Tweet
Nagorno-Karabakh: Recognition is the only Humanitarian option
As Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR) celebrates the 23rd Anniversary of its
Declaration of Independence, the country remains in the unsatisfactory
position of still being globally unrecognised. The route out of this
situation seems complicated; history provides many conflicting
examples which serve only to confuse and not to enlighten.
The Montevideo Convention (1933) defines the principles under which
statehood is determined. The country must have a:
1. Permanent population
2. Defined Territory
3. Government
4. Capacity to enter into relations with other states
Independence is an interesting concept given the presence of a State.
Taken literally, then no country is truly independent with many
relying on financial and military support from other countries or
institutions. All states within the European Union that use the Euro
cannot make independent financial decisions, and they are also subject
to the legal framework of the European legislative bodies. Yet they
are considered to be independent. Judge Anzilotti in the Austro-German
Customs Union Case determined that "Provided a state does not place
itself under the legal authority of another state, then it is
independent".
Recognition is an unclear point. There are no legal rulings, or formal
processes by which recognition is pronounced, universally, by all
states, at the same time. It is a binary concept, one is either
recognised, or not recognised; there is no sense in being partially
recognised. An illuminating quote from Grant in "Recognition of
States" is that "recognition perfects statehood" . Although,
conversely, some would argue, that recognition creates statehood. That
is how ambiguous it is.
It would be elegant to think that all of the 193 countries met the
statehood criteria, were clearly independent , and were recognised in
a consistent manner.
Israel is a member of the United Nations, yet 32 countries in the
world do not recognize it. It is questionable whether it meets all of
the Montevideo requirements, particularly with respect to "defined
territory". Palestine has been recognised by 122 countries, and barely
achieves any of the criteria of the Convention. The EU recognised
Bosnia-Herzegovina on 6 April 1992, before it had full control of its
territory, and was very dependent on external assistance, and the
significant Serb minority boycotted the referendum. Kosovo's status is
unclear, but 88 countries have recognised it, despite it having an
unstable government, and a consequent inability to foster good
international relations. It is also questionable as to whether the
borders have been correctly defined given the significant Serbian
minority in the north who oppose independence.
Taiwan fully complies with the Montevideo convention and is a robust
and viable trading entity, but is not a recognised country. It is
alleged that Taiwan, itself, has not claimed to be a state, but it is
reported that China would consider it an act of war if independence
was declared. Because of this the international community remains
silent with respect to Taiwan. Another long-standing unrecognized
state is the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This was denied
recognition due to the fact that it resulted from an act of
aggression, also the Turkish community was not considered a "unit of
self-determination", and it fragmented the territorial integrity of
Cyprus. Other examples have been rejected where states have declared
independence without reference to the views of the people or where
there are human rights violations.
There is a chronic lack of consistency in the approach, and there is
no meaningful view on how progressive recognition can work in
practice. Fundamentally it seems to rely on the claim being subjected
to the right degree of political support.
In the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, the only criteria of the Montevideo
convention which it would be fragile on, is the "defined territory".
Whilst the NKR Government would be very clear on where the border is,
today, this is not necessarily a stable situation and it is not
consistent with the border at the point of independence declaration.
In every other respect, it is a state, and it is independent of
Azerbaijan who exerts no actual legal authority over the country.
There seems to be no precedent for resolving Nagorno-Karabakh's claim;
there is no guidance from history. The law is incredibly complex, and
contradictory. The only solution can be based on equity and human
rights for the people directly affected.
In terms of the way forward, there are only 2 sensible options to
address the border issue:
- Formalize the existing Line of Contact
- Revert back to the borders of the Soviet Nagorno-Karabakh in 1988 (NKAO)
A third option would be an arbitrary alternative line and would, most
likely, be unacceptable to both sides.
The 1988 borders would create a massive security issue for the
Armenians living within the original NKAO part of NKR, and would most
likely result in the displacement of the Armenians in the surrounding
regions. It is difficult to see how this would be a legitimate way
forwards.
Formalising the Line of Contact is not disadvantageous to any
individual whether living in NKR or Azerbaijan. It will only be
beneficial; it will start creating stability for all in the region.
When enacted, discussions could then start, on how to address the
rights of those Armenians and Azerbaijanis who were displaced, and
lost property and family members during the war. It will also
facilitate the acceleration of the de-mining operations in the
surrounding regions to the original NKAO; this is necessary to support
re-settlement.
It is unlikely that Azerbaijan would ever consent to this proposal,
but that did not concern the international community with some of the
historical recognition decisions. Nagorno-Karabakh needs political
support from the West to achieve recognition. Nothing else would be
successful. Unfortunately the performance of NATO in recent times has
not inspired confidence with its indecisiveness and lack of coherent
vision. However, that should not affect the continuing determination
of all, to secure recognition, of the currently defined
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. It is the only humanitarian option, for
everyone.
http://artsakh.org.uk/2014/09/01/nagorno-karabakh-recognition-is-the-only-humanitarian-option/
From: A. Papazian
As Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR) celebrates the 23rd Anniversary of its
Declaration of Independence, the country remains in the unsatisfactory
position of still being globally unrecognised. The route out of this
situation seems complicated; history provides many conflicting
examples which serve only to confuse and not to enlighten.
The Montevideo Convention (1933) defines the principles under which
statehood is determined. The country must have a:
1. Permanent population
2. Defined Territory
3. Government
4. Capacity to enter into relations with other states
Independence is an interesting concept given the presence of a State.
Taken literally, then no country is truly independent with many
relying on financial and military support from other countries or
institutions. All states within the European Union that use the Euro
cannot make independent financial decisions, and they are also subject
to the legal framework of the European legislative bodies. Yet they
are considered to be independent. Judge Anzilotti in the Austro-German
Customs Union Case determined that "Provided a state does not place
itself under the legal authority of another state, then it is
independent".
Recognition is an unclear point. There are no legal rulings, or formal
processes by which recognition is pronounced, universally, by all
states, at the same time. It is a binary concept, one is either
recognised, or not recognised; there is no sense in being partially
recognised. An illuminating quote from Grant in "Recognition of
States" is that "recognition perfects statehood" . Although,
conversely, some would argue, that recognition creates statehood. That
is how ambiguous it is.
It would be elegant to think that all of the 193 countries met the
statehood criteria, were clearly independent , and were recognised in
a consistent manner.
Israel is a member of the United Nations, yet 32 countries in the
world do not recognize it. It is questionable whether it meets all of
the Montevideo requirements, particularly with respect to "defined
territory". Palestine has been recognised by 122 countries, and barely
achieves any of the criteria of the Convention. The EU recognised
Bosnia-Herzegovina on 6 April 1992, before it had full control of its
territory, and was very dependent on external assistance, and the
significant Serb minority boycotted the referendum. Kosovo's status is
unclear, but 88 countries have recognised it, despite it having an
unstable government, and a consequent inability to foster good
international relations. It is also questionable as to whether the
borders have been correctly defined given the significant Serbian
minority in the north who oppose independence.
Taiwan fully complies with the Montevideo convention and is a robust
and viable trading entity, but is not a recognised country. It is
alleged that Taiwan, itself, has not claimed to be a state, but it is
reported that China would consider it an act of war if independence
was declared. Because of this the international community remains
silent with respect to Taiwan. Another long-standing unrecognized
state is the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This was denied
recognition due to the fact that it resulted from an act of
aggression, also the Turkish community was not considered a "unit of
self-determination", and it fragmented the territorial integrity of
Cyprus. Other examples have been rejected where states have declared
independence without reference to the views of the people or where
there are human rights violations.
There is a chronic lack of consistency in the approach, and there is
no meaningful view on how progressive recognition can work in
practice. Fundamentally it seems to rely on the claim being subjected
to the right degree of political support.
In the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, the only criteria of the Montevideo
convention which it would be fragile on, is the "defined territory".
Whilst the NKR Government would be very clear on where the border is,
today, this is not necessarily a stable situation and it is not
consistent with the border at the point of independence declaration.
In every other respect, it is a state, and it is independent of
Azerbaijan who exerts no actual legal authority over the country.
There seems to be no precedent for resolving Nagorno-Karabakh's claim;
there is no guidance from history. The law is incredibly complex, and
contradictory. The only solution can be based on equity and human
rights for the people directly affected.
In terms of the way forward, there are only 2 sensible options to
address the border issue:
- Formalize the existing Line of Contact
- Revert back to the borders of the Soviet Nagorno-Karabakh in 1988 (NKAO)
A third option would be an arbitrary alternative line and would, most
likely, be unacceptable to both sides.
The 1988 borders would create a massive security issue for the
Armenians living within the original NKAO part of NKR, and would most
likely result in the displacement of the Armenians in the surrounding
regions. It is difficult to see how this would be a legitimate way
forwards.
Formalising the Line of Contact is not disadvantageous to any
individual whether living in NKR or Azerbaijan. It will only be
beneficial; it will start creating stability for all in the region.
When enacted, discussions could then start, on how to address the
rights of those Armenians and Azerbaijanis who were displaced, and
lost property and family members during the war. It will also
facilitate the acceleration of the de-mining operations in the
surrounding regions to the original NKAO; this is necessary to support
re-settlement.
It is unlikely that Azerbaijan would ever consent to this proposal,
but that did not concern the international community with some of the
historical recognition decisions. Nagorno-Karabakh needs political
support from the West to achieve recognition. Nothing else would be
successful. Unfortunately the performance of NATO in recent times has
not inspired confidence with its indecisiveness and lack of coherent
vision. However, that should not affect the continuing determination
of all, to secure recognition, of the currently defined
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. It is the only humanitarian option, for
everyone.
http://artsakh.org.uk/2014/09/01/nagorno-karabakh-recognition-is-the-only-humanitarian-option/
From: A. Papazian