Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Responds to Accusations from Baku

The spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, Ani Badalyan, addressed accusations coming from Baku in an interview with Armenpress.

- Ms. Badalyan, referring to your comments from October 4th, the spokesperson for Azerbaijan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that a study of the Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the joint activities of the border delimitation commissions between Armenia and Azerbaijan has led them to conclude that the decision further emphasizes territorial claims against Azerbaijan in the Armenian Constitution. What do you say about this?

- The decision of the Constitutional Court explicitly states that only those provisions of the 1990 Declaration of Independence of Armenia have constitutional force, which are expressed verbatim in the articles of the Constitution of Armenia. Therefore, anything not written in the Constitution—that is, in the text following the preamble of the Constitution—cannot be attributed to the Constitution, and there is simply no room for any other interpretation, especially since the Supreme Court has noted that no other position has ever been enshrined in its previous decisions. Thus, the fundamental principles of the statehood of the Armenian people and the national objectives mentioned in the preamble of the Constitution are those that are expressed in the subsequent text of the Constitution, and there is nothing there that can be interpreted as territorial claims directed against any country.

- The spokesperson for Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has claimed that there are also territorial claims against Azerbaijan in other legal acts of the Republic of Armenia.

- The Republic of Armenia has addressed this issue at both high and higher levels several times. Article 5, part 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia stipulates that ratified international treaties have higher legal force than internal legislation. The formulation of this article is more specifically as follows: 'In the event of a contradiction between the norms of internationally ratified treaties of the Republic of Armenia and the norms of its laws, the norms of international treaties shall apply.' The draft of the agreement on establishing peace and inter-state relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan includes an article stipulating that the parties have no territorial claims against one another and commit not to make such claims in the future. There is also an article stating that neither party can refer to its internal legislation to justify a failure to implement the Peace Treaty. Thus, when the Peace Treaty is signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan, receives a conclusion on compliance with the Constitution from the Constitutional Court, and is ratified by the National Assembly of Armenia, it will have higher legal force than any domestic law. Therefore, the signing of the Peace Treaty will alleviate all concerns that both Armenia and Azerbaijan may have regarding the legislative acts of the two countries, if such exist.

- The spokesperson for Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stated that Armenia's expressed adherence to the Alma-Ata Declaration does not mean that Armenia has no territorial claims against Azerbaijan, because the Alma-Ata Declaration is unrelated to the issue of where the borders of the CIS member states are drawn and which territories belong to which country.

- This interpretation is absolutely irrelevant, as 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. Consequently, the countries that signed the Alma-Ata Declaration have recognized the de jure integrity of the territories of the Soviet republics at the moment of the USSR's collapse and the de jure existing inter-republican administrative boundaries as state borders. Those borders are well known, and the maps reflecting them are available in both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Incidentally, the wording in the Peace Treaty, which states that the parties also commit to not having territorial claims against each other in the future, dispels Azerbaijan's claims that Armenia has a 'backup option' for presenting territorial claims against Azerbaijan. On the other hand, the interpretation of the Alma-Ata Declaration as mentioned in the statements of the spokesperson for Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs may actually imply that Azerbaijan itself has territorial claims against Armenia, merely attempting to create a smokescreen for this by directing accusations towards Armenia.

- The spokesperson for Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has once again addressed the acquisition of weapons and technology by Armenia, labeling it mass militarization.

- If we compare the military expenditures of Armenia and Azerbaijan in absolute figures, ratios, and types of acquired weapons, we will see who is actually engaging in mass militarization. On the contrary, the top leadership of the Republic of Armenia has declared that it does not intend to adopt a security concept that relies solely on the military, and considers a regulated relationship with neighbors and establishing peace in the region as an important part of its security concept. Meanwhile, the top leadership of Azerbaijan has stated that their primary task is to strengthen military capabilities. It is worth noting that Armenia has repeatedly offered Azerbaijan to create mechanisms for mutual control of armaments, which Azerbaijan leaves unanswered while adopting increasingly aggressive rhetoric towards the Republic of Armenia. I reaffirm that the Republic of Armenia has no offensive agenda other than defending itself against possible aggression. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan is issuing threats towards the Republic of Armenia almost daily.

For further details, visit the source website.