Tweet
WILL GAGIK HARUTYUNYAN, CONSTITUTIONAL COURT'S CHAIR, HELP ARMENIA AVOID BECOMING A BANANA REPUBLIC?
By Appo Jabarian
USA Armenian Life Magazine
December 18, 2009
Nearly three weeks have passed since Pres. Serzh Sargsyan submitted the
Armenia-Turkey Protocols to the Constitutional Court on November 19.
It is understood that under Armenia's laws 1) All international
agreements have to be submitted to the Constitutional Court,
prior to their consideration by Parliament for ratification; 2) The
Constitutional Court has 90 days from date of submission to announcing
its decision; 3) The Court has the authority to decide whether the
obligations deriving from such an international agreement are in
conformity with Armenia's Constitution.
The general consensus and widespread expectation among Armenians both
in Armenia and its Diaspora is that the Court should not rubber-stamp
the government's decision.
Some political observers and watchdog groups fear that Tte Court
- instead of being truly independent - would be heavily guided by
cronyism. They view Gagik Harutyunyan, the Constitutional Court's Chair
as being biased in favor of the Protocols and they even suggest that he
recuse himself from the Court's decision-making process regarding the
Protocols. Mr. Harutyunyan accompanied Pres. Sargsyan on his recent
pan-Diaspora "consulting tour," promoting the Protocols as being
"in Armenia's best interest."
Any normal sovereign state that is guided by democratic principles
shall vigilantly maintain the independence of its three branches
of government a) the Legislature (the Parliament); the Executive
(the President and his Administration); and the Judiciary (the
Constitutional Court and the entire judicial system).
In a healthy democracy, these three branches individually function
as counter-balancing powers. One would never see the Chief Justice
of the United States Supreme Court accompanying Pres. Obama on a
nationwide or worldwide presidential tour promoting U.S. involvement
in the Afghanistan War or healthcare plan. That would surely undermine
the Supreme Court's independence.
Mr. Harutyunyan, by accompanying Pres. Sargsyan on the Protocols
Promotion Tour, has certainly raised many eyebrows all the way from
Yerevan to Stepanakert, the capital of Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno
Karabagh Republic), to Paris, New York, Los Angeles, Moscow, Beirut
and many other parts of the world. It has also caused fears that the
Court may fail in its stated mission.
But now the Court's Chair, Mr. Harutyunyan, has a historic
opportunity to not only allay these fears for bias and cronyism,
but most importantly, to help the sovereign Armenian statehood lay
the foundation for a truly independent Judicial branch of government,
counter-balancing both the Republican Party-controlled Executive and
the Legislative branches.
The Court may consider "adding a provision that would give the Armenian
government the right to unilaterally abrogate this agreement, should
Turkey violate any of its provisions after ratification.
...Given the critical nature of the proposed Protocols and their
long-term impact on Armenia's national interest, it is expected that
the Constitutional Court would approach this case with the utmost
seriousness and responsibility. ...Since it appears that the Armenian
government is intent on going through with these Protocols despite
all objections, the Constitutional Court and the Armenian Parliament
should attempt to minimize the damage to be caused to the country's
national interests by adding specific reservations and clarifications
prior to their eventual ratification," wrote Harut Sassounian, the
Publisher of The California Courier.
Can the Court under Mr. Harutyunyan be true to its mission in
independently, objectively, and fairly deciding whether the obligations
deriving from the international agreement - The Protocols - are in
conformity with Armenia's Constitution?
Will Mr. Harutyunyan act in the best interest of the nation or will
he simply rubber-stamp the government's agenda? Does Mr. Harutyunyan
have the judicial courage that his position as the Chairman of the
Court requires? Will he muster enough willpower to help Armenia avoid
becoming a banana republic?
By Appo Jabarian
USA Armenian Life Magazine
December 18, 2009
Nearly three weeks have passed since Pres. Serzh Sargsyan submitted the
Armenia-Turkey Protocols to the Constitutional Court on November 19.
It is understood that under Armenia's laws 1) All international
agreements have to be submitted to the Constitutional Court,
prior to their consideration by Parliament for ratification; 2) The
Constitutional Court has 90 days from date of submission to announcing
its decision; 3) The Court has the authority to decide whether the
obligations deriving from such an international agreement are in
conformity with Armenia's Constitution.
The general consensus and widespread expectation among Armenians both
in Armenia and its Diaspora is that the Court should not rubber-stamp
the government's decision.
Some political observers and watchdog groups fear that Tte Court
- instead of being truly independent - would be heavily guided by
cronyism. They view Gagik Harutyunyan, the Constitutional Court's Chair
as being biased in favor of the Protocols and they even suggest that he
recuse himself from the Court's decision-making process regarding the
Protocols. Mr. Harutyunyan accompanied Pres. Sargsyan on his recent
pan-Diaspora "consulting tour," promoting the Protocols as being
"in Armenia's best interest."
Any normal sovereign state that is guided by democratic principles
shall vigilantly maintain the independence of its three branches
of government a) the Legislature (the Parliament); the Executive
(the President and his Administration); and the Judiciary (the
Constitutional Court and the entire judicial system).
In a healthy democracy, these three branches individually function
as counter-balancing powers. One would never see the Chief Justice
of the United States Supreme Court accompanying Pres. Obama on a
nationwide or worldwide presidential tour promoting U.S. involvement
in the Afghanistan War or healthcare plan. That would surely undermine
the Supreme Court's independence.
Mr. Harutyunyan, by accompanying Pres. Sargsyan on the Protocols
Promotion Tour, has certainly raised many eyebrows all the way from
Yerevan to Stepanakert, the capital of Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno
Karabagh Republic), to Paris, New York, Los Angeles, Moscow, Beirut
and many other parts of the world. It has also caused fears that the
Court may fail in its stated mission.
But now the Court's Chair, Mr. Harutyunyan, has a historic
opportunity to not only allay these fears for bias and cronyism,
but most importantly, to help the sovereign Armenian statehood lay
the foundation for a truly independent Judicial branch of government,
counter-balancing both the Republican Party-controlled Executive and
the Legislative branches.
The Court may consider "adding a provision that would give the Armenian
government the right to unilaterally abrogate this agreement, should
Turkey violate any of its provisions after ratification.
...Given the critical nature of the proposed Protocols and their
long-term impact on Armenia's national interest, it is expected that
the Constitutional Court would approach this case with the utmost
seriousness and responsibility. ...Since it appears that the Armenian
government is intent on going through with these Protocols despite
all objections, the Constitutional Court and the Armenian Parliament
should attempt to minimize the damage to be caused to the country's
national interests by adding specific reservations and clarifications
prior to their eventual ratification," wrote Harut Sassounian, the
Publisher of The California Courier.
Can the Court under Mr. Harutyunyan be true to its mission in
independently, objectively, and fairly deciding whether the obligations
deriving from the international agreement - The Protocols - are in
conformity with Armenia's Constitution?
Will Mr. Harutyunyan act in the best interest of the nation or will
he simply rubber-stamp the government's agenda? Does Mr. Harutyunyan
have the judicial courage that his position as the Chairman of the
Court requires? Will he muster enough willpower to help Armenia avoid
becoming a banana republic?