16 ноября 2006 - Армянская ежедневная газета АЗГ

Рузанна Погосян

 

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.

 

2007 March 16 - AZG Armenian Daily

TURKEY'S BLOCKADE OF ARMENIA IS VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS

 

Click here for PDF of Armenian version

THE ARMENIAN ISSUE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND REMAINS AN INTERNATIONAL QUESTION - Part 1

Interview with Ara Papian by Karine Davtyan

 

 

 

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.

4. Ibid., pp. 475-76.

5. Ibid., p. 600.

6. Ibid.

 

 

 

 

 

Click here for PDF of Armenian version 

 

ACCORDING TO THE INTERNATIONAL LAW

Ara Papian

Click here for PDF of Armenian version

 

BY WOODROW WILSON, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Ara Papian

Click here for PDF of English version