Tweet
A SNARE OF WORDS
10:24:42 - 25/09/2009
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments-lr ahos15298.html
It is simply incredible how innovatively the snares have been woven
into that unfortunate pair of Armenian-Turkish protocols. Let us take
up but one of many.
Many drew attention to the fact that the vagueness in deadlines in the
protocols for parliamentary ratifications can cause the parties to
drag out the actual enforcing of the protocols. This is a very valid
concern. Even more so, when those in power in Turkey have announced on
numerous occasions that the protocols would not be carried out
`without significant progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict'.
Progress, naturally, à la Turquie.
However, the protocols themselves contain two more loopholes for
procrastination on acting on them. The penultimate clauses of the
protocols clearly state that the protocols would be enforced
`following the exchange of instruments of ratification'. In general,
international or inter-state ratification of documents proceed as
follows. Upon parliamentary approval (which, for some reason, is
referred to as `ratification' in the Armenian Constitution), the
protocols have to be ratified by the heads of state, as is the order,
and only then would instruments of ratification be
exchanged. International law does not take into account any deadlines
when it comes to exchanging instruments of ratification and the
ratification itself by heads of state of documents that have been
approved (or `ratified') by legislatures. Since that process, even in
general terms, has not been clearly outlined in the pair of protocols
as well, then it turns out that the protocols contain a three-tier
possibility of delay: parliamentary approval (`ratification'),
presidential ratification, and the exchange of the instruments of
ratification.
For example, the ill-reputed Treaty of Moscow (of the 16th of March,
1921), had a provision of the exchange of instruments of ratification
`as soon as possible'.[1] The Treaty of Kars - even more ill-reputed -
demanded it `within the shortest possible time'.[2]
Of course, it is possible that the Turks not delay at all the
parliamentary approval of the protocols and the exchange of the
instruments of ratification. Ultimately, they are working towards the
complete fulfillment of their demand, that the Republic of Armenia
`confirm[...] ... the existing border between the two countries'. The
rest - the Genocide issue, Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. - are simply
bonuses. If they pull it off, all well and good. If they don't manage
it now, even then it comes to the same thing, as they are to hold the
reins to the Armenian state from now on.
If some people are ready today to pay a high, an unjustifiably high
price in order to lift the blockade on Armenia by Turkey, then they
need to act such that the delivery on the paid goods be made on time
and that there not be any further, hidden costs.
ARA PAPIAN
Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre
24 September, 2009
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
10:24:42 - 25/09/2009
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments-lr ahos15298.html
It is simply incredible how innovatively the snares have been woven
into that unfortunate pair of Armenian-Turkish protocols. Let us take
up but one of many.
Many drew attention to the fact that the vagueness in deadlines in the
protocols for parliamentary ratifications can cause the parties to
drag out the actual enforcing of the protocols. This is a very valid
concern. Even more so, when those in power in Turkey have announced on
numerous occasions that the protocols would not be carried out
`without significant progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict'.
Progress, naturally, à la Turquie.
However, the protocols themselves contain two more loopholes for
procrastination on acting on them. The penultimate clauses of the
protocols clearly state that the protocols would be enforced
`following the exchange of instruments of ratification'. In general,
international or inter-state ratification of documents proceed as
follows. Upon parliamentary approval (which, for some reason, is
referred to as `ratification' in the Armenian Constitution), the
protocols have to be ratified by the heads of state, as is the order,
and only then would instruments of ratification be
exchanged. International law does not take into account any deadlines
when it comes to exchanging instruments of ratification and the
ratification itself by heads of state of documents that have been
approved (or `ratified') by legislatures. Since that process, even in
general terms, has not been clearly outlined in the pair of protocols
as well, then it turns out that the protocols contain a three-tier
possibility of delay: parliamentary approval (`ratification'),
presidential ratification, and the exchange of the instruments of
ratification.
For example, the ill-reputed Treaty of Moscow (of the 16th of March,
1921), had a provision of the exchange of instruments of ratification
`as soon as possible'.[1] The Treaty of Kars - even more ill-reputed -
demanded it `within the shortest possible time'.[2]
Of course, it is possible that the Turks not delay at all the
parliamentary approval of the protocols and the exchange of the
instruments of ratification. Ultimately, they are working towards the
complete fulfillment of their demand, that the Republic of Armenia
`confirm[...] ... the existing border between the two countries'. The
rest - the Genocide issue, Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. - are simply
bonuses. If they pull it off, all well and good. If they don't manage
it now, even then it comes to the same thing, as they are to hold the
reins to the Armenian state from now on.
If some people are ready today to pay a high, an unjustifiably high
price in order to lift the blockade on Armenia by Turkey, then they
need to act such that the delivery on the paid goods be made on time
and that there not be any further, hidden costs.
ARA PAPIAN
Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre
24 September, 2009
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress