The importance of the interaction of law and politics, known since the time of ancient Greeks and Cicero, is becoming more and more significant for overcoming political crises, resolving issues of cross-border communications during military-political confrontations. This problem has gained particular relevance in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis in the South Caucasus. The large-scale military operations during the aggressive war unleashed in 2020 against the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic ended with a truce, the main provisions of which were formulated on November 9, 2020 in a tripartite Declaration by the leaders of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. It was decided to create a humanitarian corridor between the Republic of Armenia and the Nagorno -Karabakh, which became the only road connecting it with the outside world. The ninth paragraph of this application concerned the unlocking of all economic and transport relations in the region and organizing unhindered movement of citizens, vehicles and goods in both directions. It also concerned the construction of new transport communications connecting Azerbaijan with its Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic. The parties to the Declaration, however, interpret this item differently.
Azerbaijan has put forward the requirement to create the so - called “Zangesur corridor”, referring to the extraterritorial status of the roads passing through the Syunik region of the Republic of Armenia, connecting Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan autonomy and further with Turkey, and claiming that the creation of such a corridor is provided for the above clause of the Declaration, which Armenia is obliged to fulfill. Further on, Azerbaijan puts forward this requirement as one of the main assumptions of negotiations that the parties conduct with the aim of concluding an agreement on peaceful coexistence.
This requirement is actively supported by Turkey - the ally of Azerbaijan, who even linked the solution of this issue to the success of Armenian-Turkish negotiations on the establishment of interstate relations. Speaking of the corridor, Azerbaijani President Aliyev repeatedly threatened to get the “Zangesur corridor” by force if Armenia does not provide it voluntarily to him. Azerbaijani invasion on September 12-14, 2020 of the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia, followed by the occupation of 150 square kilometers and blocking the Karabakh humanitarian corridor, has shown that Azerbaijan is trying to sequentially implement the policy of forcing Armenia to adopt conditions for it: the rejection of the sovereignty of the territory of his country and the eviction of the Armenians of the Nagorno - Karabakh from the land, on which they lived for millennia, making up the overwhelming majority of the population.
The Armenian authorities, however, say that there are no negotiations on the creation of the extraterritorial “Zangesur corridor” and cannot be, arguing that all unlocked and newly created transport routes will function on the basis of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states through which they pass. The European Union and Russia are inclined to this position. The Russian Foreign Ministry noted that “it is also important, especially in the light of the situation that is spread in the media around the so -called Zangesur corridor that all three participants of the tripartite working group (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia) agreed that all unlocked and newly created transport routes will function on the basis of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states, through the territory of which they pass. The Iranian authorities announced even more categorically about this, warning that the territorial integrity of Armenia is a “red line” for Iran.
But let's turn to the legal side of this issue, which has become one of the “stumbling blocks” in the negotiations of the conflicting parties. We ask ourselves: what should be the legal basis for solving this problem by means of the principles and provisions of international law and existing international legal acts?
Legal issues of cross -border communications and transit regimes have long been an integral part of international law. The international community over time adopted a number of international legal instruments containing provisions designed to help countries organize transit transportation through the territory of neighboring countries. This problem was and remains relevant for many European, Asian, African and Latin American countries, forced to use cross -border, mainly ground, communications of other countries.
The international community made a lot of efforts to draw a substantial legal framework for it. The main legal instruments containing the definitions of transit transportation include:
• Convention and Statute on Freedom of Transit 1921 of the League of Nations (entered into force on October 31, 1922)
• General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1947, currently constituting part of the 1994 GATTs
• The 1965 Convention on the transit trade of intracontinental states (entered into force on June 9, 1967).
Starting from the middle of the last century, international law has also been enriched with such documents as “The Convention on the Treaty of International Road Transportation of goods” of 1956; “The International Convention to simplify and coordinate customs procedures” (Kyoto, 1973) and some other similar acts.
MDP Convention (The Customs Convention On the International Transport of Goods Under Cover of TIR Carnets, TIR Convention), which is applied to traffic vehicles and containers, and signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan, simplifies the international transportation of goods from one or more customs departures to one or more customs destinations. At the same time, the customs authorities of each country are given the right to conduct verification selectively, or if there are suspicions of violations.
The importance of a solid regulatory framework as the basis for simplifying transit procedures, the development of railway, road, pipeline and air transport routes, and creating an effective transit system, was also noted in the 2003 Alma-Ata program. In the development of the provisions of the Alma-Ata program of the UN General Assembly, on December 12, 2014, the resolution “A program of actions for developing countries that have no access to the sea” was adopted for 2014–2024 period (Vienna program). The fact that the issues of individual international transport corridors are regulated by national legislations and international treaties are also indicated in clause 9 of the Yalta memorandum of September 18, 2003 on cooperation of the states - participants in the Union of Independent States in the field of international transport corridors. By signing this memorandum, Azerbaijan in paragraph 2 of his “special opinion” said that “none of the rights, duties and provisions set forth in this memorandum will be accepted by the Republic of Azerbaijan in relation to the Republic of Armenia.” Really, Azerbaijan there, in clause 3, indicated that "it reserves the right to change or exclude paragraph 2 of this special opinion at any time, which other parties will be notified in writing." The question arises, isn’t it the time for Azerbaijan to fulfill this obligation?
Today, many international institutions within the framework of the UN system are actively involved in cross-border communications. The UN General Assembly regularly appeals to this issue, and such an institution of the UN as the Conference on Trade and Development (JUNCTAD) works in constant mode, as well as many regional commissions.
The Azerbaijani authorities accuse Armenia in not respecting the 9th paragraph of the Declaration signed on 09.11.2020 by the Presidents of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Azerbaijan, and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia. They are trying to identify the status of transport communication with the Western regions of Azerbaijan with its Nakhichevan autonomy which in the same 9th paragraph is considered as part of the unlocking of all economic and transport relations in the region, with the status of the Lachin corridor, which is the humanitarian corridor created by the parties to the armed conflict under the protection of the Russian peacekeeping contingent to provide the possibility of safe passage of civilians, the provision of humanitarian aid and the provision of other similar goals for a limited time.
To clarify the issue, we will consider the full text of the 9th paragraph: “All economic and transport relations in the region will be unlocked. The Republic of Armenia guarantees the safety of transport communications between the western regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic in order to organize unhindered movement of citizens, vehicles and goods in both directions. The control of the transport passage shall be carried out by the relevant bodies of the Border Service of the FSB of Russia. By agreement of the parties, the construction of new transport communications connecting the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic with the western regions of Azerbaijan will be ensured. ”http://kremlin.ru/acts/news/64384
Regarding the first sentence of the aforementioned text, the Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinian repeatedly declared interest and readiness to solve this issue in accordance with international standards. The Government of Armenia put forward specific proposals indicating real roads and 3 customs points. “I in Prague again confirmed our proposal to unlock all regional communications. Azerbaijan again did not give a positive answer. I confirm that Armenia is ready to unlock all regional communications, fully respecting our sovereignty and our legislation” N. Pashinian said after his four - sided meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, Chairman of the European Council Charles Michel and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, held on October 6, 2022 .
Further, in the text of the 9th paragraph, it is indicated that it is Armenia that guarantees the security of transport communication between the western regions of Azerbaijan and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic. It is unlikely that the Azerbaijani side does not understand what it means to ensure the security of the transport route by Armenia, which of its state bodies should do this and on the basis of what jurisdiction. It is worth drawing the attention to such an important aspect of ensuring security as combating international organized crime, the danger of which in cross-border traffic is well known and very relevant. Here is what is stated in the UN Convention against Organized Transnational Crime, (adopted by General Assembly resolution 55/25 of November 15, 2000):” Nothing in this Convention entitles a State Party to exercise in the territory of another State the jurisdiction and functions which are exclusively within the competence of the authorities of that other State in accordance with its domestic law. (Article 4, paragraph 2)
It can be safely assumed that the Azerbaijani authorities are well aware of this legal norm of the said Convention, as well as the rest of the UN members, since almost all of them have acceded to it.
As for the mission of the Border Service of the FSB of the Russian Federation, the document clearly states that it should only exercise control over this case, and this is possible only in cooperation with the relevant Armenian authorities. In addition, according to the legislation of the Russian Federation, the FSB of the Russian Federation does not have the functions of customs control; this is the prerogative of the Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation. Therefore, customs control on both sides of the border, in any case, will have to be carried out by local customs services.
The Vienna Agenda mentioned above noted that, recognizing the importance of railways to economies and communities, 19 countries became parties to the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Trans-Asian Railway Network, including several landlocked developing countries such as the Lao People's Democratic Republic , Mongolia, Nepal, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Other landlocked developing countries that have signed but not yet become parties to the Agreement are Armenia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Turkmenistan is at the accession stage. So what prevents Armenia and Azerbaijan from making a political decision based on a legal basis and taking concrete steps in this direction? An analysis of Azerbaijan's demands on the so-called "Zangezur corridor" shows that they are aimed not so much at creating a transport corridor according to generally accepted standards and in accordance with the provisions and recommendations of the UN and other international bodies, but rather at realizing their territorial claims against Armenia. The Azerbaijani side not only openly declares these claims through the mouth of its President I. Aliyev, but starting from 2021, it has repeatedly tried to realize through armed aggression.
As mentioned above, I. Aliyev puts forward these requirements as one of the main preconditions for the negotiations that the parties are conducting with the aim of concluding an agreement on peaceful coexistence. Threats by I. Aliyev to build the “corridor” he needs by military force fit well into his policy of claims to the sovereign territories of Armenia, including the Sevan and the Syunik regions and even the Armenian capital Yerevan. On top of that, the extraterritorial "corridor" will cut off and isolate Armenia from Iran, deprive Armenia of the possibility of access through Iran to seaports and international transport communications running through its territory. As for Iran, the land route South-North will be closed to the territory of Azerbaijan and be under its control. And if I. Aliyev's plans come true, then Azerbaijan will become the main beneficiary of the trade routes from China to the Mediterranean Sea, which can pass through the territory that is no longer subjected to Armenia. Erdogan's Turkey will be no less a beneficiary, having received additional opportunities for the implementation of its pan-Turan project.
It is also obvious that the Azerbaijani authorities are unlikely to plan any actions to unblock transport communications on their territory for the Armenian side. Such a policy poses a serious threat to the peaceful existence of the two neighboring peoples and carries the danger of a new war with tens of thousands of dead, wounded and refugees.
The need to adhere to international legal instruments in bilateral agreements on transport and transit, or international customs procedures regarding the facilitation of transport and transit procedures, “whereby compliance with the provisions of such legal instruments is a condition for the use of permits on an exchange basis”, was clearly indicated in the materials of the UN Geneva Conference on Trade and Development (27-28 September 2007). As from many other UN documents and international legal acts, one can come to an unambiguous conclusion: any transport communications must function in accordance with the norms and provisions of international law.
Therefore, in order to achieve agreement and peace, Armenia and Azerbaijan should build their policies precisely on this basis, and international mediators such as Russia, the United States, France, Iran and others should make every effort to ensure that the Azerbaijani authorities conduct negotiations within the clear framework of international law.
Comments