Tweet
LIBERATED TERRITORIES IN LIGHT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Hovanes Asrian
Azat Artsakh, Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
10 April 2006
The question of liberated territories of Artsakh cannot be viewed
apart from the human rights factors. The most essential of these
is the right of people for self-determination. As characterized by
the UN Human Rights Commission, the right for self-determination
is essential to the encouragement and development of individual
human rights. The right for self-determination is set down in the UN
Conventions, the International Bill of Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as a series of other
international agreements and documents. Being one of the main rights
and having a practical role in geopolitical processes, the right
for self-determination is also widely and constantly manipulated
and distorted by countries and international organizations. A more
popular distortion is when it is opposed to the territorial integrity
of countries. If viewed from the aspect of law, this opposition becomes
groundless and illegal. Different experts have covered this question,
therefore we will dwell on other questions, related to the liberated
territories of Artsakh. The problem of liberated territories should
be viewed from the beginning, i.e. the division of Armenia in 1921. In
1921, under the March 16 agreement of Moscow and October 13 agreement
of Kars, as well as the July 5 decision of the Plenum of the Caucasian
Bureau of Central Committee of the Communist Proletarian Party of
Russia, a major part of East Armenia was annexed to the Turkic states
of Turkey and Azerbaijan. This was done with an overt violation of the
right for self-determination, and was accompanied by crimes against the
humanity, massacres, assassinations, extermination, and displacement
of people. These crimes perpetuated until the liberation of Artsakh.
It is notable that the Central Committee of Azerbaijani Communist
Party was instructed to draw the borders of the region of Artsakh
(the Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh). Thus, the territories,
disputed at various international organizations, are the result of
the division of Armenia and Artsakh.
>From this point of view, these organizations may be driven by political
interests and motives in accepting the borders drawn under Stalin, but
legally and morally this is not reasonable and valid. It is obvious
that the Artsakh was joined to Azerbaijan against the will of the
native people, encroaching upon their right for self-determination,
and in law this is annexation. All the other territories inside
the Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh and outside its "borders"
have the same status. These are illegally annexed and later partly
liberated territories, and now are an indivisible part of Nagorno
Karabakh Republic. The annexation of these territories by Azerbaijan
for several decades cannot act as a legal factor to underlie the
territorial claims of Azerbaijan. Still at the time of division
of Armenia the principle "Ex injuria non oritus jus" worked in
international law. In other words, no right emanates from limitations
if the state of things is the result of illegal actions.
Therefore the attempts of Azerbaijanis to refer to the documents on
Soviet administrative divisions are groundless. First, the annexation
of Artsakh was illegal, second, the law was violated by the Soviet
government, and third, by the October 18, 1991 constitutional act
on the independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan Azerbaijan was
declared the successor of the first Azerbaijani republic (1918-1920)
and not Soviet Azerbaijan, and Karabakh has never been part of the
first Azerbaijani republic. The constant violation of the right for
self-determination of the people of Artsakh since 1921 was ended
by the proclamation of NKR in 1991 and the liberation of part of
these territories. Returning these territories to Azerbaijan would
mean returning the situation when human rights were constantly
violated. Countries are to honour human rights and abstain from
actions of violating these rights. Therefore, countries, including
the Republic of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh Republic, must never
consider any question of possibility or adequacy of violating human
rights. Moreover, under Articles 55-56 of the UN Conventions the
members of the UN must honour the equality of peoples, their right
for self-determination, basic human rights and freedoms. In addition,
under the principles of the international law on friendship and
partnership of states, countries must abstain from actions involving
force, that deprive peoples of their right for self-determination,
otherwise the declaration provides for the right to solicit and accept
assistance from other countries. Besides, this declaration points
out that each country must assist in the fulfilment of the principle
of equal rights and the right for self-determination of peoples. In
debates on the Karabakh state and the liberated territories of Artsakh
countries often use the formula-motto "resolution without winners and
losers", which would not fit into the real essence of the problem. The
Azerbaijani mini-empire simply lost part of its annexed territories in
the result of the establishment of NKR and liberation of some annexed
territories. Hence, presenting Azerbaijan as a loser gives birth to
and nourishes revenge in this country, and Azerbaijan draws farther
from the settlement of the problem. After the independence of colonies
a colonial country cannot be considered a loser, because annexation
and colonization are generally against the law. The countries of
Western Europe, losing their colonies in the past decades, did not
become losers and are not trying to return the countries that became
independent. Lasting peace in the region is possible through resolution
of problems on the basis of the international law.
Hovanes Asrian
Azat Artsakh, Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
10 April 2006
The question of liberated territories of Artsakh cannot be viewed
apart from the human rights factors. The most essential of these
is the right of people for self-determination. As characterized by
the UN Human Rights Commission, the right for self-determination
is essential to the encouragement and development of individual
human rights. The right for self-determination is set down in the UN
Conventions, the International Bill of Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as a series of other
international agreements and documents. Being one of the main rights
and having a practical role in geopolitical processes, the right
for self-determination is also widely and constantly manipulated
and distorted by countries and international organizations. A more
popular distortion is when it is opposed to the territorial integrity
of countries. If viewed from the aspect of law, this opposition becomes
groundless and illegal. Different experts have covered this question,
therefore we will dwell on other questions, related to the liberated
territories of Artsakh. The problem of liberated territories should
be viewed from the beginning, i.e. the division of Armenia in 1921. In
1921, under the March 16 agreement of Moscow and October 13 agreement
of Kars, as well as the July 5 decision of the Plenum of the Caucasian
Bureau of Central Committee of the Communist Proletarian Party of
Russia, a major part of East Armenia was annexed to the Turkic states
of Turkey and Azerbaijan. This was done with an overt violation of the
right for self-determination, and was accompanied by crimes against the
humanity, massacres, assassinations, extermination, and displacement
of people. These crimes perpetuated until the liberation of Artsakh.
It is notable that the Central Committee of Azerbaijani Communist
Party was instructed to draw the borders of the region of Artsakh
(the Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh). Thus, the territories,
disputed at various international organizations, are the result of
the division of Armenia and Artsakh.
>From this point of view, these organizations may be driven by political
interests and motives in accepting the borders drawn under Stalin, but
legally and morally this is not reasonable and valid. It is obvious
that the Artsakh was joined to Azerbaijan against the will of the
native people, encroaching upon their right for self-determination,
and in law this is annexation. All the other territories inside
the Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh and outside its "borders"
have the same status. These are illegally annexed and later partly
liberated territories, and now are an indivisible part of Nagorno
Karabakh Republic. The annexation of these territories by Azerbaijan
for several decades cannot act as a legal factor to underlie the
territorial claims of Azerbaijan. Still at the time of division
of Armenia the principle "Ex injuria non oritus jus" worked in
international law. In other words, no right emanates from limitations
if the state of things is the result of illegal actions.
Therefore the attempts of Azerbaijanis to refer to the documents on
Soviet administrative divisions are groundless. First, the annexation
of Artsakh was illegal, second, the law was violated by the Soviet
government, and third, by the October 18, 1991 constitutional act
on the independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan Azerbaijan was
declared the successor of the first Azerbaijani republic (1918-1920)
and not Soviet Azerbaijan, and Karabakh has never been part of the
first Azerbaijani republic. The constant violation of the right for
self-determination of the people of Artsakh since 1921 was ended
by the proclamation of NKR in 1991 and the liberation of part of
these territories. Returning these territories to Azerbaijan would
mean returning the situation when human rights were constantly
violated. Countries are to honour human rights and abstain from
actions of violating these rights. Therefore, countries, including
the Republic of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh Republic, must never
consider any question of possibility or adequacy of violating human
rights. Moreover, under Articles 55-56 of the UN Conventions the
members of the UN must honour the equality of peoples, their right
for self-determination, basic human rights and freedoms. In addition,
under the principles of the international law on friendship and
partnership of states, countries must abstain from actions involving
force, that deprive peoples of their right for self-determination,
otherwise the declaration provides for the right to solicit and accept
assistance from other countries. Besides, this declaration points
out that each country must assist in the fulfilment of the principle
of equal rights and the right for self-determination of peoples. In
debates on the Karabakh state and the liberated territories of Artsakh
countries often use the formula-motto "resolution without winners and
losers", which would not fit into the real essence of the problem. The
Azerbaijani mini-empire simply lost part of its annexed territories in
the result of the establishment of NKR and liberation of some annexed
territories. Hence, presenting Azerbaijan as a loser gives birth to
and nourishes revenge in this country, and Azerbaijan draws farther
from the settlement of the problem. After the independence of colonies
a colonial country cannot be considered a loser, because annexation
and colonization are generally against the law. The countries of
Western Europe, losing their colonies in the past decades, did not
become losers and are not trying to return the countries that became
independent. Lasting peace in the region is possible through resolution
of problems on the basis of the international law.