The political status of Nagorno-Karabakh remained unresolved from its declaration of independence on 10 December 1991 to its September 2023 collapse. During Soviet times, it had been an ethnic Armenian autonomous oblast of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a conflict arose between local Armenians who sought to have Nagorno-Karabakh join Armenia and local Azerbaijanis who opposed this.
The conflict soon escalated into ethnic cleansing and open warfare in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, as a result of which the region came under the control of an Armenia-allied de facto state, the Republic of Artsakh. The surrounding regions of Azerbaijan were occupied by the self-declared republic under the justification of a "security belt," which was intended to be exchanged for recognition of autonomous status from Azerbaijan.
Negotiations took place sporadically over the following decades, during which a ceasefire generally prevailed between Armenia/Artsakh and Azerbaijan (albeit without peacekeeping forces). Turkey and Azerbaijan imposed a transport blockade of Armenia which remains in place today and took other diplomatic steps to isolate it. Meanwhile, the United Nations Security Council, OSCE Minsk Group, and other bodies made various statements and proposed dialogue initiatives, none of which were successful.
In the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, Azerbaijani forces, backed by Turkey, took control of the southern half of the region, including Shusha and Hadrut. Armenia was forced to concede additional territories to preserve Stepanakert and the northern half of the Republic of Artsakh under local Armenian control, protected by Russian peacekeepers. The political status of this reduced region was not specified in the ceasefire agreement. In the wake of a tightened blockade by Azerbaijan, in which the Lachin Corridor was closed, and subsequent Azerbaijani offensive on 19 September 2023, the Artsakh government surrendered and voted to disband itself, effective 1 January 2024, although it later annulled this decree in exile for being unconstitutional. However, Armenia's prime-minister recognized Azerbaijan's sovereignty over Karabakh, and rejected the functioning of Nagorno-Karabakh government in exile in Armenia.
Virtually all of the Karabakhi Armenian population fled to Armenia via the newly-reopened Lachin Corridor. Despite being offered Azerbaijani citizenship, Karabakh's Armenian residents did not trust Azerbaijan's guarantees of security due to the country's history of human rights abuses, Armenophobia, and lack of rights to ethnic minorities.
The Republic of Artsakh was never recognized by any UN member state, including Armenia. For 30 years, international mediators and human rights organizations referred to the right of self-determination for the Armenian population. Following the second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020, Azerbaijan refused any special status or autonomy to its ethnically Armenian residents.
Political ties with Armenia In the 2005 case of Chiragov and others v. Armenia, the European Court of Human Rights decided that "the Republic of Armenia, from the early days of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, has had a significant and decisive influence over the 'NKR', [Nagorno-Karabakh Republic] that the two entities are highly integrated in virtually all important matters and that this situation persists to this day."
According to Human Rights Watch, "from the beginning of the Karabakh conflict, Armenia provided aid, weapons, and volunteers. Armenian involvement in Karabakh escalated after a December 1993 Azerbaijani offensive. The Republic of Armenia began sending conscripts and regular Army and Interior Ministry troops to fight in Karabakh."
However, the government of Armenia has never formally recognized the sovereignty of Artsakh and since 2022, its leadership has made statements suggesting it is ready to recognize the region as part of Azerbaijan, causing outrage across various sectors of Nagorno-Karabakh, including in its government.
Positions and statements United Nations
Three UN Security Council Resolutions (853, 874, and 884) and United Nations General Assembly resolutions 49/13 and 57/298 refer to Nagorno-Karabakh as a region of Azerbaijan. None of these resolutions were passed under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter. Certain politicians and legal scholars have expressed the view that resolutions are only legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII of the Charter."Additionally it may be noted that the Security Council cannot adopt binding decisions under Chapter VI of the Charter" (De Hoogh, Andre. Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1 Jan 1996, p. 371)."Council recommendations under Chapter VI are generally accepted as not being legally binding". (Magliveras, Konstantinos D. Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1 Jan 1999, p. 113)."Within the framework of Chapter VI the SC has at its disposal an 'escalation ladder' composed of several 'rungs' of wielding influence on the conflicting parties in order to move them toward a pacific solution... however, the pressure exerted by the Council in the context of this Chapter is restricted to non-binding recommendations". (Neuhold, Hanspeter. "The United Nations System for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes", in Cede, Franz & Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. The United Nations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1 Jan 2001, p. 66)."The responsibility of the Council with regard to international peace and security is specified in Chapters VI and VII. Chapter VI, entitled 'Pacific Settlements of Disputes', provides for action by the Council in case of international disputes or situations which do not (yet) post a threat to international peace and security. Herein its powers generally confined to making recommendations, the Council can generally not issue binding decisions under Chapter VI". (Schweigman, David. The Authority of the Security Council Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1 Jan 2001, p. 33)."Under Chapter VI, the Security Council may only make recommendations but not binding decisions on United Nations members". (Wallace-Bruce, Nii Lante. The Settlement of International Disputes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1 Jan 1998, pp. 47–4 )."The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven." Iraq, Israel and the United Nations: Double standards? , The Economist, 10 October 2002."There are two sorts of security council resolution: those under 'chapter 6' are non-binding recommendations dealing with the peaceful resolution of disputes; those under 'chapter 7' give the council broad powers, including war, to deal with 'threats to the peace ... or acts of aggression'." Emmott, Bill. If Saddam steps out of line we must go straight to war , The Guardian, 25 November 2002."...there is a difference between the Security Council resolutions that Israel breaches (nonbinding recommendations under Chapter 6) and those Iraq broke (enforcement actions under Chapter 7)." Kristof, Nicholas D. Calling the Kettle Black , The New York Times, 25 February 2004."There is a hierarchy of resolutions... Chapter 6, under which all resolutions relating to the middle east have been issued, relates to the pacific resolution of disputes. Above that, there are the mandatory chapter 7 resolutions, which impose the clearest possible obligations, usually on a single state rather than on two or three states, which is what chapter 6 is there for. Chapter 7 imposes mandatory obligations on states that are completely out of line with international law and policy, and the United Nations has decided in its charter that the failure to meet those obligations may be met by the use of force." Straw, Jack. House of Commons debates, Hansard, Column 32, 24 September 2002."There is another characteristic of these resolutions which deserves a mention, and that is that they are under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. Chapter 7 has as its heading 'Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression'. This is the very serious chapter of United Nations rules, regulations, laws and principles, which the United Nations activates when they intend to do something about it. If the United Nations announces under chapter 7 that it intends to do something about a matter and it is not done, that will undermine the authority of the United Nations; that will render it ineffective.
There are many other resolutions under other chapters. Resolution 242 gets a bit of a Guernsey here every now and then. Resolution 242 is under chapter 6, not chapter 7. It does not carry the same mandate and authority that chapter 7 carries. Chapter 6 is the United Nations trying to put up resolutions which might help the process of peace and it states matters of principle that are important for the world to take into consideration. Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw from territories that it has occupied. It also says that Israel should withdraw to secure and recognised boundaries and that the one is dependent upon the other. Resolution 242 says that, but it is not a chapter 7 resolution." Beazley, Kim, Waiting for blow-back (speech delivered in Parliament on 4 February 2003 , The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 February 2003."There are several types of resolutions: Chapter 6 resolutions are decisions pursing [sic] the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, and put forward Council proposals on negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies, and other peaceful means. Chapter 7 resolutions are decisions for Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, involving use of force and sanctions, complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic radio and other means of communication and the severance of diplomatic relations. Resolutions passed under Chapter 7 of the Charter are binding on all UN members, who are required to give every assistance to any action taken by the Council, and refrain from giving any assistance to the country against which it is taking enforcement action." Iran dossier crosses the Atlantic: Where to from here? (Microsoft Word document), Greenpeace position paper on Iran. However, the language of these four Resolutions indicates that they are "not mere recommendations or exhortations, but legally binding decisions." According to a report prepared by British parliamentarian and rapporteur David Atkinson, presented to Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), "the borders of Azerbaijan were internationally recognised at the time of the country being recognised as independent state in 1991," and "the territory of Azerbaijan included the Nagorno-Karabakh region."Mr David Atkinson, United Kingdom, European Democrat Group, (Rapporteur) The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference , Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 29 November 2004