Nagorno-Karabakh: How Law Shapes (and Justifies) Violence

Description

This episode of Human Rights and Humanitarianism examines the paradoxical role of international law in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, where legal norms are increasingly invoked even as their authority and protective capacity appear to erode. Through political speeches, legal claims and competing narratives, international law emerges not as a neutral tool but as a political language, used to negotiate power and justify violence. Drawing on Jean and John Comaroff’s concept of the “judification” of politics, the podcast analyzes how Armenia and Azerbaijan mobilize key legal principles - sovereignty, self-determination, and self-defense - to support competing claims over territory, security and legitimacy. Although these principles are universal, they are selectively interpreted in this context to support opposing political agendas. The analysis benefits from an interview with Armenian international lawyer Lusine Abovyan. She highlights the way these seemingly neutral legal principles operate on different legal levels and seem clear in theory, yet become deeply politicized and selectively interpreted in practice. This podcast specifically focuses on the framing of the sovereignty and self-determination principles as mutually exclusive, also they operate on different levels. That legal grey zone contributes to persistence of the conflict. In a similar way, the notion of self-defence is mobilized and interpreted by Azerbaijan in a way to justify the use of force in the conflict. The podcast argues that this intense juridification process in Nagorno-Karabakh has the opposite effect of the one expected: it results in “dejuridification”, in which legal language ends up masking rather than preventing human suffering. By Chloé Levrat, Elena Natali, Jeanne Rancoule, Linda Bartolozzi, Yana Tucker Mint 265 - Human Rights and Humanitarianism through the Concepts - Julie Billaud, Neus Torbisco-Casals - December 2025