On March 13, Armenia and Azerbaijan finalized negotiations on the text of a project of framework contract on peace and the creation of interstate relations between the two countries. The draft agreement includes 17 provisions and a preamble. The negotiations were delayed by the defect of the Armenian party to agree with two of the 17 provisions. Last year, President Azerbaijani Ilham Aliyev noted that the two clauses not resolved in the agreement of the agreement are as follows: do not file the international complaints against each other, and the abolition of external third parties from the Armenia-Azerbaidjan border.
Currently, a so -called “civil” European Union mission on the Armenian side of the border is an irritant and does not contribute to stability. Although Armenia has agreed not to park external actors at the Armenia-Azerbaijan border as part of the draft convention, he does not intend to put this into practice. The Prime Minister of the country Nikol Pashinyan clearly indicated that Erevan was ready to withdraw European “observers” only from the border -defined sections. Given the duration of the shared border, it will take decades to conclude the border demarcation process, which means that the EU’s mission will in fact remain on the border. It is a factor complicating the interpretation of the draft agreement, creating a subject of discord and not contributing to lasting peace in the region. Given the history of Armenia during its occupation of the Azerbaijani lands and that Erevan had a different interpretation of the 2020 trilateral agreement between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia, it seems very likely that Armenia is going to imitate the implementation of the draft agreement, creating other bones of conflict.
Presenting the draft agreement as a complete peace agreement at this stage is bad. First of all, the agreement does not deal with the opening of communications, repairs and the responsibility of the conflict. It seems that the Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan deliberately changes the nature of the draft framework contract by presenting it as a “complete” peace agreement in order to escape the above -mentioned problems. However, the draft framework contract that the finalized parties establishes common principles to move forward towards a lasting peace through future negotiations. As for Azerbaijan, Baku has always declared that he intended to sign a lasting and irreversible peace agreement with Armenia as a state and the Armenian people, not only with the Pashinal government.
In an official press release following the conclusion of talks on the peace agreement, the Azerbaijani foreign ministry has reiterated the official and long -standing position of the country that the amendments must be brought to the territorial affirmations devoted to the Constitution of Armenia, and that the Metk group mechanism, an inheritance of the conflict, must be deleted before the project agreement can be signed. The Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ararat Mirzoyan, refused to modify the irrecent complaints against Azerbaijan in the Constitution and to put an end to the mechanism of the Minsk group now unrelevant.
The preamble to the Armenian Declaration of the States of Independence, “on the basis of the joint decision of December 1, 1989 of the supreme Armenian SSR Council and the National Council of Artsakhs on the” Reunification of the Armenian State and the Karabakh mountainous region “… The allegations of reunification began in 1988 within the framework of the Miatsum movement (Unification) to annex part of the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan to Armenia. The question turned into a conflict in its own right with the later Armenian occupation of Karabakh in Azerbaijan.
In an interview in February 2024, Pashinyan admitted that it would be impossible to achieve lasting peace if state policies were guided by the declaration of independence. On the other hand, also in 2024, the Armenian Constitutional Court rendered a decision minimizing the legal importance of the preamble to the Constitution and declared that the modification of its wording is not a required step to achieve sustainable peace.
Armenian legislation concerns other provisions likely to mark the peace process. A resolution of the Supreme Council (Parliament) of the Republic of Armenia on July 8, 1992 openly declares that any international or national document where the Karabakh region is mentioned within the framework of Azerbaijan is considered inadmissible to the Republic of Armenia. Pashinyan’s criticisms argue that the resolution of July 8, 1992 prohibits Armenia from reporting any international agreement which recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan encompassing Karabakh, and that the resolution itself cannot be canceled because it derives its constitutional base from the declaration of independence has devoted the pre-interest to the Constitution.
The abolition of the territorial claims of the Armenian Constitution is the key to the last peace. It would end the constitutional basis of territorial complaints, which was the essence of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, and ensuring the sustainability of the peace agreement at the post-Pashinyan era. He would also deprive the Armenian re-archist circles and external spoilers such as France, the Armenian diaspora, Russia and Iran the possibility of manipulating the problem. Finally, a referendum could be held to give the Armenian people the opportunity to denounce irrecent complaints against their neighbors and to choose peace. Pashinyan has announced that a referendum on a new constitution would be held in 2027, but it remains to be seen exactly how Armenia will approach irrecent demands in its current constitution.
Since the constitutional referendum is a complex process that needs time, Armenia could end the parliamentary decision of July 1992 and jointly with Azerbaijan to ask the OSCE to finish the Minsk group. Given that any decision within the OSCE needs unanimous consensus, Armenia must convince countries that do not support peace according to territorial integrity, such as France, Canada and other EU members, to vote in favor of the implementation of the format of the Mordsk group. Azerbaijan will not accept a political maneuver in which Armenia votes in favor, but France opposed the dissolution of the Minsk group.
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has been the subject of a fierce criticism of Armenian Armenian organizations of the Armenian diashora led by the Dashnaks such as the ANCA, the Armenian Church, the pro-Russian Armenian opposition circles and the pro-Western opposition. In addition, self -proclaimed representatives of the Karabakh Armenians also oppose the provisions of the agreement of the agreement. These segments of Armenian society are firmly opposed not only to peace, but also to the concept of the “true Armenia” of Pashinyan, which he advocates in response to the ideological principles of the irrecent Armenian.
The irrelevant, however, was the cornerstone of the national ideology of the Republic of Armenia since independence. The position of Azerbaijan aligns with international standards and principles. The validity of an international agreement which contradicts the constitution of a country could be legally contested in this country at any time.
Read more in -depth on international relations
