He claimed this was interference in Armenia’s internal affairs and suggested that Azerbaijan should also remove references to the Constitutional Act “On the State Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan,” which proclaims continuity with the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR).
To refute this assertion, it is enough to cite Prime Minister Pashinyan’s words from January 19, 2024, where he acknowledged that the country needs a new constitution to make it “more competitive and viable under new conditions.” Furthermore, in a February 1 interview with Public Radio, he indicated that the new constitution should not reference the Declaration of Independence, noting that if Yerevan’s policy is based on the reunification of Nagorno-Karabakh and the Republic of Armenia, there will be war, and peace will never be achieved.
Unlike Mirzoyan, Pashinyan seems to have familiarized himself with the discussed documents. The constitution of the Republic of Armenia is based on the “DECLARATION of Independence of Armenia,” which states: “The Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR, … realizing 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'” and so on. This clearly shows territorial claims against our state.
Now, let’s compare this with the Constitution of Azerbaijan. It contains a reference to the previously adopted Constitutional Act on the restoration of state independence, whose Article 2 states that the Republic of Azerbaijan is the successor to the ADR that existed from May 28, 1918, to April 28, 1920. Where are the territorial claims against neighbors here? Neither Georgia, Russia, nor Iran has ever expressed concerns in this regard. Similar provisions on succession are found in the constitutions of Georgia, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Russia has declared itself not only the successor but also the continuation of the USSR, thus remaining the sole nuclear power, inheriting a place on the UN Security Council, gold reserves, foreign missions, and property.
It is clear that Armenia will have to change its constitution as it contradicts not only international law but also realities. However, changing it solely to remove the reference to the Declaration of Independence, which hinders the peace treaty, is politically challenging for Pashinyan’s government. Opponents of the current regime would unite against such a referendum, and if it fails, the question of Pashinyan’s government’s resignation will arise. Therefore, it is currently advisable to request a Constitutional Court review of the legal validity of the relevant provision of the Declaration of Independence. Recall that the decision to unite the Armenian SSR and NKAO was reviewed by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and was annulled as it contradicted the current USSR Constitution. The session was broadcast on television, and the resolution was published. Although after the collapse of the USSR, Yerevan effectively extended its jurisdiction, tax, customs, financial, educational, and other systems to the occupied territory of Karabakh, internationally, the so-called “Artsakh” was positioned as an independent, though unrecognized entity. The Constitutional Court can declare the act of unification of the Armenian SSR and NKAO legally “null and void” with no legal consequences. This would remove obstacles to signing and subsequently ratifying a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan. When drafting a new constitution, these inconsistencies need to be addressed.
In any case, I would recommend that our Ministry of Foreign Affairs bring negotiations to the signing of a peace treaty to prevent Armenia and its patrons from accusing Baku of non-constructiveness. As for ratifying the treaty, there is no need to rush and it should wait until Armenia does so properly. If Pashinyan’s opponents create obstacles to ratification and the Constitutional Court engages in ambiguous legal maneuvering, all responsibility for the breakdown of the agreement will fall on the Armenian side. Incidentally, it is not necessary for the top leaders to sign the peace treaty; this can be done by the foreign ministers. After ratification by parliaments, the document will still come to the president for signature.
Rasim Musabekov
