In recent years, Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan has constantly referred to the 1991 Declaration of Alma-Ata, arguing that the newly independent states that signed this Declaration recognize their territorial integrity within the framework of the former administrative borders of the union republics of the USSR, which become state borders. The leaders of some countries involved in the Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiation process also declare that the Declaration is recognized as the legal basis for determining the borders between Azerbaijan and Armenia. And also Mr. Charles Michel, starting with the meeting on 10/06/2022 in Prague, in which Emmanuel Macron, Nikol Pashinyan and Ilham Aliyev also participated. In this case, the content and text are grossly distorted.
We have already written about this more than once on the website of the Armenian Association of Political Scientists (https://www.aapsc.info). A detailed analysis of these distortions for the purpose of political manipulation is set out in the Statement of the group of international experts and in the analytical note to it, also published on our website and in a number of media. However, even today, even some of those politicians and diplomats who oppose illegitimate policies and actions to surrender territories to Azerbaijan do not always demonstrate a proper understanding of some issues related to the Alma-Ata Declaration.
Today, many, not without reason, claim that the process that began on the sovereign territory of Armenia, the Tavush region, should be qualified as an illegal process of delimitation and demarcation under the threat of the use of force. One cannot but agree with the statement that delimitation and demarcation in the absence of a comprehensive agreement and diplomatic relations between the two countries is an unprecedented phenomenon in diplomatic practice, which calls into question its legitimacy; the process is unacceptable, illegal and unconstitutional. And that the legal basis for the delimitation process is the methodology jointly adopted by the negotiating parties, based on valid and legally binding acts.
There were also statements that the Alma-Ata Declaration in no case can be such a basis, since it does not contain a description of the borders and the authorities’ recognition of the Alma-Ata Declaration as a basis for the delimitation and demarcation of the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan is “illegal and criminally punishable.” "
In this regard, we consider it necessary to return to this topic again.
Let us immediately note the very strange and, perhaps, made with a certain intent, appeal of the current authorities of Armenia specifically to the Declaration. In fact, why try to appeal to the Declaration, while the legal document that gives valid legal status to the provisions set out in it is the Agreement “On the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States”, signed on December 8, 1991, which was later joined by other republics that signed Declaration, declaring essentially their consent to accede to the above-mentioned Agreement. It was signed (with reservations) by the Republic of Armenia and, after ratification, acquired the force of law.
The Agreement stated the fact of the termination of the existence of the USSR and set out the goals and principles of the CIS. Two weeks later, on December 21, 1991, in Alma-Ata, the heads of eleven newly independent states signed the Alma-Ata Declaration, which repeated the provisions of the Agreement and declared “commitment to the goals and principles of the Agreement on the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States.” A comparison of the texts of the Declaration and the Agreement confirms the above. In our case, it is important to note the coincidence in both documents of the wording on territorial integrity and borders.
Declaration:
recognizing and respecting each other’s territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing
borders.”
Agreement: Article 5:
High Contracting Parties recognize and respect each other's territorial integrity and the
inviolability of existing borders within the commonwealth.
Therefore, in response to statements that the provisions on borders and territorial integrity set out in the Alma-Ata Declaration can in no way be a legitimate basis in this matter, the opposing side can shift the needle to the Agreement on the Creation of the CIS. Moreover, in documents of this kind, hardly anyone has the right to expect a specific and detailed definition of boundaries. As shown above, both documents define them as “existing boundaries.” This is where, as they say, “the devil is hidden.”
The fact is that they are trying to identify the definition of “existing borders” with the administrative borders of the former Soviet republics. Attempts are being made to unreasonably and by default apply to the Alma-Ata Declaration the legal provisions that have developed in international practice, meaning that new states, being colonies and gaining independence, have the same territory and with the same borders that they had before being administrative units in the metropolis having these colonies. However, these attempts have no legal basis. This is an inadequate application of the uti possidetis principle. Azerbaijani authors and others like them are unreasonably trying to refer to this principle, misinterpreting it. However, this principle is based on the idea that a newly independent state should have a stable and recognizable territorial base, and the boundaries should be determined by the actual possession and control of the territory at the time of independence, and in our case, at the time of signing of both the Declaration and the Agreement.
The Soviet Union, from which the union republics emerged, had a complex and multi-level state structure. The union republics included autonomous republics and autonomous regions that had a certain status and functions of state entities. According to Soviet legislative acts, one of the most important characteristics of Soviet autonomy was the principle of the nation’s self-determination within its own territory, a territory with its own boundaries, the autonomy had a national-territorial character and represented one of the forms of government of nations.
In addition to the union republics, there were also autonomous republics in the USSR, that is, also state formations of a certain level. Colonies could not be such entities. There were none in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia before its collapse, except for Kosovo, which had only certain privileged administrative rights.
The jurisdiction of Soviet autonomies, both republics and regions, over their territory was exclusive. The legal status and territories of autonomy could not be changed without their consent. When union republics seceded from the USSR, the peoples of autonomous republics and autonomous formations retained the right to independently decide on the issue of staying either in the seceding union republic or in the USSR, as well as to resolve the issue of their other state-legal status.
Broad autonomy was seen as a prerequisite sine qua non, for example, for the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region to remain “within” the Azerbaijan SSR. However, the Azerbaijan SSR seceded from the USSR with gross violations of the requirements of the Law of April 3, 1990. According to the principle of ex injuria non oritur jus, unlawful actions could not serve as a source of rights for the newly formed Azerbaijan Republic. Moreover, in 1991, upon secession from the USSR and the proclamation of the modern independent Azerbaijan Republic, the latter recognized itself as the legal successor of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR), and not the Azerbaijan SSR, and the legal entity to which the territories were transferred ceased to exist.
At the same time, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region used the right given to it by the USSR laws mentioned above to independently decide its future fate. The proclamation of the Declaration of Independence by this autonomy also corresponds to the provisions of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo, which states that “the adoption of the Declaration of Independence of February 17, 2008 did not violate the general principles of international law, since international law does not contain a “prohibition on the declaration of independence " It can be stated that neither de jure nor de facto Nagorno-Karabakh was and could not be recognized as an “integral part” of the newly proclaimed modern Republic of Azerbaijan.
To provide an appropriate basis for resolving the conflict that arose in connection with the declaration of independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and to ensure the negotiation process, the OSCE Minsk Group was created, co-chaired by OSCE-mandated representatives of the United States, France and Russia, countries that are permanent members of the the UN Security Council. Basic principles for resolving the conflict were developed, based on the principles of the Helsinki Final Act on the non-use of force, territorial integrity, equality and self-determination of peoples. Pending the determination in the future of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh on the basis of a legally binding expression of will, it was envisaged that Nagorno-Karabakh would be granted a temporary status guaranteeing its security and self-government. However, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev actually opposed these principles, declaring that Azerbaijan refuses to “abstain from the military path to resolve the conflict and that the military path is not, and has never been, an exception.” Following this political line, Azerbaijan committed aggression against the NKR in 2020, unleashing a large-scale 44-day war, and in 2023 completely occupied the NKR, subjecting its population to ethnic cleansing. Today, the presumptuous dictator of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, is already using an ultimatum to demand that the authorities of the Republic of Armenia support his intention to completely liquidate the Minsk Group.
It should also be noted that the Republic of Armenia, after signing the Alma-Ata Declaration, ratified the Agreement “On the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States” with reservations. Clause 10 of the reservations reads: “The second paragraph of Article 13 of the Agreement after the words “open for accession by all member states of the former USSR” should be supplemented with the words: “including for the former autonomous entities of the USSR, which, before the adoption of the declaration “On the cessation of the existence of the USSR”, held a national referendum on the declaration of independence and on the basis of this, the highest executive body of the autonomous entity turned to the Commonwealth of Independent States with a request to be accepted into its composition.” That is, it is unequivocally indicated that Armenia’s recognition of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan does not extend to Nagorno-Karabakh. Indeed, by the end of 1991, Declarations of Independence were adopted in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, the Transnistrian Republic and the NKR.
Thus, it can be stated, and we have already written and stated this several times, that the Alma-Ata Declaration specifically used the wording “existing borders” in order to make it clear that these are not “the borders of the former Soviet republics,” but precisely those that exist at the time of signing the declaration and, accordingly, the Agreement on the creation of the CIS. The lack of mention of the administrative borders of the former union republics is due to the fact that by the time this declaration was signed, the borders of some states that had already become independent as a result of the collapse of the USSR, neither de facto nor de jure, coincided with the administrative borders of the union republics. The former intrastate administrative-territorial boundaries of a dissolved union state (in this case, the USSR), which had within itself state formations of one level or another status, could not in themselves be the legal basis for determining the interstate borders of the newly formed states. When leaving the union of Soviet republics, other autonomous state entities that were part of it, namely, autonomous republics and autonomous regions, had the right, in accordance with Soviet legislation, to legally withdraw from the union republics and independently decide the issue of their status. Taking into account the fact that international law also does not contain a ban on declaring independence.
Comments