Nagorno-Karabakh cannot exist outside the legal framework of Azerbaijan

***

- Elman bey, on November 26, 1991, by the decision of the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the administrative-territorial unit of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was abolished. However, Nagorno-Karabakh and 7 surrounding districts are still mentioned when talking about the conflict. Even on many maps, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast is shown separately within the territory of Azerbaijan. Why do you think this expression is still used?

- According to the principle of sovereignty, the common territories of all states, which are universally accepted, are a single map. The maps we came across in the form you mentioned in the online resources have not political but informational meaning. In other words, drawing Nagorno-Karabakh and seven other districts separately on the map of Azerbaijan shows that Azerbaijan has not yet been able to exercise its jurisdiction in those areas. As for the widespread use of the term "Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding districts", it is an expression created by the existing military-political reality. Since the collapse of the USSR and the recognition of Azerbaijan and Armenia as independent states, the Karabakh issue has become an international conflict. Immediately after joining the UN in 1992, Azerbaijan appealed to the Secretary-General and the Chairman of the Security Council for a peaceful, political settlement of the conflict in accordance with Article 39 of the UN Charter, "in connection with the obvious expansion of Armenian aggression". The Secretary-General sent delegations to Baku, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Yerevan. The issue was then discussed at a meeting of OSCE foreign ministers in Helsinki, and it was decided to hold a conference on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in Minsk. Although this process - the intervention of international organizations in the conflict - has been seen as a success of Azerbaijan's foreign policy, no results have been achieved. Instead, the international nature of the conflict has given rise to new expressions. One of them is the expression you mentioned. However, this does not have "special meaning" from a political point of view, unlike another expression related to the conflict - "Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". The last unsuccessful statement still remains on the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan. However, the President has long deleted this formula from his lexicon.

- Was the abolition of Nagorno-Karabakh as an administrative-territorial unit in 1991 the right decision? What was the purpose?

- The question of whether the decision was correct was indicated in Paragraph 1 of the same decision. The decision also referred to Article 68 of the Constitution of the Azerbaijan SSR. Even when Azerbaijan was part of the USSR, the basic law of the republic (the Azerbaijan SSR exercises state power independently on its territory) allowed to change or abolish the status of territorial units. In this regard, the decision to abolish the status of the oblast is constitutional. The purpose of the decision was to adequately respond to the emerging political reality. Because on September 2, 1991, the Armenians decided on the "independence" of Nagorno-Karabakh. The Azerbaijani government believed that the separatist movement in Nagorno-Karabakh was the result of an abuse of the status of the oblast. It has taken an adequate step against the processes that have taken place by abolishing this status, which was the legal basis for this abuse, within the limits of its sovereign powers.

To see the general political and legal picture of the conflict, it is necessary to look at the chronology of the last 100 years. The decision to give Karabakh the status of an autonomous oblast within Azerbaijan, which was abolished in 1991, was made 97 years ago (1923). Although it is interesting to refer to a more ancient history regarding the analysis of the conflict, it is not helpful. Because it is inappropriate to justify the ownership of this territory, which caused the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, with historical epics, in which there is no notion of the "sovereignty of peoples" and the fact that states are subjects of international law on a stable territory. We must look for the answer to the question - which country Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to in the Caucasus from a political and legal point of view - in the political history after 1918.

Before the USSR, Nagorno-Karabakh was part of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. In the late 1980s, Armenians demanded the secession of Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan and its annexation to Armenia. This demand was met with a shock effect in Baku and caused hundreds of thousands of protests. The escalation of Armenian separatism has resulted in Moscow's political intervention. In 1988, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR decided to keep Nagorno-Karabakh part of Azerbaijan. In 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Azerbaijan abolished the status of Nagorno-Karabakh as an autonomous oblast. In 1992, Azerbaijan was admitted to the UN as an independent state, with the borders that existed when it was part of the USSR, with Nagorno-Karabakh being an integral part of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity.

- If we approach it from the perspective of international law, how can this issue be regulated?

- From the perspective of international law, when considering the accession of Azerbaijan and Armenia to the League of Nations in 1920, General Thomson, representing the Allies, recognized that Nagorno-Karabakh was under the control of Azerbaijan, along with the neighboring Zangazur district. In 1919, the Armenian Assembly of Nagorno-Karabakh officially recognized the government of Azerbaijan on Nagorno-Karabakh. Allegations that Karabakh was not under the jurisdiction of independent Azerbaijan when it joined the Soviet Union, as well as the alleged transfer of Karabakh to Azerbaijan under the influence of Stalin, are also far from the truth. On July 5, 1921, the Caucasus Bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) decided to keep Nagorno-Karabakh within the Azerbaijan SSR. In 1923, the Central Executive Committee of the Azerbaijan SSR issued a Decree on the Establishment of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, which was the first official administrative status of Nagorno-Karabakh. In the USSR, the borders between the allied republics could be changed only by mutual consent of the respective republics and after the approval of the Union. This provision was also enshrined in the Constitutions of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Hence, the process of secession of Karabakh, which began in 1988, was accompanied by a clear violation of the USSR Constitution. The decision of the Armenian side on independence in 1991 to legitimize the secession of Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan was based on the USSR Law on the Procedure for Resolving Issues related to the Secession of the Allied Republic from the USSR dated April 3, 1990. The purpose of this law was to regulate relations in the USSR through a certain procedure in case of secession of the allied republics from the USSR. The law gave the peoples of the autonomies the right to decide independently whether to remain in the USSR or in an allied republic that seceded from it. However, the allied republics seceded from the USSR not as a result of the above-mentioned procedure but as a logical consequence of the people's movements. Azerbaijan and Armenia did not use the procedure of secession from the Union provided by law. In other words, since the Law on Secession from the USSR could not become a subject of international law, it is unreasonable to refer to it. After the collapse of the USSR, the international legal doctrine, Uti Possidetis Juris, formed the basis for the international, regional, and national legitimization of the borders of the newly independent post-Soviet countries. According to this doctrine, the territories and borders of the Republic of Azerbaijan after the restoration of state independence are also regulated in the form of the legal succession of the territories and borders that existed when they were part of the USSR. In this case, Nagorno-Karabakh is certainly an integral part of Azerbaijan.

As for the thesis put forward by the Armenian side that Azerbaijan was deprived of the grounds to claim the borders of the Soviet era by declaring the restoration of state independence in 1918-1920 and becoming the legal successor of the then ADR, attention should be paid here to Article 11 of the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in respect of Treaties. According to this article, "A succession of States does not, as such, affect a boundary established by a treaty...". In other words, although it directly applies to the borders of the USSR defined by international treaties, this provision contains the same conceptual international-legal approach to the maintenance of the existing post-USSR borders, regardless of succession. That is, the restoration of Azerbaijan's independence is not able to shake the borders of a permanent nature.

In short, the secession of Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan in any form has no legal basis in international principles or political history.

- How will this issue be resolved after Azerbaijan liberates Nagorno-Karabakh and 7 districts occupied by Armenia? Because Azerbaijani officials have repeatedly stated in their statements that Nagorno-Karabakh will be given autonomy. But now the situation has changed. Azerbaijan is trying to liberate Nagorno-Karabakh and 7 surrounding districts through military operations. In this case, is this issue of autonomy invalid, or vice versa?

- If the issue of granting special status to the governing status of Nagorno-Karabakh in the formula stated in the principles of negotiations so far after the full liberation of the territories remains relevant, the Constitution of the country must be amended in order to grant any status. Then, the decision to abolish the status of the oblast will be on the agenda. Why was the status revoked? The justification part of that decision states that the policy pursued by the Armenian leadership to seize the ancient historical territory of Azerbaijan and the use of NKAO as a tool in this policy poses a real threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Thus, in order to discuss the status issue, first of all, the "real threat" against the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan must be eliminated. That is, Armenia must recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and at the same time, the Armenian military units must leave the territory or our army must completely neutralize them. We are not talking about the surrounding districts but about all the territories of Azerbaijan where the Armenian military units are located. Because the source of the "real threat to the territorial integrity" mentioned in the decision is the forces directly located in Khankendi. That is, it is inadmissible to determine any status without completely eliminating the threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. The current military operations of the Azerbaijani army are, in fact, an act of rescuing Azerbaijani people from threat, and the operation will be completed after all Armenian military units are cleared of Azerbaijani territory.

- By the way, there are 350,000 refugees from Armenia to Azerbaijan in 1988-1992. Even the state of Western Azerbaijan (Yerevan) was declared in immigration. These people are our compatriots who lived in Armenia and were expelled from there. They also want to return to their lands. How should their fate be regulated? Should the issue of the return of Azerbaijanis, who were from Armenia, to their lands be raised if Nagorno-Karabakh is given autonomy after the liberation of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan? And how can their safety be guaranteed?

- It is noted that the decision was made by taking into account that no national-cultural autonomy was established for the half-million Azerbaijanis living in the Armenian SSR at the time of the establishment of the oblast, that in the following years, the Azerbaijani population was forcibly relocated from Armenia, and that there is no single Azerbaijani left there. The fate of Azerbaijanis expelled from Armenia is an important question that must be answered before any status can be given to Nagorno-Karabakh in the future.

- How should the issue be resolved with the Karabakh Armenians who will want to live in Azerbaijan after the liberation of the lands? That is, they are also considered citizens of Azerbaijan.

The Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh is a full-fledged Azerbaijani citizen. Unless they renounce it, it is the duty of the Azerbaijani state to ensure their civil rights after the territories are completely liberated from occupation and the jurisdiction of the Azerbaijani state is restored in those territories. In fact, the government must have a ready position on the situation of Armenian residents living in Nagorno-Karabakh before the conflict. The state should not otherize the Armenian population and should strictly separate the attitude towards the civilian population from the attitude towards the occupying military units. Now, Azerbaijan has an opportunity to end this conflict. Military units must be destroyed and Armenia must surrender, and the rights of the Armenian civilian population, who are citizens of Azerbaijan, must be ensured. Ensuring the rights of minorities has always been an important part of international relations. The issue of Karabakh Armenians will also be in the focus of attention. The Armenian population should be given the same rights as other minorities living in Azerbaijan under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, regardless of whether the territory is granted any status or not. For example, it can be a cultural autonomy.