The spokesperson of the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs responds to accusations from Baku.
The spokesperson of the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs responds to accusations from Baku.
Ani Badalyan, the spokesperson for the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, addressed the claims made by the spokesperson for the Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs on October 4.
Ani Badalyan responded to the following four issues:
- The compliance of the joint operational regulations of the border demarcation commissions between Armenia and Azerbaijan with the Constitution of Armenia and the absence of territorial claims in the Armenian Constitution.
- The mutual recognition of territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders based on the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration.
- The acquisition of armaments.
- The upcoming COP-29 summit in Baku.
The decision of the Constitutional Court is very clear and straightforward, stating that only those provisions of the 1990 Declaration of Independence of Armenia that are explicitly reflected in the articles of the Constitution of Armenia have constitutional force. Therefore, anything not written in the articles following the preamble of the Constitution cannot be attributed to the Constitution, and there is no room for other interpretations, especially since the High Court has stated that no other stance has been adopted in its previous rulings. Thus, the fundamental principles of Armenian statehood and national goals mentioned in the preamble of the Armenian Constitution are those expressed in the subsequent text, and there is nothing in it that can be interpreted as a territorial claim against any country.
Article 5, part 3 of the Armenian Constitution states that ratified international treaties have superior legal force over domestic legislation. The exact wording of this article is as follows: “In the case of a conflict between the norms of international treaties ratified by the Republic of Armenia and the norms of laws, the norms of international treaties shall apply.” The agreed part of the draft “Treaty on the Establishment of Peace and Interstate Relations” between Armenia and Azerbaijan includes an article stating that the parties have no territorial claims against each other and commit not to present such claims in the future. There is also an article stating that no party can reference its internal legislation to impede the implementation of the peace treaty. Therefore, once the peace treaty is signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan, receives a constitutional compliance ruling from the Constitutional Court, and is ratified by the National Assembly of Armenia, it will have superior legal force over any domestic law. Consequently, the signing of the peace treaty will dispel all concerns regarding the legislative acts of both Armenia and Azerbaijan, if any exist.
The Alma-Ata Declaration of December 21, 1991, clearly states that the parties recognize each other’s territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders. Therefore, the countries that signed the Alma-Ata Declaration recognized the integrity of the territories of the Soviet Republics at the time of the USSR’s dissolution and the existing inter-republican administrative borders as state borders. These borders are known, and maps reflecting these borders are available in both Armenia and Azerbaijan
Incidentally, the wording of the peace treaty that the parties commit to having no territorial claims against each other in the future dismantles Azerbaijan’s claims that Armenia has a “reserve option” for presenting territorial demands against Azerbaijan.
Moreover, the interpretation of the Alma-Ata Declaration as presented by the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry spokesperson could mean that Azerbaijan itself has territorial claims against Armenia but is trying to create a smokescreen by accusing Armenia.
If we compare the military expenditures of Armenia and Azerbaijan, both in absolute numbers and in proportion, as well as the types of weapons acquired, it becomes clear who is conducting mass militarization. On the contrary, the highest leadership of the Republic of Armenia has declared that it does not intend to adopt a security concept based solely on the military and considers the establishment of relations with neighbors and peace in the region as an essential part of its security concept. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan’s top leadership has declared that their primary task is to strengthen their military capabilities.
It is also worth noting that Armenia has repeatedly proposed, and continues to propose, establishing mutual arms control mechanisms with Azerbaijan, but Azerbaijan has ignored this proposal and adopted increasingly aggressive rhetoric towards the Republic of Armenia. I reaffirm that apart from defending itself against possible aggression, Armenia has no offensive agenda. However, Azerbaijan frequently threatens the Republic of Armenia almost daily.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry spokesperson did not respond in any way to the questions I raised on October 4. These questions were: Is Azerbaijan preparing for aggression against the Republic of Armenia? Is it refusing to recognize the territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia? Is it rejecting the peace agenda? The aggressive rhetoric from official Baku, along with its rejection of proposals to sign a peace treaty containing agreed-upon articles, has led many Armenian and international experts to conclude that Azerbaijan may use COP-29 to create a smokescreen of legitimacy for escalating the situation in the near future. Moreover, the number of such analyses is growing. Many analysts believe that to avoid such an outcome, it is necessary to sign the agreed-upon content of the peace treaty before COP-29, otherwise, the leaders traveling to Baku may unintentionally become instigators of war. Armenia, for its part, has stated that it is ready to follow the logic of signing the peace treaty before COP-29. I would like to emphasize that the Republic of Armenia supported the decision to hold COP-29 in Baku as a tool for building trust between the parties and establishing peace in the region, and we would not want it to be used for the opposite purpose.