Tweet
PRESIDENT SARGSYAN'S POSITION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW - ANALYST
Aliyah Fridman News.Az
news.az
Feb 12 2010
Azerbaijan
Neil MacFarlane News.Az interviews Neil MacFarlane, head of the
Department of Politics and International Relations at Oxford
University.
What is you your common impression from the speech of Armenian
president at Chatham house?
I was surprised at the tone of the speech. But I don't think it
changes much. Leaders on both sides have frequently engaged in the
discourse of confrontation before.
The documents of all international organization including 4
resolutions of UN Security Council as well as resolution adopted
by Council of Europe and cetera recognize Karabakh as a part of
Azerbaijan. How would you comment on Sargsyan's attempts to justify
military occupation a part of Azerbaijan during 188-1994 years by
referring to international law?
I do not believe that the position he takes can be justified in
international law.
President Aliyev says that if the negotiations with Armenia fail
Azerbaijan has a right to liberate its occupied territories in a frame
of Azerbaijani borders recognized by UN in 1991 (including Karabakh).
Is there any contradiction of law?
The UN charter does not prohibit the use of force by a government
within iits domestic jurisdiction. Although the Minsk process and the
UN Security Council engagement have internationalised the conflict to
a degree, to my mind it would be difficult to make a legal argument
that Karabakh was not part of Azerbaijani territorial jurisdiction.
Obviously, if Azerbaijan chose to use force (and I hope it does
not), it would be subject to the laws of war and to international
humanitarian law, which are frequently deemed to apply to civil
conflicts as well as international ones.
Russia is strategic military partner of Armenia, and besides there
are facts about participations of Russian soldiers in Karabakh war
on Armenian side (for instance in massacre of Azeri population in
Khojaly in 1992). Anyway there is an opinion in Baku that the keys
of Karabakh problem lie in Moscow. What do you think about Russian's
influence on Karabakh settlement?
I think that the Russian Federation is currently playing a fairly
constructive role in the effort to resolve this conflict. The
persistence of the conflict is an obstacle to Russia's pursuit of
other interests in the region and with Turkey. However, I am not
sure that Russian pressure could produce a compromise on either the
Armenian or the Azerbaijani side.
Azerbaijan proposes a highest possible level of autonomy for those,
who live in Nagorno-Karabakh (Armenians as well as Azerbaijanis, who
are refugees now). But Armenia demands independence for Karabakh. Do
you expect that international community will recognize independence
of Karabakh if Armenia will do it itself and thus a continuation of
practice demonstrated recently in Kosovo, Sought Ossetia and Abkhazia?
No. South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been recognised by Russia,
Nicaragua, and Nauru. That is not the "international community". The
Kosovo case is not obviously comparable to that in Karabakh. To my
mind, there is little reason to expect that major countries would
recognise Karabakh.
However, there is one necessary qualification. if it became clear
(as it did in Kosovo) that the Armenian population in Karabakh was at
risk of massive displacement or killing, then that might justify an
exception to the general rule of territorial integrity on the basis
of the notion of "remedial secession".
Neil MacFarlane is head of the Department of Politics and International
Relations at Oxford University, Associate Fellow at Chatham House
(London).
Aliyah Fridman News.Az
news.az
Feb 12 2010
Azerbaijan
Neil MacFarlane News.Az interviews Neil MacFarlane, head of the
Department of Politics and International Relations at Oxford
University.
What is you your common impression from the speech of Armenian
president at Chatham house?
I was surprised at the tone of the speech. But I don't think it
changes much. Leaders on both sides have frequently engaged in the
discourse of confrontation before.
The documents of all international organization including 4
resolutions of UN Security Council as well as resolution adopted
by Council of Europe and cetera recognize Karabakh as a part of
Azerbaijan. How would you comment on Sargsyan's attempts to justify
military occupation a part of Azerbaijan during 188-1994 years by
referring to international law?
I do not believe that the position he takes can be justified in
international law.
President Aliyev says that if the negotiations with Armenia fail
Azerbaijan has a right to liberate its occupied territories in a frame
of Azerbaijani borders recognized by UN in 1991 (including Karabakh).
Is there any contradiction of law?
The UN charter does not prohibit the use of force by a government
within iits domestic jurisdiction. Although the Minsk process and the
UN Security Council engagement have internationalised the conflict to
a degree, to my mind it would be difficult to make a legal argument
that Karabakh was not part of Azerbaijani territorial jurisdiction.
Obviously, if Azerbaijan chose to use force (and I hope it does
not), it would be subject to the laws of war and to international
humanitarian law, which are frequently deemed to apply to civil
conflicts as well as international ones.
Russia is strategic military partner of Armenia, and besides there
are facts about participations of Russian soldiers in Karabakh war
on Armenian side (for instance in massacre of Azeri population in
Khojaly in 1992). Anyway there is an opinion in Baku that the keys
of Karabakh problem lie in Moscow. What do you think about Russian's
influence on Karabakh settlement?
I think that the Russian Federation is currently playing a fairly
constructive role in the effort to resolve this conflict. The
persistence of the conflict is an obstacle to Russia's pursuit of
other interests in the region and with Turkey. However, I am not
sure that Russian pressure could produce a compromise on either the
Armenian or the Azerbaijani side.
Azerbaijan proposes a highest possible level of autonomy for those,
who live in Nagorno-Karabakh (Armenians as well as Azerbaijanis, who
are refugees now). But Armenia demands independence for Karabakh. Do
you expect that international community will recognize independence
of Karabakh if Armenia will do it itself and thus a continuation of
practice demonstrated recently in Kosovo, Sought Ossetia and Abkhazia?
No. South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been recognised by Russia,
Nicaragua, and Nauru. That is not the "international community". The
Kosovo case is not obviously comparable to that in Karabakh. To my
mind, there is little reason to expect that major countries would
recognise Karabakh.
However, there is one necessary qualification. if it became clear
(as it did in Kosovo) that the Armenian population in Karabakh was at
risk of massive displacement or killing, then that might justify an
exception to the general rule of territorial integrity on the basis
of the notion of "remedial secession".
Neil MacFarlane is head of the Department of Politics and International
Relations at Oxford University, Associate Fellow at Chatham House
(London).