Tweet
A RESPONSE TO A RESPONSE ON KHOJALY
EurasiaNet.org, NY
Feb 12 2013
February 12, 2013 - 3:42pm, by Adil Baguirov Letters to the Editor
EurasiaNet.org is posting a letter from Adil Baguirov, co-founder
and member of the Board of Directors of the US Azeris Network, who
responds to criticism of his remarks posted last month in The Bug Pit.
International Law is on Azerbaijan's Side
Gabriel Armas-Cardona takes issue with my comments about Khojaly
airport. In my comments posted on EurasiaNet.org on January 16 I
limited my responses and analysis, including reiterating the right
for military action by Azerbaijan, to military or "state" aircraft.
I would remind Armas-Cardona and others that Armenia has no right to
operate any flights into the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan.
Article 4 of the 1946 Chicago Convention states: "Each contracting
State agrees not to use civilian aviation for any purpose inconsistent
with the aims of this Convention."
An airport can operate legally under the Chicago Convention's terms
if the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has assigned
it a three-letter code. Khojaly airport has no such designation. If
that wasn't enough, the Convention's Article 89, titled "War and
Emergency Conditions," states that "in case of war, the provisions of
this Convention shall not affect the freedom of action of any of the
contracting States affected, whether as belligerents or as neutrals."
Given that Armenia and Azerbaijan remain officially at war, this
Convention provision enables Azerbaijan to view any unauthorized
Armenian flight into Karabakh as military in nature, and take
appropriate action.
Armenia's Defense Minister Gen. Seyran Ohanyan recently stated that
"the Armenian Air Force will provide the operation and the flight
of the civil aircraft [to/from the Khojaly airport]." This statement
makes it impossible for Armenians to claim that flights into occupied
Karabakh would be purely civilian.
Armas-Carmona speculates that "[t]he [Chicago] Convention is superseded
by ... the Armenian-Azerbaijan cease-fire agreement ...
which prohibits the shooting down of a civil aircraft." While it is
refreshing to see the Armenian side remember the ceasefire agreement,
there is no escaping the fact that it would be an obvious violation
of the ceasefire agreement to fly a plane into the airspace of another
country, as recognized by the international community.
Indeed, if the ceasefire agreement (a.k.a. the Bishkek Protocol)
supersedes other international agreements, then Armenia should start
immediately fulfilling that document's obligations; specifically
undertaking the "withdrawal of troops from occupied territories and
... [the] return of refugees." Unfortunately, Armenia and Armas-Carmona
prefer to overlook this binding provision.
International law is squarely on Azerbaijan's side. Armenia's intent
with attempting to operate flights into Khojaly is to reinforce
what is an unacceptable status quo for Azerbaijan. This can be
interpreted as "perfidy," as that term is understood in the laws of
war. More specifically, the laws define perfidy as "[a]cts inviting
the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is
entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules
of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to
betray that confidence." Such action is prohibited under Article 37
of Protocol I to the Geneva Convention. There is only one way to
produce peace, security and prosperity in the region: that recipe
was provided for in four UN Security Council resolutions in 1993,
resolutions that are being ignored by the government of Armenia in
general, and Armas-Carmona in particular.
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/66546
EurasiaNet.org, NY
Feb 12 2013
February 12, 2013 - 3:42pm, by Adil Baguirov Letters to the Editor
EurasiaNet.org is posting a letter from Adil Baguirov, co-founder
and member of the Board of Directors of the US Azeris Network, who
responds to criticism of his remarks posted last month in The Bug Pit.
International Law is on Azerbaijan's Side
Gabriel Armas-Cardona takes issue with my comments about Khojaly
airport. In my comments posted on EurasiaNet.org on January 16 I
limited my responses and analysis, including reiterating the right
for military action by Azerbaijan, to military or "state" aircraft.
I would remind Armas-Cardona and others that Armenia has no right to
operate any flights into the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan.
Article 4 of the 1946 Chicago Convention states: "Each contracting
State agrees not to use civilian aviation for any purpose inconsistent
with the aims of this Convention."
An airport can operate legally under the Chicago Convention's terms
if the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has assigned
it a three-letter code. Khojaly airport has no such designation. If
that wasn't enough, the Convention's Article 89, titled "War and
Emergency Conditions," states that "in case of war, the provisions of
this Convention shall not affect the freedom of action of any of the
contracting States affected, whether as belligerents or as neutrals."
Given that Armenia and Azerbaijan remain officially at war, this
Convention provision enables Azerbaijan to view any unauthorized
Armenian flight into Karabakh as military in nature, and take
appropriate action.
Armenia's Defense Minister Gen. Seyran Ohanyan recently stated that
"the Armenian Air Force will provide the operation and the flight
of the civil aircraft [to/from the Khojaly airport]." This statement
makes it impossible for Armenians to claim that flights into occupied
Karabakh would be purely civilian.
Armas-Carmona speculates that "[t]he [Chicago] Convention is superseded
by ... the Armenian-Azerbaijan cease-fire agreement ...
which prohibits the shooting down of a civil aircraft." While it is
refreshing to see the Armenian side remember the ceasefire agreement,
there is no escaping the fact that it would be an obvious violation
of the ceasefire agreement to fly a plane into the airspace of another
country, as recognized by the international community.
Indeed, if the ceasefire agreement (a.k.a. the Bishkek Protocol)
supersedes other international agreements, then Armenia should start
immediately fulfilling that document's obligations; specifically
undertaking the "withdrawal of troops from occupied territories and
... [the] return of refugees." Unfortunately, Armenia and Armas-Carmona
prefer to overlook this binding provision.
International law is squarely on Azerbaijan's side. Armenia's intent
with attempting to operate flights into Khojaly is to reinforce
what is an unacceptable status quo for Azerbaijan. This can be
interpreted as "perfidy," as that term is understood in the laws of
war. More specifically, the laws define perfidy as "[a]cts inviting
the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is
entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules
of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to
betray that confidence." Such action is prohibited under Article 37
of Protocol I to the Geneva Convention. There is only one way to
produce peace, security and prosperity in the region: that recipe
was provided for in four UN Security Council resolutions in 1993,
resolutions that are being ignored by the government of Armenia in
general, and Armas-Carmona in particular.
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/66546