Was the 2023 Exodus Ethnic Cleansing?
One of the most important questions concerns how the displacement should be legally and historically characterized.
Understanding the term
Ethnic cleansing is commonly used to describe policies or actions intended to remove an ethnic or religious population from a particular territory through violence, intimidation, coercion, or other means.
The term has been used extensively in United Nations discussions and international investigations of conflicts.
However, ethnic cleansing is not a separately defined standalone offense in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Conduct described as ethnic cleansing may constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, or other international offenses when the applicable legal elements are established.
The Armenian position
Armenian officials described the September 2023 exodus as ethnic cleansing.
Their argument centered on the combined effects of the blockade, deprivation of essential supplies, military attack, fear of persecution, and lack of credible guarantees for civilian safety.
From this perspective, the departure was not a genuinely free choice.
The population had been placed in circumstances in which remaining appeared dangerous or impossible.
The Azerbaijani position
Azerbaijan rejected accusations of ethnic cleansing.
Its government maintained that the military operation restored sovereignty over internationally recognized Azerbaijani territory.
Azerbaijani authorities stated that ethnic Armenian residents were welcome to remain or return under Azerbaijani law.
They argued that residents who departed had chosen to leave and that the government had not ordered their expulsion.
International assessments
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe examined the humanitarian crisis in October 2023.
Its report described the displacement of nearly the entire Armenian population and stated that the circumstances raised serious suspicions of ethnic cleansing.
Human Rights Watch emphasized that the circumstances of departure and the preceding abuses made credible guarantees of safety and return essential.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum identified the blockade, military offensive, fear, and sudden mass flight as serious atrocity-prevention concerns.
These assessments support the conclusion that the exodus involved profound coercive circumstances, even though individual legal responsibility and the precise classification of particular crimes require evidence-based judicial findings.
Genocide allegations
Some legal experts and Armenian organizations also alleged that the blockade and subsequent actions constituted genocide.
Former International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo publicly argued in 2023 that the blockade created a genocidal situation.
Other experts questioned aspects of his legal analysis or emphasized the need to establish the specific intent required for genocide under international law.
The Genocide Convention requires proof of intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such, together with prohibited acts.
The scale of displacement alone does not automatically establish the legal crime of genocide.
As of November 2026, no final international judicial judgment has determined that the 2023 events constituted genocide.
A rigorous historical account must distinguish documented suffering, credible allegations, legal analysis, and final judicial determinations.