• About
    • Mission
    • Team
    • Boards
    • Mentions & Testimonials
    • Institutional Recognition
    • Annual Reports
    • Current & Past Sponsors
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    • Article Collection
    • Podcast: Art in Brief
    • AML and the Art Market
    • AI and Art Authentication
    • Newsletter
      • Subscribe
      • Archives
      • In Brief
    • Art Law Library
    • Movies
    • Nazi-looted Art Restitution Database
    • Global Network
      • Courses and Programs
      • Artists’ Assistance
      • Bar Associations
      • Legal Sources
      • Law Firms
      • Student Societies
      • Research Institutions
    • Additional resources
      • The “Interview” Project
  • Events
    • Worldwide Calendar
    • Our Events
      • All Events
      • Annual Conferences
        • 2025 Art Law Conference
        • 2024 Art Law Conference
        • 2023 Art Law Conference
        • 2022 Art Law Conference
        • 2015 Art Law Conference
  • Programs
    • Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      • Art & Copyright Law Clinic
      • Artist-Dealer Relationships Clinic
      • Artist Legacy and Estate Planning Clinic
      • Visual Artists’ Immigration Clinic
    • Summer School
      • 2026
      • 2025
    • Internship and Fellowship
    • Judith Bresler Fellowship
  • Case Law Database
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
Center for Art Law
  • About
    About
    • Mission
    • Team
    • Boards
    • Mentions & Testimonials
    • Institutional Recognition
    • Annual Reports
    • Current & Past Sponsors
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    Resources
    • Article Collection
    • Podcast: Art in Brief
    • AML and the Art Market
    • AI and Art Authentication
    • Newsletter
      Newsletter
      • Subscribe
      • Archives
      • In Brief
    • Art Law Library
    • Movies
    • Nazi-looted Art Restitution Database
    • Global Network
      Global Network
      • Courses and Programs
      • Artists’ Assistance
      • Bar Associations
      • Legal Sources
      • Law Firms
      • Student Societies
      • Research Institutions
    • Additional resources
      Additional resources
      • The “Interview” Project
  • Events
    Events
    • Worldwide Calendar
    • Our Events
      Our Events
      • All Events
      • Annual Conferences
        Annual Conferences
        • 2025 Art Law Conference
        • 2024 Art Law Conference
        • 2023 Art Law Conference
        • 2022 Art Law Conference
        • 2015 Art Law Conference
  • Programs
    Programs
    • Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      • Art & Copyright Law Clinic
      • Artist-Dealer Relationships Clinic
      • Artist Legacy and Estate Planning Clinic
      • Visual Artists’ Immigration Clinic
    • Summer School
      Summer School
      • 2026
      • 2025
    • Internship and Fellowship
    • Judith Bresler Fellowship
  • Case Law Database
Home image/svg+xml 2021 Timothée Giet Art law image/svg+xml 2021 Timothée Giet A New Framework for Cultural Heritage Protection through the CERD: Armenia v. Azerbaijan
Back

A New Framework for Cultural Heritage Protection through the CERD: Armenia v. Azerbaijan

September 5, 2024

map of Armenia and Azerbaijan

By Isabelle Kapoian, under the guidance of Yelena Ambartsumian, Esq.

Armenian cultural heritage in Artsakh, a region where Armenian communities have existed ancestrally for centuries, is not safe. Considering Azerbaijan’s policies of erasure of countless churches, cemeteries, and other historically and culturally important constructions and artifacts, Armenia has turned to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for relief through the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). In this precedential case, the ICJ issued a provisional measure binding Azerbaijan to cease its destruction of Armenian tangible cultural heritage. Though Armenia v. Azerbaijan is still pending before the ICJ (a public hearing was held in April of 2024), a judgment in Armenia’s favor could finally hold Azerbaijan accountable and carve a legal framework of relief for other marginalized groups facing state policies of cultural erasure.

The Present Case

In the South Caucasus, a region comprised of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, a cultural genocide is underway. For decades, Azerbaijan has pursued an exclusive ethno-territorial state policy through ethnic cleansing and cultural destruction aimed at the eradication of the Armenian physical and historical presence. From 1997–2006 in exclave of Nakhichevan, which borders Armenia and Turkey, Azerbaijan expelled Nakhichevan’s Armenian population and destroyed 98 percent of its Armenian cultural heritage.[1] This included the razing of medieval churches and tens of thousands of historic tombstones and ancient khachkars (intricately carved, free-standing cross-stones)[2] without legal or political consequences.[3]

Azerbaijan has continued this policy in Artsakh (also known as Nagorno Karabakh), a region where Armenian communities have lived for centuries.[4] In September 2023, after enforcing an illegal nine-month blockade and military offensive against Artsakh,[5] Azerbaijan military attacked Artsakh and succeeded in expelling its ethnic Armenian population, creating over 120,000 refugees and eradicating the Armenian presence that had existed there for at least two thousand years.[6] Regarding Azerbaijan’s treatment of Armenian cultural heritage in Artsakh, thus far it has shelled the Holy Savior Ghazanchetsots Cathedral;[7] destroyed churches including Zoravor Surb Astvatsatsin,[8] St. Sargis,[9] and St. Hovhannes;[10] damaged museums;[11] leveled the village of Karintak;[12] desecrated and demolished khachkars (carved Armenian cross-stones);[13] and razed cemeteries like Mets T’agher.[14] Azerbaijan has additionally systematically erased distinctly Armenian elements, including inscriptions and symbols, from Armenian monuments through purported “restoration” (see: the Holy Savior Ghazanchetsots Cathedral)[15] to falsely reclassify the monuments as exclusively Caucasian Albanian.[16]

The threat of destruction for the remaining Armenian heritage in Artsakh is especially grave; the final vestige of the Armenian ancestral presence there is its cultural heritage—likely making it Azerbaijan’s next target. The threatened heritage includes an estimated 500 historical sites and 6,000 monuments[17]—including the first Armenian-written-language school,[18] the monastic complex of Dadivank established in the 9th century on the grave of the disciple Dadi,[19] the 13th-century monastery Gandzasar,[20] the Hellenistic city-ruins of Tigranakert,[21] countless other churches and khachkars,[22] and innumerable cultural objects that have informed Armenian cultural traditions for centuries.

UNESCO’s Inefficacy

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has been unable to safeguard Armenian cultural heritage in Artsakh or Azerbaijan; its treaties generally lack “clear substantive rights to cultural heritage for individuals and communities” and do not penalize states for destroying cultural heritage.[23] Of UNESCO’s cultural heritage treaties, some apply only during armed conflict (e.g., the 1954 Hague Convention and its Second Protocol),[24] and fail to protect Armenian heritage during peacetime.[25] However, Azerbaijan executed some of its most egregious policies of cultural destruction during a time of supposed “peace” when it almost completely eradicated the Armenian cultural heritage in Nakhichevan.[26] UNESCO was additionally ineffectual when it proposed a mission in Artsakh to monitor the status of Armenian cultural sites after Azerbaijan’s initial military offensive in late 2020; however, Azerbaijan’s objection barred UNESCO’s Second Protocol Committee from conducting any fact-finding in the region.[27]

Other treaties prioritize state sovereignty and require the consent of the Member State that houses the cultural heritage for UNESCO’s committees to assist in safeguarding the heritage (e.g., the Intangible Heritage Convention, and the World Cultural and Natural Heritage Convention).[28] Because Azerbaijan will likely never request assistance to preserve Armenian heritage within its borders, other UN Member States cannot request to do so. Moreover, Artsakh is not a Member State that could itself consent to receive UNESCO assistance, so these treaties are ineffectual in protecting Armenian cultural heritage in the present situation.[29]

Even if applicable, UNESCO cultural heritage instruments lack inhibitory consequences and enforcement mechanisms for offending states. In practice, the only consequences UNESCO can exercise against a state are to condemn the state’s actions publicly,[30] to remove the state’s cultural heritage from UNESCO’s World Heritage List[31] (though UNESCO has only ever delisted three sites),[32] and to cease to provide the state with financial or technical assistance. However, the latter consequence incorrectly presupposes that Azerbaijan has an interest in allocating resources to preserving Armenian cultural heritage.

It would appear that, UNESCO has contributed to Azerbaijan’s artwashing by hosting the 2013 exhibit Azerbaijan – A Land of Tolerance at its Paris headquarters, naming Azerbaijan’s Vice President and First Lady, Mehriban Aliyeva, a Goodwill Ambassador, and hosting an annual World Heritage Committee session in Azerbaijan.[34]

In the opinion of the authors, UNESCO is a biased actor complicit in Azerbaijan’s cultural destruction. UNESCO has inaccurately and detrimentally given equal weight to Armenia and Azerbaijan’s conduct regarding the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, engaging in both-sides-ism despite the two countries’ power differential.[33]

Armenia’s Turn to the International Court of Justice through the CERD

In 2021, Armenia sought relief through the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“the CERD”).[35] The CERD is a human rights treaty adopted in 1965 that condemns and protects against racial discrimination based on, among other characteristics, national or ethnic origin.[36] Both Armenia and Azerbaijan are signatories.[37]

On September 16, 2021, Armenia instituted proceedings against Azerbaijan (Armenia v. Azerbaijan) and made a request for provisional measures before the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) based on Azerbaijan’s alleged violations of the CERD.[38] Armenia filed suit broadly on behalf of “individuals of Armenian ethnic or national origin (‘Armenians’).”[39]

Armenia claims that Azerbaijan violated the CERD by “systematically destroying and falsifying Armenian cultural sites and heritage” in Artsakh.[40] It argues that Article 5(e)(vi) of the CERD, which establishes the right to “equal participation in cultural activities” at all times, includes the “right to protection and preservation of Armenian historic, cultural, and religious heritage.”[41] Armenia also requested provisional measures to enjoin Azerbaijan’s destruction and falsification of Armenian cultural heritage, the erasure of the Armenian historical presence, and the inhibition of Armenians’ access to and enjoyment of their cultural heritage.[42]

The ICJ granted Armenia’s request for provisional measures on December 7, 2021, and was empowered to indicate provisional measures after finding that there was ”a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights [Armenia] claimed before the Court gives its final decision.”[43] By a vote of thirteen to two (with Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf of Somalia and ad hoc Judge Keith of New Zealand dissenting), the ICJ ruled that ”Azerbaijan shall [t]ake all necessary measures to prevent and punish [] vandalism and desecration affecting Armenian cultural heritage, including but not limited to churches and other places of worship, monuments, landmarks, cemeteries and art[i]facts[.]”[44]

This proceeding is significant because it represents the first time that rights related to tangible cultural heritage have been brought before the ICJ through the CERD, and it is the only CERD proceeding in which the ICJ has granted a provisional measure to safeguard these rights and tangible cultural heritage.[45]

Benefits and Shortcomings of CERD

The CERD has certain advantages for pursuing cultural heritage destruction claims. First, unlike other human rights treaties, the dispute alleging CERD violation could be heard by the ICJ without Azerbaijan’s consent (Article 22).[46] In addition, Armenia was entitled to invoke Azerbaijan’s responsibilities under the CERD despite the harm having occurred outside of the Republic of Armenia’s territory (per Article 11).[47]

There are, however, two major shortcomings. The first is enforceability: despite the December 7 provisional measure being binding on Azerbaijan,[48] Azerbaijan has already violated it by destroying St. Sargis Church in 2022,[49] the Halevor Bridge in 2023,[50] and razing Kanach Zham Chapel, the village of Karintak, and Ghazanchetsots Cemetery last April.[51] Therefore, under Article 94(2) of the UN Charter, Armenia “may have recourse to the Security Council . . . to give effect” to the provisional measure.[52] The Security Council, however, has never invoked these powers.[53] Second, this case will likely be lengthy; an ICJ decision on the merits can take several years. For example, Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro took almost 14 years to reach a final decision.[54] Ultimately, with the current speed at which Azerbaijan is destroying Armenian heritage,[55] waiting for a final decision may be too late to save Armenian heritage on the territories controlled by Azerbaijan, if the provisional measures are not enforced.[56]

The Path Forward

Though Armenia v. Azerbaijan is still pending before the ICJ, an enforced judgment in Armenia’s favor could help cease Azerbaijan’s cultural erasure and finally hold it accountable for decades of destruction. More significantly, though ICJ decisions only have binding force on the parties to the dispute,[57] it may create persuasive case precedent that broadens the scope of the CERD’s right to “equal cultural participation in cultural activities”[58] and carve a legal path of relief for marginalized groups facing cultural genocide. Although CERD proceedings must be filed with the ICJ through a Member State, it only takes one allied Member State to initiate a proceeding before the ICJ on behalf of a marginalized group facing state policies of cultural erasure. This legal framework may ultimately impress and redistribute the collective responsibility of nation-states to protect the world heritage of marginalized groups beyond their territory.

Suggested Readings & Media:

  • Articles: Alexander Herman, A New Take on Cultural Heritage at the ICJ – Armenia v. Azerbaijan, Inst. Art & L. (Feb. 17, 2022), available here; Simon Maghakyan & Sarah Pickman, A Regime Conceals Its Erasure of Indigenous Armenian Culture, Hyperallergic (Feb. 18, 2019), available here.
  • Reports: Caucasus Heritage Watch, December 2023 Report and June 2024 Report, available here.
  • Lecture: The University of Chicago Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Dumanian Lecture Series, Towards an Armenian Futurism, organized by Sylvia Alajaji, featuring Mashinka Firunts Hakopian, Kamee Abrahamian, and Hrag Vartanian (May 20, 2021), available here.
  • Book: Christina Maranci, The Art of Armenia: An Introduction (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).
  • Interactive Maps: Caucasus Heritage Watch, Map of Impacted Sites Identified during Satellite Monitoring, available here; Monument Watch, Map of Armenian Cultural Heritage, available here.

About the Authors

Isabelle Kapoian is a third-year student at Rutgers Law School with an undergraduate degree in economics with a concentration in global trade and finance, and minors in art and international affairs. At Rutgers Law, Isabelle is a member of the Jessup International Law Moot Court Team and Alternative Dispute Resolution Team and is an Associate Editor for the Rutgers Law Record Journal.

This article was researched and edited under the guidance of Yelena Ambartsumian, Esq. Yelena is a New York-based attorney and founder of AMBART LLC, a law firm that focuses on art, AI, privacy, and IP law. She has researched and authored several articles related to cultural heritage in Artsakh and the legal mechanisms that could, with enough political will, serve to safeguard such heritage.

Bibliography:

  1. E.g., Dale B. Sawa, Monumental Loss: Azerbaijan and ‘the Worst Cultural Genocide of the 21st Century, Guardian (Mar. 1, 2019), https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/mar/01/monumental-loss-azerbaijan-cultural-genocide-khachkars; Simon Maghakyan & Sarah Pickman, A Regime Conceals Its Erasure of Indigenous Armenian Culture, Hyperallergic (Feb. 18, 2019), https://hyperallergic.com/482353/a-regime-conceals-its-erasure-of-indigenous-armenian-culture/; Simon Maghakyan, Special Investigation: Declassified Satellite Images Show Erasure of Armenian Churches, Art Newspaper (June 1, 2021) [hereinafter Maghakyan, Special Investigation], https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2021/06/01/special-investigation-declassified-satellite-images-show-erasure-of-armenian-churches; Armen Haghnazarian & Dieter Wickmann, AZERBAIJAN: Destruction of the Armenian Cemetery of Djulfa, ICOMOS Heritage at Risk (June 2007), https://www.icomos.org/risk/world_report/2006-2007/pdf/H@R_2006-2007_09_National_Report_Azerbaijan.pdf; Amos Chapple, When the World Looked Away: The Destruction of Julfa Cemetery, Radio Free Eur. Radio Liberty (Dec. 10, 2020), https://www.rferl.org/a/armenia-azerbaijan-julfa-cemetery-destruction-unesco-culturalheritage/30986581.html?fbclid=IwAR38guzAYkn3_fnSCPl3XoD8iBeNxJOdcjcw4fb4V8HW9ZvNLzNKn-uwM0M; High-Resolution Satellite Imagery and the Destruction of Cultural Artifacts in Nakhchivan, Am. Ass’n for the Advancement of Sci., (Dec. 5, 2010) [hereinafter High-Resolution Satellite Imagery], http://www.aaas.org/resources/high-resolution-satellite-imagery-and-destruction-cultural-artifacts-nakhchivan-azerbaijan; Lindsay Khatchadourian, Adam T. Smith, Husik Ghulyan & Ian Lindsay, CHW Special Report # 1—Silent Erasure: A Satellite Investigation of the Destruction of Armenian Cultural Heritage in Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan, Caucasus Heritage Watch (Sept. 2022), https://indd.adobe.com/embed/2a6c8a55-75b0-4c78-8932-dc798a9012fb?startpage=1&allowFullscreen=true. ↑
  2. Armenian Cross-stones Art. Symbolism and Craftsmanship of Khachkars, UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage, https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/armenian-cross-stones-art-symbolism-and-craftsmanship-of-khachkars-00434 (last visited Sept. 2, 2024). . ↑
  3. Maghakyan, Special Investigation, supra note 1; Chapple, supra note 1; Khatchadourian et al., supra note 1. ↑
  4. Mashinka F. Hakopian & Patricia E. Kim, Monuments Under Occupation, Art Papers, https://www.artpapers.org/monuments-under-occupation/ (last visited August 31, 2024); Yelena Ambartsumian, Why Armenian Cultural Heritage Threatens Azerbaijan’s Claims to Nagorno-Karabakh, Hyperallergic (Feb. 28, 2021), https://www.hyperallergic.com/614619/why-armenian-cultural-heritage-threatens-azerbaijans-claims-to-nagorno-karabakh/; Hrag Avedanian, A War over Patterns, Symbols, and the Cultural Heritage of Karabakh’s Carpets, Hyperallergic (Feb. 28, 2021), https://hyperallergic.com/625180/a-war-over-patterns-symbols-and-the-cultural-heritage-of-karabakhs-carpets/. ↑
  5. Ewelina U. Ochab, Lachin Corridor Blockade Starves Nagorno-Karabakh, Forbes (Aug. 8, 2023), https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2023/08/08/lachin-corridor-blockade-starves-nagorno-karabakh/?sh=4d8a7ff933b6; Svante Lundgren, Nagorno-Karabakh: The World Should Have Seen This Crisis Coming – And It’s Not Over Yet, Conversation, https://theconversation.com/nagorno-karabakh-the-world-should-have-seen-this-crisis-coming-and-its-not-over-yet-214663 (Oct. 2, 2023). ↑
  6. Patrick Reevell, Nagorno-Karabakh Enclave Emptied After Entire Ethnic Armenian Population Flees, ABC News (Oct. 2, 2023), https://abcnews.go.com/International/nagorno-karabakh-enclave-emptied-entire-armenian-population-flees/story?id=103655356; Resolution on the Situation in Nagorno-Karabakh After Azerbaijan’s Attack and the Continuing Threats Against Armenia, European Parliament (Oct. 5, 2023), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0356_EN.html. ↑
  7. Azerbaijan: Attack on Church Possible War Crime, Hum. Rts. Watch (Dec. 16, 2020), https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/16/azerbaijan-attack-church-possible-war-crime; Republic of Artsakh: Hum. Rts. Ombudsman, Artsakh Ombudsman Second Interim Public Report on the Azerbaijani Atrocities Against the Artsakh Population in September to October 2020, Ministry of Territorial Admin. of the Republic of Arm. (Oct. 18, 2020), https://www.mfa.am/filemanager/NKR_war_2020/nk_hr/2.pdf; Khatchadourian et al., supra note 1. ↑
  8. Jonah Fisher, Nagorno-Karabakh: The Mystery of the Missing Church, BBC News (Mar. 25, 2021), http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-56517835. ↑
  9. Ian Lindsay, Adam T. Smith & Lori Khatchadourian, Caucasus Heritage Watch: Monitoring Report #4, Caucasus Heritage Watch (Oct. 2022), https://indd.adobe.com/embed/bc52b43e-ea70-4967-9b26-1c57fcfcd7ed?startpage=1&allowFullscreen=true. ↑
  10. Ian Lindsay, Adam T. Smith, Husik Ghulyan & Lori Khatchadourian, Caucasus Heritage Watch: Monitoring Report #7, Caucasus Heritage Watch (June 2024), https://caucasusheritage.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Report-2024-07Spread.pdf. ↑
  11. Urgent Call for Action, Armenian Bar Ass’n (Jan. 21, 2021), https://armenianbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Armenian-Cultural-Heritage-Report-1.21-2021.pdf; Letter Calling Attention to the Destruction and Desecration of Armenian Religious and Cultural Heritage Property by Azerbaijan and the Denial of Right to Exercise Religious Rites, Arm. Bar Ass’n (Dec. 14, 2022), https://armenianbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Letter-to-Special-Rapporteurs-on-religion-and-culture-2022-1214.pdf; The Threatened Armenian Religious Heritage of Artsakh, Arm. Bar Ass’n (Jan. 2024), https://armenianbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/aba-church-report-small-1_22_2024.pdf; Report and Urgent Call to Action: Erasure of Armenian Heritage by Azerbaijan and Denial of Armenians’ Right to Exercise their Christian Religion, Arm. Bar Ass’n, https://armenianbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Safegurding-Armenian-Culture-and-Religious-heritage.pdf (last visited Aug. 31, 2024). ↑
  12. Complete Destruction of the Village of Karintak by Azerbaijan, Monument Watch, https://monumentwatch.org/en/alerts/complete-destruction-of-the-village-of-karintak-by-azerbaijan/ (last visited Aug. 31, 2024). ↑
  13. Destruction of Khachkars Caused by Azerbaijan in the Occupied Territories of Artsakh, Monument Watch, https://monumentwatch.org/en/alerts/destruction-of-khachkars-caused-by-azerbaijan-in-the-occupied-territories-of-artsakh/ (last visited Aug. 31, 2024); Destruction of the Cemetery and Khachkars in Lachin, Monument Watch, https://monumentwatch.org/en/alerts/destruction-of-the-cemetery-and-khachkars-in-lachin/ (last visited Aug. 31, 2024); Destruction of a Khachkar in Kyuratagh Village, Hadrut, Monument Watch, https://monumentwatch.org/en/alerts/destruction-of-a-khachkar-in-kyuratagh-village-hadrut/ (last visited Aug. 31, 2024); Destruction of a Khachkar in Arakel Village of Hadrut Region, Monument Watch, https://monumentwatch.org/en/alerts/destruction-of-a-khachkar-in-arakel-village-of-hadrut-region/ (last visited Aug. 31, 2024); Azerbaijanis Reportedly Damage Historical Khachkar Monument in Martakert City, Monument Watch, https://monumentwatch.org/en/alerts/azerbaijanis-reportedly-damage-historical-khachkar-monument-in-martakert-city/ (last visited Aug. 31, 2024). ↑
  14. Ian Lindsay, Adam T. Smith & Lindsay Khatchadourian, Caucasus Heritage Watch: Monitoring Report # 2, Caucasus Heritage Watch (Sept. 2021), https://indd.adobe.com/embed/73cac945-7eb0-4f25-95a0-caf2afe7964c?startpage=1&allowFullscreen=true. ↑
  15. Simon Maghakyan, Cultural Erasure May Spark Next Nagorno-Karabakh War, Asia Times (Nov. 16, 2020), https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/11/cultural-erasure-may-spark-next-nagorno-karabakh-war. ↑
  16. Hum. Rts. Ombudsman of the Republic of Artsakh, Ad Hoc Public Report: The Armenian Cultural Heritage in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh): Cases of Vandalism and at Risk of Destruction by Azerbaijan (Jan. 26, 2021), https://armenianbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/6.-Final-Report-on-Armenian-cultural-heritage-26.01.2021_0.pdf. ↑
  17. Simon Maghakyan, Artsakh Heritage: What Is Happening to Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian Monuments, EVN Report (Nov. 27, 2023), https://evnreport.com/politics/artsakh-heritage-what-is-happening-to-nagorno-karabakhs-armenian-monuments/. ↑
  18. History and Architecture, Amaras, https://www.amaras.org/history-and-architecture/ (last visited Aug. 31, 2024). ↑
  19. Dadivank. About Saint Dadi and his grave, Monuments Watch, https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/dadivank-about-saint-dadi-and-his-grave/ (last visited Aug. 31, 2024). ↑
  20. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Gandzasar.com, https://www.gandzasar.com/cathedral-of-st-john-baptist.htm, (last visited Aug. 31, 2024). ↑
  21. Simon Maghakyan, Archeologist Raises Alarms Over Azerbaijan’s Shelling of an Ancient City, Hyperallergic (Oct. 3, 2020), https://hyperallergic.com/592287/tigranakert-artsakh-nagorno-karabakh-war/. ↑
  22. Christina Maranci, The Medieval Armenian Monuments in Nagorno-Karabakh Must be Protected, Apollo Mag. (Dec. 9, 2020), https://www.apollo-magazine.com/medieval-armenian-monuments-nagorno-karabakh/. For examples of Armenian iconography on stonework, see Armenian Cross-Stones Art. Symbolism and Craftsmanship of Khachkars, UNESCO, https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/armenian-cross-stones-art-symbolism-and-craftsmanship-of-khachkars-00434 (last visited Aug. 31, 2024). ↑
  23. Marc-André Renold & Alessandro Chechi, International Human Rights Law and Cultural Heritage, Getty Publ’ns (2022), https://www.getty.edu/publications/cultural-heritage-mass-atrocities/part-4/23-renold-chechi/. ↑
  24. Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, May 14, 1954, 249 U.N.T.S. 215; Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, opened for signature Mar. 26, 1999, 2253 U.N.T.S. 172. ↑
  25. Maria T. Cannon, Armenian Cultural Heritage at Risk, Amineddoleh & Associates LLC (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.artandiplawfirm.com/armenian-cultural-heritage-at-risk/. ↑
  26. See, e.g., Sawa, supra note 1; Maghakyan & Pickman, supra note 1; Chapple, supra note 1; High-Resolution Satellite Imagery, supra note 1; Lindsay Khatchadourian et al., supra note 1. ↑
  27. UNESCO Is Awaiting Azerbaijan’s Response Regarding Nagorno-Karabakh Mission, UNESCO (Dec. 21, 2020), https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-awaiting-azerbaijans-response-regarding-nagorno-karabakh-mission?page=404; Nagorno-Karabakh: Reaffirming the Obligation to Protect Cultural Goods, UNESCO Proposes Sending a Mission to the Field to All Parties, UNESCO, https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/nagorno-karabakh-reaffirming-obligation-protect-cultural-goods-unesco-proposes-sending-mission-field (Apr. 20, 2023); Permanent Representative of Armenia, Letter Dated 27 April 2022 from the Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General (Apr. 28, 2022), https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3972513?ln=es&v=pdf; Permanent Mission of the Republic of Armenia to the OSCE, Statement “Humanitarian Crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh” (Feb. 9, 2023), https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/f/9/537702.pdf; Azerbaijan Responds to UNESCO Statement on Nagorno-Karabakh, Caucasus Watch, (Dec. 22, 2020), https://caucasuswatch.de/en/news/azerbaijan-responds-to-unesco-statement-on-nagorno-karabakh.html. ↑
  28. See, e.g., Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, art. 11(3), Nov. 16, 1972, 1037 U.N.T.S. 151; Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, art. 23, Oct. 17, 2003, 2368 U.N.T.S. 3. ↑
  29. Renold & Chechi, supra note 23; Vanessa Tünsmeyer, Bridging the Gap Between International Human Rights and International Cultural Heritage Law Instruments: A Functions Approach, in Intersections in International Cultural Heritage Law 319 (Anne-Marie Carstens & Elizabeth Varner eds., 2020); Yvonne Donders, Cultural Heritage and Human Rights, in The Oxford Handbook on International Cultural Heritage Law (Francesco Francioni & Ana F. Vrdoljak eds., 2020). ↑
  30. See, e.g., Odesa: UNESCO Strongly Condemns Attack on World Heritage Property, UNESCO (July 21, 2023), https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/odesa-unesco-strongly-condemns-attack-world-heritage-property. ↑
  31. Simon Usborne, Is UNESCO Damaging the World’s Treasures?, Independent (Apr. 29, 2009), http://independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/is-unesco-damaging-the-worlds-treasures-1675637.html. ↑
  32. See, e.g., Arabian Oryx Sanctuary, UNESCO World Heritage Convention, https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/654 (last visited Sept. 1, 2024); UNESCO Removes Oman Oryx Sanctuary from Heritage List, Reuters (Aug. 9, 2007, 5:10 PM), https://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL3065930320070630/; Dresden Elbe Valley, UNESCO World Heritage Convention, https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1156/ (last visited Sept. 1, 2024); Kate Connolly & Agencies in Berlin, Bridge Takes Dresden Off Unesco World Heritage List, Guardian (June 25, 2009, 3:30 PM), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jun/25/dresden-bridge-unesco-heritage-status; Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City, UNESCO World Heritage Convention, https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1150/ (last visited Sept. 1, 2024); World Heritage Committee Deletes Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City from UNESCO’s World Heritage List, UNESCO World Heritage Convention (July 21, 2021), https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/2314; see also Gelati Monastery, Georgia, Removed from UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger, UNESCO World Heritage Convention (July 10, 2017), https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1692. ↑
  33. Luke Harding, Bulgaria to Investigate $3bn Azerbaijan Laundromat Claims, Guardian (Sept. 7, 2017, 10:43 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/07/bulgaria-to-investigate-azerbaijan-money-laundering-claims; Dorian Batycka, Armenian Monuments in Line of Fire in Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, Art Newspaper (Oct. 26, 2020), https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2020/10/26/armenian-monuments-in-line-of-fire-in-nagorno-karabakh-conflict. ↑
  34. Harding, supra note 33; Khadjia Ismayilova, Azerbaijani Laundromat Shows How Regime Robs Its People to Feed Itself, Guardian (Sept. 5, 2017, 1:00 PM), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/05/azerbaijani-laundromat-shows-how-regime-robs-its-people-to-feed-itself; Nevdon Jamgochian, Artwashing a Dictatorship, Hyperallergic ( Feb. 28, 2021), https://hyperallergic.com/615519/artwashing-a-dictatorship/; Simon Maghakyan, This Year’s UNESCO Session Was an Insult to World Heritage, Hyperallergic (July 9, 2019), https://hyperallergic.com/508663/2019-unesco/. ↑
  35. International Court of Justice, Application Instituting Proceedings Containing a Request for Provisional Measures, (Sept. 16, 2021), [hereinafter Application Instituting Proceedings], https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/180/180-20210916-APP-01-00-EN.pdf. ↑
  36. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, art. 1, Mar. 7, 1966, 660 U.N.T.S. 1 [hereinafter Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination]. ↑
  37. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, United Nations Treaty Collection, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280008954 (last visited Aug. 31, 2024). ↑
  38. Application Instituting Proceedings, supra note 35. ↑
  39. Id. para. 2. ↑
  40. Id. para. 96. ↑
  41. Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, supra note 36, at art. 5. ↑
  42. Application Instituting Proceedings, supra note 35, at para. 131. ↑
  43. International Court of Justice, Order of 7 December 2021, para. 69–71 (Dec. 7, 2021), [hereinafter Order of 7 December] https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/180/180-20211207-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf. ↑
  44. Id. para. 98(1)(c). ↑
  45. Lando Kirchmair, Cultural Heritage and the International Court of Justice: Application of theInternational Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v. Azerbaijan), Provisional Measures, Order of 7 December 2021, 29 Int’l J. Cultural Prop. 563, 563–75 (2022); Alexander Herman, A New Take on Cultural Heritage at the ICJ – Armenia v. Azerbaijan, Inst. Art & L. (Feb. 17, 2022), https://ial.uk.com/new-take-icj/; see also List of All Cases, Int’l Ct. of Justice, https://www.icj-cij.org/list-of-all-cases (last visited Aug. 31, 2024). ↑
  46. Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, supra note 36, art. 22. ↑
  47. Id. art. 11. ↑
  48. Order of 7 December, supra note 43, at para. 96. ↑
  49. St. Sargis of Mokhrenes/Susanlyg, Caucasus Heritage Watch (Nov. 8, 2023), https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/6e1857df92c548e6a4722070416f3111?fbclid=IwAR3R78n887Yi8Ak3xgApGTk_aRUqDvd4jEzhCiBv-w_kFVxQVjb5JTE7WYY. ↑
  50. Azerbaijan Destroys Havelor Bridge in Hadrut, Artsakh, First Channel News (June 15, 2023, 10:59 AM), https://www.1lurer.am/en/2023/06/15/Azerbaijan-destroys-Havelor-Bridge-in-Hadrut-Artsakh/946648. ↑
  51. Azerbaijanis Completely Destroy “Kanach Zham” Church and Ghazanchetsots Cemetery in Shushi, MassisPost (April 20, 2024), https://massispost.com/2024/04/azerbaijanis-completely-destroy-kanach-zham-church-and-ghazanchetsots-cemetery-in-shushi/; Amos Chapple, Church, Entire Village ‘Erased’ In Azerbaijan’s Recaptured Nagorno-Karabakh, Radio Free Eur. Radio Liberty (Apr. 24, 2024, 11:04 AM), https://www.rferl.org/a/azerbaijan-armenia-nagorno-karabakh-heritage-destruction-karintak-dasalti/32918998.html; Destruction Alert: Ghazanchetsots Cemetery, Shusha/Shushi, Caucasus Heritage Watch (Apr. 20, 2024), https://caucasusheritage.cornell.edu/?p=1593. ↑
  52. U.N. Charter, art. 94, ¶ 2. ↑
  53. Irène Couzigou, Enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions and of ICJ Judgments: The Unreliability of Political Enforcement Mechanisms, in The Enforcement of EU Law and Values: Ensuring Member States’ Compliance 363, 363–78 (András Jakob & Dimitry Kochenov eds., 2017). ↑
  54. T.D. Gill, The “Genocide” Case: Reflections on the ICJ’s Decision in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia, Hague Justice J. (2007), https://www.elevenjournals.com/tijdschrift/hjj/2007/1/HJJ_187-4202_2007_002_001_004.pdf. ↑
  55. See sources supra note 1. ↑
  56. Yelena Ambartsumian, International Court of Justice Rules Azerbaijan Must Stop Destroying Armenian Cultural Heritage in Artsakh, Hyperallergic (Dec. 7, 2021), https://hyperallergic.com/698344/icj-rules-azerbaijan-must-stop-destroying-armenian-cultural-heritage-in-artsakh/. ↑
  57. Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 59, Oct. 24, 1945. ↑
  58. Herman, supra note 45. ↑

 

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not meant to provide legal advice. Readers should not construe or rely on any comment or statement in this article as legal advice. For legal advice, readers should seek a consultation with an attorney.

Post navigation

Previous Is Artificial Intelligence Copyrightable? A Report on the Copyright Office’s AI Initiative
Next Before SCOTUS Hears Another Looted Art Case, Should Congress Reform the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act?

Related Posts

Camille Pissarro, “Rue St.-Honore, Apres-Midi, Effet de Pluie”. © Fundación Colección Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid.

Case Review: Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation

June 12, 2019

WYWH: Inaugural Business of Art Observed Conference

June 3, 2019
logo

Art & Law Auction 2020

October 8, 2020
Center for Art Law
Center for Art Law

Follow us on Instagram for the latest in Art Law!

Don't miss our on our upcoming Bootcamp on Februar Don't miss our on our upcoming Bootcamp on February 4th! Check out the full event description below:

Join the Center for Art Law for an in-person, full-day training aimed at preparing lawyers for working with art market participants and understanding their unique copyright law needs. The bootcamp will be led by veteran art law attorneys, Louise Carron, Barry Werbin, Carol J. Steinberg, Esq., Scott Sholder, Marc Misthal, specialists in copyright law.

This Bootcamp provides participants -- attorneys, law students, law graduates and legal professionals -- with foundational legal knowledge related to copyright law for art market clients. Through a combination of instructional presentations and mock consultations, participants will gain a solid foundation in copyright law and its specificities as applied to works of visual arts, such as the fair use doctrine and the use of generative artificial intelligence tools.

🎟️ Grab tickets using the link in our bio!
The expansion of the use of collaborations between The expansion of the use of collaborations between artists and major consumer corporations brings along a myriad of IP legal considerations. What was once seen in advertisement initiatives  has developed into the creation of "art objects," something that lives within a consumer object while retaining some portion of an artists work. 

🔗 Read more about this interesting interplay in Natalie Kawam Yang's published article, including a discussion on how the LOEWE x Ghibli Museum fits into this context, using the link in our bio.
We can't wait for you to join us on February 4th! We can't wait for you to join us on February 4th!  Check out the full event description below:

Join the Center for Art Law for an in-person, full-day training aimed at preparing lawyers for working with art market participants and understanding their unique copyright law needs. The bootcamp will be led by veteran art law attorneys, Louise Carron, Barry Werbin, Carol J. Steinberg, Esq., Scott Sholder, Marc Misthal, specialists in copyright law. 

This Bootcamp provides participants -- attorneys, law students, law graduates and legal professionals -- with foundational legal knowledge related to copyright law for art market clients. Through a combination of instructional presentations and mock consultations, participants will gain a solid foundation in copyright law and its specificities as applied to works of visual arts, such as the fair use doctrine and the use of generative artificial intelligence tools.

🎟️ Grab tickets using the link in our bio!
Don't forget to grab tickets to our upcoming Collo Don't forget to grab tickets to our upcoming Colloquium, discussing the effectiveness of no strike designations in Syria, on February 2nd. Check out the full event description below:

No strike designations for cultural heritage are one mechanism by which countries seek to uphold the requirements of the 1954 Hague Convention. As such, they are designed to be key instruments in protecting the listed sites from war crimes. Yet not all countries maintain such inventories of their own whether due to a lack of resources, political views about what should be represented, or the risk of misuse and abuse. This often places the onus on other governments to create lists about cultures other than their own during conflicts. Thus, there may be different lists compiled by different governments in a conflict, creating an unclear legal landscape for determining potential war crimes and raising significant questions about the effectiveness of no strikes as a protection mechanism. 

Michelle Fabiani will discuss current research seeking to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of no strike designations as a protection mechanism against war crimes in Syria. Using data on cultural heritage attacks from the height of the Syrian Conflict (2014-2017) compiled from open sources, a no strike list completed in approximately 2012, and measures of underlying risk, this research asks whether the designations served as a protective factor or a risk factor for a given site and the surrounding area. Results and implications for holding countries accountable for war crimes against cultural heritage are discussed. 

🎟️ Grab tickets using the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #culturalheritage #lawyer #legalreserach #artlawyer
Don't miss our up coming in-person, full-day train Don't miss our up coming in-person, full-day training aimed at preparing lawyers for working with art market participants and understanding their unique copyright law needs. The bootcamp will be led by veteran art law attorneys, Louise Carron, Barry Werbin, Carol J. Steinberg, Esq., Scott Sholder, Marc Misthal, specialists in copyright law. 

This Bootcamp provides participants -- attorneys, law students, law graduates and legal professionals -- with foundational legal knowledge related to copyright law for art market clients. Through a combination of instructional presentations and mock consultations, participants will gain a solid foundation in copyright law and its specificities as applied to works of visual arts, such as the fair use doctrine and the use of generative artificial intelligence tools.

🎟️ Grab tickets using the link in our bio! 

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legal #research #lawyer #artlawyer #bootcamp #copyright #CLE #trainingprogram
In order to fund acquisitions of contemporary art, In order to fund acquisitions of contemporary art, The Phillips Collection sold seven works of art from their collection at auction in November. The decision to deaccession three works in particular have led to turmoil within the museum's governing body. The works at the center of the controversy include Georgia O'Keefe's "Large Dark Red Leaves on White" (1972) which sold for $8 million, Arthur Dove's "Rose and Locust Stump" (1943), and "Clowns et pony" an 1883 drawing by Georges Seurat. Together, the three works raised $13 million. Three board members have resigned, while members of the Phillips family have publicly expressed concerns over the auctions. 

Those opposing the sales point out that the works in question were collected by the museum's founders, Duncan and Marjorie Phillips. While museums often deaccession works that are considered reiterative or lesser in comparison to others by the same artist, the works by O'Keefe, Dove, and Seurat are considered highly valuable, original works among the artist's respective oeuvres. 

The museum's director, Jonathan P. Binstock, has defended the sales, arguing that the process was thorough and reflects the majority interests of the collection's stewards. He believes that acquiring contemporary works will help the museum to evolve. Ultimately, the controversy highlights the difficulties of maintaining institutional collections amid conflicting perspectives.

🔗 Click the link in our bio to read more.
Make sure to check out our newest episode if you h Make sure to check out our newest episode if you haven’t yet!

Paris and Andrea get the change to speak with Patty Gerstenblith about how the role international courts, limits of accountability, and if law play to protect history in times of war.

🎙️ Click the link in our bio to listen anywhere you get your podcasts!
Alexander Butyagin, a Russian archaeologist, was a Alexander Butyagin, a Russian archaeologist, was arrested by Polish authorities in Warsaw. on December 4th. Butyagin is wanted by Ukraine for allegedly conducting illegal excavations of Myrmekion, an ancient city in Crimea. Located in present-day Crimea, Myrmekion was an Ancient Greek colony dating to the sixth century, BCE. 

According to Ukrainian officials, between 2014 and 2019 Butyagin destroyed parts of the Myrmekion archaeological site while serving as head of Ancient Archaeology of the Northern Black Sea region at St. Petersburg's Hermitage Museum. The resulting damages are estimated at $4.7 million. Notably, Russia's foreign ministry has denounced the arrest, describing Poland's cooperation with Ukraine's extradition order as "legal tyranny." Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014.

🔗 Read more by clicking the link in our bio

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #artcrime #artlooting #ukraine #crimea
Join us on February 18th to learn about the proven Join us on February 18th to learn about the provenance and restitution of the Cranach painting at the North Carolina Museum of Art.

A beloved Cranach painting at the North Carolina Museum of Art was accused of being looted by the Nazis. Professor Deborah Gerhardt will describe the issues at stake and the evidentiary trail that led to an unusual model for resolving the dispute.

Grab your tickets today using the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legal #legalresearch #museumissues #artwork
“In the depth of winter, I finally learned that wi “In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."
~ Albert Camus, "Return to Tipasa" (1952) 

Camus is on our reading list but for now, stay close to the ground to avoid the deorbit burn from the 2026 news and know that we all contain invincible summer. 

The Center for Art Law's January 2026 Newsletter is here—catch up on the latest in art law and start the year informed.
https://itsartlaw.org/newsletters/january-newsletter-which-way-is-up/ 

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #lawyer #artlawyer #legalresearch #legal #art #law #newsletter #january
Major corporations increasingly rely on original c Major corporations increasingly rely on original creative work to train AI models, often claiming a fair use defense. However, many have flagged this interpretation of copyright law as illegitimate and exploitative of artists. In July, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Crime and Counterterrorism addressed these issues in a hearing on copyright law and AI training. 

Read our recent article by Katelyn Wang to learn more about the connection between AI training, copyright protections, and national security. 

🔗 Click the link in our bio to read more!
Join the Center for Art Law for an in-person, all- Join the Center for Art Law for an in-person, all-day  CLE program to train lawyers to work with visual artists and their unique copyright needs. The bootcamp will be led by veteran art law attorneys specializing in copyright law.

This Bootcamp provides participants -- attorneys, law students, law graduates and legal professionals -- with foundational legal knowledge related to copyright law for art market clients. Through a combination of instructional presentations and mock consultations, participants will gain a solid foundation in copyright law and its specificities as applied to works of visual arts, such as the fair use doctrine and the use of generative artificial intelligence tools. 

🎟️ Grab tickets using the link in our bio!
  • About the Center
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Upcoming Events
  • Internship
  • Case Law Database
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
DISCLAIMER

Center for Art Law is a New York State non-profit fully qualified under provision 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Center does not provide legal representation. Information available on this website is
purely for educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.

TERMS OF USE AND PRIVACY POLICY

Your use of the Site (as defined below) constitutes your consent to this Agreement. Please
read our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy carefully.

© 2026 Center for Art Law