"The main obstacle to Baku and Yerevan signing a peace treaty is Armenia's Constitution." View from Baku
Azerbaijan-Armenia peace agreement
In Baku today, the sole obstacle to signing a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia is cited as the need for amendments to Armenia’s constitution.
If the Armenian side officially acknowledges these requirements from Baku as justified, experts at the Azerbaijani Center for South Caucasus Studies (CSSC) believe the peace agreement could come into effect similarly to the Belfast Agreement between Britain and Ireland.
- Lawyers educated in Germany undermine democracy in Georgia – German newspaper
- “It was an attempted coup” – Political analyst on the actions of the protest movement in Armenia
- “Armenia will leave the Russia-led CSTO; there is no other way,” – Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan
“After the 44-day war in 2020, Azerbaijan’s position is that if a peace treaty is to be signed with Armenia, it should not contain vague definitions or ambiguities that could leave lingering issues or delayed-action mines for the future. For a sustainable peace, the treaty must be clear and unambiguous, without room for alternative interpretations; otherwise, it should not be signed,” according to an analytical report by CSSC.
Azerbaijani experts note that prior to the anti-terrorism operation in September 2023, Western countries and Armenia sought “international security guarantees for Karabakh Armenians,” while Russia proposed signing a peace treaty but “leaving the Karabakh issue for future generations to resolve.” This approach was aimed at keeping the issue open for future consideration.
Back then, Azerbaijan did not fall for diplomatic tricks, nor did it yield to pressure demanding acceptance of those conditions.
In the second stage, the main obstacle is Armenia’s constitution. The head of the Azerbaijani state has expressed a clear position that if Yerevan does not agree to the necessary changes, a peace treaty will not be signed.
Once again, similar to the first stage, we observe attempts by Armenia and its supporters to expedite the signing of a peace treaty without considering Azerbaijan’s justified and fair demands.
Armenia asserts that its constitution is an internal matter, not a hindrance. However, in recent history, we have witnessed numerous instances in various countries where signatures were withdrawn under the pretext of non-compliance with international documents and domestic legislation.
Taking this into account, a notable and recent example of aligning internal legislation with a signed peace treaty can be seen in the Belfast Agreement between the governments of Britain and Ireland, dated April 10, 1998.
What is the essence of the problem?
In the preamble of Armenia’s constitution, it states:
“The Armenian people, based on the fundamental principles of Armenian statehood and national goals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia, having fulfilled the sacred covenant of their freedom-loving ancestors for the restoration of sovereign statehood, committed to the cause of strengthening and developing the Homeland in order to ensure freedom, common prosperity, and civil harmony for future generations, affirming their commitment to universal human values, adopt the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia.”
This includes a reference to the Declaration of Independence of Armenia, adopted on August 23, 1990, which contains direct territorial claims against Azerbaijan.
The first paragraph of the mentioned Declaration is as follows:
“The Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR, expressing the unified will of the Armenian people, acknowledging its responsibility for the fate of the Armenian people in fulfilling the aspirations of all Armenians and restoring historical justice, based on the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and universally recognized norms of international law, implementing the right of nations to free self-determination, based on the joint Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR and the National Council of Nagorno-Karabakh of December 1, 1989, ‘On the Reunification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh,’ developing democratic traditions of the independent Republic of Armenia, formed on May 28, 1918, with the aim of creating a democratic, legal society, proclaims: The beginning of the process of affirming independent statehood.”
Belfast agreement as a model
“Despite differences in context and content, the Belfast Agreement is interesting in terms of overcoming obstacles to the peace process related exclusively to domestic legislation. According to the agreement of April 10, as a result of a referendum held on May 22, 1998, in Ireland, Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution, adopted in 1937, were amended.
These articles tasked the Irish state with creating a unified state over the entire island. According to the fourth article of the Belfast Agreement, this document came into force on December 2, 1999, only after the requirement to hold a referendum in Ireland to amend the country’s constitution was implemented.
In our context, holding a referendum to amend Armenia’s constitution and bringing the peace treaty into force after a certain period following its signing can be carried out in different time frames, according to the agreements reached. For this, the need to remove the decision on the annexation of Karabakh from Armenia’s constitution must first be officially accepted and then fixed in some document. Perhaps, as in the example of the Belfast Agreement, this point will be included in the peace treaty, which will be signed under such a condition.”
Problem and solution
“If the Belfast example is implemented, the entry into force of the peace treaty after its signing will entirely fall on the Pashinyan government, Armenian society, and the forces supporting this country.
Firstly, it is not the Pashinyan government but Armenian society that must decide through a referendum whether the treaty will come into force, similar to how Irish society once did.
On the other hand, each member of the Pashinyan government should be interested in removing the relevant articles from the constitution. Since the revanchists already accuse the Armenian government of surrendering territories to Azerbaijan and violating the constitution. Therefore, the government must exclude these very points from the constitution so that in the future, it cannot be held criminally liable for ‘actions inconsistent with the constitution.'”
Azerbaijan-Armenia peace agreement
