The Agreement Will Be Null and Void from Day One: Bayramov

During the discussions at the Antalya diplomatic forum, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan and Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov engaged in a debate over Baku's precondition regarding changes to the Armenian Constitution.

Bayramov stated that the justifications presented by his Armenian counterpart regarding the Constitution do not dispel their concerns. He remarked, "The declaration of Armenia's independence mentions that a part of Azerbaijan's territory is reuniting with the Republic of Armenia, and Armenia's Constitution references this declaration. Over the last 30 years, numerous legal acts have been adopted at the lower level based on this. Yes, the peace agreement resolves many issues, but it is a known fact that whatever international obligation is enshrined in the peace agreement, it has a higher legal status than domestic legislation—except for the Constitution of the state and acts adopted by referendum. If we try to simplify the situation and focus only on the peace agreement without addressing the issue present in the Constitution, then that agreement will be null and void from day one, as it will contradict the country's fundamental law.

Bayramov continued, "From a strategic and political standpoint, it is also important to consider the approach and stance of the Armenian people and society on this issue. Is the population ready to put an end to territorial claims from neighbors or not? Moreover, there is nothing extraordinary in what I am saying. Even in Europe, there have been cases where countries went to a referendum due to similar issues with neighboring countries and made changes to their constitutions. Therefore, Azerbaijan does not hold an extraordinary or more protective stance on this matter.

He further contested Mirzoyan's claim that they too have concerns about Armenia's Constitution, stating, "The Constitution of Azerbaijan does not mention any geographical names of the territory of the Republic of Armenia, and I believe that our Armenian counterparts are fully aware of this. Otherwise, they would have certainly raised this issue, as the legal systems of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey are the same—you cannot enter into international agreements if they contradict the country's Constitution. I do not think that our Armenian colleagues sincerely believe that Azerbaijan's Constitution contains territorial claims against Armenia, as they have never raised this issue and simply ignored it. If you believe that there are territorial claims in the Constitution of another country against yours, then you are merely pretending that signing a peace agreement will resolve the existing issues. That question will remain open, as no international agreement can eliminate the obstacles present in your Constitution," Bayramov asserted.

The moderator of the discussion then asked Mirzoyan whether the Armenian government is considering possible amendments to the Constitution, even if such a move is not welcomed domestically. Mirzoyan countered Bayramov with additional arguments.

He stated, "In the preamble of our Constitution, there is a reference to our declaration of independence, but legally, only those provisions of our independence declaration that are literally quoted in the text of the Constitution hold legal significance and are mandatory. The sentence that our Azerbaijani colleagues have concerns about is not quoted in our Constitution. There is only a general reference to the declaration of independence. Only one body has the right to interpret our Constitution, and that is the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia. Last September, our Constitutional Court concluded that demarcation occurs based on the declaration, which states that our borders are the same borders that existed between us as Soviet Socialist Republics at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. This means that we have no claims beyond those borders. This principle fully complies with our Constitution. If we sign this agreement, during the ratification process, this agreement will be sent to the Constitutional Court. If our Constitutional Court states again that this document complies with our Constitution, then no further evidence is needed to conclude that the issue is settled. If theoretically our Constitutional Court says otherwise, that would be a different situation. We would return to you and discuss other possibilities. But once again, it’s a matter of political will: are we building peace, or are we closing the doors, burdened by concerns?"