In April of 2018, the Armenian Bar Association held its annual meeting in the Republic of Artsakh. During this groundbreaking meeting, upon the unanimous consent of its Board of Governors, the Armenian Bar Association established the Artsakh Law Initiative Committee (ALIC). The primary function of ALIC is to promote the mission statement of the Armenian Bar Association which provides that a fundamental organizational purpose of the Armenian Bar Association is to pursue the recognition of Artsakh sovereignty under international law and to secure the right of self-determination of the people of Artsakh. Since its inception, the ALIC has regularly met and collaborated with officials of the Artsakh Foreign Ministry, the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Artsakh to the United States of America and the Ombudsman and Human Rights Defender of the Republic of Artsakh.
2026 Call for Papers | War-torn Information Ecosystems Symposium in Rome
Interested scholars are invited to submit an abstract of a full-length law review article, together with a curriculum vitae, to [email protected] no later than November 15, 2026.
The Journal of International Media & Entertainment Law at Southwestern Law School, in association with the Armenian Bar Association, invites scholars to submit abstracts of full-length law review articles for a symposium examining traditional and technology-assisted disinformation and propaganda in the armed conflicts of the South Caucasus, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia — including but not limited to Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh), Ukraine, and the frozen and recurring conflicts of the former Soviet space.
June 2026 - Washington, DC
Fireside Chat with Jared Genser, Counsel for Artsakh Leader and Azerbaijan-Held Political Prisoner Ruben Vardanyan
Click the Buttons Below to Learn More
This video features a fireside chat with international human rights lawyer Jared Genser, moderated by Alex Bedrosyan, focusing on Genser’s legal and advocacy work for political prisoners, specifically the case of Ruben Vardanyan and other Armenian hostages held in Baku, Azerbaijan.
Key Highlights of the Discussion:
- Status of Ruben Vardanyan and Hostages (2:01 – 15:33): Genser explains that Ruben Vardanyan and other leaders were subjected to a sham legal process in a Baku military court. He characterizes the trial as a “clown show” lacking due process, noting that the charges were politically motivated and disconnected from any actual wrongdoing. He emphasizes that the detention is a violation of international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
- Legal and Political Strategy (11:27 – 14:30; 29:05 – 33:36): Genser argues that a legal victory in a domestic court is impossible under the current regime. Instead, he advocates for a strategy that combines legal efforts with aggressive political and public relations pressure. He identifies President Trump as a key figure who could potentially influence President Aliyev to secure the release of these prisoners, suggesting that this could be positioned as a major humanitarian achievement.
- The Role of International Law (24:34 – 28:53): Genser highlights the power of UN Security Council resolutions, noting that while Azerbaijan uses them to claim territorial integrity, these resolutions also mandate that the conflict’s status be resolved through peaceful negotiations, not force, and forbid one side from imposing a solution.
- Lessons from Other Cases (38:21 – 44:30): Drawing on his experience representing presidential candidates in Nicaragua who were eventually released as part of a mass prisoner exchange, Genser expresses hope that similar results are possible for the Armenian hostages. He contrasts the situation with other more insular regimes, arguing that Azerbaijan is more integrated into the global community, making international pressure a viable tool for change.
May 2024 - Glendale, CA
Symposium: Human Rights in Unrecognized or Partially Recognized States: Charting a Path Forward
Panel 1
Sheila Paylan and Lusine Sargsyan
E. Prema and OV Ragul
This video features a panel discussion focusing on ethnic cleansing and the status of unrecognized states. The panel was moderated by Dr. Kevork Hagopjian, Ph.D. in International Law.
Key presentations include:
- Lusine Sargsyan (co-authored with Sheila Paylan) discusses “Putting Remedial Secession Back on the Table” (1:54). She analyzes the human rights crisis, the failure of international mechanisms to prevent ethnic cleansing, and how remedial secession might be used as a measure under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine to secure justice for the displaced population (3:26 – 23:28).
- Dr. E. Prema and Mr. OV Ragul (from the VIT School of Law, India) address the “Persistent Conundrums” of non-recognized entities in the post-Soviet landscape (24:01). They examine historical conflicts, the application of self-determination versus territorial integrity, and the role of external powers (such as India and Turkey) in the regional conflict (25:09 – 45:06).
The panel concludes with a Q&A session discussing the complexities of return, the limits of international courts, and the role of diplomacy in advocating for rights in the current geopolitical environment (45:17 – 1:13:16).
Panel 2
This video features a panel discussion moderated by Professor Michael M. Epstein. The discussion focuses on international law, human rights, and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Key presentations include:
- Persecution as a Crime Against Humanity: Dr. Gurgen Petrossian(starting at 3:40) discusses the application of international criminal law to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. He analyzes the elements of persecution under the Rome Statute, the jurisdictional challenges regarding the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the significance of Armenia becoming an ICC member in 2024.
- The Right to Truth: Professor Andrei Richter (starting at 24:33) examines the “right to truthful information” regarding human rights violations in unrecognized territories, using the annexation of Crimea as a primary case study. He explores how authoritarian regimes often establish a monopoly on truth, the difficulty of fact-finding in such regions, and how international legal precedents (such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights) support the right to truth as a positive state obligation.
Following the presentations, the panelists engage in a Q&A session (42:42) addressing complex legal questions, such as the distinction between continuous crimes (like deportation or enforced disappearance) and lack of remedy, the role of circumstantial evidence in establishing mens rea for international crimes, and the legal implications of state terminology versus international criminal definitions.
Panel 3
Irene V. Massimino and Karnig Kerkonian
Patricio Barbirotto
This video features a panel discussion moderated by Judge Armenui Amy Ashvanian, which explores legal mechanisms for enforcing fundamental rights in complex geopolitical contexts (0:05-6:35).
Key Panel Topics:
- National Jurisdictions and Human Rights: Irene V. Massimino (co-authored with Karnig Kerkonian) discusses the role of national jurisdictions in enforcing fundamental rights, focusing on the principle of universal jurisdiction. She explains that while international law often relies on voluntary cooperation, national courts can step in to investigate international crimes—such as genocide and gross human rights violations—even without a direct territorial or citizenship link (8:03-25:45). She highlights Argentina as a notable hub for such investigations, including cases involving crimes in Spain, Myanmar, and Venezuela (15:00-23:30).
- Non-Recognized States and Citizenship: Patricio Barbirotto examines the legal challenges faced by individuals living in non-recognized states (Transnistria, Abkhazia, etc.). He explores how these entities function as states domestically while lacking international recognition, creating “legal identity” dilemmas for their residents regarding citizenship and document validity (27:26-45:45).
Luncheon Presentation
Professor Rajika Shah
Director, Loyola Justice for Atrocities Clinic
This video focusing on legal and human rights challenges regarding the people of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh). Professor Rajika Shah explores the long-term future and potential for an ethnic Armenian presence in Artsakh through historical examples of displacement and restoration (5:27-7:05).
Key themes discussed include:
- Memory and Justice: Professor Shah reflects on Philippe Sands’ book, East West Street, detailing the lives of Raphael Lemkin and Hersch Lauterpacht in Lviv, Ukraine. Their shared experiences in a city where control changed multiple times helped shape international law regarding genocide and crimes against humanity (7:15-14:49).
- Restoration and Sovereignty: Professor Shah analyzes the case of McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020), which restored Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation land. This example highlights the complexity of reclaiming indigenous lands and maintaining self-governance in the face of long-term displacement (14:53-27:21).
- The Path Forward: The symposium addresses the failure of international mediation efforts like the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) over the past 30 years (43:35-44:45). Participants discuss the “right to truth” for the people of Artsakh, the difficulty of breaking through established power structures, and the importance of persistence in human rights litigation (45:25-52:21).
The conversation emphasizes that while power structures may seem insurmountable, the work of legal advocacy and the persistence of the community are vital in seeking accountability and shaping future outcomes (50:00-52:21).
Panel 4
Davit Avagyan
Ivan Levy and Maria Belen Paoletta
Key presentations include:
- Davit Avagyan (7:06-17:57): Argues that territorial integrity acts as a limitation between states, not a restriction on a group’s right to self-determination. He highlights the Kosovo advisory opinion as a precedent where territorial integrity was found to be “besides the point” regarding a declaration of independence.
- Ivan Levy and Maria Belen Paoletta (20:24-30:45): Provide a “classicist” perspective on international human rights law, stressing that state recognition is not a constituent element of human rights obligations. They argue that effective control of a territory is the primary factor determining which state is responsible for upholding human rights, citing cases like Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom.
Discussion and Q&A:
March 2024 - New Orleans, LA
Symposium: A Void in International Law? Human Rights in Unrecognized or Partially Recognized States
Panel 1
This video focuses on the complex challenges of human rights protection in unrecognized and partially recognized states (0:26 – 4:42). The discussion is framed against the backdrop of the humanitarian crisis and displacement of the ethnic Armenian population in Artsakh (3:06 – 9:07).
Key presentations include:
- Anna Nasibyan: Discusses moving “Beyond Sovereignty,” proposing a two-tiered approach to human rights enforcement. This includes strengthening domestic civil society and establishing specialized international committees/tribunals under the United Nations to address egregious abuses without being hindered by political territorial disputes (13:15 – 34:16).
- Dr. Eleni Micha: Explores the quest for jurisdiction in “no man’s land” scenarios. She critiques how international courts (like the European Court of Human Rights) often struggle to establish jurisdiction in contested territories and argues for a “capacity to protect” criterion for assessing state responsibility, rather than relying solely on traditional territorial control (34:37 – 1:00:13).
The panel also addresses questions regarding the role of compensation, the potential for ad hoc commissions, and the ongoing efforts of the International Court of Justice in related cases (1:10:30 – 1:20:30).
Panel 2
Andrew Devedjian & Talin Hitik
David Khachatryan
This video discusses the legal consequences of the forced expulsion of the indigenous Armenian community from Artsakh. The discussion is moderated by Prof. Leah Calabro (0:10).
Key Presentations:
- Indigenous Displacement & Legal Pathways (3:34 – 33:51): Speaker Talin Hitik explores how Artsakh Armenians can be categorized under international legal frameworks, specifically through the lenses of refugee law (1951 Refugee Convention) and the law of indigenous peoples (ILO Convention 169). She argues that correctly identifying these categories provides essential tools for advocating for the right to return and for understanding the region’s complex history as an unrecognized state (6:50).
- Forced Deportation & The ICC Perspective (35:55 – 58:22): Speaker David Khachatryan analyzes the ethnic cleansing in Artsakh through the framework of international criminal law. He contends that these events constitute a crime against humanity under Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute (forcible deportation). He explains that even though Azerbaijan is not an ICC member, the court may have jurisdiction because the crime concluded on the soil of Armenia, a state party (53:41).
Panel 3
Axana Soltan
Prof. Michael M. Epstein, J.D, Ph.D.
This video discusses the complex ways technology can be used for both human rights violations and as a tool for advocacy and governance in unrecognized or partially recognized states, specifically drawing lessons from the Artsakh crisis.
Key Discussion Points:
- State Actors and Technology: Moderator Levon Golendukhin opens the discussion by defining the roles of three state actors: the recognized state, the de facto (unrecognized) state, and the protector/patron state (1:31). Each entity utilizes technology differently—often for misinformation, public intimidation, or e-governance (2:57-4:43).
- Lessons from Artsakh: The first speaker, Axana Soltan, provides a pre-recorded presentation (5:54) focusing on the ethical and legal challenges of emerging technologies in conflict zones. She describes the conflict as a “technological arms race” involving drones, satellite imagery, and cyber capabilities, while also noting the rise of disinformation and hate speech on social media platforms (10:19-12:52).
- Grassroots Narrative Building: Professor Michael M. Epstein discusses his proposal to create a searchable database of firsthand social media accounts from individuals displaced from Artsakh (15:45). He argues that this “accountability” database, composed of real-time posts, video, and photos, could serve as empirical evidence to combat state-controlled disinformation and keep the history of the displaced population in the public eye (21:28-28:40).
Legal Implications and Forensic Evidence: Throughout the Q&A, the panelists discuss the use of digital evidence in international courts, such as the International Court of Justice (56:06), and the challenge of balancing victim privacy rights with the need to document war crimes (57:27-1:03:50).
February 2023 - Los Angeles, CA
In The Shadow of Territorial Conflict Symposium: Legacies of Soviet-era Media Control and Speech Norms
Panel 1
Amb. Robert Avetisyan
Dr. Andrei Richter
Prof. Rajika L. Shah
This video captures the first panel of a symposium hosted by the Armenian Bar Association at Southwestern Law School, titled “In The Shadow of Territorial Conflict: Legacies of Soviet-era Media Control & Speech Norms.” The panel, moderated by Prof. Michael Epstein, features experts discussing the weaponization of social media and the evolution of propaganda in post-Soviet conflicts.
Key Panel Discussions:
- Dr. Andrei Richter discusses the modern perception of “propaganda for war” and how international organizations, specifically the European Union, respond to hostile speech and state-driven disinformation (12:04 – 32:54).
- Ambassador Robert Avetisyan explores the weaponization of social media, particularly in the context of the Karabakh conflict, highlighting how digital platforms can be manipulated by state and non-state actors (33:16 – 50:47).
- Prof. Rajika L. Shah analyzes the international legal implications of social media liability, drawing parallels to historical precedents like Nuremberg and the Rwanda media case, and discussing recent human rights reports regarding platforms like Facebook (51:24 – 1:08:39).
Following the presentations, the panelists engage in a Q&A session, debating whether modern social media disinformation is a new paradigm or a continuation of historical propaganda methods (1:08:40 – 1:33:09).
Panel 2
Prof. András Koltay
Prof. Russell L. Weaver
Prof. Andrej Školkay
This video features the second panel discussion. It is moderated by Prof. Mark Cammack.
- Prof. András Koltay (1:00 – 17:23) examines the European Union’s regulatory responses to Russian state disinformation during the Russia-Ukraine war. He criticizes the EU’s decision to ban certain Russian media outlets, labeling it as a form of prior restraint and a departure from traditional free speech principles.
- Prof. Russell L. Weaver (17:32 – 30:32) explores the evolution of communication technologies and how social media is used for propaganda. He contrasts traditional government media control with modern digital strategies, noting that attempts to suppress disinformation often struggle in the age of decentralized social media and VPNs.
- Prof. Andrej Školkay (31:01 – 46:15) analyzes how foreign policy discourse is shaped by misinformation and disinformation across legacy and social media. He uses the 2008 Georgia-Russia war as a case study, highlighting how political declarations and selective reporting can create “alternative realities” in international affairs.
The panel concludes with a Q&A session (46:25 – 1:08:20) discussing topics such as the enforcement of censorship laws in various countries, the challenges of media bias, and whether state-controlled entities should be afforded the same human rights protections regarding free speech as independent media.
Panel 3
Ines Gillich
Arman Asryan
This video captures the final panel of the symposium. The panel is moderated by Prof. Orly Ravid.
- Galena Slavova (3:11 – 20:00): Examines the shadow of Russian imperialism through its propaganda models since February 2022. She discusses the European Union’s historical neglect of Russian media influence, particularly in former Warsaw Pact countries, and the data-backed rise of propaganda narratives surrounding the war in Ukraine.
- Ines Gillich (21:00 – 39:20): Provides an international law perspective on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. She discusses the fragmentation of legal rules regarding state propaganda, referencing instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the limitations of these frameworks in enforcement.
- Arman Asryan (40:44 – 56:05): Analyzes media regulations in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh). He argues that despite the territory’s diplomatic and economic isolation, its regulations largely align with international standards for media freedom, while also noting the challenges posed by the lack of private media and the impact of the conflict on foreign journalist access.
Following the presentations (56:11 – 1:08:18), the speakers engaged in a discussion regarding the legal and political status of Artsakh, the efficacy of international conventions, and the importance of using truthful, precise language when reporting on ongoing conflicts. The symposium concluded (1:08:22 – 1:11:52) with acknowledgments to the organizers and participants, followed by an announcement of a site tour.
Keynote Address
This video features the keynote address by Dr. Andrei Richter.
- Introduction and Context: Dr. Richter sets the stage by discussing the complex and often violent collapse of the Soviet Union, noting that regional conflicts, such as the war in Nagorno-Karabakh, remain significant geopolitical and human tragedies (4:10-7:20).
- Case Study: Eynulla Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan: The central focus is the case of journalist Eynulla Fatullayev. His reporting on the Khojaly massacre (a controversial event from the Karabakh War) challenged the official government narrative, leading to a series of legal actions, imprisonment, and eventual pardon (7:20-25:30).
- Freedom of Speech and Authoritarianism: Dr. Richter uses this case to illustrate how authoritarian regimes in the post-Soviet space continue to use criminal defamation, national security claims, and even fabricated charges (like drug possession) to suppress independent journalism (8:45-24:45).
- Conclusions on Media Control: The address concludes with four major observations on how modern authoritarian regimes maintain a monopoly on information (26:45-28:20):
- Regimes are willing to attack critical journalists with all available resources.
- Closing media outlets is no longer sufficient; they now actively seek to corrupt and control social media and online discourse.
- International organizations remain essential to monitoring and pressuring these regimes, even if their direct influence is limited.
- National Security and Public Health (including recent pandemic narratives) are increasingly abused as justifications to limit speech and control information.
Southwestern University School of Law Cements Foundations of Human Rights Education and Scholarship with the Republics of Armenia and Artsakh
In early July, 2019, Southwestern Law School hosted distinguished guests from the Republics of Armenia and of Artsakh, including the Human Rights Defender of each Republic, along with Board members of the Armenian Bar Association. The goal: to explore and effectuate opportunities for collaboration between Southwestern and the Human Rights Defender’s Offices of the Republic of Armenia and Republic of Artsakh relating to legal education and the protection of human rights. The meeting and ensuing exchanges culminated at the end of summer with the signing of two leading-edge memoranda of understanding (MOU) between Southwestern and the offices of the Human Rights Defenders.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The first periodic report of the Republic of Artsakh on the implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was published and disseminated in the United Nations (UN) as an official document.
The report includes information on the implementation of the provisions of the Covenant for the period of 1992-2018; particularly, the steps taken towards the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Artsakh, the development of civil society and the strengthening of democracy, as well as the goals attained. The report covers enacted legislation and the protection mechanisms established in Artsakh as the foundations of human rights. Moreover, it enshrines the practice and statistics of recent developments on the implementation of the Covenant. It also contains comprehensive data that can be used for research on Artsakh.
The Republic of Artsakh joined the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on November 26, 1992, based on the decision of the Presidium of the NKR Supreme Council of People’s Deputies (Parliament).
The report was prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Artsakh, in cooperation with other state agencies, and was approved by the December 7, 2018 decision of the Government of the Artsakh Republic.
The filing of such a report to the United Nations by a country that is not yet recognized by the international community is unprecedented. We, the members of the ALIC, are thrilled to offer this document to our members and friends on our organization’s webpage.