The South Caucasus is on the verge of history, with a real chance of a peace agreement being signed between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Negotiations are being conducted directly between the two countries and without the involvement of third parties, highlighting the importance of bilateral diplomacy.
The agenda of the on-going negotiations includes the mutual recognition of each other’s territorial integrity, border delimitation, the unblocking of transport communications and the signing of the final peace agreement. However, despite clear steps in the peace process, the agreement remains unsigned two years later. This is due to the existence of legal and political obstacles on the peace track, including Armenia’s own legal framework. This allows the country to refer to key documents which contain territorial claims against Azerbaijan, in contrast to internationally recognized borders.
In Prague, on 6 October 2022, Armenia announced its adherence to the UN Charter and the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration. This announcement means that Yerevan recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, including the Karabakh region, and is ready to build relations with its neighbours based on mutual sovereignty. However, despite such an important step, the Armenian Constitution still contains a reference to the 1990 Declaration of Independence, where the “fact of merging with the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” is openly mentioned. Such a formulation cannot just be historical rhetoric.
This is a legally binding position, which despite statements to the contrary implies the existence of territorial claims against Azerbaijan. This results in a paradoxical situation. On one hand, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan openly recognizes Karabakh as a part of Azerbaijan, whereas on the other the country’s main legal document contains a norm which directly contradicts this recognition. This legal-political dissonance casts a shadow on the genuineness of peace initiatives and complicates the process of signing a comprehensive peace agreement.
Another key element of Armenia’s legal position continues to be the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic Armenia dated 8 July 2022, which directly states: “To consider unacceptable for the Republic of Armenia any international or intrastate document which refers to Karabakh as a part of Azerbaijan, consequently supporting the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and the defence of the rights of its population”. This Resolution remains in force, even though the Armenian Parliament could have, in a gesture of political good will, voided the decision on the grounds of it being outdated and in contradiction to the spirit of the negotiation process. The document essentially consolidates the direct political and legal involvement of Armenia in Karabakh’s matters, forbidding the recognition of any international or domestic acts, which label Karabakh as a part of Azerbaijan. Hence, this Resolution, recorded on an official level and possessing clear signs of territorial claims against Azerbaijan, is another serious legal obstacle for the signing of a peace agreement.
Moreover, in the Armenian political discourse one continues to note claims that, apparently, Azerbaijan’s Declaration of Independence also contains territorial claims against Armenia. Such affirmations appear to be, above all, attempts to create a perception of symmetrical responsibility of the parties. However, from a legal perspective, such statements do not contain any legal basis. Such rhetoric is increasingly being interpreted as political manipulation, which the Armenian side relies upon to justify its Constitution.
In order to understand who actually advances territorial claims, a decision was made to consult key documents upon which the statehood of the countries of the South Caucasus is based upon. This refers to the Declarations of Independence of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia but also their respective Constitutions. Directly comparing these documents will enable the reaching of a clear answer to the following issue – which state’s position was initially of an expansionist nature and which state adhered to key principles of international law and territorial integrity.
Analysis of the Declarations of Independence
Armenia: Armenia was the first South Caucasus republic to adopt a Declaration of Independence, even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, dated 23 August 1990. By referring to this document, Armenia strengthened its territorial claims to Karabakh. It must be noted that at the moment of the adoption of this Declaration the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was de-jure a part of the Azerbaijani SSR. Nevertheless, Armenia openly expressed its territorial claims in its Constitution, officially establishing annexation as a foreign policy objective. The Declaration states: “The Republic of Armenia confirms the fact of the reunification of Armenia with the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic”. For many years, it was this precise formulation that served as Armenia’s main position with regards to Karabakh, leading to long-term consequences. It helped legalize separatism in Karabakh, provided Armenia with a moral-legal basis for involvement in military action on the territory of Azerbaijan in the 1990s, and, essentially, cemented the conflict for decades.
Azerbaijan: Unlike Armenia, Azerbaijan constructed its Declaration of Independence on the basis of historical continuity and the restoration of lost statehood, avoiding expansionist rhetoric. The document was adopted on 30 August 1991. The document places emphasis on the recovery of lost independence and not on the review of the borders of neighbouring states. The document does not contain a single mention of Armenia, its territory or populated areas outside the borders of Azerbaijani SSR. The Declaration only mentions that between 1918-1920 the Azerbaijani Republic existed as an independent state, recognized by the international community. With regards to the Constitution of Azerbaijan, the Constitutional Act on state sovereignty, adopted on 18 October 1991, highlights that the Republic of Azerbaijan (modern-day) is the legal successor of the Republic of Azerbaijan which had existed between 28 May 1918 until 28 April 1920.
Georgia: Georgia also formalized its independence through the Act of Succession of the Georgian Democratic Republic (1918-1921). This document portrays Georgia’s exit from the USSR as a restoration of independence, previously lost as a result of occupation by Bolshevik Russia. The Declaration was adopted on 9 April 1991. It is important to note that neither the Declaration itself nor the Georgian Constitution contain any kind of references to the territory of neighbouring states, underlining its adherence to the principles of territorial integrity and the absence of territorial claims against neighbouring states. It is also important to note that between 1918-1921, parts of the territory of contemporary Armenia, specifically the Lori region, was also included in the territory of the Georgian Democratic Republic.
Consequently, one can conclude that only Armenia’s Declaration and Constitution contain territorial claims to another subject – Azerbaijan. These claims obtained legal confirmation, meaning they are not just a political position but actually an officially established legal fact.
Political manipulations
In contrast to Armenia, Azerbaijan’s position on this matter is clear and definitive. Azerbaijan never used territorial claims as the basis for its foreign policy. Official documents and statements of Azerbaijan were focused on restoring sovereignty within internationally recognized borders without references to the territory of other states.
Nevertheless, Armenian officials have recently, and with increasing frequency, made legally baseless statements, claiming that Azerbaijan, by announcing itself as the legal successor to the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic (ADR), indirectly presents territorial claims against Armenia. They are referring to the fact that the borders of the ADR included certain territories of modern-day Armenia. However, this argument cannot withstand legal or political critique. Even if Armenian representatives do not consider this issue as a pre-condition to a peace agreement, the occasional voicing of such rhetoric in the public sphere creates a distorted picture for the international audience.
Moreover, by making such statements Armenian officials further reinforce an already uncomfortable question for their own side. If the legal succession of a historical government is interpreted by Armenia as a potential territorial claim, a logical question arises: is Armenia also accusing Georgia of territorial claims? In its Act on the Restoration of Independence of April 9, 1991, Georgia also noted that it is “restoring state independence on the basis of the succession of the Georgian Democratic Republic (1918-1921)”. It should be noted that between 1918-1921, parts of the territory of modern-day Armenia were also included in the territory of Georgia. Hence, if legal succession by Azerbaijan is interpreted as a claim towards the territory of Armenia, such statements on the international arena place Armenia in conflict with key principles.
Prior to making such statements, one must consult international law. With regards to ‘succession of states’, several key concepts exist which must be taken into consideration. One such concept is the “new independent state”, relating to the successor state, the territory of which prior to the succession belonged to the ‘predecessor state’. In Azerbaijan’s case, when the country regained independence in 1991, the territory to which it aspired was the territory of Azerbaijani SSR and not the territory of the first Azerbaijan Republic. For this reason, the Alma-Ata becomes relevant, and the “Uti Possidetis” principle can be directly implemented. This principle states that when governments are established as a consequence of the disintegration or dismemberment of existing states, it is assumed that their governments will coincide with the borders of former internal administrative divisions. Therefore, Azerbaijan is not advancing claims to its neighbours but is restoring sovereignty within its legal and historical borders, recognized during the period of the USSR and by the international community after 1991. It is also important to highlight that unlike the Armenian Constitution, the Azerbaijani Constitution does not contain references to the territory of a neighbouring state. All of Azerbaijan’s reasoning concerns exclusively the right of its population to independence.
In practice, the succession of Azerbaijan and Georgia in the acts of independence only implies the historical and symbolic legitimization of the restoration of statehood, rather than a review of modern borders. This is confirmed by the absence of any kind of territorial requirements to neighbours in relevant documents, as well as by the mutual recognition of all republics within the framework of the Alma-Ata Declaration. Moreover, international practice clearly demonstrates that historical succession does not imply the existence of territorial claims. Hence, attempts to treat succession of the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic as a ‘threat’ is an artificial and politicized interpretation, directed at the prolonging of the negotiation process as opposed to the achievement of peace.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it must be pointed out that the peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan must be based on principles of international law, including the respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders, and not on political rhetoric.
A historical and legal analysis demonstrates that Armenia consolidated territorial claims in its underlying legal acts, including the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, even though Azerbaijan and Georgia have not included similar claims in their respective official documents. Consequently, any statement by the Armenia side about “mutual claims” is a political myth rather than any kind of legal argument, aimed at complicating dialogue and meddling in the negotiation process. The Constitution as well several other documents of the Republic of Armenia create a legal issue – until relevant changes are not made, Armenia will maintain its legal commitment to territories which are internationally recognized as sovereign territories of Azerbaijan. For eventual peace to be reached in the region, Armenia must void certain regulations and change its Constitution by removing provisions that contradict international law and reality.
Fuad Abdullayev is a research fellow at the Center for Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center) in Baku, Azerbaijan.
