In Armenia, traditional values, along with a lack of information on human rights, still reign. Society has not achieved a level of consciousness to oppose fake and easily digestible narratives. The same is true about intentions to ratify conventions criminalising domestic violence. The ratification process-experience has been episodic with manipulation and drama, sparking public emotion and a less-informed discussion on the content.

Domestic violence, according to the United Nations, is recognised as a violation of the fundamental human rights of women. Armenia has subscribed to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (1979), became a party to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995) for the advancement of women, and took commitments in the scope of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SCG), where gender equality and empowerment of all women stands as a separate goal.

The international community quickly called on both parties to exercise restraint, in a conflict that has potential to spin out of control.

Skirmishes in the borderlands of Armenia and Azerbaijan raise fears of escalation.

For the three countries of the South Caucasus, the sudden emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has reconfigured domestic politics, reordered policy priorities and recommitted each government to respond to the overwhelming crisis in public health. For Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, the urgency of managing the immediate crisis will soon be matched by the equally daunting task of ensuring economic recovery and enabling social repair.

Public discourse in Armenia today remains beset with problems and the behaviour of the authorities is hardly a role model. If the government does not commit to improving the quality of discourse and its own behaviour, the country may be faced with a long-term challenge affecting other areas of public life.

It has been two years since Nikol Pashinyan has come to power after the Velvet Revolution in Armenia. In this episode Adam catches up with Richard Giragosian to discuss how much has changed in the country and how much has not.

The recent regulations in Armenia contradict the political leadership’s commitments to democratisation and may be damaging to the country’s progress.

The title of the recently published piece by Anzhela Mnatsakanyan attempted to find out why Nagorno-Karabakh conflict matters. Nevertheless, throughout the text the question brought up by the author remains unanswered and the containing arguments are irrelevant, puzzled and incapable to resolve the question.

Even if leaders will manage to reach some compromise, the most difficult part will be to present the result of the final negotiation to the publics. The leaders in both Armenia and Azerbaijan have become trapped by their own rhetoric.

Armenia may choose to draw on the legacy of its own long history, as opposed to the Soviet legacy narratives. Doing so will help the country through institutional development and reforms.

After the revolution, Armenia needs to take advantage of the available civil society expertise to provide informed conceptualisations of reform actions, and the institutional platforms that facilitate public oversight of reforms.

Following the Velvet Revolution, Armenian civil society organisations face an increasingly difficult environment.