In the first issue of Genocide Studies International, founding editor Herb Hirsch pre- sented a sharp critique of the field of Genocide Studies and urged scholars to take a more compassionate, active, and practical approach in our work. He wrote: ...we might conclude that one thing should take prominence above all else— something reflected in the Hippocratic Oath: do no harm. ... there is a minimal policy that should be adopted on the way to more important and inclusive ones: we should help those who are hungry and sick and try to stop the violence.1 This special issue, dedicated to the Azerbaijani blockade of the Lachin Corridor, takes up Hirsch’s plea by highlighting the gross violations of the human rights of Armenians of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic2 (NKR), casting a critical eye on the current responses (or lack thereof) from the international community and offering practical steps toward the worthy goal of doing no harm. The independent area of the NKR, home to 120,000 Armenians, is surrounded by the territory of Azerbaijan. There is only one route that connects the Armenian Republic with the NKR—that connects families and friends, that carries everything from basic supplies to lifesaving medications—the Lachin Corridor. For over six months (at the time of this writing), the government of Azerbaijan and its proxies have blockaded the Lachin Corridor, effectively strangling the Armenian community in the NKR. This has resulted in preventable deaths due to dramatic shortages of food, medicine, and energy, and denial of medical care. The situation unfolding in the NKR is outlined in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) order issued in response to Armenia’s case against Azerbaijan for imposition of the blockade and other human rights violations.3 The ICJ order issued in February 2023 is a positive step forward, though a more careful reading suggests that it does not go far enough. It includes a legally binding requirement that Azerbaijan actively work to ensure free movement in both directions along the Lachin Corridor, refuting the false assertions made by the Azerbaijani government that there is, already, freedom of movement throughout this vital passage. In this way, the order seemingly upholds the right of free movement out of—and back into—one’s country, implying that the NKR functions as an independent state vis-à-vis Azerbaijan. While it is likely that few international legal experts would see this as de facto recognition of the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the application of law in this way seems to derive from the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh, given the facts presented to the ICJ, does in fact function as an independent state, particularly vis-à-vis Azerbaijan. However, while the ICJ decision might seem to be a significant victory for human rights, we contend that this view ought to be tempered by the fact that the blockade of the Lachin Corridor continues. Moreover, the ICJ’s order comprises provisional measures rather than a final decision—despite the abundance of evidence that supports a final determination in favor of Armenia. On the whole, the order gives the impression that the ICJ has intervened to support human rights while, practically speaking, it is a political dodge that allows the court to postpone or avoid decisive action. Of course, more important than an interpretation of the contents of the ICJ order is an analysis of its effectiveness. Despite the legally binding nature of the order, Azerbaijan has not only continued to maintain the blockade, but has increased its severity by setting up a military checkpoint and engaging in military aggression against Armenians in both the NKR and the Republic of Armenia. We see Azerbaijan’s flagrant disregard of the ICJ order as a direct effect of regional and global indifference. Even when members of the international community have spoken out against the blockade, their words have not been accompanied by meaningful action. Fur- thermore, most—if not all—of the world’s governing bodies have maintained a relativist approach to the situation, ignoring the growing asymmetry of power and obscuring the reality that Azerbaijan is the unprovoked aggressor. Even when the situation has been seen as a conflict rather than as a one-sided human rights catastrophe, though, there has been no meaningful intervention. Ultimately, there is not a single international player helping NKR Armenians survive. The question, then, must be: Why is there such profound global indifference? Part of the answer is that contemporary Armenians, especially in the NKR, are plagued by denial of the 1915 Armenian Genocide and the constant effort it takes to overcome this denial.4 Fun- damentally, many non-Armenians seem to feel that they have already done enough. They have already argued on behalf of Armenia against genocide denial and are not interested in supporting Armenians against even more mass human rights violations and violence against them. This is partly because it is “easier” to recognize the unambiguousness of genocide, especially when it occurred a century ago, than it is to take a stand against the mass oppression and violence that is currently unfolding and, once again, trending toward genocide. Another part of the answer lies in the real effects of genocide on targeted groups. The 1915 genocide reduced the global Armenian population by half, and created conditions that complicated rebuilding the Armenian community: families were fractured, women of child-bearing age were abducted, education was cut short, and Armenians were forced or coerced to eschew their cultural identity. There is an argument to be made that had Armenia been supported in the wake of the genocide, it would now function as a re- gional power and, as such, experience relative safety from the malevolence of Azerbaijan.5 Instead, Armenia suffers from profound geopolitical weakness and an uncomfortable dependence on Russia for protection. And so, whether one sees the actions of Azerbaijan today as extensions of, or distinct from, the 1915 genocide, the contemporary impact of the genocidal past is perhaps the most significant factor rendering Armenians here and now vulnerable to the destruction of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and, quite possibly, Armenia itself. It is easy—comfortable, acceptable, even—for the world to overlook contemporary violence perpetrated against Armenians because of the violence perpetrated against them in the past. It is as if we collectively decided to accept the death and dispersion of Armenians; at the very least, we have normalized it. There is no mass outcry from the political superpowers, no pressure put on the government of Azerbaijan to cease the stranglehold they have on the NKR. The blockade of the Lachin Corridor barely, if at all, registers in the consciousness of the global populace. We cannot help but think that, had Armenians not been subjected to genocide in the past, the world community would find their current plight far more urgent. The articles within this special issue of Genocide Studies International are written by a diversity of scholars, journalists, and activists who approach the crisis of the Lachin Corridor blockade from unique perspectives. All of these contributions lean into the opportunity for the global community to do the right things for the right reasons. They adhere to the “minimal policy” that Herb Hirsch argued for a decade ago, namely the view that “we should help those who are hungry and sick and try to stop the violence.”