Armenian opposition: Demarcation, delimination of borders under threat or use of force is invalid
The opposition Hayastan (Armenia) faction initiated parliamentary hearings on the issues of demarcation and delimitation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. During the hearings, a draft statement was presented on behalf of the parliament. The opposition included their own approaches to border demarcation in it. The document also contains a demand for the Armenian authorities to refrain from written or oral agreements with Azerbaijan, which would violate the provisions of the country’s constitution and “the will of the Armenian people, expressed in the Declaration of Independence”.
This served as a preventive measure which the opposition MPs organized on the eve of the meeting of the Armenian Prime Minister with the President of Azerbaijan. Armenian Prime Minister has already stated that during this meeting the signing of a document on the demarcation and delimitation of the border with Azerbaijan may be possible. Talks between Pashinyan and Aliyev, mediated by the Russian President, are scheduled for November 26.
- Pressure on Armenia: what does Baku want and what does Russia expect? Commentary from Yerevan
- Democracy summit or transit corridor: what led to clashes at Armenian-Azerbaijani border?
- Why are PM Pashinyan and President Aliyev meeting in Sochi ahead of Brussels?
“Borders are determined on the basis of international law”
The draft parliamentary statement emphasizes that the borders are determined by agreement between neighboring states on the basis of international law, and in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. According to its provisions, any international agreement reached through the threat or use of force is null and void.
In this regard, the document condemns
- “The occupation of the territories of Nagorno-Karabakh by Azerbaijan,
- the invasion of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces units into the sovereign territory of Armenia, the prolonged use of force and the threat of using force,
- gross violations of international law against people taken prisoner after the end of hostilities, refusal to return them under the pretext of false prosecutions”.
The statement emphasizes that all these “criminal actions of Azerbaijan continue” and are accompanied by territorial claims against Armenia and the unrecognized NKR, terrorizing of civilians living in border settlements, desecration of shrines, and historical monuments in the territories that came under its control. Turkey, which took a direct part in the 44-day war, “continues to openly support the aggressive actions of Azerbaijan”.
The statement says that a person officially representing the Republic of Armenia cannot come to a written or oral agreement, violating the specified legal norms, and “any such agreement is initially invalid”.
According to the document prepared by the opposition, disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be resolved exclusively by peaceful methods – without the use of force or threatening to use it.
The statement ends with an appeal to international organizations and parliaments of friendly countries to condemn the ongoing crimes committed by Azerbaijan and Turkey and to take steps to bring them to justice.
“Work on demarcation and delimitation begins”
On the evening of November 23, while answering questions from journalists and representatives of public organizations on his Facebook page, Nikol Pashinyan did not deny the possibility of signing a document on the demarcation and delimitation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border during the upcoming trilateral meeting.
However, the Prime Minister assured: the document will not contain any specific decisions on how the border will be drawn. It will only say that a commission is being formed and work on demarcation and delimitation begins, and this is a long and complex process.
Moreover, he especially emphasized that the recognition of the Armenian-Azerbaijani borders does not mean rejection of the Karabakh issue.
Pashinyan recalled that back in 1991, Armenia and Azerbaijan mutually recognized each other’s territorial integrity according to the CIS documents, but this did not mean that the Karabakh issue was removed:
“Is the Artsakh issue a territorial one? In our understanding, no. This is a matter of law”.