Destruction of Cultural Heritage in the Azeri-Armenian Conflict: Violations of International Law?

March 16, 2021 by Digital Editor

Armenian Church and Monastery

By: Nicholas Savas

Tangible cultural heritage (the physical artifacts produced, maintained and transmitted intergenerationally in a society) plays an integral role in ethnic conflict. Nation states’ armies may go out of their way to destroy or alter cultural heritage of occupied lands for a variety of reasons, most often to legitimize their claims through historical revisionism. The recent outburst of war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) serves as a glaring reminder of the role that tangible cultural heritage plays as a soft target in warfare. Out of the most recent conflict of this past fall, cultural heritage has been and will continue to be one of the greatest victims, in violation of international law. Two conventions are of interest in analyzing state/non-state actions during this conflict, to which Armenia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan are all parties.

First, the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict lays out principals for both peace and wartime. Article 4.1 imposes on parties the obligation to “refrain from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings… for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict; and by refraining from any act of hostility, directed against such property” both inside and outside the party’s territory. Article 7.1 imposes peacetime obligations for parties to “introduce into their military regulations…provisions as may ensure observance of the present Convention, and to foster in the members of their armed forces a spirit of respect for the culture and cultural property of all peoples.” The Second Protocol to the 1954 Convention elaborates on the protection of cultural heritage in times of war. Article 6.a provides for a military necessity waiver for the Convention’s protections provided that: “i) [the]cultural property has, by its function, been made into a military objective; and ii) there is no feasible alternative available to obtain a similar military advantage to that offered by directing an act of hostility against that objective.” Relatedly, Article 15 describes serious violations of the Protocol, including: “… c) extensive destruction or appropriation of cultural property protected under the Convention and this Protocol; d) making cultural property protected under the Convention and this Protocol the object of attack; and e) theft, pillage or misappropriation of, or acts of vandalism directed against cultural property protected under the Convention.” Importantly, the provisions of Article 15 apply to anyone, not just state personnel, and Article 16 imposes an obligation on a state to create a national judicial framework for the prosecution of such crimes committed by its nationals. Finally, and relevant to our discussion, Article 22.1 states that the Protocol, “shall apply in the event of an armed conflict not of an international character, occurring within one of the Parties.”

Second, the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage provides guidelines for the adoption of internal laws preserving cultural heritage. Article 4 recognizes that it is each state’s duty to protect cultural heritage within its borders, whereas Article 5 lays out specific measures to be taken to enact such protection. Under Article 5, states are obliged to “integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programs,” as well as to “take the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures necessary for the identification, protection, conservation…of this heritage.”

While both sides have committed violations of other international conventions, the current conflict has exposed gaping holes in Azerbaijan’s adherence to the above international treaties regarding cultural heritage. We can analyze these violations through two lenses, violations against another state (whether NK is independent or a part of Armenia- the analysis is the same) and those within Azerbaijan (assuming NK is an integral part of Azerbaijan as its government claims).

In the first analysis, actions directed by the Azerbaijani military, such as the attack of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral, the shelling of the Tigranakert architectural complex, and destruction of Kanach Zham church, are clear violations of Article 4.1 of the 1954 Convention. Such attacks do not fall under the military waiver present in Article 6.a of the Second Protocol, as Azerbaijan has yet to tender evidence of NK forces using the sites for military purposes. On the contrary, Azeri journalists were keen to justify the attack specifically because of NK soldiers’ use of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral as a gathering place for prayer.  Yet further violations stem from Azerbaijan’s apparent inability or unwillingness to apply the obligations of Article 7.1 of the 1954 Convention, and Articles 15 and 16 of the Second Protocol. A multitude of evidence shows Azerbaijani soldiers (identified by their uniforms and language) desecrating and destroying khachkars (Armenian stone crosses, often ornately engraved and with text, many of which stem from the early medieval period), destroying graves, and dismantling crosses and proclaiming the adhan from the tops of churches. These videos, which are often circulated through soldiers and to the Azerbaijani public, and which do not show some of the more graphic scenes, including the beheadings of Armenian civilians, demonstrate a rampant culture of disregard for cultural property that cannot be in line with the obligations of Article 7.1. Further, the circulation of such videos widely in Azerbaijan and the lack of repercussions for those involved (some of whom are soldiers with names clearly visible, and indeed some have been lauded by certain members of the Azerbaijani government) demonstrates a lack of compliance with the obligations of Articles 15 and 16 to prosecute such destruction of cultural property.

In analyzing Azerbaijan’s actions under the second assumption, we find clear violations of the 1954 Convention’s Second Protocol and the 1972 UNESCO Convention. Azerbaijan is in violation of all of the Convention’s protections due to Article 22 of the Second Protocol extending wartime protections (i.e., the need to meet the military waiver of Article 6a) to conflicts occurring inside of a state. Next, it is important to also note a speculative theory propagated by the Azerbaijani government wherein the current ethnic Azeri population is the descendent of the ancient Caucasian Albanian Kingdom (which used a similar writing system as Armenian, thus making many monuments indistinguishable without expert advice). This theory is widely considered to have no merit, but it is still used by the Azerbaijani government to justify the reintegration of NK under its power. Even assuming that all of the Armenian cultural heritage is indeed “Caucasian Albanian-Azeri,” Azerbaijan is still in clear violation of its obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of the 1972 UNESCO Convention, requiring it to protect and regulate domestic cultural heritage.

These paired analyses essentially foreclose Azerbaijan’s justifying its actions during this most recent conflict. While both sides have essentially denatured into the blame game, claiming the other has engaged in cultural warfare, two facts solidify the above legal analysis. First, Azerbaijan and Turkey, as brother states (Turkey has supplied munitions and former ISIS militants), have demonstrated a continuation of the policy of Turkification/destruction of Armenian history dating to the time of the Armenian Genocide. This is not helped by incidents of anti-Armenian violence in France and hate crimes in the United States committed by Turkish/Azeri groups reminiscent of the 1915 genocide. Second, credible Western outlets (and even those in Russia) have yet to find hard, credible proof of Azerbaijani accusations regarding the destruction of either Azeri or “Caucasian Albanian” cultural heritage. It is imperative that the international community take a stance against these flagrant violations and protect the invaluable and ancient heritage of NK.


Niko Savas is a 2L at Georgetown Law and serves as an Executive Editor for the Georgetown Journal of International Law. Outside of the Journal, he works as a Research Assistant for the Georgetown Climate Center. Niko is fluent in English, Spanish, French, and Modern Greek, with legal interests in the geopolitics of the former Ottoman territories. He has a B.A. in Political Science and Statistics from Columbia University, where he was a member of the Heavyweight Rowing team.