|
2006 November 16 - AZG
Armenian Daily |
|
|
"WILSONIAN
BORDERS" - THE WAY OF STANDING STRONG AGAINST
TURKEY
Former Armenian
Ambassador to
Canada
Thinks |
Ara Papian, former
Armenian ambassador to
Canada,
has been studying documents on famous "Wilsonian borders" for a few
months now. Papian is surprised that many view the decision on legal borders
between
Armenia
and
Turkey
signed by the 28th
US
president Woodrow Wilson as borders foreseen by the Sevres Treaty because "there is no other
document on Armenian-Turkish border that has legal force. If anyone claims
that there are other documents, for instance
Kars
or
Moscow
treaties, tell them confidently that those documents have no legal
force," Ara Papian stated at the Press Club on November 14.
Wilson's map that puts the
provinces of Van, Erzrum, Bitlis and Trapizon within Armenian borders allows us to claim our
rights to these territories at the UN's
International Court.
"
Armenia's
military-political situation is not an ordinary one therefore solutions
should also be extraordinary. If we take the usual, traditional path of
settling our problems we will fail to find any solution. I think the most
serious issue faced by our country is not the Nagorno-Karabakh issue but the
issue of specifying our relations with
Turkey
and raising the safety level of the country. When we gaze at Ararat, we
should take it not only as a national symbol but also an indicator of
proximity to a foreign country."
This is the most realistic agenda in our
political arena, even more than recognition of the Armenian Genocide. "Recognition will
not settle any issue. It has only one plus: at the negotiations to come we
will be able to state that the current situation has emerged as a result of a
crime." Further geopolitical developments, in his words, will inevitable
result in creation of the Kurdish state in the
Middle East. Presumably, the Kurds will
refer to a document especially that
Wilson
also drew up the map of Kurdistan bordering
Armenia in the north.
In Papian's words,
we did not study the "Wilsonian borders" as a legal document, only
the Diaspora made such an attempt but in the context of the Armenian Genocide.
Papian is sure that the only way to stand
strong against
Turkey
is the legal way as we yield to it in terms of politics, economy and
military. Throughout history "black oil was more important than red
blood."
By Ruzan Poghosian |
|
|
|
2006 December 28 - AZG Armenian
Daily |
|
|
THE
ARBITRAL AWARD OF WOODROW
WILSON
ABOUT BOUNDARY BETWEEN
ARMENIA AND
TURKEY
Ara Papian
Click here
for PDF of Armenian version |
|
|
|
2007 February 28 - AZG Armenian Daily |
|
|
THE CONGRESS HAS TO
AFFIRM THE FACT OF VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY
TURKEY
US Congress and
Woodrow Wilson's Arbitral Award to
Armenia
|
Recently the issue of the recognition of the Armenian
Genocide by the
United States of America
has been extensively illustrated by the Armenian and international mass
media.
Turkey
as ever, is trying to argue the right of foreign states to interfere its
history and inner affairs.
In this state of things a rather important
thing has slipped away from our attention -
USA's
Constitutional right of interfering international affairs, judging
international law violations and punishing the guilty side. Article 1,
Section 8, paragraph 10 of the US Constitution says: "The Congress shall
have power ... to define and punish ... offenses against the law of
nations."
Therefore, each member of the Congress may
raise such a question: is not
Turkey's
refusal to fulfill the Arbitral Award on the Turkish-Armenian Border by
Woodrow Wilson (22 November, 1922) a violation f international law? If so,
why do not the
United States
take measures to bring the lawbreaker to responsibility?
The Congress has to affirm the fact of
violation of international law by
Turkey
for two main reasons.
First, the principle of precedents, adopted
by the Senate.
Already in 1927 the Senate expressed a firm
and certain position on the
Wilson's
Arbitral Award. Thus on January 18 the Senate refused to endorse the
American-Turkish agreement (signed August 6, 1923 )
and to accept the present Turkish republic [1]. Therefore the USA-Turkey
relations remain uncertain by now [2]. Three reasons of declining the
agreement were brought by the Senate, of which the first was the following: "
Turkey
failed to provide for the fulfillment of the
Wilson award to
Armenia" [3]. The
agreement remained pending at the Senate until 1934, when called back to the
President's cabinet by the request of Franklin Roosevelt [4].
Turkey
also never completed the process of endorsement of that agreement [5].
Second, the terms of the Democrat Party
Platform.
1924-1928 party platform
stated the necessity of "Fulfillment of President Wilson's arbitral
award respecting
Armenia".
The 1928-32 platform said: "We favor the most
earnest efforts on the part of the
United States to secure
the fulfillment of the promises and engagements made during and following the
World War by the
United
States and the allied powers to
Armenia and her
people" [6].
Taking into consideration that in the both
cambers of the US Congress the majority at present belongs to Democrats, it
seems quite possible that the Senate, according to the US Constitution will
define
Turkey's
offences against the law of nations, neglecting the arbitral award and urge
the executive branch to take measures of punishment.
1. Unperfected Treaties of the United States
of America, 1776-1976, edited and annotated by Christian L. Wiktor, Volume 6, 1919-1925, New York, 1984, p. 421. Leland
J. Gordon, Turkish-American Political Relations, The American Political
Science Review, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Aug., 1928), p. 721.
2. Roger R. Trask,
The United States Response to Turkish Nationalism and Reform 1914-1939, The
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1971, p. 36.
3. Lausanne Treaty is Defeated, the Davenport
Democrat, January 19, 1927, p.
4. Roger R. Trask,
The United States Response to Turkish Nationalism and Reform 1914-1939, The
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1971, p. 48.
5. Unperfected Treaties of the United States
of America, 1776-1976, edited and annotated by Christian L. Wiktor, Volume 6, 1919-1925, New York, 1984, p. 421.
6. National Party Platforms, 1840-1968,
(completed by Kirk Porter and Donald Johnson),
Urbana,
Chicago,
London, 1972, p.
277.
Click here
for PDF of Armenian version |
|
|
|
2007 March 16 - AZG Armenian Daily |
|
|
EXPERTISE OF
RUSSIAN-TURKISH TREATY OF
MOSCOW
BY INTERNATIONAL LAW
Ara Papian
Click here for PDF of Armenian version |
|
|
|
2007 April 03 - AZG
Armenian Daily |
|
|
TURKEY'S BLOCKADE OF
ARMENIA IS VIOLATION OF
INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS
|
|
Since 1993 the
Republic of
Turkey has been taking War Measures
against
Armenia,
as it is considered by the international law. By now the efforts of the
Armenian Government to remove the blockade from the western and eastern
borders of the country have had no result. Here follow the article articles
of international law on which
Armenia's
claim to open the borders must be based upon.
1. By the very first international agreement
endorsed by the
Turkish
Republic,
Lausanne, July 24
1923, it also took the commitments provided by the Statute and supplementary
Protocol of the Convention signed at the Barcelona Conference, April 1921.
Article 101 of Lausanne Agreement states the
following.
Turkey must observe the
Statute on Freedom of Transit, adopted on the Barcelona Conference on April
14, 1921, as well as the Statute about exploitation of international water
communications, adopted on the same conference, April 19, 1921.
The Statute on Freedom of Transit, mentioned
in the Lausanne agreement, says that a state, which has endorsed the
document, has to provide freedom of transit by railway, water or land
communications on the territory under its sovereignty and authority,
irrespective of the persons' citizenship, the flag of the vessels, the origin
of the goods, the starting or destination place, the entrance or exit or any
other circumstance referring the ownership of the transport or of the goods,
the storage of the cargo or the way of transportation.
According to another article of the Lausanne
Treaty, number 104,
Turkey
is obliged to observe the recommendations on railway transit, endorsed April
20, 1921 on the
Barcelona
conference.
Turkey once again affirmed
its loyalty to the aforementioned terms by endorsing the Barcelona Statute on
Freedom of Transit on July 27, 1993.
2. On February 20, 1957 the UN General
Assembly for the first time considered the issue of Land-locked countries and
the expansion of international trade in its 1028 (XI) Resolution. It Invites
the Governments of Member States to give full recognition to the land-locked
Member states in the matter of transit trade and, therefore, to accord them
adequate facilities in terms of international law and practice in this
regard.
3. On May 25, 1969
Turkey
joined the Convention on Transit Trade of Land-locked States. According to
the Convention's Principle I, the recognition of the right of each
land-locked State of free access to the sea is an essential principle for the
expansion of international trade and economic development. Principle III says
that in order to enjoy the freedom of the seas on equal terms with coastal
States, States having no sea coast should have free access to the sea.
Moreover, Principle IV says that no that the transmittable goods must be
exempted from any kind of taxation. Means of transport in transit should not
be subject to special taxes or charges higher than those levied for the use
of means of transport of the transit country.
By the way,
Georgia, which joined the
Convention on Transit Trade of Land-locked States on June 2, 1999, violates
its commitments by taxing goods from
Armenia much higher than those
from
Georgia.
The Convention's Article 2, Freedom of
transit, also says that: 1. Freedom of transit shall be granted under the
terms of this Convention for traffic in transit and means of transport. (...)
Consistent with the terms of this Convention, no discrimination shall be
exercised which is based on the place of origin, departure, entry, exit or
destination or on any circumstances relating to the ownership of the goods or
the ownership, place of registration or flag of vessels, land vehicles or other
means of transport used).
According to Article 3, Customs duties and
special transit dues, Traffic in transit shall not be subjected by any
authority within the transit State to customs duties or taxes chargeable by
reason of importation or exportation nor to any special dues in respect of
transit).
Armenia has not joined yet
the Convention on Transit Trade of Land-locked States, which considerably
impedes
Armenia
to defend its own interests.
Nevertheless, as that
Turkey
offends the:
- Articles 101 and
104 of the
Lausanne
Treaty,
- The 2nd
article of the Barcelona Statute on Freedom of Transit,
- The #1028 (XI)
Resolution of General Assembly of the United Nations,
- Principles I,
III and IV, as well as the Article 2 and 3 of the Convention on Transit Trade
of Land-locked States.
Taking into consideration that The United
Nations shall promote solutions of international economic, social, health,
and related problems; and international cultural and educational co-operation
(Article 55b), and that The participating States will fulfill in good faith
their obligations under international law, both those obligations arising
from the generally recognized principles and rules of international law and
those obligations arising from treaties or other agreements, in conformity
with international law, to which they are parties (UN Constitution, part X),
Armenia has all legislation background to claim removal of the economic
blockade.
Moreover, Armenia, as a UN member state,
"may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in
Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General
Assembly", according to the UN Constitution. Article 34 of the UN
Constitution also states: The Security Council may investigate any dispute,
or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a
dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or
situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and
security. The
Republic
of
Armenia
should draw the attention of the UN Security Council to the rough violations
of international law by
Turkey and remove the blockade.
Click here for PDF of Armenian version |
|
|
|
2007April 24 - AZG Armenian Daily
|
|
|
MATERIAL DAMAGE OF
THE ARMENIAN NATION DURING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Ara Papian
Click here for PDF of Armenian version |
|
|
|
2007 May 12 - ALIQ Daily |
|
|
THE ARMENIAN ISSUE
HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND REMAINS AN INTERNATIONAL QUESTION - Part 1
Interview with Ara Papian by Karine Davtyan
Click here for PDF of Armenian version |
|
|
|
2007 May 13 - ALIQ Daily
|
|
|
THE ARMENIAN ISSUE
HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND REMAINS AN INTERNATIONAL QUESTION - Part 2
Interview with Ara Papian by Karine Davtyan
Click here for PDF of Armenian version
|
|
|
|
2007 May 22 - AZG Armenian
Daily |
|
|
THE ISSUE OF NAGORNO KARABAKH IN THE LIGHT OF
SELF-DETERMINATION OF NATIONS AND TERITORIAL
INTEGRITY
Ara Papian
Click here for PDF of Armenian version |
|
|
|
2007 May 30 - AZAT ARTSAKH Daily,
Republic of
Nagorno Karabakh
[NKR] |
|
|
|
The settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict some people say is possible through conciliation of the allegedly
contradicting principles of territorial integrity and self-determination of
peoples. In speaking about territorial integrity mainly two documents are
referred to, the Charter of the United Nations (1945) and the Conference on
Security and Co-operation in
Europe,
Final Act (1975). Let us go through these documents to see if these
references are relevant. First, let us consider the principles of
self-determination of peoples and territorial integrity according to the
Charter of the United Nations to reveal their legal content in the document
and thereby their relevance to the international law. The charter is dominant
over all the other international documents. This provision is set down in
Article 103 of the Charter, and is accepted by all the members of the UN.
Article 1 of the Charter dwells on the goals and principles of this
organization. According to Article 1 Point 2 of the Charter of the United
Nations, "The Purposes of the United Nations are: 1.
... 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect
for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to
take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." [1]
It is clear that the UN considers self-determination of peoples
(self-determination, not just the right of people for self-determination,
i.e. the application of this right) as not only one of its basic principles
but also as a basis for friendly relations and universal peace. Hence,
rejection of self-determination hinders friendship and universal peace. In
addition, Article 24, Point 2 holds: "In discharging these duties [the
maintenance of international peace and security] the Security Council shall
act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United
Nations." It means in the maintenance of international peace and
security the Security Council must be guided by self-determination if peoples
because it is one of its principles. As to territorial integrity, it is not
included in the purposes or principles of the UN. The Charter includes
(Article 2, Point 4) unacceptability of use of force against territorial integrity
in international relations. "All Members shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." In
other words, it is not absolute maintenance of territorial integrity of a
state but the unacceptability of use of force against the territorial
integrity of one state by another state. It has nothing to do with applying
the tight of the self-determinate community, separation with its own
territory, if this community wishes to self-determinate through independence.
It should be noted that only the community has the right to decide the form
of its self-determination: a classic independent country, a federation,
sovereignty, or unification with another state [2]. Most experts
on the law of nations acknowledge self-termination as a legal principle
unlike the so-called territorial integrity. Hence, it is obvious that the
political aspect of the issue cannot distort its legal content [3].
Moreover, the principle of self-determination
is part of the jus cogens
of the international law, therefore [4] it cannot be changed. The
UN General Assembly declared by Resolution 637A (VII) (December 16, 1952):
"The States Members of the United Nations shall uphold the principle of
self-determination of all peoples and nations." [5] It is
highly important that the honoring of the right for self-determination is
interpreted as obligation proceeding from the Charter of the United Nations.
(... regards the principle of self-determination as a part of the obligations
stemming from the Charter) [6]. The other important international
document which is often referred to is the Conference on Security and
Co-operation in
Europe,
Final Act adopted on August 1, 1975. It is also known as Helsinki Final Act.
This document allegedly upholds territorial integrity and indivisibility of
border. It does not. "They [the participating States] consider that
their frontiers can be changed, in accordance with international law, by
peaceful means and by agreement," holds Helsinki Final Act's Chapter 1.
It makes clear that use of force against territorial integrity and political
independence is unacceptable. "The participating States will refrain in
their mutual relations, as well as in their international relations in
general, from the treat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any State ..." Hence, it is obvious that the
Helsinki Final Act, like the Charter, condemns use of force against
territorial integrity and not absolute maintenance of territorial integrity.
In other words, the unacceptability of threat or use of force by one of the
countries which signed the final act against another country's territorial
integrity and political independence. It should be kept in mind that the
Helsinki Final Act and the Charter intend to maintain peace and security
through refraining from threat or use of force in international relations and
not eternal borders or conferring the status of a holy cow to the territories
of states.
Self-determination of peoples is one of the
basic principles of the international law in accordance to which the borders
of the
USSR,
Czechoslovakia,
Germany,
Yugoslavia
changed and will change (
Serbia).
To conclude, neither the Charter nor the Helsinki Final Act provide
for territorial integrity or indivisibility of borders. These documents
include only commitment assumed by countries on signing these documents not
to threaten or use force against the territorial integrity of another state.
Hence, if Azerbaijan used force in answer to the free and peaceful expression
of the will of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh (rallies, referendums, claims,
appeals), took inadequate means of punishment, perpetrated massacres of the
Armenian citizens of Azerbaijan in Sumgait, Baku, Kirovabad, waged a ruthless war with Ukrainian, Afghan,
Russian mercenaries and sustained a defeat losing control over part of the
territories it considers as its own, it has nothing to do with the
territorial integrity mentioned in the abovementioned documents.
1. Similar wording is found in Article 55 of
the Charter on stability.
2. Ian Brownlie,
Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, Fifth
edition, 2001, p. 599.
3. Ibid., p. 600.
4. Ibid., pp. 475-76.
5. Ibid., p. 600.
6. Ibid. |
|
|
|
2007 June 28 - AZG Armenian Daily & 2007 July 15 - FRANCE-ARMENIE
Magazine |
|
|
AGAIN ON BOUNDARIES
OF THE
REPUBLIC OF
ARMENIA AND ON
SELF-DETERMINATION OF NAGORNO KARABAKH
(under the
international law)
Ara Papian
Click here for PDF of Armenian version |
|
|
|
|
|
JURIDICAL
CORRELATIONS OF TREATIES OF SEVRES AND
LAUSANNE
Ara Papian
Click here for PDF of Armenian version |
|
|
2007 August 03 - SOBESEDNIK ARMENII
Biweekly |
|
|
POLITICAL
REHABILITATION
Interview with Ara Papian by Gohar Sardaryan
Click here for PDF of Armenian version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND
ARMENIAN RIGHTS BY INTERNATIONAL LAW
Ara Papian
Click here for PDF of Armenian version |
|
|
2008 October IV week - GANDZASAR, Syria
|
|
|
"14 POINTS OF WOODROW
WILSON" AND ARMENIA
Ara Papian
Click here for PDF of Armenian version |
2008 November II week - GANDZASAR, Syria
|
|
|
THE TREATY OF
KARS AND LEGAL STATUS OF SOVIET SOCIALISTIC
REPUBLIC OF
ARMENIA
ACCORDING TO THE INTERNATIONAL LAW
Ara Papian
Click here for PDF of Armenian version |
|
2007 – Unpublished
|
|
|
THE STATUS OF ARMENIAN MONUMENTS IN
TURKEY ACCORDING TO THE INTERNATIONAL LAW
Ara Papian
Click here for PDF of Armenian version |
|
|
| 2007 Volume 11, No 2, pp. 255-294 - IRAN AND THE CAUCASUS, Netherlands |
|
|
THE ARBITRAL AWARD ON TURKISH-ARMENIAN BOUNDARY
BY WOODROW WILSON, THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Ara Papian
Click here for PDF of English version |
