in accordance with the legislation of the USSR
SUMMARY
1. Legal assessment of the state of affairs before the transfer of Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) to the Azerbaijan Socialist Soviet Republic, created in 1920. Artsakh (Karabakh) has always been an integral part of Armenia since ancient times. The Armenian principalities (Meliks), which existed in Artsakh until the 18th century, remained one of the last centers of the Armenian national-state system. After the collapse of the Russian Empire, the Congress of Armenians of Karabakh in 1918 proclaimed Karabakh an independent entity. The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR), created in the same year, attempted to incorporate Nagorno-Karabakh into its structure with the help of the Turkish army, but failed to do so. The League of Nations refused to de jure recognize the ADR. Before the establishment of Soviet power in Azerbaijan, Artsakh was neither de jure nor de facto part of the ADR.
2. The adoption in 1921, after the establishment of Soviet power in the South Caucasus, of the decision to include Artsakh in Soviet Azerbaijan by a political party of a third country - the Caucasus Bureau of the RCP (b), which did not have the appropriate jurisdiction, contradicted both the principles of international law and the principles of the national policy proclaimed by the Bolsheviks and norms of the national-territorial structure of the Soviet state. Soviet Azerbaijan became part of the Soviet Union with the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which was transferred to it illegally and de jure could not belong to it.
3. One of the most important characteristics of the Soviet autonomy was the principle of self-determination of the nation on the basis of its territorial isolation. The autonomies were given a high level of self-government, to adopt legal documents regulating guaranteeing its legal status, which could not be changed without the consent of the region itself. Broad autonomy was seen as a sine qua non (obligatory condition) for the region to stay “within” the Azerbaijan SSR. Assigning to itself the right to “abolish” the autonomy of Artsakh, Azerbaijan returned the issue to its original legal position that existed before the decision of the Caucasus Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) of July 5, 1921.
4. Law of the USSR dated April 3, 1990 No. 1409-I “On the procedure for resolving issues related to the withdrawal of a union republic from the USSR” obliged the seceding republic to comply with the generally recognized principles and norms of international law, as well as human rights and freedoms enshrined in international treaties, of which the USSR is a member. But, both during the formation of the Karabakh autonomy, and during the secession of Azerbaijan from the USSR and the decision to liquidate this autonomous entity, both Soviet and international legal norms were grossly violated.
5. The Constitutional Act of the Republic of Azerbaijan states that in 1920 Russia annexed the territory of the sovereign Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, and the agreement on the formation of the USSR of December 30, 1922 was intended to consolidate this annexation. If the inclusion of Soviet Azerbaijan into the USSR with the territory transferred to it by the Russian authorities, who committed the annexation of Azerbaijan, is considered an illegal act, then the very presence of Nagorno-Karabakh as part of “illegal” Soviet Azerbaijan is also outside the legal framework.
6. Both in the Alma-Ata Declaration and in the Agreement on the Establishment of the CIS, concluded in December 1991, all the signatories of these documents position themselves as independent states and have designated their status without any indication of continuity with the former Soviet republics. Recognition and respect for the territorial integrity of the states that signed the Declaration is associated with the inviolability of the borders existing at the time of signing this particular document. In our case, this agreement was signed by the newly formed Republic of Azerbaijan (AR) - the legal successor not of the Azerbaijan SSR, but of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR), which had no legitimate grounds to consider Nagorno-Karabakh as its territory. Neither the Agreement nor the Declaration refers to the recognition of the borders of the independent states that have signed them within the administrative borders of the former Soviet republics.
7. 7. Thus, it can be argued that two independent states left the USSR almost simultaneously - Azerbaijan with violations of the law and without the territory of the NKR, and the NKR itself - in compliance with the requirements of the laws and de facto owning its territory. This fact was also noted by the European Parliament in the Resolution on support for the peace process in the Caucasus, March 11, 1999.
8. It is important to note that Article 67.1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation stipulates that the Russian Federation is the legal continuer of the USSR, including in terms of membership in international organizations, their bodies, international treaties, as well as obligations under international treaties. From the point of view of international law, the geopolitical transformations of 1991 did not lead to the abolition of the USSR as a subject of international law. Despite the changes in territory, population, etc., the state named "USSR" continued its international legal personality under the name "Russian Federation". In international law, the concept of "continuity" is used to refer to these types of phenomena. A state that under a new name continues to fulfill international rights and obligations with respect to the relevant territory, population, property, etc., is called a "continuing state" ("État-continuateur"). The Russian Federation has repeatedly announced its position and considers it relevant, which was embodied in the actions taken towards Crimea, the self-proclaimed republics of Donbas and other autonomies. This means that the Russian Federation is obliged to take into account the provisions of the Soviet legislation in its foreign policy, including those related to the legal status of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and its recognition. This argument should be in the arsenal of RA foreign political departments.
Kommentare