Tweet
Lragir.am
WHAT OCCUPATION ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
The Tatars of Baku and their overlords, the Turks of Istanbul,
regularly bring up the so-called occupation of a part of the Republic
of Azerbaijan by the Republic of Armenia. These claims are completely
baseless. Proper foundations are necessary to allege such a thing. One
of the bases would be the prevalence of the title to the territories
in question codified by international law. That is, for any part of
any territory of Azerbaijan to be considered occupied by anyone, it is
necessary that Azerbaijan possess and present the international
document by which the title of the Republic of Azerbaijan be
recognised to that allegedly occupied territory. This is a basic
principle of international law, and it is clear. The rightful
possession of any territory by any state is based on the title
codified by a legal international document and by the sovereignty
established over that territory.
Let us briefly take up the title to Nagorno-Karabakh over the course
of the last few centuries. By the Turkish-Persian Treaty of Amasia,
the title to Nagorno-Karabakh was internationally codified in 1555 to
Persia. At the beginning of the 19th century, the eastern part of the
South Caucasus ended up as part of the Russian Empire; accordingly, by
the Treaty of Gyulistan of 1813, the Russian title to Nagorno-Karabakh
was codified. It is indisputable that from 1813 to 1918 the title and
sovereignty of the Russian Empire was unquestionably established over
Karabakh (I include the mountainous parts - Nagorno-Karabakh or
`Highland Karabakh' - as well as the valleys - `Lowland Karabakh').
Due to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, although uncertain
circumstances arose in the South Caucasus with to the collapse of the
Russian Empire, things were quite clear until January of 1920 from the
perspective of international law and territorial title, as, until
January of 1920, the international community refused to recognise the
three newly-established states of the South Caucasus, consequently
continuing to recognise the title of the Russian Empire. It was only
in January of 1920 that, by the countries of the Supreme Council of
the Paris Peace Conference - Great Britain, France, and Italy - the
independence of the countries of the South Caucasus was recognised.
So, until then, from May of 1918 to January of 1920, the republics of
Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan remained essentially, as the
contemporary expression goes, merely self-declared republics. It is
important to emphasise that the recognition by the Paris Peace
Conference clearly included a criterion - the borders of the South
Caucasus countries were to be determined in future by the Paris Peace
Conference. It is necessary to stress here that, between the
declaration in May of 1918 to the recognition in January of 1920 of
the republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan, not only was there no
recognition of any title of the Republic of Azerbaijan to
Nagorno-Karabakh, the Republic of Azerbaijan did not exercise any
manner of effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh either. What is
more, Karabakh was much more effectively under control of the
locally-established Armenian authorities and forces.
One month after the recognition by the Paris Peace Conference, on the
24th of February, 1920, the Commission for the Delimitation of the
Boundaries of Armenia - with the participation of representatives from
Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, and now already on behalf of
the League of Nations - the principles of delimitation of boundaries
in the South Caucasus were clarified with a joint report. That is, the
boundaries of Armenia and Georgia, and Armenia and Azerbaijan would be
drawn `taking into account, in principle, ethnographic data'.[1] As it
happens, the massacres of Shoushi of March, 1920, were based mostly on
this decision; the Tatars of the Caucasus attempted to alter, in the
style of the Turks, the demographic picture of Nagorno-Karabakh.
However, this decision was not fated to be realised, as Azerbaijan, by
April, 1920, and Armenia, by December, 1920, were already occupied by
the Bolshevik 11th Army, and those states ceased to exist. What
happened next is better known, that the newly-established Soviet
authorities carried out administrative divisions by party decisions
and vast territories with Armenian populations - which, by the
application of the principle of the Paris Peace Conference, would
indisputably have been part of Armenia - were made administratively
subject to Baku. Naturally, there can be no talk of any
internationally-codified title here. No decisions by a political party
can create any legal precedent in international law and codify any
title to any territory. The formerly-independent Georgia, Armenia and
Azerbaijan themselves bore the status of occupied countries from
1920/21 to 1924. Later on, from February of 1924, by the recognition
of the Soviet Union, the annexation of those countries was recognised
in turn. Accordingly, from 1924, the title and sovereignty of the
Soviet Union to the entire South Caucasus, including Nagorno-Karabakh,
was unquestionably recognised.
In 1991, when Azerbaijan declared itself independent of the Soviet
Union, Nagorno-Karabakh was already, de facto, independent. That is to
say, ever since the re-establishment of its independence, the Republic
of Azerbaijan has not held effective control over the territory of the
Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh for even a single day. What is more, as
Azerbaijan declared itself the direct successor state of the first
Republic of Azerbaijan of 1918-1920 on the 18th of October, 1991 by
the Constitutional Act of the Restoration of State Independence, it
essentially nullified by a legal document the administrative ties that
had existed between the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic and the
Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast.
So, whereas, upon the collapse of the USSR, the territory of most
former Soviet Socialist Republics saw the establishment of one
independent country each, two states were established on the territory
of the administrative unit of the USSR known as the Azerbaijani Soviet
Socialist Republic - the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of
Nagorno-Karabakh. The Republic of Azerbaijan, having disregarded the
obligation to uphold the principle of self-determination borne by the
Charter of the United Nations, unleashed a ruthless war on its
newly-independent neighbour and suffered ignominious defeat.
By the Declaration on the `Guidelines on the Recognition of New States
in Eastern Europe and in the [territory of the] Soviet Union' of the
16th of December, 1991 by the foreign ministers of the countries of
the European Community (now the European Union), respect for `the
inviolability of all frontiers' would be based on upholding `the rule
of law, democracy and human rights', as well as `guarantees for the
rights of ethnic and national groups and minorities'. None of these
criteria have been fulfilled by the Azerbaijani state.
Consequently, when our neighbours talk about `occupation', let them be
so kind as to state in which time in history the Republic of
Azerbaijan has exercised effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and
by which international document Azerbaijan's title to Nagorno-Karabakh
has been recognised. If that has never been the case and there is no
document in support of the claim - and they evidently do not exist -
then what `occupation' are we talking about?
Ara Papian
Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre
24 June, 2010
[1] United States National Archives, Records of the Department of
State Relating to Political Relations between Armenia and other
States, 1910-1929, 760J.6715/60-760J.90C/7.
10:42:00 - 26/06/2010
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments-lrahos18357.html
From: A. Papazian
WHAT OCCUPATION ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
The Tatars of Baku and their overlords, the Turks of Istanbul,
regularly bring up the so-called occupation of a part of the Republic
of Azerbaijan by the Republic of Armenia. These claims are completely
baseless. Proper foundations are necessary to allege such a thing. One
of the bases would be the prevalence of the title to the territories
in question codified by international law. That is, for any part of
any territory of Azerbaijan to be considered occupied by anyone, it is
necessary that Azerbaijan possess and present the international
document by which the title of the Republic of Azerbaijan be
recognised to that allegedly occupied territory. This is a basic
principle of international law, and it is clear. The rightful
possession of any territory by any state is based on the title
codified by a legal international document and by the sovereignty
established over that territory.
Let us briefly take up the title to Nagorno-Karabakh over the course
of the last few centuries. By the Turkish-Persian Treaty of Amasia,
the title to Nagorno-Karabakh was internationally codified in 1555 to
Persia. At the beginning of the 19th century, the eastern part of the
South Caucasus ended up as part of the Russian Empire; accordingly, by
the Treaty of Gyulistan of 1813, the Russian title to Nagorno-Karabakh
was codified. It is indisputable that from 1813 to 1918 the title and
sovereignty of the Russian Empire was unquestionably established over
Karabakh (I include the mountainous parts - Nagorno-Karabakh or
`Highland Karabakh' - as well as the valleys - `Lowland Karabakh').
Due to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, although uncertain
circumstances arose in the South Caucasus with to the collapse of the
Russian Empire, things were quite clear until January of 1920 from the
perspective of international law and territorial title, as, until
January of 1920, the international community refused to recognise the
three newly-established states of the South Caucasus, consequently
continuing to recognise the title of the Russian Empire. It was only
in January of 1920 that, by the countries of the Supreme Council of
the Paris Peace Conference - Great Britain, France, and Italy - the
independence of the countries of the South Caucasus was recognised.
So, until then, from May of 1918 to January of 1920, the republics of
Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan remained essentially, as the
contemporary expression goes, merely self-declared republics. It is
important to emphasise that the recognition by the Paris Peace
Conference clearly included a criterion - the borders of the South
Caucasus countries were to be determined in future by the Paris Peace
Conference. It is necessary to stress here that, between the
declaration in May of 1918 to the recognition in January of 1920 of
the republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan, not only was there no
recognition of any title of the Republic of Azerbaijan to
Nagorno-Karabakh, the Republic of Azerbaijan did not exercise any
manner of effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh either. What is
more, Karabakh was much more effectively under control of the
locally-established Armenian authorities and forces.
One month after the recognition by the Paris Peace Conference, on the
24th of February, 1920, the Commission for the Delimitation of the
Boundaries of Armenia - with the participation of representatives from
Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, and now already on behalf of
the League of Nations - the principles of delimitation of boundaries
in the South Caucasus were clarified with a joint report. That is, the
boundaries of Armenia and Georgia, and Armenia and Azerbaijan would be
drawn `taking into account, in principle, ethnographic data'.[1] As it
happens, the massacres of Shoushi of March, 1920, were based mostly on
this decision; the Tatars of the Caucasus attempted to alter, in the
style of the Turks, the demographic picture of Nagorno-Karabakh.
However, this decision was not fated to be realised, as Azerbaijan, by
April, 1920, and Armenia, by December, 1920, were already occupied by
the Bolshevik 11th Army, and those states ceased to exist. What
happened next is better known, that the newly-established Soviet
authorities carried out administrative divisions by party decisions
and vast territories with Armenian populations - which, by the
application of the principle of the Paris Peace Conference, would
indisputably have been part of Armenia - were made administratively
subject to Baku. Naturally, there can be no talk of any
internationally-codified title here. No decisions by a political party
can create any legal precedent in international law and codify any
title to any territory. The formerly-independent Georgia, Armenia and
Azerbaijan themselves bore the status of occupied countries from
1920/21 to 1924. Later on, from February of 1924, by the recognition
of the Soviet Union, the annexation of those countries was recognised
in turn. Accordingly, from 1924, the title and sovereignty of the
Soviet Union to the entire South Caucasus, including Nagorno-Karabakh,
was unquestionably recognised.
In 1991, when Azerbaijan declared itself independent of the Soviet
Union, Nagorno-Karabakh was already, de facto, independent. That is to
say, ever since the re-establishment of its independence, the Republic
of Azerbaijan has not held effective control over the territory of the
Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh for even a single day. What is more, as
Azerbaijan declared itself the direct successor state of the first
Republic of Azerbaijan of 1918-1920 on the 18th of October, 1991 by
the Constitutional Act of the Restoration of State Independence, it
essentially nullified by a legal document the administrative ties that
had existed between the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic and the
Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast.
So, whereas, upon the collapse of the USSR, the territory of most
former Soviet Socialist Republics saw the establishment of one
independent country each, two states were established on the territory
of the administrative unit of the USSR known as the Azerbaijani Soviet
Socialist Republic - the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of
Nagorno-Karabakh. The Republic of Azerbaijan, having disregarded the
obligation to uphold the principle of self-determination borne by the
Charter of the United Nations, unleashed a ruthless war on its
newly-independent neighbour and suffered ignominious defeat.
By the Declaration on the `Guidelines on the Recognition of New States
in Eastern Europe and in the [territory of the] Soviet Union' of the
16th of December, 1991 by the foreign ministers of the countries of
the European Community (now the European Union), respect for `the
inviolability of all frontiers' would be based on upholding `the rule
of law, democracy and human rights', as well as `guarantees for the
rights of ethnic and national groups and minorities'. None of these
criteria have been fulfilled by the Azerbaijani state.
Consequently, when our neighbours talk about `occupation', let them be
so kind as to state in which time in history the Republic of
Azerbaijan has exercised effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and
by which international document Azerbaijan's title to Nagorno-Karabakh
has been recognised. If that has never been the case and there is no
document in support of the claim - and they evidently do not exist -
then what `occupation' are we talking about?
Ara Papian
Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre
24 June, 2010
[1] United States National Archives, Records of the Department of
State Relating to Political Relations between Armenia and other
States, 1910-1929, 760J.6715/60-760J.90C/7.
10:42:00 - 26/06/2010
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments-lrahos18357.html
From: A. Papazian