The Relativity Of Self-Determination Conceptions Regarding The Nagorno- Karabakh Conflict

Abstract

The fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is under the sovereignty of the Republic of Azerbaijan is accepted undisputedly not only in the framework of the Alma-Ata Declaration but was also accepted during the examination of the memberships of Azerbaijan and Armenia to the United Nations. In addition, the four resolutions of the UN Security Council adopted in 1993, embracing the same approach, highlighted that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict shall be resolved in accordance with the principles of territorial integrity and inviolability of borders of Azerbaijan. The Minsk Group, which was established within the OSCE in 1996, has focused on the self-determination formula since 1998 to submit recommendations on this issue. However, the implementation of the Resolution 1514(XV) on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples is legally impossible in this case, since Nagorno-Karabakh is under the sovereignty and within the territorial integrity of a State and it is not considered as a “colonial country”. Moreover, it is also impossible to implement the articles of the UN General Assembly Resolution 2625(XXV) regarding the self-determination in case of the non-existence of widespread human rights violations and oppressions. On the other hand, the Chiragov judgement of the ECHR established that self-determination cannot not be introduced as a realistic settlement formula with regards to Nagorno-Karabakh, which is under the military, political, and economic influence of Armenia.

Keywords

• Territorial Integrity
• Self-determination
• UN Security Council
• Resolution 2625(XXV)
• Resolution 1514(XXV)
• Chiragov judgement

Dağlık Karabağ Uyuşmazlığında Self-Determinasyon Tezlerinin Göreceliği

Abstract

Dağlık Karabağ’ın Azerbaycan Cumhuriyeti’nin egemenliği altında bulunduğu gerek Alma Ata Bildirisi çerçevesinde, gerek Azerbaycan ile Ermenistan’ın Birleşmiş Milletler’e üyeliklerinin incelenmesi kapsamında itirazsız kabul edilmiştir. BM Güvenlik Konseyi’nin 1993 yılında kabul ettiği dört karar da aynı yaklaşımı benimseyerek, Dağlık Karabağ uyuşmazlığının Azerbaycan’ın ülke bütünlüğü ve sınırlarının dokunulmazlığı ilkelerine uygun biçimde çözümlenmesi gerektiğini vurgulamıştır. Bu konuda, önerilerde bulunmak üzere, 1996’da AGİT çerçevesinde oluşturulan Minsk Grubu, 1998’den itibaren self-determinasyon formülü üzerine odaklanmıştır. Ancak, bir devletin egemenliği ve ülke bütünlüğü ile bağlantılı olan ve ayrıca, sömürge statüsünde olmayan Dağlık Karabağ açısından bir uyuşmazlıkta, BM Genel Kurulu’nun sömürge rejimlerinin sona erdirilmesine ilişkin 1514(XV) sayılı Bildirisi’nin uygulanması hukuken mümkün değildir. Ayrıca, yaygın insan hakları ihlalleri ve baskılarının söz konusu olmadığı durumlarda, BM Genel Kurulu’nun 2625(XXV) sayılı Bildirisi’ndeki self-determinasyonla ilgili maddelerinin de uygulanması mümkün değildir. Öte yandan, AİHM’nin Chiragov kararı da self-determinasyonun Ermenistan’ın askerî, siyasi ve ekonomik nüfuzu altında bulunan Dağlık Karabağ açısından gerçekçi bir çözüm oluşturamayacağını ortaya koymuştur.

Keywords

• Ülke Bütünlüğü
• Self-determinasyon
• BM Güvenlik Konseyi
• 2625(XXV) sayılı Bildiri
• 1514(XXV) sayılı Bildiri
• Chiragov Kararı

References

1. “Commission Badinter.” Avis no.3 Revue Générale de Droit International Public, 1992.
2. Arangio Ruiz, Gaetano. “The United Nations Declaration on Friendly Relations and the System of the sources of International Law.” Sijthoff and Noordhoff, 1979. http://www.gaetanoarangioruiz.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/The_Concept_of_International_Law_and_the.pdf
3. Carley, Patricia. “Nagorno-Karabakh: Searching for a Solution.” A United States Institute of Peace, Roundtable Report No. 34 (1998).
4. Crawford, James. The Creation of States in International Law. Oxford University Press: 2007
5. Crepet-Daigremont, Claire. “Conformité au droit international de la déclaration unilatérale d’indépendence relative au Kosovo.” CIJ, vol. 56 (June 22, 2010).
6. Gassimov, Dilaver D. “Le conflıt arméno-azerbaidjanais: L’impuissance ou l’indifférence de la communauté internationale?” Guerres Mondiales et Conflits Contemporains no. 24 (2014).
7. Gürel, Şükrü S. “Karabağ Sorunu Üzerinde bir Not.” AÜSBF Dergisi, 1992.
8. Krüger, Heiko. Nagorno-Karabakh in Self-Determination and Secession in International Law. Ed. Christian Walter, Antje von Ungern-Stenberg, and Kaavus Abushov. Oxford University Press, 2014.

9. Lemaire, Félicien. “La libre détermination des peuples, la vision du constitutionnaliste.” Civitas Europa 2014/No.32.
10. Oeter, Stephan. “Secession and the Role of the Security Council.” The ICJ, 2012.
11. Paust, Jordan. “Legal Aspects of the Final Act of Helsinki.” Law and Contemporary Problems 45 No: 1. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3646&context=lcp
12. Petithomme, Mathieu. “Etatisation et nationalisation du territoire contesté du Haut-Karabagh - Vivre et évoluer sans reconnaissance international.” Revue d’Etudes Comparatives Est-Ouest 14, No.42 (2011).
13. Potier, Tim. “Nagorno-Karabakh: Ever Closer to Settlement: Step by Step.” OSCE Yearbook 2009. Baden: 2010.
14. Prevost, Jean-François. “Observations sur la nature juridique de l’ Acte Final d’Helsinki.” Annuaire Français de Droit International, 1975.
15. Rich, Roland. “The Collapse of Yugoslavia and Soviet Union.” EJIL 4, No. 1 (1993).
16. Tuncel, Turgut Kerem. “A Short Assessment Of The ‘4-Day War’ in Karabakh.” Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), Commentary No: 2016/21, April 20, 2016. https://avim.org.tr/en/Yorum/A-SHORT-ASSESSMENT-OF-THE-4-DAY-WAR-IN-KARABAKH
17. Tuncel, Turgut Kerem. “The Nagorno-Karabakh Issue From A Juridical Point of View: The Case of Chiragov and Others v. Armenia”. Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), Analysis No: 2015/13, June 26, 2015. https://avim.org.tr/en/Analiz/THE-NAGORNO-KARABAKH-ISSUE-FROM-A-JURIDICAL-POINT-OF-VIEW-THE-CASE-OF-CHIRAGOV-AND-OTHERS-V-ARMENIA
18. Van Dijk, Peter. “The Final Act of Helsinki, basis for a Pan-European system?” The Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 2009.
19. Van Dijk, Peter. “The Implementation of the Final Act of Helsinki: The Creation of New Structures in the Involvement of the Existing Ones.” Michigan Journal of International Law, vol 10 (1989).
20. Weller, Marc. “Settling Self-determination Conflicts, Recent Developments.” EJIL 20, No 1 (2009).
21. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports, 2010.
22. Chiragov v. Armenia, ECHR (GC) Application no. 13216, June 16, 2016.
23. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution (276), ICJ, Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971.
24. Legal Consequences of the Separation from Mauritius in 1965, ICJ, Advisory Opinion of 21 February 2019.
25. Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports, 1975.