That is not actually correct. The land in question consists of two parts. The former Nagorno-Karabach Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) and a region which is de jure pa

That is not actually correct. The land in question consists of two parts. The former Nagorno-Karabach Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) and a region which is de jure part of Azerbaijan, which was captured in a war that resulted from Azerbaijan's invasion of the NKAO. The NKAO is not a de jure part of Azerbaijan, as can be seen from the Soviet secession law of 1991, which is the law which permitted Azerbaijan's secession from the Soviet Union. The law itself can be found in English translation on http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/shevarnadze-resigns-texts/law-on-secession-from-the-ussr/ http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/shev... , but basically, autonomous oblasts vote separately from Soviet Republics, and do not automatically secede with their republics unless they hold a separate vote to do so. When Azerbaijan seceded from the Soviet Union no such vote was held in Nagorno-Karabach. In my view the correct legal interpretation is thus that they remained part of Soviet Union until it was dissolved, at which point they became an independent state. This is very important, because Azerbaijan has been shooting people in the NKAO for no reason whatsoever, and I assume that's it's purely a matter of killing Armenians, so it can't be part of Azerbaijan: this makes the legal situation very convenient-- countries like Spain, which does not want to accept a separate Catalonia, or Basque country would not make themselves into hypocrites, or set a precedent against themselves, by recognizing the NKAO, or Artsakh as it now calls itself.