Nagorno-Karabakh MP:

The declarations about some "higher priority principles" of the international law are a fiction, Vahram Atanessyan, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Relations of the National Assembly of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, said in an interview to ArmInfo, when asked to comment on a statement by Mubariz Gurbanly, representative of Azerbaijan's ruling party.

More specifically, Gurbanly said that "the principles and the norms of the international law give priority to territorial integrity and sovereignty. That's why Azerbaijan's key demand during the Nagorno- Karabakh peace talks is its territorial integrity and sovereignty."

According to Atanessyan, the Declaration on Principles of International Law adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1970 says:  "In their interpretation and application the above principles are interrelated and each principle should be construed in the context of the other principles."

"So, as you may see, the international law does not give priority to any principles as Mr.Gurbanly says. On the contrary, all of its principles are interrelated in their interpretation and application and none of them should be given priority over the others," Atanessyan said.

Concerning the Kazan meeting Gurbanly said that "Ilham Aliyev reiterated during that meeting that Azerbaijan was ready to resolve the conflict in accordance with the international law and in the framework of its territorial integrity."

"Let's drop the question how come Mr.Gurbanly knows what exactly President Aliyev said in Kazan and answer the question whether the international law guarantees 'Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and sovereignty' the way Mr.Gurbanly sees it. I would like to quote one more excerpt from the UN Declaration on Principles of International Law:  'Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self- determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter,'" Atanessyan said.

And so, according to the Nagorno-Karabakh parliamentarian, the international law obliges Azerbaijan, who joined the UN in March 1992, to refrain from any forcible action depriving the Armenians of Nagorno- Karabakh in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence.

"As State Secretary of Azerbaijan Lala Shevket-Gajiyeva admitted later, 'Azerbaijan bombarded Stepanakert continuously for 120 days.' It was a forcible action aimed at depriving the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians from elaborating their right to self-determination. In their pursuit of the exercise of this right, the latter resisted Azerbaijan's forcible actions by organizing collective self-defense," Atanessyan said.

Referring to the above-mentioned Declaration the MP said that the actions to elaborate the right to self-determination and to seek and receive assistance in so doing "shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or color." In this context, Atanessyan wonders if the independent Azerbaijan acted in accordance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. His answer is no.

"One of the first legal documents adopted by the newly independent Republic of Azerbaijan was the law on abolishing the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous District (November 24 1991), while the UN Declaration says that 'a government represents the whole people belonging to the territory.' So, if a government does not respect the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, it does not represent the whole people. Consequently, the people whose self-determination right has been violated by the forcible actions of a government refusing to represent it can be no longer considered as 'belonging to the territory' claimed by that government," Atanessyan said.

Thus, according to the MP, the international law gives priority not to irrational territorial integrity but to a specific territory ruled by a government "representing the whole people belonging to that territory" by respecting the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

"Does the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan represent the people/population of Nagorno-Karabakh? No. And the reason is known:  from its very first day that government refused to respect the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. For the same reason the people/population of Nagorno-Karabakh does not belong to the territory referred to as integral by Azerbaijan."

"According to Baku's logic, the people/population of Nagorno-Karabakh has the right to self-determination 'exclusively in the framework of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. Let's see what the UN Declaration says: 'The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.' So, as we may see, the first mode of implementing the right of self-determination is 'the establishment of a sovereign and independent State,' followed by the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people. The expression of the will of a people is defined by the mediators as the key mechanism for determining the final political status of Nagorno-Karabakh. And it was exactly because of Azerbaijan's free interpretations of the international law that there was no breakthrough in Kazan," Atanessyan said.

Concerning Baku's official statement that "Azerbaijan has the right to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem by means of force," Atanessyan quoted the international law: "Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect."