Author: Mihran Shahzadeyan
Ph.D., Political Scientist
Summary, please read full version in Russian: https://www.aapsc.info/post/pravovye-voprosy-transgranichnyh
The quadripartite meeting of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, French President Emmanuel Macron, President of the European Council Charles Michel and President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, held in Prague on October 6, 2022, once again showed that in the negotiation process with a view to concluding an agreement on peaceful coexistence, which Armenia and Azerbaijan lead there are serious contradictions. One of the problems is that Azerbaijan is insisting on the demand for the creation of the so-called "Zangezur corridor", referring to the extraterritorial status of the roads connecting Azerbaijan with the Nakhichevan autonomy and further to Turkey, threatening to resolve this issue by military force. Armenia, however, considers this an attack on its territorial integrity, as well as an attempt to cut it off from neighboring Iran, and proposes that all unblocked and newly created transport routes operate on the basis of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states through which they pass. The Russian Foreign Ministry is also inclined to this position, while the Iranian authorities warn that the territorial integrity of Armenia is a “red line” for Iran.
Having considered the legal side of this issue, which has become one of the "stumbling blocks" in the negotiations of the conflicting parties, having analyzed the UN resolutions and materials, legal acts of other international and regional institutions, we can come to an unambiguous conclusion: any transport communications, any transport corridors must function in accordance with the norms and the provisions of international law, which does not provide for an extraterritorial status for such cross-border transport communications, as referred to in paragraph 9 of the above-mentioned tripartite Statement. Moreover, resolution 55/25 of the UN General Assembly of 15 November 2000 expressly states that nothing entitles a State Party to exercise in the territory of another State the jurisdiction and functions that fall exclusively within the competence of the organs of that other State in accordance with its internal legislation.
コメント