Tweet
THE NKR CHANCES ARE INCREASING
Leonid Martirosyan
Azat Artsakh Daily,
26 July 2010
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]
A new situation is emerging in the negotiation process "International
law doesn't prohibit proclamation of independence" - this was the
July 22, 2010 verdict of the UN International Court in Hague, which,
on the initiative of Belgrade, investigated that day the validity of
Kosovo's proclamation of independence from Serbia in 2008.
And though this resolution is of recommendation character and has no
binding force, surely, it will have political and legal consequences
for the ongoing process of the modern world building. Surely, we are
interested in the resolution of the Hague Court, first of all, in
the context of the Karabakh conflict settlement. As it is known, in
the negotiation process on the determination of the future political
status of Nagorno Karabakh, the international mediators proposed
three fundamental principles of international law, two of which are
the right to self-determination and the principle of territorial
integrity. At the first look, these two principles seem to sharply
contradict each other, even to be incompatible. But, this is only at
the first look. This false opinion was considerably promoted by the
rough and uncompromising position of official Baku, which, having
no grounds in its claims for Nagorno Karabakh, staked exclusively
on the principle of territorial integrity, making it a dogma. In
fact, these two principles have quite different appliance spheres,
moreover, Nagorno Karabakh, as it was repeatedly proved, has nothing
common with the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. However, we
can state that the dispute between the right to self-determination
and the principle of territorial integrity was resolved in Hague
for the first principle. And this is quite logical, as, if we can
say so, the "status" of right is higher than that of principle,
especially that in this specific case, it is the right of a nation
to determine its own fate via its free will. Having recognized as
valid Kosovo's proclamation of independence, applying the right of
nations to self-determination, the UN International Court in Hague,
actually, expressed its respect for popular will. The recognition
of Kosovo's independence by the International Court has, actually,
become a legal precedent. The present-day history has the facts
of recognition of the independence of Eritrea from Ethiopia and
of Eastern Timor from Indonesia, but in these cases, the acts of
secession were approved by the mother countries. The uniqueness of the
Kosovo precedent is that the proclamation of Kosovo's independence
and its recognition by already tens of countries, and now by the
Hague Court, took place despite the opinion and will of Serbia. By
the way, at the hearings in Hague, the USA official representative
stated openly that international law "neither prohibits proclamation
of independence nor requires permission for this". These words can be
fully addressed to the Azerbaijani President who continues stubbornly
asserting that nobody can grant any status to Nagorno Karabakh without
Azerbaijan's consent. As we see, the world is changing. The process
of the new world building is still underway, and appearance of new
independent states at the world political map isn't excluded. But,
let's not be hopeful for this, and especially be in euphoria. Yes,
the world is changing, but nobody has repealed the notorious dual
standards and political expediency yet. As for Kosovo, it had fewer
rights to state independence, as compared with Nagorno Karabakh. In
accordance with one of the criteria of international law, a nation
can gain its self-determination in the territory of its historical
residence, which is out of any doubt in case of Nagorno Karabakh, but
the Kosovo people gained their self-determination in the territory,
which they hadn't possessed historically. However, just due to the
political expediency, they have got open and powerful support by the
western states, and later - their recognition of the independence of
the region of Kosovo. It is really so, but the Kosovo precedent will,
surely, play an important role in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
settlement and will strengthen the negotiation positions of the
NKR. A new situation is emerging, and the Karabakh party has gained
an additional and strong trump for defending its right to independent
statehood, and, consequently, its vital interests. We have more than
enough legal grounds for confirming the juridical perfection of our
steps towards our independence, and as the international community,
presented by the Hague Court, has given the priority to the right to
self-determination, so the chances of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic for
achieving its international recognition are considerably increasing. We
should only convince the international mediators that building the
modern world on the anachronistic principle "what is permissible for
Jupiter is not permissible for bull" is unacceptable and even amoral...
From: A. Papazian
Leonid Martirosyan
Azat Artsakh Daily,
26 July 2010
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]
A new situation is emerging in the negotiation process "International
law doesn't prohibit proclamation of independence" - this was the
July 22, 2010 verdict of the UN International Court in Hague, which,
on the initiative of Belgrade, investigated that day the validity of
Kosovo's proclamation of independence from Serbia in 2008.
And though this resolution is of recommendation character and has no
binding force, surely, it will have political and legal consequences
for the ongoing process of the modern world building. Surely, we are
interested in the resolution of the Hague Court, first of all, in
the context of the Karabakh conflict settlement. As it is known, in
the negotiation process on the determination of the future political
status of Nagorno Karabakh, the international mediators proposed
three fundamental principles of international law, two of which are
the right to self-determination and the principle of territorial
integrity. At the first look, these two principles seem to sharply
contradict each other, even to be incompatible. But, this is only at
the first look. This false opinion was considerably promoted by the
rough and uncompromising position of official Baku, which, having
no grounds in its claims for Nagorno Karabakh, staked exclusively
on the principle of territorial integrity, making it a dogma. In
fact, these two principles have quite different appliance spheres,
moreover, Nagorno Karabakh, as it was repeatedly proved, has nothing
common with the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. However, we
can state that the dispute between the right to self-determination
and the principle of territorial integrity was resolved in Hague
for the first principle. And this is quite logical, as, if we can
say so, the "status" of right is higher than that of principle,
especially that in this specific case, it is the right of a nation
to determine its own fate via its free will. Having recognized as
valid Kosovo's proclamation of independence, applying the right of
nations to self-determination, the UN International Court in Hague,
actually, expressed its respect for popular will. The recognition
of Kosovo's independence by the International Court has, actually,
become a legal precedent. The present-day history has the facts
of recognition of the independence of Eritrea from Ethiopia and
of Eastern Timor from Indonesia, but in these cases, the acts of
secession were approved by the mother countries. The uniqueness of the
Kosovo precedent is that the proclamation of Kosovo's independence
and its recognition by already tens of countries, and now by the
Hague Court, took place despite the opinion and will of Serbia. By
the way, at the hearings in Hague, the USA official representative
stated openly that international law "neither prohibits proclamation
of independence nor requires permission for this". These words can be
fully addressed to the Azerbaijani President who continues stubbornly
asserting that nobody can grant any status to Nagorno Karabakh without
Azerbaijan's consent. As we see, the world is changing. The process
of the new world building is still underway, and appearance of new
independent states at the world political map isn't excluded. But,
let's not be hopeful for this, and especially be in euphoria. Yes,
the world is changing, but nobody has repealed the notorious dual
standards and political expediency yet. As for Kosovo, it had fewer
rights to state independence, as compared with Nagorno Karabakh. In
accordance with one of the criteria of international law, a nation
can gain its self-determination in the territory of its historical
residence, which is out of any doubt in case of Nagorno Karabakh, but
the Kosovo people gained their self-determination in the territory,
which they hadn't possessed historically. However, just due to the
political expediency, they have got open and powerful support by the
western states, and later - their recognition of the independence of
the region of Kosovo. It is really so, but the Kosovo precedent will,
surely, play an important role in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
settlement and will strengthen the negotiation positions of the
NKR. A new situation is emerging, and the Karabakh party has gained
an additional and strong trump for defending its right to independent
statehood, and, consequently, its vital interests. We have more than
enough legal grounds for confirming the juridical perfection of our
steps towards our independence, and as the international community,
presented by the Hague Court, has given the priority to the right to
self-determination, so the chances of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic for
achieving its international recognition are considerably increasing. We
should only convince the international mediators that building the
modern world on the anachronistic principle "what is permissible for
Jupiter is not permissible for bull" is unacceptable and even amoral...
From: A. Papazian