Armenia`s premier responds to Baku`s concern over disssolution of  OSCE MG, preamble to RA Constitution  

ArmInfo.  In his post, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan addressed the peace agreement with Azerbaijan, the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, and Baku's demand to revise the Constitution of Armenia.

Pashinyan recalled that he had previously repeatedly stated his  readiness to sign the agreed draft agreement on peace and the  establishment of interstate relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

At the same time, he noted, Azerbaijan officially links the signing  of the agreement to two issues. The first of them is the dissolution  of the OSCE Minsk Group structures, with which Yerevan agrees.

"If we close the page of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and we are  doing this, then what is the point of having a structure dealing with  this conflict?", he noted. At the same time, Pashinyan emphasized,  the OSCE Minsk Group, at least de facto, has a broader subtext, and  Yerevan wants to be sure that Azerbaijan does not view the  dissolution of the OSCE MG as an attempt to <close> the  Armenian-Azerbaijani confrontation on the territory of Azerbaijan and  as a step towards transferring it to the sovereign territory of the  Republic of Armenia.

"To allay this concern, we propose that Azerbaijan sign the Peace  Agreement and a joint statement in the OSCE on the dissolution of the  Minsk Group structures. That is, put the Peace Agreement and the  joint statement on the dissolution of the Minsk Group structures on  the table and sign both in the same place, at the same time. By the  way, this is an official proposal>, he wrote.

The next issue that Azerbaijan raises in the context of signing the  Peace Agreement is the assertion that the Constitution of the  Republic of Armenia contains territorial claims against Azerbaijan.  Pashinyan hopes that we can proceed from the fact that Azerbaijan  raises this issue as a sincere concern, and not as a pretext for not  signing the peace agreement, <as some experts believe>.

<We ourselves must honestly understand the essence of the issue, its  political and legal content>, he noted.  Pashinyan recalled that in  September 2024, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia  reviewed the Regulation on the joint activities of the Commission on  Delimitation of the State Border and Border Security between the  Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan and stated that  the Regulation, which sets out the Alma-Ata Declaration as the main  principle of border demarcation between the two countries, complies  with the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia.

<This means that our Constitutional Court has recorded that the  principle of the Alma-Ata Declaration, according to which the  territory of independent Armenia is identical to the territory of  Soviet Armenia, and the territory of independent Azerbaijan is  identical to the territory of Soviet Azerbaijan, and on the basis of  which the parties agreed to normalize relations in Prague on October  6, 2022, is fully consistent with the Constitution of the Republic of  Armenia. And, therefore, the authorized body for the interpretation  of the Constitution of Armenia has determined by an irrevocable  decision that the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia does not  contain territorial claims against Azerbaijan or any other country. I  repeat, this is a decision that has the highest legal force and is  not subject to cancellation>, he explained.

At the same time, Pashinyan once again draws attention to the fact  that the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan contains  territorial claims against the Republic of Armenia. But Yerevan does  not raise this issue, since the draft Agreement on Peace and  Interstate Relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan contains the  necessary formulations that resolve this issue: it is stated that the  parties have no territorial claims against each other and undertake  not to make such claims in the future. With the understanding that  both countries recognize each other's territorial integrity within  the territory of the Soviet republics, as stated in the Alma-Ata  Declaration.

<Thus, if we assume that Azerbaijan's position on our Constitution is  not a reason for anything else, but a sincere concern, then the most  effective way to dispel this concern is not to not sign the  agreement, but to sign it. Why? Because according to our legislation,  the government is obliged to send the text of the Peace Agreement to  the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia to confirm its  compliance with our Constitution>, the Armenian Prime Minister wrote. 

At the same time, Pashinyan noted, if the Constitutional Court  decides that the text of the peace agreement between Armenia and  Azerbaijan does not comply with the Constitution of the Republic of  Armenia, which is unlikely, then Armenia will have a specific  situation with the need to choose between peace and conflict.  But if  the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia decides that the  text of the peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan complies  with the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, then there will be  no obstacles to the ratification of the agreement after ratification  in the National Assembly and Parliament.

<Part 3 of Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia  will be invoked, which states: <In case of contradiction between the  norms of international treaties ratified by the Republic of Armenia,  the laws shall be applied by the norms of international treaties>.  This means that the Peace Agreement will acquire supreme legal force  in Armenia, as well as in Azerbaijan, after ratification, and,  therefore, with its current position on the Peace Agreement,  Azerbaijan hinders the resolution of the issues it has raised, and  this is what gives grounds to many experts to say that Azerbaijan is  simply delaying the signing of the Peace Agreement under a  far-fetched pretext.

In order to avoid misunderstandings, I would like to emphasize once  again: regardless of the interpretation, the solution to the issues  raised by Azerbaijan is not the signing of the Peace Agreement, but  its signing.  And since we also have similar problems, the same  applies to the Republic of Armenia>, - he pointed out.

Postscript Nikol Pashinyan wrote: <Despite all the difficulties and  complications, the Government and I personally will not deviate from  the Peace Agenda. It is obvious that certain forces both in Armenia  and beyond its borders are conducting daily propaganda of war and are  taking specific actions aimed at implementing it.

Among these actions, Pashinyan pointed out the bellicose rhetoric of  Azerbaijan, which is expressed in disinformation about the violation  of the ceasefire by Armenia and frequent, if not daily, violations of  the ceasefire by the Azerbaijani armed forces.

<These violations are mainly non-targeted, although over the past  month, two specific cases of attacks on the village of Khnatsakh in  the Syunik region have been recorded. However, during this period,  non- targeted shots were heard in a number of settlements in our  republic. These shots are either a consequence of the indiscipline of  the Azerbaijani armed forces, or are aimed at exerting psychological  pressure on the population of these settlements. The Republic of  Armenia calls on the Republic of Azerbaijan to investigate the  above-mentioned cases and take measures to prevent them.

I repeat that I have given a clear order to the Armenian army not to  violate the ceasefire, and the Republic of Armenia is ready to look  into the fact of the ceasefire violation by our army.

At the same time, I once again propose to Azerbaijan to create a  single mechanism for investigating border incidents, including  ceasefire violations, which would operate on a daily basis. In this  context, I consider it necessary to respond to all statements  predicting a new escalation and even a new war between Armenia and  Azerbaijan.

There is no justification for war. Armenia and Azerbaijan have  recognized each other's territorial integrity, sovereignty,  inviolability of internationally recognized borders and the  inadmissibility of the threat of the use of force. Based on these  realities, I call on all forces and individuals operating in Armenia  and Azerbaijan to be extremely responsible, not to make statements  that directly or indirectly contradict the above logic, and not to  question this logic. This will lead nowhere. The peoples of Armenia  and Azerbaijan deserve peace and peaceful coexistence. There will be  no war, there will be peace>.