DEVIL’S ADVOCATE

In recent months, forces interested not in peace but in maintaining the conflict as a tool of political pressure have become active again around the Armenian–Azerbaijani settlement. One of the most prominent figures in this campaign has been former International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo—a man whose professional record would seemingly guarantee commitment to international law, yet whose actions show the opposite.

Ocampo's actions indicate his adherence to a novel "legal" paradigm

A series of statements and expert opinions, circulated widely in Armenian and pro-Armenian media, fit a clear and familiar pattern. This pattern involves the construction of an accusatory narrative against Azerbaijan, using the gravest legal qualifications, and even allegations of genocide. The core issue with these claims is twofold: political bias and legal unsoundness.

Ocampo's position allows for interpretations that do not fully align with established principles of international law, including state sovereignty, territorial integrity and the borders recognised by the international community. He effectively substitutes himself for international judicial bodies, issuing "verdicts" without mandate, without procedure and without the evidentiary basis required by the standards he once had an obligation to uphold.

It is important to note that no authoritative international body—neither the UN nor other judicial institutions—has corroborated the accusations Ocampo promotes. Furthermore, a number of decisions and statements have emphasised the need to resolve the situation on the basis of recognition of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. In light of this, the former prosecutor's actions appear to be a deliberate effort to establish an alternative, politically motivated "legal reality."

Ocampo on a payroll of the Armenian diaspora

How do we know that? Well, the answer is fairly clear. The available media material and video footage indicate close contacts between Ocampo and Armenian lobbying circles, primarily in Europe. His involvement in campaigns supported by the diaspora structures explains both his rhetoric and the choice and radicalism of his topics. In this context, he is increasingly perceived not as an independent jurist, but rather as a participant in an information-political campaign.

It is particularly striking to note that in video recordings, Luis Moreno Ocampo explicitly states the following: "It is imperative that Pashinyan, the Prime Minister, be removed." This kind of wording is tantamount to an expert assessment and is effectively a call to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. This is not legal analysis, but political engineering, in which a former international prosecutor discusses changing the government of another country as if it were an appropriate objective. From the standpoint of international law and the basic principles of state sovereignty, such remarks are unacceptable and undermine the very idea of non-interference in the internal affairs of states.

It is concerning that such "expert interventions" take place at a time when Baku and Yerevan, despite the challenges, have made significant progress in the negotiations for a peace agreement. The introduction of these terms, which are often associated with more severe criminal acts, can result in a heightened response from both the public and political figures. This course of action is likely to strengthen revanchist forces, thereby undermining trust and complicating the negotiation process.

This can be seen as a deliberate attempt to disrupt the peace agenda. In this regard, Ocampo's actions extend beyond mere private opinion, amounting to a form of destructive external interference in the regional settlement process.

Euro‑lobbying, double standards and the diaspora factor

It is also noteworthy how these narratives have found resonance within European political circles. This issue concerns not only rhetorical convergence but also a broader problem, namely the selective application of international law norms.

The approach of EU High Representative Josep Borrell has been a particular point of contention, with experts repeatedly criticising his strategy. Analysts have noted that his statements on the region are often perceived as one-sided and do not fully take into account the legal and political complexity of the situation.

A significant detail is a video fragment in which Ocampo mentions having a former member of the European Parliament on his team. When asked whether he meant Josep Borrell — the former EU high representative — he replied in the affirmative. Even when considered in the strictest possible terms, such insinuations regarding the potential involvement of a serving or recently serving senior European politician in informal interaction schemes raise significant concerns. In light of the ongoing corruption scandals within EU institutions, such incidents further fuel discussions surrounding transparency, conflicts of interest and the boundaries of European politicians' involvement in sensitive foreign policy matters.

The same can be said of the French parliament, comprising the National Assembly and the Senate. The resolutions on the Armenian-Azerbaijani issue are often viewed by experts as politically motivated and not aligned with the principles of international law. This phenomenon can be attributed to the significant influence of organised diaspora structures, which play a notable role in shaping French domestic politics.

In the expert field, there is an increasing perception of these approaches as indicative of double standards. When identical principles—sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference—are applied selectively, international law becomes a tool of political convenience rather than a universal system of norms.

The Eva Kaili case as a symptom of systemic vulnerability

In this context, the corruption scandal in the European Parliament involving Eva Kaili is of particular significance. The case demonstrated that even key EU institutions are not immune to external influence, financial pressure and lobbying schemes.

This is not to equate that case directly with the Armenian–Azerbaijani issue, but it does support a broader conclusion: Contrary to popular belief, European political structures are not entirely protected from the influence of interested parties. This means that political positions can be influenced by factors that extend beyond purely legal logic.

During his online address at the summit of the European Political Community in Yerevan, President Ilham Aliyev highlighted that from May 2021, six months after the conclusion of the second Garabagh war, until 30 April 2026, the European Parliament adopted 14 resolutions that contained personal attacks and inaccurate information directed at Azerbaijan. Following a thorough review of current affairs, Azerbaijan has officially decided to suspend cooperation with the European Parliament in all areas. This decision also includes the cessation of participation in the activities of the EU-Azerbaijan Parliamentary Cooperation Committee. Furthermore, the country will initiate procedures to end its membership of the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Union.

In this context, it becomes clearer how Ocampo's statements, despite their legal contestability, receive political traction and support in certain circles. They align with established structures of lobbying, political allegiances and ideological inclinations.

What next?

In his assessments, Ocampo demonstrates a certain degree of selectivity, notably overlooking the prolonged occupation of Azerbaijani territories, the ethnic cleansing and destruction that have been acknowledged by the international community. This imbalance can only be explained by political bias.

A pertinent question to consider is the following: what measures can and should be implemented in response to such actions?

Firstly, there are professional and reputational measures to consider. The international legal community cannot ignore a situation in which a former senior representative of international justice uses his status to promote politically motivated and legally questionable theses. A public legal appraisal of such statements and their expert refutation is a necessary step to protect the idea of international law from discreditation.

Secondly, we should consider diplomatic measures. States targeted by such campaigns are within their rights to respond on international platforms, clarifying their position and indicating the impermissibility of manipulating legal categories.

Thirdly, information work. When such narratives are actively and deliberately propagated, it is crucial to build an alternative agenda based on facts, documents and decisions of international institutions rather than on politically vested interpretations.

Finally, it is crucial to emphasise that these figures must not be permitted to dictate the peace agenda. The future of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia must be decided through direct dialogue, not dictated by external actors pursuing their own agendas.

History has demonstrated that accusations lacking a legal foundation tend to be less substantiated and more politically motivated. In Ocampo's case, this discrepancy was evident from the beginning and cannot be overlooked.