During wars, cultural heritage is particularly vulnerable to deliberate attacks and acts of intolerance, as starkly demonstrated during the 44-day war initiated by Azerbaijan in 2020, the blockade of the Lachin Corridor, and the complete depopulation of Artsakh due to military operations in 2023. In armed conflicts, the use of monuments and their surrounding cultural landscapes for military purposes – such as shelters, ammunition depots, combat bases, observation posts, command centers, or deployment hubs for armed forces –poses a significant threat to heritage protection. During and after the 2020 war, numerous churches, community cultural centers, and educational institutions in Artsakh were repurposed by Azerbaijan for military use. This repurposing undermined the primary cultural, spiritual, historical, educational, and aesthetic functions of these heritage sites. By altering their roles to serve military purposes – effectively turning them into “military objects” – their spiritual and cultural significance is disrupted. Moreover, this transformation violates the protections afforded by the Hague and Geneva Conventions, as well as international humanitarian law, which safeguard cultural heritage as a civilian asset. Converting heritage sites for military purposes compromises their inviolability, making them more susceptible to damage or destruction. Despite the norms of international humanitarian law, incidents of damage and destruction to Artsakh's monuments due to their military use by Azerbaijan have not ceased. On the contrary, they continue to escalate, further endangering the cultural heritage of the region and, by extension, the world.

KeywordsInternational humanitarian law protection of cultural heritage armed conflict Artsakh Azerbaijan military use of cultural values war crime

The role and significance of the national school is emphasized in the system of studying the centuries-old history of Armenian culture. The role of education is especially significant in the preservation of national values and traditions. The article presents a number of issues related to the educational life of Artsakh (at the beginning of the 20th century), one of the regions of Eastern Armenia based on materials published in the “Mshak” newspaper. We have briefly touched upon the policy of Tsarism in the Caucasus, the process of closing and reopening Armenian schools in the Artsakh Diocese. The educational problems of a number of settlements of the Artsakh Diocese are studied in relation with school programs, student and teacher complaints and the activities of the overseers. The activities of the Diocesan School of Artsakh, the Realakan College of Shushi, the Marinsky Girls’ School as well as one and two-grade schools of the villages of Tsmakahogh, Hadrut, Maghavuz, Taghavard, Haterk, Voskanapat and Banants are presented in separate subsections according to the information obtained from different issues of the “Mshak” newspaper. The circumstances hindering the development of educational life of Artsakh (related to the law on the confiscation of church property of June 12, 1903, the Armenian- Tatar Clashes of 1905–1907) as well as the activities of individual teachers are briefly highlighted. The charitable works of individual benefactors are appreciated, according to materials from the “Mshak” newspaper.

Keywordsculture parish school Diocesan School Real School Caucasus Getashen Gandzasar Eastern Armenia Artsakh gymnasium

The article presents the political events in Artsakh in 1986-1991. Special attention is paid to the role and significance of the underground and nonunderground organizations created in the context of the new stage of the Artsakh movement. Throughout the 70 years of the existence of the USSR, violence and persecution were practiced against the Armenian population of Artsakh. Despite this, the struggle for joining Mother Armenia never ceased. Individual episodes of this persistent struggle, which for decades took the form of statements, petitions, and unrest in Soviet Armenia and the NKAO, were silenced or suppressed by the high-ranking Soviet leadership. The relatively favorable political conditions created in the USSR after 1985 provided the Armenian population of Artsakh with the opportunity to once again defend their violated rights and demand the unification of the Nagorno- Karabakh Autonomous Oblast with the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic. Initially, the leadership of the movement tried at every opportunity to present the struggle of the Artsakh people in Moscow in the light of the ideas of reconstruction and glasnost in order to give it a legal appearance. However, ignoring the right of the Armenian population of Artsakh to self-determination and the legal and political justification of its demands, Azerbaijan, under the aegis of Moscow, once again preferred uncivilised methods of resolving the issue, or, more precisely, its extermination by organizing ethnic cleansing. The movement was born in the whirlwind of national awakening. At first it was led by intellectuals with a national mindset and young people imbued with a national ideology. Later, it was joined by active members of the Communist Party, as well as heads of institutions and enterprises who attempted to lead the movement. Later on, two opposing political currents were formed in the movement, whose activities had a negative impact on the liberation struggle. As a result of the change in the format of the struggle, an attempt was made to unite political forces. The political processes after the proclamation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (Artsakh) proved otherwise. The internal political turmoil became more obvious during the elections of the Chairman of the NKR Supreme Council of the first convocation on 6-7 January 1992, when the conflict between the opposing forces was quite aggressive. The forces that came to power managed to preserve internal political stability, showed political will, as a result of which the country temporarily got out of the situation. Thus, by overcoming obstacles, bypassing political and military conflicts, the forces involved in the liberation struggle, thanks to their determination, were able to move in accordance with the requirements of the time, while bearing the burden of organizing the liberation struggle.

KeywordsArtsakh Artsakh movement political processes Supreme Council Coordination Council Igor Muradyan Hakob Khachatryan

This article reinterprets the coverage and major assessments of the Defense Army (DA) of the Republic of Artsakh (RA) in Armenian historiography. Although certain episodes in the army’s history have been presented in various publications from Artsakh, Armenia, and the Diaspora, the study of the formation and combat path of the DA remains central to scholarly inquiry. The aim of this research is to summarize the evolution of the history of the Defense Army and evaluate key scholarly contributions, with a particular focus on the role of military construction in the development of Armenian statehood in Artsakh. The author analyzes the Defense Army not merely as a military organization but also as an institutional body formed under conditions of political non-recognition and operating under the legitimate right of selfdefense enshrined in international law.

KeywordsRepublic of Artsakh Defence Army Armenian historiography self-defence unrecognised state periodisation historico-political discourse.