The query of the way forward for the Nagorno Karabakh is once more topical proper now, regardless that it’s overshadowed by the battle in Ukraine. Whereas the EU and US, as a part of the Group of Safety and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) Minsk Group (one can say that France is de facto representing the EU), have grow to be extra energetic of their engagement with the battle, Azerbaijan’s autocratic management is pushing for the dismantling of the group.
One motive behind this push is the latest statements by each EU and US officers about Nagorno-Karabakh Armenian’s proper for self-determination. Unsurprisingly, Baku continues to be vehemently rejecting this proper, whereas some are but once more pushing for the outdated argument of granting Nagorno-Karabakh autonomy (in keeping with the “Åland mannequin”) and guaranteeing the area’s inhabitants minority rights in a “multi-ethnic Azerbaijan”.
The primary drawback with these theories is that they’re flawed at their very induction, when the authors, intentionally one may add, overlook one substantial variable within the equation – particularly the state of democracy in Azerbaijan. An outspoken authoritarian regime, Azerbaijan ranks lowest in regard to democracy in Europe (second worst solely to Belarus) and on the absolute backside section of the Media freedom index, just under Belarus however above Russia. As soon as we add the previous and current insurance policies of ethnic cleaning and eradication of cultural monuments to erase any hint of Armenian presence in Nakhichevan and Karabakh, any premise for options to the battle change dramatically. Then, the entire subsequent argumentation and these steered options collapse as a result of they’re primarily based on faulty assumption, leaving in actuality just one viable answer. This answer is, particularly, the one proposed within the Madrid Rules, which grant the individuals of Nagorno-Karabakh their proper to self-determination and can most probably lead to a secession.
The query of secession is, nevertheless, not as easy as it could appear to be. The critics would recommend that minorities don’t have the fitting to exterior self-determination (which could result in secession), however solely the fitting to inside self-determination. Certainly, the reasoning for his or her declare stems from the overall place articulated by The UN (1992), stating that “if each ethnic, non secular or linguistic group claimed statehood, there can be no restrict to fragmentation, and peace, safety and financial well-being for all would grow to be ever harder to realize.”
This assertion, as justified because it possibly, requires qualification. Initially, whereas the priority is legitimate, it’s extremely unlikely that we might face a mushrooming of aspiring impartial nations, regardless how unstable they is likely to be. Though the volatility of those aspiring nations would mechanically revert the state of affairs within the overwhelming majority of the circumstances, there’s a reliable concern for the abuse of such a liberal implementation of peoples’ proper for self-determination. Merely put, as an alternative of an easy annexation, a overseas energy may entice an area rebel below the pretense of aspiring for ‘independence’, transfer in with forces to ‘safeguard’ the fitting of the native inhabitants after which maintain some mode of ‘plebiscite’ or ‘referendum’ to seal the deal and feign democratic legitimacy. Evidently, the latter would require a number of violations of worldwide regulation (as we e.g. see within the ongoing Ukraine battle) earlier than coming to the “expression of will”, i.e. a referendum, during which the most probably response from the worldwide neighborhood can be refutation. Secondly, this assumption by the UN foresees that the fundamental rights of the inhabitants are met by the federal government of the state they reside below. It’s right here that the problem of secession turns into a legitimate answer.
This commentary above can be why the problem of secession is much less controversial throughout the worldwide authorized neighborhood when it’s interpreted inside a colonial context, however extra so when in a post-colonial body. The post-colonial software has, nevertheless, developed fairly significantly because the Nineties, regardless that there are nonetheless widespread various views on the topic. This commentary however, there are each concrete authorized circumstances (which I’ll return to shortly) in addition to a theoretical discourse regarding the so-called “remedial” secession in distinction to a bilateral secession, which is widespread within the case of former colonies similar to that of India’s secession from UK or Namibia’s from South Africa. The latter is the truth is extremely related within the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, given the UN rationale (by the ICJ) for the Namibian individuals’s proper to secession resulting from South Africa’s failure to satisfy its obligation to ensure the well-being and the safety of the Namibian individuals.
A more moderen topical case is the decision of the Canadian Supreme Courtroom concerning the Secession of Quebec (1998). Right here, the Canadian Supreme Courtroom acknowledged that “A proper to exterior self-determination (which on this case doubtlessly takes the type of the assertion of a proper to unilateral secession) arises in solely essentially the most excessive of circumstances and, even then, below rigorously outlined circumstances.” That is nothing new nevertheless. The well-known Åland case, The Report of the Fee of Jurists, (League of Nations, 1920) explicitly identified one exception during which residents had the fitting to secession, particularly “when the State lacks both the desire or the facility to enact and apply simply and efficient ensures.” Merely put, if inside self-determination (concerning democratic values, tradition, language, financial system, stability, safety and so on.) are usually not met, the individuals have the reliable proper to exterior self-determination as a final resort, which is extremely relevant to the Nagorno-Karabakh case. The provisional verdict by the ICJ on December 7, 2021 is kind of indicative of the lengthy checklist of democratic and human rights violations dedicated by Azerbaijan towards the Armenian inhabitants of Nagorno-Karabakh.
This normative framework, as demonstrated by the Åland case, has because the Twenties recurred inside worldwide circles. As an illustration, this may be seen by its implicit reference in UN’s Declaration on Rules of Worldwide Legislation regarding Pleasant Relations and Co-Operation amongst States (1970) underlining the obligations of a state in regard to the territorial integrity vs. individuals’s proper for self-determination. Right here, territorial integrity is defended solely when the state performs its obligations to offer a “authorities representing the entire individuals belonging to a territory with out distinction as to race, creed or color.” As soon as the latter assure fails, the individuals shall have the fitting to self-determination, even when it lends itself to secession.
It’s right here that we return to the problem of democracy in Azerbaijan, or somewhat the flagrant lack of it, and the way the existential menace towards Nagorno-Karabakh’s inhabitants justifies their proper to find out their exterior standing. It must also be identified that this choice doesn’t mechanically and essentially indicate the sensible challenge of a everlasting ‘impartial’ Nagorno-Karabakh and the necessity to be part of the UN as a sovereign member-state. Actually, within the case of the Karabakh Battle, this doesn’t mirror the origins of the battle within the first place. Since 1918, the plea of the individuals of Nagorno-Karabakh has been to be a part of Armenia, a request which was repeated in 1923, 1965, 1977 after which once more in 1988. The one motive why we’re talking of an ‘impartial’ Nagorno-Karabakh is as an interim standing and in respect to the continuing mediation by OSCE and its Constitution, the Helsinki Last Act, which states that “frontiers might be modified, in accordance with worldwide regulation, by peaceable means and by settlement.” Thus, a remedial secession of Nagorno-Karabakh from an autocratic Azerbaijan shouldn’t be solely completely aligned with worldwide regulation, each explicitly and normatively, however it is usually the one viable answer to a battle with the intention to keep away from the larger threat or potential of broad ethnic cleaning towards the native Armenian inhabitants.
The latter, ethnic cleaning, is on no account a hypothetical situation. Given the historicity of the battle, latest developments because the 2020 battle, and the rhetoric from Baku, the specter of ethnic cleaning may be very actual and imminent. The 2020 battle not solely cleansed one third of Nagorno-Karabakh of its Armenian inhabitants, however subsequent motion by the administration in Baku have additionally indicated a coverage of forcing ethnic Armenians out in a method or one other. The query can be whether or not the democratic worldwide neighborhood will enable it to happen or not, particularly in mild of the battle in Ukraine.
The battle in Ukraine and the worldwide embargo on Russian vitality sources has put the highlight on Azerbaijan in its place provider of pure gasoline to Europe. The worry that Europe and the worldwide neighborhood would flip a blind eye to the state of democracy and human rights in Azerbaijan is in fact much more palpable in relation to the seemingly destiny awaiting the Armenian inhabitants of Nagorno-Karabakh; particularly if the area is once more put below Baku’s suzerainty. The battle in Ukraine has undoubtedly confirmed that the worldwide neighborhood can stand in solidarity to defend different’s rights towards an autocratic assault. However, the battle in Ukraine has additionally blatantly demonstrated that we will overlook and sacrifice those that are usually not in our shut proximity for the sake of our personal nationwide pursuits. Hopefully the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians is not going to be sacrificed on the altar of realpolitik.
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations