Tweet
ONE KIND OF SPEECHES AND OTHER KIND OF SPEECHES
Monday, 16 February 2015 09:11
Conflicts are different, but international law is one
The UN Charter provides some principles; the right of nations to
self-determination occupies a keynote place, and the territorial
integrity and sovereignty must be respected. The Parliamentary Assembly
passed a Declaration, clarifying the ratio between the fundamental
principles of international law.
It is confirmed there that sovereignty and territorial integrity are
inviolable and that the countries, which claim to be respected, must
respect the right of the nations living in these countries and avoid
preventing the right to self-determination by the use of brute force".
Agree, it is a wonderful quote, which could serve as a weighty concept
for the settlement of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict, in the
process of resolution of which, first and foremost due to Azerbaijan's
stance, two fundamental principles of the Helsinki Decalogue of 1975
- the right of nations to self-determination and the principle of
territorial integrity - are artificially clashed.Indeed, it could, but,
alas, does not serve. As a consequence, many questions occur, one of
which may sound like this: why couldn't the abovementioned postulate,
which entirely corresponds to the classical law on international law,
which is the basis of the modern system of international security,
become the basis of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict settlement? To
answer this question, we will not continue maintaining the intrigue
and will open the brackets.
Shrewd and experienced readers have probably guessed that the
above-cited phrase belongs to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, which he voiced at the recent
International Security Conference in Munich. And he used it to parry
the accusations against Russia of the "annexation of the Crimea" and
violation of the keynote international standards. It is known that
Moscow's position is that the secession of the Crimea from Ukraine and
its reunification with Russia took place in accordance with the UN
Charter and on the basis of a referendum, which did not take place,
for example, during the secession of Kosovo from Serbia. In fact,
from the legal point of view, Russia's position is justified, but it
received a mixed assessment of the Munich audience, part of which
responded to the Minister's words extremely aggressively, almost
bringing the situation to a scandal.
But the matter now isn't, surely, the scandal and it is that this
incident became a characteristic touch to the fact that contemporary
international law is in a deep crisis and has long experienced it. The
clash of the geopolitical interests of the world centers of power,
which have been heavily struggling for a new division of the world
since the collapse of the USSR and the socialist system as a whole,
has led to the deformation of international law. This is testified,
in particular, by the fact that in the current confrontation between
Russia and the West both sides, justifying their own positions in
the dispute, appeal to the same rules and principles of international
law, interpreting them solely for their own benefit and then act in
accordance with their "own "concept. The situation is like in the
well-known proverb: "The law is like a pole, which side you turn it,
it will emerge there". As a result, it generates the policy of double
standards, greatly complicating the solution of conflicts and leading
to new tragedies.
The abovementioned words were voiced by Sergei Lavrov in the context
of the Ukrainian vector of the Russian foreign policy activities,
but they are surely topical also in terms of the Karabakh settlement
process. Having witnessed how Sergey Lavrov zealously defended in
Munich the right of the Crimea to self-determination, the people
of Artsakh would like to know whether he intends, as the Foreign
Minister of Russia, or of a co-chair state of the OSCE Minsk Group,
to consider the resolution of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict from
the same position. After all, Nagorno Karabakh corresponds to all the
parameters, which the Russian Foreign Minister noted in relation to
the Crimea. There was a national referendum here, especially more
than 20 years before the Crimean, at which the people determined
its own political future. There was also gross discrimination of the
rights of the indigenous Armenian population in Azerbaijan, and then,
according to Lavrov, the "prevention of the right to self-determination
by the use of brute force", which in our case is called a large-scale
bloody war.
Surely, the question of whether Russia intends to follow its declared
principles is purely rhetorical, and it is hardly worth expecting
Moscow's attitude to the Nagorno Karabakh issue similar to that to
the Crimea. We have a bitter experience. In 2008, after Russia's
recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Russian party,
"forgetting" about its formula of universality, advised us not to
compare the Nagorno Karabakh conflict with those of Abkhazia and
South Ossetia. And we are likely to be recommended again not to
compare the Karabakh conflict with the Ukrainian.
But, here's a curious thing - such a comparison was made there,
in Munich, by the President of Azerbaijan, actually opposing Lavrov
in absentia, having called both conflicts the "mirror images of each
other". During the discussions on the "Unresolved conflicts in Europe,
besides Ukraine", Aliyev, taking advantage of the situation, stated
that "the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan has the same value
as the territorial integrity of Ukraine" and started his Pharisee
reasoning about double standards.
It is more than obvious that only with a unified approach to the
principles and norms of international law and objective implementation
of the law enforcement practice we can achieve what, as Lavrov
stressed, is prescribed by the UN Charter - the right of nations to
self-determination is the priority, and the territorial integrity
and sovereignty must be respected. We would like to believe that
after overcoming the Ukrainian crisis Russia will extrapolate the
resolution of the Crimean issue to Nagorno Karabakh. Otherwise,
"empty words will not relieve the hearts" (Schiller).
Leonid MARTIROSSIAN
Editor-in-Chief of Azat Artsakh newspaper
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1697: one-kind-of-speeches-and-other-kind-of-speeches&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Monday, 16 February 2015 09:11
Conflicts are different, but international law is one
The UN Charter provides some principles; the right of nations to
self-determination occupies a keynote place, and the territorial
integrity and sovereignty must be respected. The Parliamentary Assembly
passed a Declaration, clarifying the ratio between the fundamental
principles of international law.
It is confirmed there that sovereignty and territorial integrity are
inviolable and that the countries, which claim to be respected, must
respect the right of the nations living in these countries and avoid
preventing the right to self-determination by the use of brute force".
Agree, it is a wonderful quote, which could serve as a weighty concept
for the settlement of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict, in the
process of resolution of which, first and foremost due to Azerbaijan's
stance, two fundamental principles of the Helsinki Decalogue of 1975
- the right of nations to self-determination and the principle of
territorial integrity - are artificially clashed.Indeed, it could, but,
alas, does not serve. As a consequence, many questions occur, one of
which may sound like this: why couldn't the abovementioned postulate,
which entirely corresponds to the classical law on international law,
which is the basis of the modern system of international security,
become the basis of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict settlement? To
answer this question, we will not continue maintaining the intrigue
and will open the brackets.
Shrewd and experienced readers have probably guessed that the
above-cited phrase belongs to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, which he voiced at the recent
International Security Conference in Munich. And he used it to parry
the accusations against Russia of the "annexation of the Crimea" and
violation of the keynote international standards. It is known that
Moscow's position is that the secession of the Crimea from Ukraine and
its reunification with Russia took place in accordance with the UN
Charter and on the basis of a referendum, which did not take place,
for example, during the secession of Kosovo from Serbia. In fact,
from the legal point of view, Russia's position is justified, but it
received a mixed assessment of the Munich audience, part of which
responded to the Minister's words extremely aggressively, almost
bringing the situation to a scandal.
But the matter now isn't, surely, the scandal and it is that this
incident became a characteristic touch to the fact that contemporary
international law is in a deep crisis and has long experienced it. The
clash of the geopolitical interests of the world centers of power,
which have been heavily struggling for a new division of the world
since the collapse of the USSR and the socialist system as a whole,
has led to the deformation of international law. This is testified,
in particular, by the fact that in the current confrontation between
Russia and the West both sides, justifying their own positions in
the dispute, appeal to the same rules and principles of international
law, interpreting them solely for their own benefit and then act in
accordance with their "own "concept. The situation is like in the
well-known proverb: "The law is like a pole, which side you turn it,
it will emerge there". As a result, it generates the policy of double
standards, greatly complicating the solution of conflicts and leading
to new tragedies.
The abovementioned words were voiced by Sergei Lavrov in the context
of the Ukrainian vector of the Russian foreign policy activities,
but they are surely topical also in terms of the Karabakh settlement
process. Having witnessed how Sergey Lavrov zealously defended in
Munich the right of the Crimea to self-determination, the people
of Artsakh would like to know whether he intends, as the Foreign
Minister of Russia, or of a co-chair state of the OSCE Minsk Group,
to consider the resolution of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict from
the same position. After all, Nagorno Karabakh corresponds to all the
parameters, which the Russian Foreign Minister noted in relation to
the Crimea. There was a national referendum here, especially more
than 20 years before the Crimean, at which the people determined
its own political future. There was also gross discrimination of the
rights of the indigenous Armenian population in Azerbaijan, and then,
according to Lavrov, the "prevention of the right to self-determination
by the use of brute force", which in our case is called a large-scale
bloody war.
Surely, the question of whether Russia intends to follow its declared
principles is purely rhetorical, and it is hardly worth expecting
Moscow's attitude to the Nagorno Karabakh issue similar to that to
the Crimea. We have a bitter experience. In 2008, after Russia's
recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Russian party,
"forgetting" about its formula of universality, advised us not to
compare the Nagorno Karabakh conflict with those of Abkhazia and
South Ossetia. And we are likely to be recommended again not to
compare the Karabakh conflict with the Ukrainian.
But, here's a curious thing - such a comparison was made there,
in Munich, by the President of Azerbaijan, actually opposing Lavrov
in absentia, having called both conflicts the "mirror images of each
other". During the discussions on the "Unresolved conflicts in Europe,
besides Ukraine", Aliyev, taking advantage of the situation, stated
that "the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan has the same value
as the territorial integrity of Ukraine" and started his Pharisee
reasoning about double standards.
It is more than obvious that only with a unified approach to the
principles and norms of international law and objective implementation
of the law enforcement practice we can achieve what, as Lavrov
stressed, is prescribed by the UN Charter - the right of nations to
self-determination is the priority, and the territorial integrity
and sovereignty must be respected. We would like to believe that
after overcoming the Ukrainian crisis Russia will extrapolate the
resolution of the Crimean issue to Nagorno Karabakh. Otherwise,
"empty words will not relieve the hearts" (Schiller).
Leonid MARTIROSSIAN
Editor-in-Chief of Azat Artsakh newspaper
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1697: one-kind-of-speeches-and-other-kind-of-speeches&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress