For years, Azerbaijan has systematically promoted the concept of so-called “Western Azerbaijan” in both domestic and international information spaces, presenting it as an issue of historical justice or a “right of return.”
Experts warn, however, that such formulations have no legal foundation and serve as a political instrument for legitimizing territorial claims against Armenia.
Azerbaijan expert Tatevik Hayrapetyan argues that the term “return of Azerbaijanis” is unacceptable and that placing it on the same level as the right of Artsakh Armenians to return is a dangerous manipulation.
She says she has consistently opposed the use of Azerbaijani propaganda terminology and has repeatedly called for Baku’s threats to receive a clear political assessment.
“If our country’s territory has been described for four years by a term that has never existed in history, if it is declared a ‘new national goal,’ receives enormous financial and human resources and is included in educational programs, then it has long since become a national security issue for Armenia. We have simply failed to give it the appropriate assessment,” Hayrapetyan says.
International Courts Do Not Recognize Such a “Right of Return”
Addressing the so-called “right of Azerbaijanis to return,” the expert recalls that during the election campaign she drew attention to a statement by Arman Tatoyan, head of the Wings of Unity movement.
Tatoyan had argued that under international law, the issue of Azerbaijanis “returning” to the territory of the Republic of Armenia was closed.
Hayrapetyan says she contacted the former human rights defender as part of her research and asked him to provide the legal basis for that conclusion.
Her examination of the materials showed, she says, that Azerbaijanis can no longer raise their alleged “right of return” before any international judicial body.
The reason lies in time limitations clearly established by decisions of two authoritative international courts.
The Samadov v. Armenia Case
Hayrapetyan’s first example is the European Court of Human Rights case Samadov v. Armenia.
In 2021, the Court declared inadmissible the application of an Azerbaijani claimant who had previously lived in Karvachar.
The Court noted that Armenia joined the European Convention in 2002, while the applicant filed his complaint only in 2008.
He also failed to explain why he had waited more than 15 years after the alleged violation and six years after Armenia joined the Convention.
According to Hayrapetyan, the judgment is also important because Azerbaijan raised the issue of property rights for Azerbaijanis who left Artsakh and Armenia in the 1990s in its interstate application against Armenia filed in the same year.
She argues that the Samadov decision effectively predetermined the fate of those claims, since they should also be declared inadmissible because the relevant deadlines had expired.
The International Court of Justice Ruling
Hayrapetyan also highlights the International Court of Justice judgment of November 12, 2024.
The Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to examine Azerbaijani claims concerning events between 1993 and 1996, including the alleged displacement of Azerbaijanis.
“It is therefore clear that no Azerbaijani can currently raise claims concerning property or a right of return before any international body. Any such attempt will fail, considering the established positions of two authoritative international courts,” Hayrapetyan says.
The Position of Artsakh Armenians Is Fundamentally Different
At the same time, the expert stresses that the situation of Artsakh Armenians is fundamentally different.
“Unlike Azerbaijanis, Artsakh Armenians continue to possess the right to submit such claims, and that right has already been established by international court decisions. I will address this issue separately,” she writes.
In her assessment, attempts to portray the two cases as equivalent ignore the differences in their legal status, the timing and circumstances of displacement, and the relevant international judgments.
“Western Azerbaijan” Is a Territorial Claim
Summarizing her position, the Azerbaijan expert argues that both the facts and international law provide sufficient grounds to define the “Western Azerbaijan” project as an expansionist policy rather than the exercise of a right of return.
In her view, Baku is attempting to give territorial claims a humanitarian and legal appearance by using the language of refugee rights and historical justice.
“This has nothing to do with a ‘right of Azerbaijanis to return.’ Those who place this expansionist project on the same level as the right of the people of Artsakh to return are effectively acting as advocates for Azerbaijan by normalizing its expansionism,” Tatevik Hayrapetyan concludes.