Interview with Rustam Mammadov, head of International Law Department at the Baku State University.
Q: Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan said in recent interview with Russian media that self-determination of Karabakh within Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity would be “a truncate” and “primitive” self-determination. Does this conclusion of the Armenian President meet international norms?
A: I believe that with his statements Serzh Sargsyan has already reached the point when he can announce himself Prophet Moses.
Sargsyan lacks basic education to look through the European Convention on the Rights of National Minorities adopted in 1993, undersigned by Azerbaijan and Armenia. This convention states that a national minority living in the national territory has no right to violate the country’s territorial integrity
In addition, it states that the right to self-determination must occur without violating the territorial integrity of states. Along with this, a national minority may exercise its right under the state's territorial integrity. In other words, these axiomatic principles are enshrined in international law.
Therefore, if the Armenian president revises all the known points of international law, it turns out that he already claims to be a "prophet." His statements correspond neither to any international law nor the elementary logic
Q: How founded is Sargsyan’s statement that creation of new states would be impossible without nation’s rights to self-determination?
A: Who said the world community welcomes the creation of new states? Creation of new states leads to a violation of international law and creates problems for the countries themselves. In other words, the creation of a new state is not desirable for the international community. In fact, a nation should have these rights in order to determine its destiny.
This right is, in turn, can be applied only to countries in slave-like conditions, and towards which the policy of genocide has been applied. In addition, the right of nations to self-determination can be realized through violation of principle of territorial integrity only if the national majority agrees to such a breach.
Finally, the right of nations to self-determination can be realized when the state is split into several parts. In all other cases, self-determination would be illegal act and would be contrary to international law. Thus, none of the above cases are applicable to Karabakh Armenians. Azerbaijan will never agree to secession of Karabakh.
Azerbaijan also has not applied a policy of genocide against the Armenians. On the contrary, such a policy has been applied by Armenia against Azerbaijanis living on its territory.
Q: Armenian President also claims that recognition of Kosovo, South Sudan, Abkhazia and South Ossetia play a positive role in future recognition of “independence” of Nagorno-Karabakh. How true is the Armenian leader’s remarks?
A: It should be noted that the Sudanese nation has historically lived in this territory. Besides, the people of Sudan got divided into two parts on basis of mutual consent. In other words, Sudan’s territorial integrity was breached based on consent of the peoples living there. With regard to Kosovo, it announced its independence with the help of NATO forces, and to date this fact has been criticized by a number of heads of state and international law experts.
Thus, independence of Kosovo was presented to the world on the bayonets of NATO. But at the same time, it should be admitted that the genocide by the Serbs against the Albanians in Kosovo was proved which made self-determination of this structure possible.
Q: Serzh Sargsyan has warned that if Azerbaijan decides to resume hostilities in order to regain Karabakh, Armenia will recognize its “independence”. What political and legal consequences will this step have for Armenia and international community as a whole?
A: In general, Azerbaijan will try to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict peacefully. Naturally, if Azerbaijan resorts to a military solution to the problem, it will be a step coordinated with the international community.
In addition, it is natural that Azerbaijan will restore its territorial integrity with this step that which is acknowledged by global community.
As to Yerevan’s threats to recognize Karabakh’s “independence”, let Armenia take such a step as many times as it desires after Azerbaijan restores its territorial integrity.
Q: How real it would be to refuse mediation services of OSCE and move it to agenda of the UN?
A: The Azerbaijani side can not resolve this issue unilaterally. At one time, the Karabakh conflict settlement was discussed at the UN level. However, the problem was handed over to the OSCE after the Azerbaijani diplomacy showed weakness in that period and was unable to prove that the Karabakh conflict is international, but not regional issue. Therefore, in this stage it is inexpedient to abandon the OSCE peacekeeping mechanism.
Lala B.
News.Az
Normal 0 21 false false false TR X-NONE X-NONE
Interview with Rustam Mammadov, head of International Law Department at the Baku State University.
Q: Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan said in recent interview with Russian media that self-determination of Karabakh within Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity would be “a truncate” and “primitive” self-determination. Does this conclusion of the Armenian President meet international norms?
A: I believe that with his statements Serzh Sargsyan has already reached the point when he can announce himself Prophet Moses.
Sargsyan lacks basic education to look through the European Convention on the Rights of National Minorities adopted in 1993, undersigned by Azerbaijan and Armenia. This convention states that a national minority living in the national territory has no right to violate the country’s territorial integrity.
In addition, it states that the right to self-determination must occur without violating the territorial integrity of states. Along with this, a national minority may exercise its right under the state's territorial integrity. In other words, these axiomatic principles are enshrined in international law.
Therefore, if the Armenian president revises all the known points of international law, it turns out that he already claims to be a "prophet." His statements correspond neither to any international law nor the elementary logic.
Q: How founded is Sargsyan’s statement that creation of new states would be impossible without nation’s rights to self-determination?
A: Who said the world community welcomes the creation of new states? Creation of new states leads to a violation of international law and creates problems for the countries themselves. In other words, the creation of a new state is not desirable for the international community. In fact, a nation should have these rights in order to determine its destiny.
This right is, in turn, can be applied only to countries in slave-like conditions, and towards which the policy of genocide has been applied. In addition, the right of nations to self-determination can be realized through violation of principle of territorial integrity only if the national majority agrees to such a breach.
Finally, the right of nations to self-determination can be realized when the state is split into several parts. In all other cases, self-determination would be illegal act and would be contrary to international law. Thus, none of the above cases are applicable to Karabakh Armenians. Azerbaijan will never agree to secession of Karabakh.
Azerbaijan also has not applied a policy of genocide against the Armenians. On the contrary, such a policy has been applied by Armenia against Azerbaijanis living on its territory.
Q: Armenian President also claims that recognition of Kosovo, South Sudan, Abkhazia and South Ossetia play a positive role in future recognition of “independence” of Nagorno-Karabakh. How true is the Armenian leader’s remarks?
A: It should be noted that the Sudanese nation has historically lived in this territory. Besides, the people of Sudan got divided into two parts on basis of mutual consent. In other words, Sudan’s territorial integrity was breached based on consent of the peoples living there. With regard to Kosovo, it announced its independence with the help of NATO forces, and to date this fact has been criticized by a number of heads of state and international law experts.
Thus, independence of Kosovo was presented to the world on the bayonets of NATO. But at the same time, it should be admitted that the genocide by the Serbs against the Albanians in Kosovo was proved which made self-determination of this structure possible.
Q: Serzh Sargsyan has warned that if Azerbaijan decides to resume hostilities in order to regain Karabakh, Armenia will recognize its “independence”. What political and legal consequences will this step have for Armenia and international community as a whole?
A: In general, Azerbaijan will try to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict peacefully. Naturally, if Azerbaijan resorts to a military solution to the problem, it will be a step coordinated with the international community.
In addition, it is natural that Azerbaijan will restore its territorial integrity with this step that which is acknowledged by global community.
As to Yerevan’s threats to recognize Karabakh’s “independence”, let Armenia take such a step as many times as it desires after Azerbaijan restores its territorial integrity.
Q: How real it would be to refuse mediation services of OSCE and move it to agenda of the UN?
A: The Azerbaijani side can not resolve this issue unilaterally. At one time, the Karabakh conflict settlement was discussed at the UN level. However, the problem was handed over to the OSCE after the Azerbaijani diplomacy showed weakness in that period and was unable to prove that the Karabakh conflict is international, but not regional issue. Therefore, in this stage it is inexpedient to abandon the OSCE peacekeeping mechanism.
Lala B.
News.Az
