Interview with Rustam Mammadov, head of Baku State University's department of international law and a doctor of history.
Q: The International Court of Justice in the Hague has ruled that Kosovo’s secession from Serbia is legal. What influence will this have on international law?
A: International law has recently undergone serious changes, relating especially to exceptions from the principles in Article 2 of the UN Charter. [Paragraph Four of Article 2 reads: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."] Meanwhile, support for these exceptions has recently become something of an unofficial axiom. For example, there is an exception in implementing the principle of the non-use of force and threats. This exception is humanitarian intervention. In addition, there are exceptions in the application of the principle of non-intervention in state affairs. That is, interference in state affairs is allowed only in cases of the crude violation of human rights. In this regard, there are also major innovations in the principle of the self-determination of formations. The basis of this innovation was laid in 1960 when the UN adopted the declaration on granting independence to colonial countries and peoples, though this declaration was based on the fact that only colonial countries and peoples could proclaim their independence. The definition of colonies depended on the following factors: the formation had to be under occupation, it had to have a ghetto, the ethnicities living in the formation had to have no right to life, childbirth or educational facilities in their native language, no right to local government and so on.
The mass process of the rejection of colonialism started after 1960 and 1963 was declared “The Year of Africa”. The process when most African countries were freed from colonialism dates to that period and the list of peoples and nations intending to declare their self-determination as a state was announced. Today all nations and peoples have self-determination and have created their nation states. Only ethnic minorities are left now and the issue of their self-determination is being considered from a new perspective. The consideration of this issue from the new perspective is primarily related to the European convention on the legal status of national minorities which was adopted in 1993. Under this convention national minorities living on the territory of a national majority and not violating its territorial integrity can have self-determination. This means that such national minorities may create national state bodies, organizations, theatres, newspapers and so on. In other words, national minorities cannot violate the territorial integrity of the national majority and this regulation is enshrined in article 25 of the European convention on the legal status of national minorities.
Armenia has been insisting on the self-determination of Karabakh Armenians for some time, but the convention adopted in 1993 left them no hope. The convention clearly set the principles for the self-determination of national minorities.
However, in recent years another axiom has emerged, this time connected with “humanitarian intervention". The "humanitarian intervention" issue applies when mass violations of human rights, a policy of genocide, are observed against a national minority within a state. This, in turn, created new nuances in the self-determination of national minorities. In other words, when national minorities are subjected to the mass violation of human rights, a policy of genocide, by the national majority, then they gain the right to secession. Kosovo adhered to this principle, when it gained the right to self-determination. In reality, Serbians executed a policy of genocide in relation to Albanians and Croatians living in Kosovo. Therefore, the decision on Kosovo taken by the International Court is legal. However, it is impossible to compare Kosovo to Karabakh, because representatives of the national majority are subjected to pressure in Karabakh. If anything illegal had been done with regard to the national minority in Karabakh, they would have had the right to self-determination. But it was the national majority that was subjected to a policy of genocide in Karabakh. In this respect, I would like to repeat that the Kosovo precedent cannot be applied to Karabakh.
Q: Will Armenia use the decision of the court in the Hague to justify the occupation?
A: Initially, after the decision of the Hague court, the Armenians tried to make use of it. However, they rejected their idea when they realized that they would not be able to prove the violation of Armenians’ rights in Azerbaijan, since Armenians residing in Karabakh cannot be called a colonial people, since colonial people cannot have 15 newspapers, four theatres, an airport and national organizations. The Armenian side now has no way out. They still ensure their existence by means of Russia. But this cannot last long and Russia must, therefore, change the priorities. As for Armenia, it should first liberate the Azerbaijani regions around Karabakh and then agree on the application of norms of international law in defining the status of Karabakh.
Q: Would an appeal by Azerbaijan to the International Court about the absence of the right of Karabakh Armenians to self-determination be expedient?
A: The Azerbaijani public will come to this sooner or later. I think territorial disputes cannot be settled politically. Such issues can be settled only in two ways - military or legal. A military settlement to the Karabakh conflict is not considered possible. The legal way for this issue lies in the International Court. The need for an appeal will arise one day and the world community will ask us about it. For example, the Filipino-Indonesian conflict in 1931 ended in the International Court. We should accept that we have to appeal to the International Court. Meanwhile, the court should not sit only on Karabakh, but also to define the legal status of the Caspian Sea, on existing issues between Azerbaijan and Georgia and between Azerbaijan and Russia.
Q: What decision should we expect from the International Court on Karabakh? Does the consideration of the problem in the court pose any threat to Azerbaijan historically or legally?
A: There are procedural rules for such an appeal. First, each of the two conflicting parties must recognize the statute of the UN court. Second, the parties must agree on the resolution of the problem via the UN court. None of the conflicting parties will agree to such a court, so they must be forced to accept it. We should prepare for the court. Therefore, Azerbaijan must create a special expert group to work in the International Court. We will win this case since the truth is on our side. As for Armenia, it must be forced to accept the consideration of the case in the International Court.
W.W.
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
