• 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
        • 2026 Art Law Conference
        • 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
        • 2026 Art Law Conference
        • 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 Our articles 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 Art Law Articles

Center for Art Law
August 2026 Summer Promo (2)

Get your leg up on art law

Just in time for 2026-2027

Become a member and access unlimited articles, our Case Law Database, event archives, and exclusive member pricing on all upcoming events.

Learn MORE
Immigration Guide for Artists 2026 Cover Page

Immigration Guide for Artists

Check out the 2026 overview of U.S. immigration pathways available to artists.

Learn MORE
Center for Art Law

Follow us on Instagram for the latest in Art Law!

The rapid rise of digital reconstruction has trans The rapid rise of digital reconstruction has transformed how cultural heritage is documented and preserved, particularly in regions affected by conflict. As 3D models and digital archives become more common, they also raise questions about ownership and cultural self-determination.

In her article, Jacqueline Koutrodimos-Lewis examines the preservation of Syria's cultural heritage. More specifically, how digital reconstructions can both protect endangered sites and act as a tool for erasure when local communities are excluded from the process.

📚 Click the link in our bio to read the complete article by Jacqueline Koutrodimos-Lewis!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #culturalheritage #digitalheritage #3Dreconstruction #provenance #archaeology #culturalproperty #digitization #palmyra #museumlaw
Recently our intern Hannah Gadway was able to go t Recently our intern Hannah Gadway was able to go to the Beaverbrook Art Gallery in New Brunswick. This gallery was included in a law suit between Lord Beaverbrook's Estate and a foundation he had established during his life. 

📚 See more about this case using the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #artresearch #estates #artist #foundation #gallery
Two sculptures have finally returned to Santiago d Two sculptures have finally returned to Santiago de Compostela after seventy-two years.

Our recent article examines the Spanish Supreme Court's decision to return the Abraham and Isaac sculptures to Santiago de Compostela, and the pivotal role that object identification played in resolving the dispute.

📚 Click the link in our bio to read the complete article by Lucas Güimil Valdés!

#centerforartlaw #artlawyer #artlaw #culturalheritage #restitution #provenanceresearch #spain #culturalproperty
Our recent article revisits Professor Matthias Wel Our recent article revisits Professor Matthias Weller's presentation introducing Germany's new Court of Arbitration for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property. It explores how the new tribunal differs from the former Limbach Commission and what its procedures, jurisdiction, and binding decisions could mean for future restitution claims.

📚 Read the full article by Savannah Weiler and Amanda Buonaiuto at the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlawyer #artlaw #culturalproperty #nazilootedart #restitution #provenanceresearch #culturalheritage #alternativedisputeresolution
It’s August 🔥 Think Art Law. World Cap 2026 is ove It’s August 🔥 Think Art Law. World Cap 2026 is over. For us it will be remembered for Haaland Memes and $25 MILLION lawsuit filed by environmental artist Robert Wyland against FIFA for painting over the iconic 1999 downtown Dallas mural, Whaling Wall 82.* Summer Internships at the Center are winding down. Oh the places we have been together (from UN to MoMA across the US, Canada and the UK). The 2025-2026 Judith Bresler Fellowship is complete and how! and our new fellow is eager to hit the ground running.

As we move into the final stretch of summer, the reality sets in: little and big fires are everywhere and juggling so many balls or making sense of the everyday is getting increasingly impossible. But before we collapse into off-season, we want to thank you for being part of our community. Whether you were here in person, joining us online, or thinking about art and the law from afar, we can’t wait to see what you’ll create, challenge, and defend come fall. Our complements and heartfelt thanks to our Summer Team for everything they’ve accomplished over these months and invested in our future: for staying on track, for research and rigorous work on articles and databases, for genuine team building, and for pushing all of us to grow. And here’s what we’ve learned: when the real world gets too much, look at art. Play ball. Have a hydration break. These are necessities that keep us sane and running overtime. 

📚 Read the full newsletter and become a subscriber using the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalresearch #legal artlawyer
What inspires a career in art and cultural propert What inspires a career in art and cultural property law?

In our latest interview, Professor Matthias Weller shares how his academic and professional journey led him to become one of the leading voices in the restitution field. He also discusses Germany's new Court of Arbitration for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property and what this landmark development could mean for the future of restitution.

📚 Read the full interview using the link in our bio! 

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalreserach #legal #art #lawyer #restitution #artcrime #arbitration #germany
ART × LAW INTENSIVE 2026 - the countdown begins! S ART × LAW INTENSIVE 2026 - the countdown begins!
See you in Zurich in September ✨

The response to our inaugural edition has exceeded all expectations, with applications received from around the world. Thank you to everyone who applied! We look forward to welcoming our first cohort of participants very soon.

Sessions will take place across some of Switzerland’s leading institutions, including ZHdK, the University of Zurich, Kunsthaus Zurich, Swiss Re, Homburger, and more. This year’s faculty will be announced in the upcoming posts. 

From copyright and AI to provenance, restitution, dispute resolution, and the future of collecting, the ART × LAW INTENSIVE 2026 brings together the people shaping the future of the art world. Excited! 

 
Photos: 1. “Zardoz” by Monster Chetwynd, the garden of Kunsthaus Zurich. 2. Tram stop of Museum Rietberg. 3. Picnic spot in Belvoirpark. 4. The roofs of Rämistrasse. 5. The drone view over Bellevueplatz.
Major changes to restitution law are underway on b Major changes to restitution law are underway on both sides of the Atlantic.

Recent developments in the United States and the United Kingdom could reshape how Nazi-looted art claims are resolved. Our latest article breaks down the proposed amendments to the U.S. HEAR Act, changes to the U.K.'s Charities Act, and why alternative dispute resolution is becoming an increasingly important part of the conversation.

📚 Read the full article by Marina Rastorfer at the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlawyer #artlaw #nazilootedart #restitution #provenanceresearch #culturalheritage #museumlaw
The Center for Art Law takes on the MoMA! Our te The Center for Art Law takes on the MoMA! 

Our team recently spent the day exploring one of New York City's iconic museums. Our highlights included the Marcel Duchamp retrospective (on view through August 22) and American Folk Art: Revisiting the Collection of Abby Aldrich Rockefeller (through August 9).

Experiencing art in person is an invaluable complement to our work in art law. Whether exploring questions of ownership, AI, preservation, museum policy, and much more, we believe engaging directly with art is an essential part of the conversation.

Be sure to visit MoMA's current exhibitions and outstanding permanent collection. Or spend some time at your local museum, gallery, or community arts event this summer! ☀️

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #MoMA
Facing financial challenges, the Metropolitan Oper Facing financial challenges, the Metropolitan Opera has proposed a potential sale of its Marc Chagall’s murals.

In her article, Halle O’Hern explores how cultural institutions are turning to creative financial strategies, including art-backed loans and shared ownership models. 

📚 Read the full article at the link in our bio! 

#ArtLaw #CulturalHeritage #ArtFinance #MuseumLaw #MarcChagall #MetOpera
In a world shaped by smartphones, metaglasses, and In a world shaped by smartphones, metaglasses, and AI, what should be considered acceptable when images can be captured and shared so widely?

In 2015, Martha and Matthew Foster sued photographer Arne Svenson, who had spent the previous year taking photographs of them inside their home through their windows, without their knowledge. The court ultimately ruled in the photographer’s favor, citing his right to artistic expression.

In this episode of Art in Brief, Andrea and Paris are joined by Cathy Kaplan—lawyer, professor, and chair of the boards of Yale art gallery and Aperture, as well as the Whitney photography committee—to discuss the questions this case raises about privacy, consent, artistic freedom, and commercial use. 

🎙️ Listen to the full episode using the link in our bio!!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalresearch #privacylaw #artlawyer #lawyer #podcast #newepisode
https://itsartlaw.org/art-law/the-dorville-case-a- https://itsartlaw.org/art-law/the-dorville-case-a-judicial-turn-facilitating-the-restitution-of-artworks-acquired-during-the-french-occupation/ 

A landmark decision from France's highest court could reshape the future of Holocaust-era art restitution.

Our latest article examines the Dorville case, in which the Cour de Cassation adopted a broader interpretation of France's postwar restitution laws. The decision may have far-reaching implications for museums, collectors, and future restitution claims.

📚 Read the full article by Alexandra Kharchenko at the link in our bio! 

#centerforartlaw #artlawyer #artlaw #nazilootedart #restitution #provenanceresearch #culturalheritage #museumlaw #Frenchlaw
  • 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