Professor vs professor

DPhil Eldar Ismailov opposes DPhil Ludwig Karapetyan
On the article by Ludwig Karapetyan "International law against mini-imperial claims", published on July 6, 2010 in Novaya Gazeta http://www.ng.ru/cis/2010-07-06/6_karabah.html.

I have read the article written by the eminent scientist, and, to be candid, I was very surprised. But not by the fact that the author adheres to such a categorical opinion concerning the future of Nagorno-Karabakh. After all, everybody has the right to their own opinions on this issue. However, I was surprised by the date the article was published. It is no longer the period from 1988 to the early 1990s. At that time the parties were arguing for the correctness of their position on the problem of whether Nagorno-Karabakh’s territory belonged to Armenia or Azerbaijan. The past two decades have shown that the territorial conflict can bring nothing but suffering, bloodshed and innumerable losses.

Everyone has probably realized that it is high time to work out a compromise settlement. The heads of such co-chair countries as Russia, the USA, France, and countries which are not directly involved in the prolonged Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, understand that peace is necessary. Now the questions "Who is to blame?" and "What territories should belong to which countries?" are off the agenda. The problem is how to reconcile the two countries and how to avoid renewed armed conflict. The practice shows that this is not an easy thing to do. By the same token, there appear articles similar to the article by Dr Karapetyan. These articles incite the parties to revert to a showdown scenario again and again.



Dr Karapetyan’s reasons, particularly on issues of the historical truth, are not watertight. The first argument boils down to the statement that "Nagorno-Karabakh has never been a part of Azerbaijan”. For God's sake, Dr Karapetyan, tell me, how could it be that Nagorno-Karabakh was not a part of Azerbaijan? What was all this commotion, which has continued for 20 years already, needed for? Dr Karapetyan, you cite international legal documents and the constitutional norms and laws of the USSR, trying to prove this statement. In this case you occupy yourself with hair-splitting, seeking out nuances, which would make it possible for you to prove the legality of the separation of Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan.

It is impossible to prove the improvable. A nations’ right to self-determination is inapplicable in this case. In the Soviet era, the status of the Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous oblast differed little from that of the other USSR autonomous oblasts. They were not entitled to secede from the Soviet republics, and thus to form independent states. Deputies of the Supreme Soviet from the Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous oblast were included in the delegation from Azerbaijan. The representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh were elected to the Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. Delegates to regular congresses of the Communist Party of the Nagorno-Karabakh party organization were elected as members of the delegation from the Azerbaijani party organization.

Karapetyan writes: "Leaders and advocates of Azerbaijan cannot provide any valid document in support of their claims to Nagorno-Karabakh”. What kinds of claims he is talking about? The issue is not about a claim, but sovereign right, a part of its territory that Azerbaijan does not want to lose. Karapetyan says that Azerbaijan has no document substantiating its right to this territory. At the same time, he states that there is only one such document concerning this, that is the decision of the Caucasus Bureau of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as of July 5th 1921. I agree. The decision of the Caucasus Bureau cannot be considered legal grounds for Nagorno-Karabakh's inclusion in Azerbaijan. However, there are some documents none of us have the right to ignore, for example, the Batumi agreement of 1918, which was also signed by the representative of Armenia. This agreement has defined the borders of Armenia. You will not find Nagorno-Karabakh as a part of Armenia there. However, you will receive evidence that Nagorno-Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan. The Moscow and Kars treaties of 1921, also signed by the representative of Armenia, provide evidence for the same fact.



The USSR Constitutions of 1936 and 1977 stipulate that the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous oblast belongs to Azerbaijan. Can this not serve as proof for Karapetyan, this Doubting Thomas. It is clear that, when he writes that 1921 saw "the dismemberment of centuries-old Eastern Armenia by the Bolsheviks of Russia and Kemalist Turkey after the collapse of the Russian Empire", our lawyer hopes for the ignorance of the Russian readership of the Nezavisimaya Gazeta. Well, firstly, the concept of Eastern Armenia is not historical, but conditional. The term “Eastern Armenia” usually implies mainly the territory of the Khanate of Yerevan, which transferred to Russia at the beginning of the 19th century.

There was nothing to dismember, because there existed no clear definition of the borders of Armenia, merely due to the fact that Armenian statehood was lost 1000 years before that. The article by Karapetyan contains many statements, leading on to objections. But that’s not the point. I could not but ask myself: Why did a DPhil, a distinguished scholar, an 85-year-old veteran express his protest against the peace settlement process, concerning one of the most painful issues of the Caucasus, in such a way?

Eldar Ismailov, DPhil, Professor of Baku State University