signatory to the Convention until September 15, 1996, meaning any alleged violations before that date were outside the scope of the treaty. The ICJ agreed, ruling that Azerbaijan could not be held accountable for treaty violations before becoming a party.
Second Objection: Substantive Authority on Mines ” Armenia’s second objection centered on Azerbaijan’s claims regarding mines and their alleged connection to “ethnic cleansing.” The Court, however, noted that Azerbaijan did not explicitly request that the mines themselves be deemed in violation of the Convention. This objection was dismissed.
Third Objection: Environmental Damage ” Armenia’s third objection related to the Court’s competence to assess Azerbaijan’s claims of environmental damage, including deforestation, infrastructure destruction, and changes to riverbeds in areas surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. The ICJ recognized that these activities may have been linked to agricultural or commercial use by Armenians and were not exclusively targeted against Azerbaijanis. As such, this objection was upheld.
The ICJ’s rejection of Azerbaijan’s objections allows Armenia’s case to advance, affirming that sufficient efforts had been made to reach a negotiated solution. In a 2023 decision, the ICJ issued provisional measures instructing Azerbaijan to facilitate the return of ethnic Armenians displaced from Artsakh. The presiding judge highlighted that Artsakh was historically an area with a predominantly Armenian population.
The ICJ also noted that Azerbaijan did not dispute Armenia’s claims concerning public hate speech within Azerbaijan. Both Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s objections were accompanied by dissenting opinions, with decisions reached by votes of 15-1 and 16-1.
