We have obtained and translated this information from Dr. David NANIGIAN, Ph.D., MBA Video
Artsakh’s status as an internationally unrecognized state is often discussed in relation to its recognition by UN resolutions, which call for either territorial integrity or the right to self-determination. However, many people, including myself, may not fully grasp the implications of international law and how it interprets these terms, which sound quite weighty and significant. To shed some light on this matter, I’ll explain the key points briefly.
Firstly, let’s understand what constitutes an internationally recognized state according to international law. States are entities that are members of the United Nations and have been acknowledged and approved by existing member states. The criteria for statehood are outlined in Article One of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. This convention, now considered international law, is applicable to all nations and defines the necessary qualifications for statehood:
- A permanent population,
- A defined territory,
- A government, and
- The capacity to enter relations with other states.
The first criterion requires a state to have a stable and enduring population within a specific geographical area. There is no minimum number of inhabitants required. For instance, the Republic of Nauru, which had a population of only 6,500 when it gained independence in 1968, met this criterion. In comparison, when Artsakh declared independence in 1991, it had a population of approximately 189,000, predominantly Armenians, thus fulfilling the first qualification.
The second criterion demands a state to possess a generally defined territory, though precise borders are not necessary. Several states, including Israel, were admitted into the UN without having their final borders defined after World War Two. Artsakh declared its independence within the defined territory of the so-called Nagorno Karabakh autonomous oblast, which was part of the Azerbaijani Soviet Republic. Today, Artsakh covers an area of about 4,400 square kilometers, demonstrating a generally defined territory since its independence, fulfilling the second qualification.
The third criterion mandates the presence of a government with some level of control over the state and its citizens. There is no requirement for a specific form of government structure. Artsakh has its own fully functional government, established just 20 days after the independence referendum. As of 2020, it has a constitution, a ministry of foreign affairs, a police force, and regularly holds presidential and legislative elections in a democratic manner, thereby fulfilling the third qualification.
In summary, Artsakh meets the criteria set forth by the Montevideo Convention for statehood. It has a permanent population, a defined territory, and a functioning government, thus satisfying the essential prerequisites to be considered an internationally recognized state, irrespective of its formal recognition by other countries.
In 2020, Freedom House, an independent organization, ironically gave Azerbaijan a political rights score of two out of 40, while Nagorno-Karabakh, a region included in the same report, scored 13 out of 40. This difference in scores indicates a significant contrast in their political freedom, with Nagorno-Karabakh appearing 6.5 times more politically free than Azerbaijan.
Despite not being internationally recognized as a state, Artsakh, as Nagorno-Karabakh is also known, fulfills the criteria for statehood according to the Montevideo Convention. It boasts a stable and effective system of government since declaring independence. Moreover, it meets the third criteria by having the capacity for relations with other states, demonstrated by maintaining permanent representative offices in several countries.
The final criteria for statehood involve the ability to act independently as a state without reliance on other states. Artsakh has a self-defense army and demonstrated its capability to enter into international relations by being a signing party in the 1994 ceasefire agreement.
However, the lack of international recognition poses challenges for Artsakh’s interactions with other states, as it hinders formal acknowledgment and membership in international bodies like the UN. Despite this, according to Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention, Artsakh still has the right to defend its integrity and independence, even before recognition.
International recognition is crucial for Artsakh to fully exercise its international rights and duties. It should be noted that the recognition of a new state is purely a political decision and depends on the interests of existing states. The criteria for statehood must be met before any recognition, and it is not compulsory for existing states to recognize new ones.
The process of recognition involves considering factors such as the means by which the state came into existence, whether through force, territorial acquisition, racial discrimination, etc. Self-determination is a guiding principle that legitimizes the use of force in pursuit of people’s right to determine their own political status, as demonstrated in the case of Bangladesh in 1971.
In summary, Artsakh fulfills the criteria for statehood, operates as a de facto state, and has the right to act as a state even without international recognition. However, recognition by other states remains essential for it to fully exercise its international rights and responsibilities.
The acceptance of the independence of Bangladesh was based on the exercise of their right to self-determination. This right, recognized by international law and the UN Charter, is frequently mentioned in the conflict. Advocates argue for the legitimacy of Bangladesh as an independent state, highlighting the historical presence of the Bengali people in the region.
Throughout history, the Bengali people have faced foreign domination but maintained some level of autonomy under various empires, including during their time within the Soviet Union as an administrative division or oblast. However, their rights were restricted, and discrimination persisted under Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities. This situation worsened when Azerbaijan imposed economic blockades, depriving the people of essential resources.
The concept of self-determination is permissible for a population living under foreign rule and enduring gross human rights violations. However, this right is constrained by the principle of territorial integrity, which also holds legal significance in international law and is recognized by the UN Charter.
Azerbaijan claims territorial integrity, including over the Artsakh region. Still, this claim lacks a legal basis because when Azerbaijan separated from the Soviet Union, autonomous oblasts like Artsakh had the right to decide their future, including the possibility of independence. The Nagorno Karabakh Republic exercised this right by proclaiming independence two days after Azerbaijan’s Declaration of Independence. A referendum held in December 1991 resulted in an overwhelming vote for independence, making Artsakh’s Declaration of Independence lawful and valid.
Furthermore, Azerbaijan’s historical claim to the Artsakh territory during its initial independence request in 1991 lacks legitimacy, as the region was disputed between Armenia and Azerbaijan at the time. This further supports the notion that Azerbaijan has no legitimate territorial rights over Artsakh.
Despite Artsakh’s legal basis for independence and its current de facto state, the international community has been hesitant to recognize the Republic of Artsakh. The reasons for this reluctance remain complex and multifaceted.
Recognition depends solely on the self-interest of the international community. This reveals a significant flaw in the legal aspect of international relations. The world, as we all know, often prioritizes financial gains over justice. Consequently, oil-rich Azerbaijan enjoys greater financial value compared to a small state seeking to live peacefully and exercise its rights. Moreover, the pressure from involved parties, such as Turkey siding firmly with Azerbaijan due to historical aggression against anything Armenian, further complicates the quest for independence for the state of Artsakh.
— 🇦🇲 David NANIGIAN, Ph.D., MBA (aka “Dr. N”) 🇦🇲 (@DavidNANIGIAN) July 30, 2023
The Armenian people have learned from this situation that despite Azerbaijan’s illegitimate reasons for aggression, violation of human rights, and perpetration of war crimes, including heinous acts like beheading prisoners of war and targeting religious and medical facilities, the international response remains insufficient. Azerbaijan resorts to using lies and deception to shape a media narrative, even with evidence from reputable organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch pointing to their use of cluster bombs.
Regrettably, no state in the world has taken substantial action to protect the Armenian people from the threat of genocide, except for the Republic of Armenia itself. Consequently, it falls upon each individual to pray and pressure their leaders to prioritize justice over financial interests. This is a clear-cut case, and Armenians worldwide have voiced their concerns loudly, but they should not have to face this struggle alone. The Republic of Artsakh and its people have the rightful claim to live peacefully in their homeland, as supported both legally and historically, for Artsakh is Armenia.