Tweet
"WOUNDS OF ARMENIA", OR WHY THE ARMENIAN QUESTION MUST BE RESOLVED
http://hetq.am/en/politics/a-papyan-24/
[ 2010/11/10 | 13:13 ]
International law often anthropomorphises states. In terms of law,
the chief characteristic of a state is its international legal
personality.*
That is, the capacity to enter into individual relations in the
international political arena. Accordingly, inter-state relations
are very similar in many ways to relations between individuals, as,
generally speaking, the interests of a state - a well-ordered state -
is derived from the collective interests of its individual citizens.
And so, depicting a state as an individual, vocabulary pertaining to
individuals is used by international law to describe political and
legal phenomena. For example, there is a concept of the "injured state"
in the international law. International law clearly defines injured
states: An injured state is a state whose right has been infringed
through a breach of obligation by another state's internationally
wrongful act (ibid., p. 70).
When we glance at our not-too-distant past, it becomes evident that,
in the years 1920-1921, deep wounds were indeed inflicted upon the
body of the Armenian state as a consequence of Bolshevik and Kemalist
intrigues. Disregarding the international obligations it bore, with
the encouragement of the Bolsheviks and the carte blanche of the West,
Turkey violated our rights and denied the minimal resources necessary
to maintain our statehood. That is, the injury caused to our statehood
rendered a qualitative decline in the viability of our state.
It is important to clearly distinguish between a simple territorial
loss and the loss of viability. For example, the occupation of the
northern part of Cyprus by Turkey is a loss of territory and wealth,
but it does not cause any qualitative shifts. Even though it has
lost 37% of its territory, Cyprus has not lost the ability to freely
communicate with the world, and has thus maintained its ability to
develop. The Republic of Armenia, however, in losing the region of
Kars (even putting aside for the moment the territory granted to the
Republic of Armenia by the arbitral award of Woodrow Wilson), at the
very least lost its ability to interact with the rest of the world,
to defend its own capital, along with some leverage over Georgia.
In order to come up with solutions to such circumstances, one must
bear a sober outlook on the current reality; with such frontiers,
in such a geo-political position, and with such neighbours, today's
Republic of Armenia has no future. The injuries caused to our statehood
are incompatible with the functioning of our state. As long as those
injuries have not been addressed, it is at the most a form of late
mediaeval romanticism to hope that it would be possible to have a
safe and prosperous country. If I were a poet, I would say that the
marks of the nails are still crying in our palms and our wounds are
as yet flowing with blood.
I would like to emphasise something very important here. There is
no alternative to the establishment of democracy and rule of law
in Armenia. What is more, in terms of time, I would prioritise them
foremost. Without them, nothing would be possible, nothing at all. For
the existence of our statehood itself, democracy and rule of law are
vitally important conditions.
But the real problem is that they are necessary, but still insufficient
conditions. Armenia needs the minimal resources for its viability, that
is, the resolution to the Armenian Question, as it has been referred
to by the international community for a century and more. What was
the Armenian Question finally about? It was the guarantee of the
minimal necessities for the dignified existence of the Armenian people.
At the current stage, the approach to a resolution to the Armenian
Question has changed. It is now the restoration of territorial,
material and moral rights accorded to or reserved by the Republic of
Armenia as per international law. The approach may have changed, but
it remains essentially the same - the minimal resources of viability
are necessary for the existence of the Republic of Armenia, which
can be achieved only through a resolution to the Armenian Question.
We must make ourselves aware of this, so that we may clearly imagine
that which we ought to do and avoid any wrong steps. Ultimately,
the destructive Damoclean Sword of the Armenia-Turkey protocols is
hanging over our heads.
(*for further details, see B.A. Boczek, The A to Z of International
Law, Toronto, 2010, pp. 37-144; Chapter II, International Legal
Personality, States: Recognition, Jurisdiction, Responsibility,
Succession)
Ara Papian Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre 9 November, 2010
From: A. Papazian
http://hetq.am/en/politics/a-papyan-24/
[ 2010/11/10 | 13:13 ]
International law often anthropomorphises states. In terms of law,
the chief characteristic of a state is its international legal
personality.*
That is, the capacity to enter into individual relations in the
international political arena. Accordingly, inter-state relations
are very similar in many ways to relations between individuals, as,
generally speaking, the interests of a state - a well-ordered state -
is derived from the collective interests of its individual citizens.
And so, depicting a state as an individual, vocabulary pertaining to
individuals is used by international law to describe political and
legal phenomena. For example, there is a concept of the "injured state"
in the international law. International law clearly defines injured
states: An injured state is a state whose right has been infringed
through a breach of obligation by another state's internationally
wrongful act (ibid., p. 70).
When we glance at our not-too-distant past, it becomes evident that,
in the years 1920-1921, deep wounds were indeed inflicted upon the
body of the Armenian state as a consequence of Bolshevik and Kemalist
intrigues. Disregarding the international obligations it bore, with
the encouragement of the Bolsheviks and the carte blanche of the West,
Turkey violated our rights and denied the minimal resources necessary
to maintain our statehood. That is, the injury caused to our statehood
rendered a qualitative decline in the viability of our state.
It is important to clearly distinguish between a simple territorial
loss and the loss of viability. For example, the occupation of the
northern part of Cyprus by Turkey is a loss of territory and wealth,
but it does not cause any qualitative shifts. Even though it has
lost 37% of its territory, Cyprus has not lost the ability to freely
communicate with the world, and has thus maintained its ability to
develop. The Republic of Armenia, however, in losing the region of
Kars (even putting aside for the moment the territory granted to the
Republic of Armenia by the arbitral award of Woodrow Wilson), at the
very least lost its ability to interact with the rest of the world,
to defend its own capital, along with some leverage over Georgia.
In order to come up with solutions to such circumstances, one must
bear a sober outlook on the current reality; with such frontiers,
in such a geo-political position, and with such neighbours, today's
Republic of Armenia has no future. The injuries caused to our statehood
are incompatible with the functioning of our state. As long as those
injuries have not been addressed, it is at the most a form of late
mediaeval romanticism to hope that it would be possible to have a
safe and prosperous country. If I were a poet, I would say that the
marks of the nails are still crying in our palms and our wounds are
as yet flowing with blood.
I would like to emphasise something very important here. There is
no alternative to the establishment of democracy and rule of law
in Armenia. What is more, in terms of time, I would prioritise them
foremost. Without them, nothing would be possible, nothing at all. For
the existence of our statehood itself, democracy and rule of law are
vitally important conditions.
But the real problem is that they are necessary, but still insufficient
conditions. Armenia needs the minimal resources for its viability, that
is, the resolution to the Armenian Question, as it has been referred
to by the international community for a century and more. What was
the Armenian Question finally about? It was the guarantee of the
minimal necessities for the dignified existence of the Armenian people.
At the current stage, the approach to a resolution to the Armenian
Question has changed. It is now the restoration of territorial,
material and moral rights accorded to or reserved by the Republic of
Armenia as per international law. The approach may have changed, but
it remains essentially the same - the minimal resources of viability
are necessary for the existence of the Republic of Armenia, which
can be achieved only through a resolution to the Armenian Question.
We must make ourselves aware of this, so that we may clearly imagine
that which we ought to do and avoid any wrong steps. Ultimately,
the destructive Damoclean Sword of the Armenia-Turkey protocols is
hanging over our heads.
(*for further details, see B.A. Boczek, The A to Z of International
Law, Toronto, 2010, pp. 37-144; Chapter II, International Legal
Personality, States: Recognition, Jurisdiction, Responsibility,
Succession)
Ara Papian Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre 9 November, 2010
From: A. Papazian