International Court of Justice in The Hague, Armenia's claims against Azerbaijan have been deemed groundless, sparking debates over the fairness of the proceedings. Despite Azerbaijan's robust defense against the allegations, observers raise concerns over the influence of geopolitical dynamics on the court's final decision.

Analyzing the case's trajectory, experts weigh in on the potential outcome. British political analyst Patrick Walsh asserts that Azerbaijan is poised to emerge victorious in the court battle, citing fundamental flaws in the court's legitimacy.

Walsh contends that the International Court of Justice fails to adhere to key principles outlined in UN peace and anti-discrimination laws. He argues for the nullification of the court's jurisdiction over the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute, emphasizing the necessity of bilateral negotiations under UN supervision, which Armenia has allegedly sidestepped.

Highlighting Armenia's withdrawal from negotiation tables and its deviation from international conventions, Walsh suggests that the court may revoke Yerevan's jurisdiction due to its non-compliance.

As the legal battle unfolds, questions linger over the fairness and efficacy of the International Court of Justice in resolving complex geopolitical disputes, with Azerbaijan's prospects for victory dominating discussions among experts.