Demographic Shock and Institutional Resilience: Armenia’s Absorption of the 2023 Karabakh Exodus

In late September 2023, following Azerbaijan’s military operation in Nagorno-Karabakh, more than 100,000 ethnic Armenians crossed into the Republic of Armenia within the span of days, effectively emptying the region of its Armenian population (ACAPS, 2023; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], 2023). The speed, scale, and near-totality of this movement distinguish it from many contemporary displacement crises. Rather than a gradual or partial outflow, the exodus constituted a sudden and concentrated demographic transfer equivalent to approximately 3–4 percent of Armenia’s total population in less than two weeks. For a small, resource-constrained state already navigating economic and geopolitical pressures, this moment represented a profound demographic shock.

This paper approaches the 2023 Karabakh exodus not primarily through the lenses of international law, conflict attribution, or humanitarian response, frameworks that have largely structured existing commentary, but as an analytical opportunity to examine how states respond to rapid internal population restructuring. In doing so, it draws on scholarship that conceptualizes displacement as a process shaped by overlapping categories of forced and voluntary movement (Bakewell, 2011), as well as work on state capacity that emphasizes the importance of infrastructural power and administrative reach in moments of crisis (Mann, 2010). The Armenian case, however, complicates several of these frameworks. The displaced population entered a kin-state, minimizing ethnic integration barriers that often dominate refugee studies. At the same time, the speed and totality of displacement challenge conventional distinctions between refugee inflows, internal displacement, and return migration, situating this case at the intersection of multiple analytical categories (Wistrand, 2022; Klonowiecka-Milart & Paylan, 2023).

The central question guiding this study is: How did Armenia respond institutionally and spatially to the sudden arrival of over 100,000 displaced Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, and what does this reveal about post-Soviet state capacity under conditions of demographic shock? To address this, the paper examines several interrelated dimensions of the crisis. First, it analyzes how displaced populations were geographically redistributed across Armenia, asking whether settlement patterns reflect centralized coordination or decentralized, network-based self-placement. Second, it evaluates how key institutions, particularly housing systems, education, labor markets, and welfare programs, absorbed the influx in the immediate aftermath of arrival. Third, it explores how institutional responses took shape under acute time pressure, emphasizing the balance between immediate administrative mobilization and the constraints of limited preparation..

Empirically, the study focuses on the period from September 2023 to March 2024, capturing the initial phase of absorption rather than long-term integration trajectories. It combines quantitative demographic analysis with spatial mapping to trace changes in population distribution at both the national and subnational levels, including district-level patterns within Yerevan and secondary settlement regions such as Kotayk, Armavir, and Syunik. These data are complemented by a policy analysis of emergency government interventions, including housing subsidies, cash assistance programs, and measures aimed at facilitating school enrollment and labor market entry. By integrating demographic, spatial, and institutional perspectives, the paper seeks to move beyond descriptive accounts of displacement toward a more systematic understanding of how state systems respond under acute pressure.

Rather than advancing a singular explanatory argument, this paper proceeds with a set of exploratory propositions. It suggests that Armenia’s response was characterized by rapid administrative mobilization and the deployment of short-term fiscal tools under emergency conditions; that spatial settlement patterns reflect a hybrid model of centralized intake and decentralized, network-driven placement; and that the absence of immediate systemic disruption should be interpreted cautiously, as it may mask developing pressures in key sectors such as housing and labor markets (International Crisis Group, 2024; International Organization for Migration & Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of Armenia, 2024).

Research Questions

How do states convert emergency absorption capacity into long-term incorporation capacity under conditions of demographic shock?
What explains the gap between short-term stabilization and long-term incorporation in displacement contexts?
How should we rethink “resilience” in cases where states avoid collapse but fail to ensure durable stability?

Methods

This study employs a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative demographic analysis, spatial mapping, and institutional policy analysis to examine how Armenia absorbed a sudden and large-scale population influx. The methodology is designed to capture not only the scale of displacement, but also its spatial distribution and institutional management during the initial phase of arrival.

Quantitative Demographic Analysis

The demographic component of the analysis focuses on measuring population shifts associated with the September 2023 influx and identifying patterns of redistribution across Armenia. The primary data sources include official registration figures of displaced persons, district-level population statistics from the Statistical Committee of the Republic of Armenia (Armstat), and supplementary estimates reported by international and domestic organizations.

The analysis proceeds through a comparison of pre- and post-September 2023 population data at both the national and subnational levels. For each marz, the analysis calculates (1) the absolute number of displaced persons registered or estimated to reside there, and (2) the proportional demographic impact of that influx relative to the marz’s pre-crisis population. This makes it possible to distinguish between regions that absorbed the largest number of arrivals and those that experienced the greatest relative population shock. Because official post-influx population counts at the marz level do not always capture immediate settlement with precision, this paper uses a constructed estimate of short-term demographic change by combining Armstat baseline population data with available registration and settlement figures for displaced persons.

Using Armstat’s Statistical Yearbook (2024) as a baseline, district-level population figures are examined to identify relative and absolute changes following the arrival of displaced populations. These shifts are calculated both in terms of total population increase and percentage growth by region, allowing for comparison across areas with different baseline population sizes. (Percentage increase was calculated as the number of displaced persons in each marz divided by the marz’s pre-influx population, multiplied by 100.)

Registration data, while not without limitations, provides an initial approximation of where displaced individuals were formally recorded upon arrival. These figures are cross-referenced with secondary sources, including the European Migration Network (EMN) country factsheet and Armenpress-reported population estimates, to account for discrepancies between registration location and actual settlement. This distinction is particularly important, as formal registration does not necessarily correspond to long-term residence.

Spatial Mapping (GIS Analysis)

To complement the demographic analysis, this study incorporates a spatial mapping component using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to visualize and analyze settlement patterns. The objective is to move beyond aggregate population figures and examine how the influx was distributed across physical space.

Settlement density maps are constructed at the regional level to identify concentrations of displaced populations across Armenia. Particular attention is given to Yerevan, where district-level analysis allows for a more granular examination of intra-urban distribution. This includes identifying which administrative districts experienced the highest relative increases and assessing patterns of clustering within the capital.

In addition to Yerevan, the analysis examines regional spillover effects in areas such as Kotayk and Armavir, which emerged as secondary sites of settlement. These regions are analyzed in relation to their proximity to Yerevan, existing infrastructure, and relative housing availability.

Where data permits, spatial distributions are overlaid with additional variables, including housing stock, rental price trends, and infrastructure density. This allows for an assessment of the extent to which settlement patterns reflect state-directed allocation versus constraints imposed by market conditions and existing capacity. In particular, the relationship between population concentration and housing availability serves as a key indicator of whether settlement outcomes were centrally coordinated or shaped by affordability and access.

Institutional Analysis

The institutional dimension of the study examines how the Armenian state and associated actors responded to the influx through policy measures and programmatic interventions. This analysis is based on a structured review of official government announcements, policy documents, and implementation reports, supplemented by data from international organizations and independent assessments.

The primary focus is on key domains of absorption, including housing, welfare provision, education, and labor market integration. Government press releases and official communications are used to trace the rollout of emergency measures such as cash assistance programs, rental subsidies, and support for utility costs. These are analyzed not only in terms of policy design, but also with attention to timing, scale, and administrative delivery mechanisms.

To assess implementation and identify potential gaps between policy and practice, official sources are cross-checked with reports from the United Nations system, including the Inter-Agency Rapid Needs Assessment (UN RNA), the UNHCR Armenia Refugee Response Plan, and UNICEF situation reports. These sources provide insight into on-the-ground conditions, service capacity, and unmet needs, allowing for a more comprehensive evaluation of institutional performance.

Methodological Considerations

Several limitations should be noted. First, discrepancies between registration data and actual residence may affect the precision of spatial analysis, particularly in the early stages of arrival. Second, the availability and reliability of subnational data vary across regions, limiting the level of granularity in certain cases. Third, the temporal scope of the study, focused on the immediate absorption phase, means that longer-term outcomes related to integration and mobility are not captured.

Despite these limitations, the combined use of demographic data, spatial mapping, and institutional analysis provides a robust framework for examining how Armenia responded to an unprecedented and rapidly unfolding population influx.

Findings and Discussion

The findings of this study show that Armenia’s response to the 2023 Karabakh exodus was characterized by rapid administrative mobilization and short-term stabilization without institutional collapse, but with significant limitations in achieving durable incorporation. The state successfully registered and integrated over 100,000 displaced persons into core systems—welfare, education, and healthcare—within a compressed timeframe, demonstrating that capacity under crisis conditions depends less on pre-existing institutional strength than on the ability to quickly activate and scale administrative processes. This response relied heavily on cash-based policy instruments, including one-time payments and rental subsidies, which enabled speed and flexibility but embedded displaced populations within existing market structures, particularly the housing market, thereby shifting elements of risk and decision-making onto households themselves.

At the same time, spatial patterns of settlement reveal a hybrid model of absorption shaped by partial state coordination, social networks, and structural constraints such as housing availability and employment opportunities. Displaced populations were concentrated in Yerevan and surrounding regions, while the relative demographic impact varied across marzes, producing uneven institutional pressure at the local level. Although entry into key systems was rapid—evidenced by swift school enrollment, healthcare registration, and welfare access—this did not translate into stable integration within those systems. Labor market incorporation lagged, with persistent skills mismatches, gender disparities, and regional inequalities limiting access to sustainable employment. Over time, the policy trajectory shifted from broad, universal support toward more targeted and conditional programs, including reductions in assistance and the introduction of citizenship-linked housing initiatives, effectively redistributing responsibility for long-term stability from the state to displaced individuals. Finally, while kin-state dynamics facilitated immediate inclusion by reducing cultural and legal barriers, they did not eliminate social, economic, or political tensions, indicating that shared identity can ease entry but does not ensure incorporation.

From the vantage point of 2026, the evidence in this paper suggests that Armenia’s response to the 2023 Karabakh exodus should not be read simply as either success or failure. In the immediate term, the state avoided the outcome that many small, resource-constrained states would have feared most: systemic administrative breakdown. It registered, housed, and routed a suddenly enlarged population into welfare, education, and health systems within days and weeks rather than months. In that sense, the case demonstrates real emergency operational capacity. What Armenia accomplished in late 2023 and early 2024 was not the resolution of displacement, but its stabilization through a set of fiscally mediated and administratively improvisational instruments. The central finding, then, is not that a small state proved uniformly resilient, but that it was able to temporarily substitute speed, coordination, and cash-based policy for structural preparedness.

This matters for the study of state capacity. Much of the literature on post-Soviet governance has treated capacity as a relatively fixed attribute, often inferred from corruption, regime type, or institutional weakness. The Armenian case suggests a more dynamic interpretation. Under conditions of demographic shock, capacity is not only what a state permanently possesses; it is also what it can activate, reconfigure, and sequence under pressure. Armenia’s response relied on what might be called adaptive improvisation: the rapid redeployment of existing administrative channels, the conversion of fiscal resources into short-term social protection, and the extension of public systems without the luxury of long planning horizons. That is a meaningful contribution to the literature because it complicates the familiar equation between small states and administrative fragility. At the same time, the case also shows the limits of improvisation. Improvisation can absorb shock; it cannot by itself resolve structural deficits in housing, labor-market depth, or regional inequality.

The paper also contributes to migration and displacement studies by clarifying the analytical value of kin-state absorption. Armenia’s reception of displaced Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh differed from many refugee contexts because the incoming population was not widely framed as culturally foreign. The findings here strongly suggest that kinship is not a shortcut to incorporation. Co-ethnic reception lowered the threshold of formal inclusion, but it did not eliminate contestation over housing, welfare, political legitimacy, or economic opportunity. Nor did it automatically produce durable legal or civic consolidation. In Harutyunyan’s March 2025 assessment, only 8,046 citizenship applications had been submitted and 7,250 granted by March 10, 2025, small numbers relative to the overall displaced population (Harutyunyan, 2025). That is a striking reminder that national affinity and juridical incorporation do not necessarily move together.

Seen three years later, the most important long-term question is whether emergency absorption hardened into durable incorporation or instead gave way to a slower redistribution of risk from the state to displaced households. The evidence available through 2025 points to a mixed trajectory. On the one hand, Armenia and its partners increasingly framed the response as a shift from humanitarian assistance to sustainable integration, with emphasis on housing, employment, education, and social services; UNHCR’s Armenia operational portal notes that a majority of the displaced population is of working age and that longer-term integration depends on sustainable housing, workforce inclusion, access to finance, and skill development (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, n.d.). On the other hand, later reporting suggests that this transition has been uneven. Harutyunyan reports that rental support consumed the largest budget share and was later reduced, while the same study notes that as of February 5, 2025, only 1,561 beneficiaries had applied to the housing program and 542 had been approved (Harutyunyan, 2025). Reporting from April 2025 similarly notes that the Armenian government reduced monthly assistance while pushing displaced persons toward the long-term housing program, even as beneficiaries criticized the program as misaligned with their actual needs and capacities (Barseghyan, 2025). By October 2025, further reporting suggested that the housing policy continued to generate frustration and insecurity rather than broad-based stabilization, indicating that the transition from emergency aid to long-term housing had remained socially and administratively contested (Vanyan, 2025).

Armenia’s early response now appears less as a bridge to seamless integration than as a temporally bounded regime of stabilization. The state could move resources quickly enough to prevent collapse, but the transition from emergency inclusion to durable incorporation exposed a second-order problem: once survival is secured, who bears the costs of permanence? This is where the case becomes especially important. In many displacement settings, the central challenge is getting a host state to admit and minimally protect a displaced population. In Armenia’s case, the more difficult issue has been what happens after admission and initial support, when the burden shifts from emergency logistics to housing tenure, labor-market conversion, social rights, and political belonging. The case thus suggests a broader conceptual distinction between absorption capacity and incorporation capacity. The former concerns whether a state can take people in under pressure; the latter concerns whether it can anchor them over time without reproducing insecurity in new forms.

This distinction also reframes the meaning of resilience. If resilience is understood only as the ability to avoid immediate collapse, then Armenia was resilient. But if resilience is understood more demandingly, as the ability to transform short-term emergency response into socially sustainable incorporation, then the answer is more ambiguous. The early state response was expansive, but later policy adjustments suggest retrenchment, selectivity, and a growing expectation that displaced households convert emergency support into self-reliance on compressed timelines. That pattern does not erase the significance of the initial response; rather, it shows that resilience in displacement settings may be phase-specific. A state may be resilient in the first phase and fragile in the second, or capable of rapid absorption while struggling with the slower politics of permanence.

This has implications beyond Armenia. The case suggests that future work on displacement in the post-Soviet space and beyond should pay greater attention to temporal sequencing. Studies often separate emergency response from long-term integration, but the Armenian case shows that the design of the first phase shapes the constraints of the second. Cash-based housing support, for example, may be the most effective emergency instrument available, yet it can also embed displaced populations in volatile rental markets and create later pressure for retrenchment. Similarly, early inclusion in schools and clinics may reduce immediate disruption, while leaving unresolved deeper issues of settlement geography, labor-market mobility, and social stratification. The policy lesson is not that emergency cash or rapid system extension were mistakes. It is that states and international actors should treat these tools as front-end devices whose long-term consequences must be anticipated from the outset.

Several avenues for future research follow directly from this conclusion. First, this case calls for longitudinal study of post-2023 incorporation, especially after the narrowing of universal support. The key question is no longer only where displaced persons went in 2023–2024, but who remained in Armenia, under what legal statuses, and through which forms of housing and employment by 2025–2026. Second, the housing program deserves close study as a mechanism of territorial governance: its differential incentives by settlement location raise important questions about whether the state is not only integrating displaced persons, but also redistributing them strategically across national space. Third, the labor-market dimension requires gendered analysis. The IOM findings on women’s higher training needs and labor-force exclusion suggest that incorporation may be proceeding unevenly across households and sectors. Fourth, future work should examine the relationship between citizenship uptake, political participation, and social trust. If kin-state inclusion does not automatically translate into legal incorporation, then the gap itself becomes analytically significant. Finally, future research should pay closer attention to the politics of marginalization after the emergency phase, particularly as refugee concerns risk being subordinated to broader peace and state-building agendas; this issue has already begun to surface in later commentary warning that Karabakh refugees may be politically sidelined in Armenia’s evolving peace strategy (Adamyan, 2025).

Ultimately, the Armenian case contributes a more precise language for thinking about displacement under shock conditions. What happened in autumn 2023 was not just a refugee response, and not simply a humanitarian episode. It was a real-time test of whether a small state could absorb a sudden demographic rupture without institutional collapse. The answer, based on the evidence assembled here, is yes, but only if absorption is understood as a contingent and incomplete achievement rather than a final outcome. Armenia’s response shows that states can improvise under pressure more effectively than conventional measures of capacity might predict. It also shows that the hardest part of displacement governance may begin only after the emergency has formally passed.

Conclusion

Armenia’s response to the 2023 Karabakh exodus demonstrates that a small, resource-constrained state can absorb a sudden demographic shock without immediate institutional collapse. Through rapid administrative mobilization, cash-based support, and the extension of existing public systems, the state stabilized an influx of more than 100,000 displaced persons in real time. At the same time, the case shows that successful emergency absorption is not equivalent to durable incorporation. The Armenian experience suggests that kin-state reception can facilitate formal inclusion, but it does not eliminate material strain, uneven settlement, or the longer-term politics of housing, labor, and belonging. More broadly, this paper argues that demographic shock should be understood not only as a test of state capacity, but as a process that reveals the difference between surviving an emergency and building permanence after it.

The following is an image of poster presented at the 2026 Undergraduate Research Forum

A research poster titled “Demographic Shock Without Collapse: Armenia and the 2023 Karabakh Exodus” by Anastasija Mladenovska (Miami University). The poster examines the rapid displacement of over 100,000 ethnic Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia in September 2023, representing approximately 3–4% of Armenia’s population in less than two weeks. It frames the event as a “demographic shock” rather than a conventional refugee crisis, focusing on how the state absorbed the population in real time. On the left, a Context section highlights key facts: the speed, scale, and totality of the displacement, as well as Armenia’s structural constraints such as limited fiscal capacity, housing shortages, and labor market rigidity. A Hypothesis section argues that rapid administrative mobilization, hybrid settlement patterns, and delayed structural pressures explain Armenia’s initial success in absorption. In the center, the Settlement Impact section includes two maps: A Settlement Concentration map showing that displaced populations clustered heavily in Yerevan and nearby regions rather than being evenly distributed. A Relative Demographic Shock map illustrating that smaller regions experienced higher proportional population increases, placing greater strain on local infrastructure. These maps emphasize a distinction between where most people settled and where pressure was most intense. On the right, a Policy Response section outlines four key measures: Cash-based emergency assistance Housing subsidies rather than direct provision Integration into education systems Labor market support programs Below this, a Challenges section identifies ongoing issues, including housing shortages, labor market mismatch, regional inequality, unclear policy transitions, and social strain. At the bottom, a bold conclusion reads: “Armenia did not fail the shock — it exposed the limits of what success actually means.” The poster argues that while Armenia avoided immediate institutional collapse, long-term integration remains constrained by structural inequalities.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my mentor, Dr. Venelin Ganev, whose guidance, critical feedback, and intellectual mentorship were invaluable in shaping both the direction and depth of this research.

I am also deeply grateful to the Honors College, the Menard Family Center for Democracy, and the Department of Political Science for their generous institutional, financial, and moral support throughout this project. I extend special thanks to the Office of Research for Undergraduates for awarding me the Undergraduate Research Award, which provided critical funding and sustained encouragement during the development of this research.

I would like to thank the NYU Jordan Center for the Advanced Study of Russia, where I had the opportunity to share my findings at the annual Jordan Center Symposium, as well as the Yale University MacMillan Center and the University of Pittsburgh, where presenting this research allowed me to engage with diverse academic audiences and refine my arguments through thoughtful discussion.

All errors or omissions are my own.

References

ACAPS. (2023, October 6). Armenia-Azerbaijan: Humanitarian impact of the military offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh (Briefing Note). ACAPS.

Adamyan, S. (2025, December 23). Armenia’s peace drive risks sidelining Karabakh refugees, International Crisis Group says. CivilNet. https://www.civilnet.am/en/news/993440/armenias-peace-drive-risks-sidelining-karabakh-refugees-international-crisis-group-says/

Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen016

Associated Press. (2023, September 30). Almost all of Nagorno-Karabakh’s people have left, Armenia’s government says. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/armenia-azerbaijan-nagorno-karabakh-exodus-5df6a74fc0cb12b7bdab0a9783019e07

Bakewell, O. (2011). Conceptualising displacement and migration: Processes, conditions, and categories. In K. Koser & S. Martin (Eds.), The migration–displacement nexus: Patterns, processes, and policies

Barseghyan, A., & Vanyan, M. (2024, October 4). The ‘Black Garden’ becomes ‘a black corner’ for Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenians. OC Media. https://oc-media.org/the-black-garden-becomes-a-black-corner-in-the-hearts-of-nagorno-karabakh-armenians/

Barseghyan, A. (2024, November 22). Armenian government cuts aid to Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. OC Media. https://oc-media.org/armenian-government-cuts-aid-to-nagorno-karabakh-armenians/

Barseghyan, A. (2025, April 9). Armenia pushes for long-term state housing programme, cuts monthly aid to Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. OC Media. https://oc-media.org/armenia-pushes-for-long-term-state-housing-programme-cuts-monthly-aid-to-nagorno-karabakh-armenians/

Brell, C., Dustmann, C., & Preston, I. (2020). The labor market integration of refugee migrants in high-income countries. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(1), 94–121. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.34.1.94

Brubaker, R. (1996). Nationalism reframed: Nationhood and the national question in the new Europe. Cambridge University Press.

Busini, C. (2025, July 28). From Karabakh to Yerevan: Post-conflict democratization in Armenia. Caucasus Edition. https://caucasusedition.net/from-karabakh-to-yerevan-post-conflict-democratization-in-armenia/

European Migration Network. (2025). EMN Observer Country factsheet 2024: Armenia (European Migration Network Country Factsheet). Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission.

European Parliament. (2024). New approaches to labour market integration of migrants and refugees. European Parliamentary Research Service. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2024/754232/IPOL_STU(2024)754232_EN.pdf

EVN Report. (2023, September 1). News watch: Artsakh – September 2023. https://evnreport.com/new-updates/news-watch-artsakh-september-2023/

Freeman, B., & DerSimonian, A. (2023, December 13). The lobbying battle for Nagorno-Karabakh. Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. https://quincyinst.org/research/the-lobbying-battle-for-nagorno-karabakh/

Government of Armenia. (2023a, November 17). 1837 forcibly displaced students from Nagorno-Karabakh are already involved in relevant or related educational programs of Armenian state universities. https://www.gov.am/en/news/item/10428/

Government of Armenia. (2023b, December 12). Applications for appointment of pensions for people from Nagorno Karabakh are accepted from December 11. https://www.gov.am/en/news/item/10454/

Government of Armenia. (2023c, October 14). Government’s support programs for people forcibly displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh were presented. https://www.gov.am/en/news/item/10400/

Government of Armenia. (2023d, October 11). In the near future, the Government will make a decision regarding the tuition fees of forcibly displaced students from Nagorno Karabakh. https://www.gov.am/en/news/item/10397/

Government of Armenia. (2023e, November 7). Online applications for the 40+10 thousand AMD social assistance program are accepted through the website www.socservice.am. | https://www.gov.am/en/news/item/10421/

Government of Armenia. (2023f, December 5). Our forcibly displaced compatriots from Nagorno-Karabakh can submit applications for pensions and allowances starting from December 11. https://www.gov.am/en/news/item/10449/

Government of Armenia. (2023g, October 3). People forcibly displaced from Nagorno Karabakh can apply for job through the website www.workforall.am | https://www.gov.am/en/news/item/10375/

Government of Armenia. (2024a, March 1). A state support program for housing affordability is planned for persons forcibly displaced from Nagorno Karabakh. https://www.gov.am/en/news/item/10493/

Government of Armenia. (2024b, February 9). Employment provision and social support programs for forcibly displaced persons from Nagorno-Karabakh continue. https://www.gov.am/en/news/item/10485/

Government of Armenia. (2024c, February 2). More than 10,000 compatriots of Nagorno-Karabakh have already found employment.https://www.gov.am/en/news/item/10476/

Grigoryan, R., & Sargsyan, S. (2025, December 20). Gohar’s second goodbye: Forced to leave Armenia after losing Nagorno-Karabakh. OC Media. https://oc-media.org/gohars-second-goodbye-forced-to-leave-armenia-after-losing-nagorno-karabakh/

Harutyunyan, H. G. (2025). Integration of displaced Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh: Chances and challenges (September 2023–March 2025). Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

Hovhannisyan, L. (2023, October). An uncertain future, uncertain status. EVN Report. https://evnreport.com/spotlight-karabakh/an-uncertain-future-uncertain-status/

Institute for Human Rights (ISHR Armenia). (2024). Forced displacement: Artsakh women’s experiences (Part one).

International Crisis Group. (2024, March 4). Armenia struggles to cope with exodus from Nagorno-Karabakh [Special or analytical report]. ecoi.net. https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2105614.html (Original work published by International Crisis Group)

International Monetary Fund. (2023). Republic of Armenia: 2023 Article IV consultation and second review under the Stand-By Arrangement and request for modifications of performance criteria and monetary policy consultation clause – Staff report (IMF Staff Country Report No. 23/416). International Monetary Fund. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/2023/416/002.2023.issue-416-en.xml

International Organization for Migration. (2024, November 20). Report on the results of the labour force assessment among refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenia. United Nations Armenia. https://armenia.un.org/en/283948-report-results-labour-force-assessment-among-refugees-nagorno-karabakh-armenia

International Organization for Migration & Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the Republic of Armenia. (2024). Report on the results of the labour force assessment among refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenia (Publication). United Nations Armenia. https://armenia.un.org/en/283948-report-results-labour-force-assessment-among-refugees-nagorno-karabakh-armenia

Klonowiecka-Milart, A., & Paylan, S. (2023, November 6). Forced displacement of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh: A response [Blog post]. Opinio Juris. https://opiniojuris.org/2023/11/06/forced-displacement-of-armenians-from-nagorno-karabakh-a-response/

Long, K. (2013). When refugees stopped being migrants: Movement, labour and humanitarian protection. Migration Studies, 1(1), 4–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mns001

Mann, M. (2010). The sources of social power: Volume 2: The rise of classes and nation-states, 1760–1914. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511570902

Sargsyan, S. (2024, January 3). From scratch: The forced displacement and new lives of Artsakh refugees. The Armenian Weekly. https://armenianweekly.com/2024/01/03/from-scratch-the-forced-displacement-and-new-lives-of-artsakh-refugees/

Schuettler, K., & Caron, L. (2020). Jobs interventions for refugees and internally displaced persons (Jobs Working Paper No. 47). World Bank.

Statistical Committee of the Republic of Armenia. (2024). Statistical Yearbook of Armenia 2024 (Statistical Yearbook). Statistical Committee of the Republic of Armenia. https://www.armstat.am/en/?nid=586&year=2024

UNICEF. (2024, October 31). Armenia humanitarian situation report No. 18: Situation in numbers (1 September–31 October 2024).

United Nations Armenia. (2023, November 2). Inter-agency rapid needs assessment report: Immediate needs of newly arrived refugees in Armenia.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (n.d.). Armenia: Operational data portal. https://data.unhcr.org/en/country/arm

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). (2023, October 7). Armenia refugee response plan: October 2023–March 2024. https://data.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/103868

United Nations in Armenia. (2024, March 5). Inter-agency operational update: 6–19 February 2024.

Vanyan, M. (2024, January 12). We’re home, and yet we’re not. EVN Report. https://evnreport.com/spotlight-karabakh/were-home-and-yet-were-not/

Vanyan, M. (2025, October 23). Armenia’s housing policy continues to plague Nagorno-Karabakh refugees. OC Media. https://oc-media.org/armenias-housing-policy-continues-to-plague-nagorno-karabakh-refugees/

Wistrand, J. S. (2022). Displacement and belonging in Eurasia. In D. W. Montgomery (Ed.), Central Asia: Contexts for understanding (pp. 431–437). University of Pittsburgh Press.

Zetter, R. (2007). More labels, fewer refugees: Remaking the refugee label in an era of globalization. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 172–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fem011

NACE Career Readiness Competencies

Through my research experience, I developed several key career readiness competencies. First, I strengthened my critical thinking skills by designing and executing a research project that required me to analyze complex demographic, spatial, and institutional data. I learned how to move beyond descriptive analysis to identify patterns, evaluate competing explanations, and develop an original conceptual framework distinguishing between absorption and incorporation.

Second, I enhanced my communication skills by presenting my research at multiple academic venues, including conferences and symposiums. These experiences required me to clearly articulate complex arguments to diverse audiences, adapt my messaging based on feedback, and engage in thoughtful discussion with scholars and peers.

Third, I built research and analytical skills, including data interpretation, policy analysis, and the integration of interdisciplinary sources. Working with demographic data, GIS mapping, and institutional reports strengthened my ability to synthesize quantitative and qualitative information into a coherent argument.

Finally, I developed professionalism and work ethic by managing a long-term, independent research project. This included setting deadlines, coordinating presentations, seeking mentorship, and balancing fieldwork with academic responsibilities. This experience taught me how to take initiative, remain adaptable, and see a complex project through from conception to completion.

Page updated

Report abuse