The Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center) has issued a response to the study “Selective Justice? Comparing Peace Efforts in Armenia and Ukraine,” (https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/selective-justice-comparing-peace-efforts-in-armenia-and-ukraine-226706) authored by Mattia Massoletti and published by the Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI).
The article draws a parallel between the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict and the conflict in Ukraine, while overlooking established facts related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan case, misattributing responsibility, and asserting that the international support extended to Ukraine has not been afforded to Armenia, thereby characterizing this disparity as an instance of “selective justice.”
The main weakness of Mattia Massoletti’s argument is that it presents the occupation of Azerbaijani territories and the question of responsibility as unclear or defers their determination to future peace agreements.
In the context of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, however, responsibility is neither hypothetical nor subject to negotiation. Under international law, responsibility is clearly attributed to Armenia, and any analysis that does not ground itself in established international legal norms risks distorting the political and legal realities of the conflict.
There are well-established legal grounds determining Armenia’s responsibility, which have been in force for decades. The first and most fundamental legal pillar overlooked in Mattia Massoletti’s analysis consists of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 822, 853, 874, and 884. These resolutions unequivocally reaffirm the territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan and demand the immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from Azerbaijani territories. In doing so, they establish two key legal facts: the occupation of Azerbaijani territories and Armenia’s responsibility for that occupation.
The second key legal pillar is the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Chiragov and Others v. Armenia. The Court determined that Armenia exercised effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding occupied territories and, as a result, bore responsibility for violations of the European Convention on Human Rights in those areas.
Moreover, the article portrays Ruben Vardanyan primarily as a political or civic figure, while failing to provide sufficient information regarding his financial activities and other serious allegations. It also overlooks his destructive political activities in the post-2020 period, including efforts to consolidate separatist governance structures on Azerbaijani territory.
In conclusion, the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict does not serve as an example of a “selective justice” approach, as suggested by Mattia Massoletti. On the contrary, the study authored by him can be seen as an instance of a selective interpretation of international law.
*The full text of the response is available at the following link:
