Tweet
THE RECOGNITION OF FREEDOM: NAGORNO KARABAKH'S CASE
HULIQ.com
Sept 12 2011
SC
The Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh - or Artsakh, as it is known in the
native Armenian - marked twenty years of independence, but it's still
one of the four countries emerging as a result of the break up of the
former Soviet Union, waiting for the world to recognize its right to
freedom and right to self-determination.
This year marks the twentieth anniversary of the collapse of the
Soviet Union and the independence of a number of countries that used
to form part of the USSR. What was perhaps one of the most unexpected
events of the twentieth century resulted in the statehood of fifteen
republics - fifteen states recognized by the international community,
by the world at large, along with four countries that yet often go
by the moniker of being stuck in "frozen conflicts".
Out of the four, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been not just thawed,
but deep fried back into the center of attention of the West, of
the media and academia, after the brief resumption of hostilities
across Georgia's northern frontiers in August, 2008. Of the other
two, Transnistria's situation remains dormant, while Artsakh - as
the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is called in the native Armenian - has
always been simmering, ever since the ceasefire of 1994, with further
escalation of belligerent rhetoric coming from Baku during recent
years. Negotiations are ongoing, as they tend to be in such situations.
Artsakh itself marked twenty years of independence on the second of
September. The issue of Nagorno-Karabakh is, of course, a complex one.
But the people of Artsakh - the Armenians who live and work there -
are confident in asserting and celebrating their freedom, simply
because they fought for their lives and their rights. Ask anybody in
the capital Stepanakert, or in any of the towns and rural areas of
this roughly 11,000 square kilometers sliver of land (about 4,000
square miles), and you will hear nothing other than assurance that
the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is an independent state.
According to the Montevideo Convention of 1933, statehood is defined
following the four criteria of territory, population, government, and
the ability to deal with other states. In political terms, statehood
implies sovereignty. But who decides sovereignty? Recognition of
such is a controversial matter. For the most part, it is a practical
question that is, more often than not, pretty obvious. Most states
recognize their immediate neighbors and their borders. The United
Nations organization is the main forum to regulate their affairs;
its membership and how to go about acquiring such membership is clear.
Capitals host embassies, militaries make alliances, economies carry
out trade. Most of what people call "countries" are, to use more
technical parlance, sovereign states, full members of the international
community.
But then there are the controversial ones, from ones that don't make
too much noise and offer little to dispute, such as the Principality
of Sealand, to governments-in-exile or those with whom there are
partial dealings, such as Tibet or Taiwan, all the way to the very
problematic conflict raging in Palestine/Israel, a matter that has
not been resolved in over ninety, sixty, or forty years, depending
on where you start. The Palestinian Authority is planning on pursuing
full statehood as a tactic, which only goes to indicate that there is
something very significant about sovereignty and its role in global
affairs. It is, to put it bluntly, nothing less than an essential
component of international relations.
Self-declared sovereignty is one thing, whereas international
recognition is quite another, however, and that's where further
complications arise. Usually, either a country is recognized, or it
is not. We have witnessed the birth just recently of South Sudan:
a resolution of a civil war, followed by a referendum, and then
formal recognition, admission to the UN, flag-hoisting and other
solemn ceremonies. All planned out, involving, at least formally,
every other state in the world.
That's not the way it worked in Kosovo, though. Eighty-two countries
recognize Kosovo as a sovereign state today. Only four recognize
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Does it matter that one of those four is
Russia, and that one of the eighty-two is the United States?
The United States itself offers the classic example of a struggle for
independence and the fulfillment of "the right to self-determination",
as modern terminology would put it. The American Revolution, in
fact, serves as the classic historical precedent, a main point of
inspiration for many peoples the world over struggling to assert their
rights. The issue over Artsakh is very complicated to say the least,
but part of the story certainly reflects the struggle of the native
Armenian population to solve the issue of its physical security, to
say nothing of the institutionalized discrimination and marginalisation
faced during six decades and more of rule as part of Soviet Azerbaijan.
Does it matter that no state recognizes the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
as independent? International law might consider it important, but
for the people of Artsakh, the bottom line is that they managed to
secure themselves and have been busy building up a democracy, a viable
economy, infrastructure, healthcare, education, and certainly an army
worthy of any country for twenty years now. Freedom means something
to the Armenians who live there in a way that is qualitatively
different than any declaration or embassy might indicate, whether
from Washington, Moscow, New York, Paris, or Brussels.
The foreign minister of Uruguay recently stated the possibility of
moving to formally recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. It seems,
then, that we may yet see a new convention out of Montevideo.
Written by Nareg Seferian Seferian is currently pursuing a master's
degree at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University.
http://www.huliq.com/1/meaning-freedom-nagorno-karabakhs-case-568
From: Baghdasarian
HULIQ.com
Sept 12 2011
SC
The Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh - or Artsakh, as it is known in the
native Armenian - marked twenty years of independence, but it's still
one of the four countries emerging as a result of the break up of the
former Soviet Union, waiting for the world to recognize its right to
freedom and right to self-determination.
This year marks the twentieth anniversary of the collapse of the
Soviet Union and the independence of a number of countries that used
to form part of the USSR. What was perhaps one of the most unexpected
events of the twentieth century resulted in the statehood of fifteen
republics - fifteen states recognized by the international community,
by the world at large, along with four countries that yet often go
by the moniker of being stuck in "frozen conflicts".
Out of the four, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been not just thawed,
but deep fried back into the center of attention of the West, of
the media and academia, after the brief resumption of hostilities
across Georgia's northern frontiers in August, 2008. Of the other
two, Transnistria's situation remains dormant, while Artsakh - as
the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is called in the native Armenian - has
always been simmering, ever since the ceasefire of 1994, with further
escalation of belligerent rhetoric coming from Baku during recent
years. Negotiations are ongoing, as they tend to be in such situations.
Artsakh itself marked twenty years of independence on the second of
September. The issue of Nagorno-Karabakh is, of course, a complex one.
But the people of Artsakh - the Armenians who live and work there -
are confident in asserting and celebrating their freedom, simply
because they fought for their lives and their rights. Ask anybody in
the capital Stepanakert, or in any of the towns and rural areas of
this roughly 11,000 square kilometers sliver of land (about 4,000
square miles), and you will hear nothing other than assurance that
the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is an independent state.
According to the Montevideo Convention of 1933, statehood is defined
following the four criteria of territory, population, government, and
the ability to deal with other states. In political terms, statehood
implies sovereignty. But who decides sovereignty? Recognition of
such is a controversial matter. For the most part, it is a practical
question that is, more often than not, pretty obvious. Most states
recognize their immediate neighbors and their borders. The United
Nations organization is the main forum to regulate their affairs;
its membership and how to go about acquiring such membership is clear.
Capitals host embassies, militaries make alliances, economies carry
out trade. Most of what people call "countries" are, to use more
technical parlance, sovereign states, full members of the international
community.
But then there are the controversial ones, from ones that don't make
too much noise and offer little to dispute, such as the Principality
of Sealand, to governments-in-exile or those with whom there are
partial dealings, such as Tibet or Taiwan, all the way to the very
problematic conflict raging in Palestine/Israel, a matter that has
not been resolved in over ninety, sixty, or forty years, depending
on where you start. The Palestinian Authority is planning on pursuing
full statehood as a tactic, which only goes to indicate that there is
something very significant about sovereignty and its role in global
affairs. It is, to put it bluntly, nothing less than an essential
component of international relations.
Self-declared sovereignty is one thing, whereas international
recognition is quite another, however, and that's where further
complications arise. Usually, either a country is recognized, or it
is not. We have witnessed the birth just recently of South Sudan:
a resolution of a civil war, followed by a referendum, and then
formal recognition, admission to the UN, flag-hoisting and other
solemn ceremonies. All planned out, involving, at least formally,
every other state in the world.
That's not the way it worked in Kosovo, though. Eighty-two countries
recognize Kosovo as a sovereign state today. Only four recognize
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Does it matter that one of those four is
Russia, and that one of the eighty-two is the United States?
The United States itself offers the classic example of a struggle for
independence and the fulfillment of "the right to self-determination",
as modern terminology would put it. The American Revolution, in
fact, serves as the classic historical precedent, a main point of
inspiration for many peoples the world over struggling to assert their
rights. The issue over Artsakh is very complicated to say the least,
but part of the story certainly reflects the struggle of the native
Armenian population to solve the issue of its physical security, to
say nothing of the institutionalized discrimination and marginalisation
faced during six decades and more of rule as part of Soviet Azerbaijan.
Does it matter that no state recognizes the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
as independent? International law might consider it important, but
for the people of Artsakh, the bottom line is that they managed to
secure themselves and have been busy building up a democracy, a viable
economy, infrastructure, healthcare, education, and certainly an army
worthy of any country for twenty years now. Freedom means something
to the Armenians who live there in a way that is qualitatively
different than any declaration or embassy might indicate, whether
from Washington, Moscow, New York, Paris, or Brussels.
The foreign minister of Uruguay recently stated the possibility of
moving to formally recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. It seems,
then, that we may yet see a new convention out of Montevideo.
Written by Nareg Seferian Seferian is currently pursuing a master's
degree at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University.
http://www.huliq.com/1/meaning-freedom-nagorno-karabakhs-case-568
From: Baghdasarian