Tweet
MILITARY AGGRESSION CONDEMNED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW - ARMENIAN MFA
news.am
Sept 8 2011
Armenia
YEREVAN.- Definition of military aggression has not lost its meaning
in the international arena, even if the object of military aggression
is unrecognized state, said Armenian Deputy Foreign Ministry Shavarsh
Kocharyan.
He noted that the major international documents do not create a
conflict between the right to self-determination and territorial
integrity. For instance, Article 2 of the UN Charter indicates that
the UN member states should not use force or threat of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or any
other purpose inconsistent with UN goals, the Deputy Minister stressed.
"However, the right of peoples to self-determination is in compliance
with the UN goals," he said.
Other documents of international law indicate the priority of the
UN Charter in case of possible contradictions, Kocharyan recalled
speaking at a conference titled "New approaches to Karabakh issue".
Kocharyan said the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 also makes reference
to this. The Act indicates that the right to determine internal
and external political status at any time and in any form is an
integral right of any nation. The Declaration on the Inadmissibility
of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States
says that promotion of the right to self-determination is a right
and the obligation of states.
"Thus, Armenia had the right to promote self-determination of
Nagorno-Karabakh's people. It can be considered an obligation for
other states as well," Kocharyan stressed.
Finally, the UN resolution defines aggression as use of armed
force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political
independence of another state.
"However, I want to draw your attention to the fact that the definition
of the state in this case is not predetermined by the membership
in UN. Consequently, internationally unrecognized states also can
become members. Thus, our position in terms of international law is
impenetrable. As regards our opponent, they are simply distorting
internationally accepted thesis," the official concluded.
From: A. Papazian
news.am
Sept 8 2011
Armenia
YEREVAN.- Definition of military aggression has not lost its meaning
in the international arena, even if the object of military aggression
is unrecognized state, said Armenian Deputy Foreign Ministry Shavarsh
Kocharyan.
He noted that the major international documents do not create a
conflict between the right to self-determination and territorial
integrity. For instance, Article 2 of the UN Charter indicates that
the UN member states should not use force or threat of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or any
other purpose inconsistent with UN goals, the Deputy Minister stressed.
"However, the right of peoples to self-determination is in compliance
with the UN goals," he said.
Other documents of international law indicate the priority of the
UN Charter in case of possible contradictions, Kocharyan recalled
speaking at a conference titled "New approaches to Karabakh issue".
Kocharyan said the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 also makes reference
to this. The Act indicates that the right to determine internal
and external political status at any time and in any form is an
integral right of any nation. The Declaration on the Inadmissibility
of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States
says that promotion of the right to self-determination is a right
and the obligation of states.
"Thus, Armenia had the right to promote self-determination of
Nagorno-Karabakh's people. It can be considered an obligation for
other states as well," Kocharyan stressed.
Finally, the UN resolution defines aggression as use of armed
force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political
independence of another state.
"However, I want to draw your attention to the fact that the definition
of the state in this case is not predetermined by the membership
in UN. Consequently, internationally unrecognized states also can
become members. Thus, our position in terms of international law is
impenetrable. As regards our opponent, they are simply distorting
internationally accepted thesis," the official concluded.
From: A. Papazian