The mutual withdrawal of interstate lawsuits by Armenia and Azerbaijan, as envisaged in their initialed peace agreement, could have serious legal and political consequences, international law expert Siranush Sahakyan has warned.
Sahakyan said the move could weaken mechanisms for protecting human rights and contribute to impunity. She also stressed that a decision by the two governments to withdraw their cases would not automatically end proceedings before international courts, Panorama.am reports.
On November 3, Lilit Makunts, chief of staff to Armenia’s prime minister, said Armenia and Azerbaijan could withdraw their cases against each other before international judicial bodies following the final signing of the peace agreement.
According to Sahakyan, the initialed agreement already contains a provision requiring the parties to withdraw existing interstate cases, refrain from joining other proceedings as third parties and avoid filing new claims concerning earlier disputes.
“This has already taken the form of a treaty obligation because the initialed peace agreement contains a specific provision. It states that the parties mutually agree to withdraw the cases they have brought. Furthermore, they also undertake not to become involved in other ongoing proceedings in a different capacity, for example, as third parties. They will also be unable to file new claims before international courts in the future concerning legal disputes arising from relations that existed before that point,” she explained.
Armenia has brought a case against Azerbaijan before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It has also filed interstate applications with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
A separate case against Turkey concerns the 2020 war, although Sahakyan said the potential implications of the peace agreement for those proceedings remain legally unclear.
She emphasized that discontinuing an existing case requires a judicial decision, even if the states involved request its withdrawal.
“States may announce their withdrawal from interstate proceedings, but proceedings that have already begun can be discontinued only by court decisions. In these cases, too, withdrawal must be followed by a court ruling. We may anticipate what that ruling will contain, but we remain in the realm of predictions. First, all judicial activity involves judicial assessment and discretion. Second, we lack sufficient precedents involving similar situations to predict the courts’ conduct with certainty,” Sahakyan said.
She cited ECtHR cases in which proceedings continued despite an individual applicant’s withdrawal because the court considered that the protection of human rights and the interests of justice required further examination.
“We must consider whether the interests of justice can permit these proceedings to be discontinued when the Republic of Armenia withdraws cases whose beneficiaries are citizens whose violated rights have not been restored and who have continued to suffer various new violations over an extended period. We cannot rule out the possibility that the European Court may find that the interests of justice require further examination of the case. In other words, although Azerbaijan and Armenia may exercise their procedural rights to withdraw their cases, the court may decide not to discontinue the proceedings,” she said.
Sahakyan suggested that a similar question could arise before the ICJ, particularly given the nature of international obligations prohibiting racial discrimination and protecting fundamental human rights.
She warned that discontinuing the cases could deprive Armenia of important legal mechanisms for seeking accountability for alleged crimes against ethnic Armenians.
“If the withdrawals take place, it is clear that this will put an end to the pursuit of justice. Azerbaijan is essentially attempting to legitimize the international crimes committed against ethnic Armenians by guaranteeing impunity for them. I believe the consequences are severe in legal, political and psychological terms. But the greatest danger is that failure to address impunity could lead to the repetition of such crimes. One of the purposes of international responsibility is also to prevent future crimes,” Sahakyan said.
On November 17, 2023, the ICJ ordered Azerbaijan to ensure that Armenians who left Nagorno-Karabakh after September 2023 could return safely and without obstruction. The court also ordered measures to protect their personal and property-related documents.
On October 26, 2026, the ECtHR sent additional questions to the parties in proceedings concerning the 2020 Armenia-Azerbaijan war.
