Tweet
Russia, France to dismiss any initiatives to discuss Karabakh in UN
Mon 30 April 2012 14:15 GMT | 15:15 Local Time
Farhad Mehdiyev
News.Az interviews Farhad Mehdiyev, political scientist and chair of
international law at the Caucasus University.
Which problems will be the focal points of Azerbaijan as the UN
Security Council chairman?
Everything will depend on the current agenda of the Security Council.
Meanwhile, agenda forms on the basis of the proposals from members of
this structure. In this sense, even as a chairman Azerbaijan does not
differ from other Security Council members. It can only invite the
third countries concerned with any discussed topic to debates.
Can the authorities of the Security Council chairman help reanimate
the well-known four resolutions on Karabakh?
Permanent members of the UN Security Council have the right to put
veto on any issue set for discussion. That is, if any of this five
does not want the discussion of any issue, it will be removed from the
agenda.
Another problem is that the four resolutions on Karabakh were adopted
on the sixth rather than the seventh chapter of the UN Charter, which
includes enforcement measures. The difference is that the decisions
taken in the first case, are binding, and force can be applied to
fulfill such resolutions. Resolutions as adopted by the sixth chapter
of the statute are not considered mandatory. In other words, if
someone refuses to comply with these resolutions (as in the case of
Armenia), this party cannot be involved in any other legal mechanism
and decisions cannot be enforced.
The matter is that the well-known resolutions on Karabakh speak about
the Armenian armed forces. Armenia is not mentioned as the aggressor,
which captured Azerbaijani areas, anywhere. On the other hand,
Azerbaijan does not accept Nagorno-Karabakh as a party to the
negotiations. Therefore, the four UN Security Council resolutions are
not fulfilled. And basically this occurs because the addressee of the
resolutions are the local Armenian armed forces, rather than Armenia,
which in fact is the occupier.
Therefore, it is very difficult to achieve the enforcement of these resolutions.
Then what is the advantage of Azerbaijan as a member of the UN
Security Council compared to Armenia which does not join this
structure?
This chairmanship gives us nothing in Karabakh issue. It only gives
the chance to show ourselves as an influential player in the
international arena. But this status is not effective in Karabakh
settlement.
In the recent past Azerbaijan repeatedly tried to transfer this issue
to the UN, the General Assembly. If the Karabakh issue is put for
voting, Russia and France, as the permanent members of the UN Security
Council, will say that it is the OSCE and its Minsk Group that are
dealing with the issue and its consideration in UN is inappropriate.
Moscow and Paris will be first to ban it. Russia and France always
voted against the initiatives that we put for voting, saying the
Karabakh problem is the prerogative of the Minsk Group.
F.H.
News.Az
Mon 30 April 2012 14:15 GMT | 15:15 Local Time
Farhad Mehdiyev
News.Az interviews Farhad Mehdiyev, political scientist and chair of
international law at the Caucasus University.
Which problems will be the focal points of Azerbaijan as the UN
Security Council chairman?
Everything will depend on the current agenda of the Security Council.
Meanwhile, agenda forms on the basis of the proposals from members of
this structure. In this sense, even as a chairman Azerbaijan does not
differ from other Security Council members. It can only invite the
third countries concerned with any discussed topic to debates.
Can the authorities of the Security Council chairman help reanimate
the well-known four resolutions on Karabakh?
Permanent members of the UN Security Council have the right to put
veto on any issue set for discussion. That is, if any of this five
does not want the discussion of any issue, it will be removed from the
agenda.
Another problem is that the four resolutions on Karabakh were adopted
on the sixth rather than the seventh chapter of the UN Charter, which
includes enforcement measures. The difference is that the decisions
taken in the first case, are binding, and force can be applied to
fulfill such resolutions. Resolutions as adopted by the sixth chapter
of the statute are not considered mandatory. In other words, if
someone refuses to comply with these resolutions (as in the case of
Armenia), this party cannot be involved in any other legal mechanism
and decisions cannot be enforced.
The matter is that the well-known resolutions on Karabakh speak about
the Armenian armed forces. Armenia is not mentioned as the aggressor,
which captured Azerbaijani areas, anywhere. On the other hand,
Azerbaijan does not accept Nagorno-Karabakh as a party to the
negotiations. Therefore, the four UN Security Council resolutions are
not fulfilled. And basically this occurs because the addressee of the
resolutions are the local Armenian armed forces, rather than Armenia,
which in fact is the occupier.
Therefore, it is very difficult to achieve the enforcement of these resolutions.
Then what is the advantage of Azerbaijan as a member of the UN
Security Council compared to Armenia which does not join this
structure?
This chairmanship gives us nothing in Karabakh issue. It only gives
the chance to show ourselves as an influential player in the
international arena. But this status is not effective in Karabakh
settlement.
In the recent past Azerbaijan repeatedly tried to transfer this issue
to the UN, the General Assembly. If the Karabakh issue is put for
voting, Russia and France, as the permanent members of the UN Security
Council, will say that it is the OSCE and its Minsk Group that are
dealing with the issue and its consideration in UN is inappropriate.
Moscow and Paris will be first to ban it. Russia and France always
voted against the initiatives that we put for voting, saying the
Karabakh problem is the prerogative of the Minsk Group.
F.H.
News.Az