Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A. Hovsepyan: Treaty of Sevres Was Not Ratified But Was Not Denounce

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A. Hovsepyan: Treaty of Sevres Was Not Ratified But Was Not Denounce

    A. Hovsepyan: Treaty of Sevres Was Not Ratified But Was Not Denounced

    Armenian specialists of international law have studied international
    agreements and drawn interesting conclusions, stated Prosecutor
    General Aghvan Hovsepyan during the conference of lawyers organized by
    the Ministry of Diaspora ahead of the 100th anniversary of the
    Armenian Genocide.

    According to the prosecutor general, studies by Armenian experts of
    international law found that the Treaty of Sevres dated 10 August 1920
    is an important international treaty for the Armenian people though
    this treaty was not ratified by its signatories, it was not denounced
    by the Treaty of Lausanne dated 23 July 1923.

    `The Treaty of Sevres has not been ratified but it has not come out of
    effect. However, from the aspect of normalization of the
    Armenian-Turkish relations not the Treaty of Sevres but the
    arbitration decision of the U.S. President Woodrow Wilson of 22
    November 1920 which defined the territories of Armenia is important,'
    Aghvan Vardanyan said.

    He noted that according to the famous provisions of international law,
    if the parties to a dispute agree to invite an arbiter to resolve
    their dispute, they agree to fulfill any ruling by the arbiter. In
    addition, the ruling of the arbiter is final and is irrevocable and
    has no time limitation.

    According to Aghvan Hovsepyan, the mentioned ruling by the U.S.
    President Woodrow Wilson is such for Armenia, Turkey and another 16
    countries. According to this ruling, the vilayets of Van, Bitlis,
    Erzurum and Trebizond with a territory of 103,599 square km passed to
    Armenia. Article 89 of the Treaty of Sevres states: `Turkey and
    Armenia as well as the other High Contracting Parties agree to submit
    to the arbitration of the President of the United States of America
    the question of the frontier to be fixed between Turkey and Armenia in
    the vilayets of Erzurum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis, and to accept his
    decision thereupon, as well as any stipulations he may prescribe as to
    access for Armenia to the sea, and as to the demilitarisation of any
    portion of Turkish territory adjacent to the said frontier.'

    `A question may occur that if the Treaty of Sevres was not given
    effect, so its Article 89 did not come into effect, therefore the
    arbitration of the U.S. President Woodrow Wilson is not binding
    either. However, this issue is not that simple, and it cannot have a
    negative solution. This article is only the formulation of the
    expression of will of Armenia, Turkey and other countries based on
    which the U.S. President Woodrow Wilson set to and passed an
    arbitration ruling. Further ratification of the treaty or leaving it
    ungratified has nothing to do with the expression of will of the
    sides,' Aghvan Hovsepyan stated.

    The prosecutor general does not consider it accidental that the Treaty
    of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 has laid down the frontier of Turkey with
    Greece, Bulgaria and the contact line with the territories of Syria,
    meanwhile there is no word about laying down the Armenian-Turkish
    border. In particular, the Treaty of Lausanne does not include the
    vilayet of Kars in the current territory of Turkey. It means that
    current border of Turkey does not comply with the Treaty of Lausanne.
    `By the way, Congressmen Anthony Portantino and Judy Choo have also
    stated that the U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's arbitration ruling is
    binding and irrevocable,' Aghvan Hovsepyan highlighted.

    `One can object that the Armenian-Turkish border was laid down by the
    Russian-Turkish treaty of Moscow of 21 March 1921 under which Kars and
    Ardahan passed to Turkey, Nakhidjevan was separated from Armenia and
    passed under Azerbaijan's aegis with the status of an autonomous
    region.

    However, the prosecutor general finds that the treaty cannot be
    treated as a full international treaty because the signatories were
    not recognized states at the moment of signing the treaty. Besides,
    Armenia was not allowed to participate in the Russian-Turkish
    negotiations and did not sign the treaty. And one of the famous
    principles of international law is that the third party which is not a
    signatory does not bear any responsibility.

    One can object that Armenia has taken part in the negotiations with
    Turks in Kars in October 1921 and signed the treaty of 21 October 1921
    about passing Surmalu to Turks. However, the treaty was not valid
    initially because Armenia was part of Russia and was not a subject of
    international law.'

    `I touched upon this serious international legal problem transiently
    because my purpose is not a thorough legal study but to draw attention
    of the participants of the conference to the necessity of study. I
    hope that the lawyers have the necessary potential to study
    international lawyers and draw the necessary conclusions relating to
    the Armenian-Turkish relations,' Aghvan Hovsepyan.

    20:11 05/07/2013
    Story from Lragir.am News:
    http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/30381


    From: Baghdasarian
Working...
X