"The problem should be solved in accordance with the principles of international law, and not on the basis of different maps that are desirable for the parties"

It is reported that a meeting between Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is scheduled for July 21 in Brussels.

At a trilateral meeting held in Moscow at the end of May, Ilham Aliyev said that "after the recent statements of the Armenian leadership on the recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, as well as the recognition of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan with the indication of specific figures of the area of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the issue of agreeing on other points of the peace treaty will go much easier."

On June 5, Armen Grigoryan, a Secretary of the Security Council of Armenia,   said on the Armenian Public Television that a peace agreement between the parties can be signed before the end of this year. However, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan, speaking in parliament on June 5, said that there would be no digital indicator of territorial integrity in the future peace agreement:

"The claims that the territory of Armenia is 29.8 thousand square kilometers, and the territory of Azerbaijan is 86.6 thousand square  kilometers are political in nature. The point is that Armenia has no territorial claims to Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijan has no territorial claims to Armenia within the borders that existed when these two socialist republics were part of the Soviet Union.

Mirzoyan also said that there is still no agreement on which map will be used to delimit the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, but Yerevan would like to solve the problem based on the map of 1975. Referring to the issue of enclaves on the territory of Azerbaijan and Armenia, he said that there is no issue of enclaves in the draft peace agreement.

The statements bring some clarity about the framework of peace talks between the two countries. But there are questions that remain unclear. Elman Fattah, an expert on international issues, answers these questions in an interview with ASTNA.

* * *

Question: How do you assess the recent negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia? Is there any hope that a peace agreement between the parties can be signed by the end of this year? Is it possible with this development of events?

Answer: The mutual recognition of the territorial integrity of each other by the parties at the recent Brussels talks, in particular Pashinyan's statement on the recognition of 86.6 square kilometers of Azerbaijani territory, including Nagorno-Karabakh, gives hope for the signing of a final peace treaty. As for the signing of a peace treaty before the end of the year, first of all, the parties should sign the latest agreements, an interstate agreement on the recognition of territorial integrity. I think that at best the parties can sign this agreement within a year. Only after that it will be possible to talk about the calendar of signing the final peace agreement.

Question: The Armenian side wants the delimitation of the border between the two countries to be conducted on the basis of the map of 1975. Why is the map from 1975? What is in this map that meets the interests of Armenia, that they insist on it so much?

Answer: The topic of maps does not facilitate, but on the contrary, complicates peace negotiations. If we approach the solution of the problem in the plane – which side benefits from it, then it will not be possible to get out of this situation. Of course, it would be beneficial for Azerbaijan if the maps drawn up before 1920 or when both republics (as part of the RSFSR) became part of the USSR were taken as a basis. However, the problem will be solved not on the basis of different maps, which are desirable for the parties, but on the basis of the principles of international law. What does this mean?! Firstly, the principle of international law "Uti-posisdeits" (lat. "because you own"). The doctrine of "Uti possidetis Juris" is a norm that in Ancient Rome referred to civil rights, in particular to the resolution of land disputes (The addition to the wording of the word "juris" means legal possession, not actual, and accordingly this principle in this case applies to legal boundaries, not to actual ones - approx. Ed.). The original full wording is as follows: "Uti possidetis, ita possideatis" ("as you own, so own", "what you own, so own"). That is, violation of the status quo between two persons until the final resolution of the dispute - proof of ownership of the property to you, is prohibited). Later, this rule began to be applied in international law. For the first time it was applied in South America to the states that gained independence from the Spanish colonies. They agreed that the territories defined by the Empire are the territory of their States. The USSR was also an empire, and since this empire did not collapse as a result of judicial procedures, but simply collapsed, the territories of newly formed independent states are regulated according to the principle of "Uti Possidetis Juris".

On the other hand, Azerbaijan and Armenia are parties to the Almaty Protocol signed in 1991. This protocol is also based on the principle of "Uti possidetis Juris". That is, all independent republics have applied to the UN with maps of their territory that existed during the Soviet era, and the territorial integrity of these countries is accepted according to these maps. The border agreements between Azerbaijan and Armenia should also be regulated in accordance with international law, in accordance with the principles mentioned above. If any of the parties comes up with a map proposal that contradicts these principles and is unacceptable to the other side, then it serves Moscow's policy of "avoiding peace."

Question: Experts from the Azerbaijani side propose to take as a basis the map of the People's Republic of Azerbaijan (114 thousand square kilometers), the successor of which, according to the Constitution, is the Republic of Azerbaijan. And some experts suggest taking as a basis the map of 1923, when Azerbaijan became part of the USSR. Are these proposals fair?

Answer: Unfortunately, the People's Republic of Azerbaijan (including Armenia) was occupied in April 1920, having failed to become a subject of international law. Because of this, the 1920 map is not protected by international law. As for the territories that existed when entering the USSR, this is a rather difficult question. Firstly, neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan was part of the USSR. The founding subject of the USSR is the RSFSR, which included three South Caucasian republics. Later, the RSFSR was abolished. The first border agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia was signed in 1929. That is, as already mentioned, this is a very confusing question. International law does not work with such an approach as justice generated by slogans such as "historical territories, motherland", but is based on clear principles mentioned earlier. These principles consider the territory of Azerbaijan at 86.6 thousand km2 and the territory of Armenia at 29.8 thousand square inviolable. Claims that go beyond this are not recognized by international law and their implementation is extremely doubtful.

Question: The Armenian Foreign Minister stated that there is no question of enclaves in the draft peace treaty. How should the issue of enclaves be resolved (7 villages in Kazakh, 3 of which are enclaves, the village of Kerki in Nakhchivan, the village in Armenia)?

Answer: If the parties agree, the issue of enclaves can be resolved by agreement. If the parties do not reach a bilateral agreement, the issue should be resolved on the basis of the latest map that existed at the time of the collapse of the USSR.

Question: The exchange of territories is more often offered. But the territorial exchange of these villages is not equivalent in terms of the size of their territories. Because the territory of one village of Armenia is 3 times smaller than the territory of the enclaves of Azerbaijan on the Armenian side. In this case, how can a territorial exchange be conducted without harming the territorial integrity of both countries?

Answer: Territorial exchange is an agreement that in international practice is more often concluded between friendly neighboring countries. Azerbaijan and Armenia have been fighting for 30 years and cannot even sign peace. Such a complex issue as territorial exchange cannot be solved by Baku and Yerevan, which have not gotten rid of Moscow's dependence. This issue can be resolved by Azerbaijan and Armenia of the future, who have signed a peace agreement and established normal good-neighborly relations. In this regard, as already mentioned, there is no way to resolve disputes outside the principles of international law and the Alma-Ata Protocol.