Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: The Great Betrayal

[SD_Film Artists]

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/arme ... key-drones
Turkey is using drones to assist azerbaijan now.

Unless I missed something it just says that Azerbaijan is using Turkish-made drones.

Turkey is however being even more stubborn in its support for Azerbaijan
https://www.france24.com/en/20201006-fr ... jor-cities

Turkey on Tuesday urged the world to stand by Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and questioned the utility of a ceasefire in the ethnic Armenian separatist region.

"To put these two countries on equal footing means awarding the occupier. The world must be on the side of those who are right, namely on the side of Azerbaijan," Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on a visit to Baku, adding: "There are calls for a ceasefire, but what will happen next?"

[The New California Republic]

Has either side started doing this yet? The utter lack of independent media coverage from the conflict means that it's difficult to see what both sides are using.

It’s not possible to tell. Currently there are very few reports. I’m waiting for info on the southern offensive but I only have hearsay, let alone composition of forces.

Conflicts that have media coverage on the ground tend to be far better for doing some armchair assessment of the balance and composition of forces. This one seems to be going down the total news blackout route, with only very limited footage being made available, and even that footage is being carefully selected and thus gives a very distorted picture of what is going on.

[Lower Nubia]

It’s not possible to tell. Currently there are very few reports. I’m waiting for info on the southern offensive but I only have hearsay, let alone composition of forces.

Conflicts that have media coverage on the ground tend to be far better for doing some armchair assessment of the balance and composition of forces. This one seems to be going down the total news blackout route, with only very limited footage being made available, and even that footage is being carefully selected and thus gives a very distorted picture of what is going on.

I wouldn’t say it’s a media blackout, more likely a brownout. Artsakh has international journalists in it, both in Stepanakert, and even some on the front lines. The problem is that without an equivalent journalism on the Azerbaijani front, it’s difficult to get a complete picture of what’s happening.

For example, we know that Armenia repelled an invasion at Jayrabil, as it was reported in RT by journalists near the front there with Armenia. We don’t know anything about Azerbaijan. Like, nothing.

[Novus America]

Azerbaijan doesn't consider the people living there as anything really. Armenian rule for them would be a continuation of how things are, Azerbaijani rule would mean the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of the whole population. That being said Artsakh if it where to join Armenia would probably want to remain someone autonomous, thirty years of self rule will do that.

so uh, go Armenia?

Well, it is complicated. Here we have a fatal conflict in international law, the rule that national borders should be respected and borders not changed by force, with the demands for self determination and a desire not to dig up old borders once they have been changed by force.

Armenia is partly to blame for its weird legal fictions and such, Armenia does not even officially recognize the Republic of Artsakh AND recognizes some of the occupied lands as legally Azerbaijani, and that it will return some as a “peace for land deal”. Because Armenia openly admits to occupying Azerbaijani land, it opens itself to attack.

Had Armenia recognized the Republic of Artsakh and then dealt with the areas occupied by Armenia that are outside https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia ... o-Karabakh
Nagorno-Karabakh it would make more sense. Unfortunately however Armenia plays this weird contradiction of supporting the Republic of Artsakh, while refusing to recognize it.
Or even exactly define what its borders should be. Is it only the old Nagorno Karabakh ASSR? Well it is occupying large amounts of land outside that.

I am sympathetic towards the demands of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh, and think they should not forced to be under Azeri rule, BUT the borders need to be clearly defined and legally regularized.

The problem Armenia has it is fighting on land Armenia acknowledges as being part of Azerbaijan.

The problem with “land for peace” is you are openly given the other side justification to fight, because you admit to occupying their land.

[Novus America]

More or less.

What would armenian annexation look like? Would people lose any rights they have as Azeris?

Well there really are no Azeris left there. There used to be some Azeri and Kurdish communities in some of the areas outside Nagorno-Karabakh occupied by Armenia, but they were destroyed in the war. Armenia did some ethnic cleansing too. Azerbaijan was wrong to try to starve Nagorno-Karabakh into submission and even destroy its people, but Armenia went much further than Nagorno-Karabakh.

So Azerbaijan is to blame for its intransigence in refusing to allow self determination for Nagorno-Karabakh (and trying to crush it), but Armenia is partly to blame for refusing to even legally recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as independent or as annexed by Armenia, and controlling land it admits belongs to Azerbaijan.

Which is quite weird. When you deliberately create such ambiguity, the other side can and will exploit it.

[Salus Maior]

As I understand it, the Artsakh Republic really only exists because Armenia can't directly administer the territory.

[Novus America]

As I understand it, the Artsakh Republic really only exists because Armenia can't directly administer the territory.

Basically it is a legal fiction, it does not actually operate independently of Armenia.
But Armenia could recognize it, or even openly annex it like Israel did to the Golan Heights.
Armenia could administer it directly, but chooses not to.

[Salus Maior]

As I understand it, the Artsakh Republic really only exists because Armenia can't directly administer the territory.

Basically it is a legal fiction, it does not actually operate independently of Armenia.
But Armenia could recognize it, or even openly annex it like Israel did to the Golan Heights.
Armenia could administer it directly, but chooses not to.

They might be worried that if they annex it, Turkey might throw a fit.

And by a fit I mean directly act.

[Heloin]

so uh, go Armenia?

Well, it is complicated. Here we have a fatal conflict in international law, the rule that national borders should be respected and borders not changed by force, with the demands for self determination and a desire not to dig up old borders once they have been changed by force.

Armenia is partly to blame for its weird legal fictions and such, Armenia does not even officially recognize the Republic of Artsakh AND recognizes some of the occupied lands as legally Azerbaijani, and that it will return some as a “peace for land deal”. Because Armenia openly admits to occupying Azerbaijani land, it opens itself to attack.

Had Armenia recognized the Republic of Artsakh and then dealt with the areas occupied by Armenia that are outside https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia ... o-Karabakh
Nagorno-Karabakh it would make more sense. Unfortunately however Armenia plays this weird contradiction of supporting the Republic of Artsakh, while refusing to recognize it.
Or even exactly define what its borders should be. Is it only the old Nagorno Karabakh ASSR? Well it is occupying large amounts of land outside that.

I am sympathetic towards the demands of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh, and think they should not forced to be under Azeri rule, BUT the borders need to be clearly defined and legally regularized.

The problem Armenia has it is fighting on land Armenia acknowledges as being part of Azerbaijan.

The problem with “land for peace” is you are openly given the other side justification to fight, because you admit to occupying their land.

Armenia doesn't recognise the land as Azerbaijani though. Basically as far as Armenia is concerned there is no legal entity that has jurisdiction or claim over the territory, both the original boundaries of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the occupied areas.

[Novus America]

Basically it is a legal fiction, it does not actually operate independently of Armenia.
But Armenia could recognize it, or even openly annex it like Israel did to the Golan Heights.
Armenia could administer it directly, but chooses not to.

They might be worried that if they annex it, Turkey might throw a fit.

And by a fit I mean directly act.

Possibly, but still they have left them selves in a legal conundrum, implicitly making their own behavior illegal and Azerbaijan’s legal. If the land is not independent, and does not belong to Armenia (Armenia again does not even legally recognize the Republic of Artsakh) it belongs to Azerbaijan.

Now I think it actually should be allowed to vote on its status, and given to Armenia if that is what the people want, BUT again it should be legally clear that Armenia no longer recognizes it as Azerbaijan.

I get why Armenia wants to prolong the status quo indefinitely, and morally Azerbaijan should not try to change it by force but it gives Azerbaijan a really good excuse to attack, when you effectively admit to occupying part of it, and legally imply that you are occupying another part by refusing to legally declare it as yours, or belonging to someone else.

[Novus America]

Well, it is complicated. Here we have a fatal conflict in international law, the rule that national borders should be respected and borders not changed by force, with the demands for self determination and a desire not to dig up old borders once they have been changed by force.

Armenia is partly to blame for its weird legal fictions and such, Armenia does not even officially recognize the Republic of Artsakh AND recognizes some of the occupied lands as legally Azerbaijani, and that it will return some as a “peace for land deal”. Because Armenia openly admits to occupying Azerbaijani land, it opens itself to attack.

Had Armenia recognized the Republic of Artsakh and then dealt with the areas occupied by Armenia that are outside https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia ... o-Karabakh
Nagorno-Karabakh it would make more sense. Unfortunately however Armenia plays this weird contradiction of supporting the Republic of Artsakh, while refusing to recognize it.
Or even exactly define what its borders should be. Is it only the old Nagorno Karabakh ASSR? Well it is occupying large amounts of land outside that.

I am sympathetic towards the demands of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh, and think they should not forced to be under Azeri rule, BUT the borders need to be clearly defined and legally regularized.

The problem Armenia has it is fighting on land Armenia acknowledges as being part of Azerbaijan.

The problem with “land for peace” is you are openly given the other side justification to fight, because you admit to occupying their land.

Armenia doesn't recognise the land as Azerbaijani though. Basically as far as Armenia is concerned there is no legal entity that has jurisdiction or claim over the territory, both the original boundaries of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the occupied areas.

“From the standpoint of the Republic of Artsakh, the security belt is territory of Azerbaijan temporarily controlled by the Artsakh Defense Army until the receipt of security guarantees for the Republic of Artsakh and the establishment of control over the whole of the territory declared by the Republic of Artsakh, with the exception of the Lachin corridor linking Artsakh with Armenia (which the Republic of Artsakh has stated it does not intend to return because of its strategic importance)”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia ... o-Karabakh

Even the Republic of Artsakh recognizes some of the land as Azerbaijani.

Sure Armenia is trying to play this weird ambiguity about what the land really is, but there is no basis in international law for Armenia to do that. But Armenia has offered to return much of the land, which sure seems to legally say it is Azerbaijan.

Because the land was controlled by Azerbaijan, and is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, you actually have to legally change its status to be able to claim it is no longer Azerbaijani.

Morally I agree with the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to self determination but Armenia has no legal basis to support it as it has not even legally made a claim to the land or its independence.

Azerbaijan can thus make a valid legal claim to the land, and Armenia is not helping its cause by refusing to make clear what legally it is claiming is going on.

Armenia is morally more right, but legally completely in the wrong, and not even making a legal claim to it.

Which unfortunately gives Azerbaijan a good excuse to fight.

[Lower Nubia]

so uh, go Armenia?

Well, it is complicated. Here we have a fatal conflict in international law, the rule that national borders should be respected and borders not changed by force, with the demands for self determination and a desire not to dig up old borders once they have been changed by force.

Armenia is partly to blame for its weird legal fictions and such, Armenia does not even officially recognize the Republic of Artsakh AND recognizes some of the occupied lands as legally Azerbaijani, and that it will return some as a “peace for land deal”. Because Armenia openly admits to occupying Azerbaijani land, it opens itself to attack.

Had Armenia recognized the Republic of Artsakh and then dealt with the areas occupied by Armenia that are outside https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia ... o-Karabakh
Nagorno-Karabakh it would make more sense. Unfortunately however Armenia plays this weird contradiction of supporting the Republic of Artsakh, while refusing to recognize it.
Or even exactly define what its borders should be. Is it only the old Nagorno Karabakh ASSR? Well it is occupying large amounts of land outside that.

I am sympathetic towards the demands of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh, and think they should not forced to be under Azeri rule, BUT the borders need to be clearly defined and legally regularized.

The problem Armenia has it is fighting on land Armenia acknowledges as being part of Azerbaijan.

The problem with “land for peace” is you are openly given the other side justification to fight, because you admit to occupying their land.

Yeah, no, that’s not how that works. CSTO has a very weird problem whereby if Armenia recognises Artsakh CSTO won’t be able to provide assistance if Azerbaijan attacks Armenia proper. This is to do with the Minsk group.

“ Possibly, but still they have left them selves in a legal conundrum, implicitly making their own behavior illegal and Azerbaijan’s legal. If the land is not independent, and does not belong to Armenia (Armenia again does not even legally recognize the Republic of Artsakh) it belongs to Azerbaijan.”

This is also false, because, again, the recognition of Artsakh is dependant on meeting the provisions of the Minsk group, not unilaterally beyond it.

Which is why Armenia recognises no break away states, as recognition of Artsakh needs to be mediated through the Minsk group, which requires both sides.

There is no conundrum, you just don’t understand the process at hand.

[Novus America]

Well, it is complicated. Here we have a fatal conflict in international law, the rule that national borders should be respected and borders not changed by force, with the demands for self determination and a desire not to dig up old borders once they have been changed by force.

Armenia is partly to blame for its weird legal fictions and such, Armenia does not even officially recognize the Republic of Artsakh AND recognizes some of the occupied lands as legally Azerbaijani, and that it will return some as a “peace for land deal”. Because Armenia openly admits to occupying Azerbaijani land, it opens itself to attack.

Had Armenia recognized the Republic of Artsakh and then dealt with the areas occupied by Armenia that are outside https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia ... o-Karabakh
Nagorno-Karabakh it would make more sense. Unfortunately however Armenia plays this weird contradiction of supporting the Republic of Artsakh, while refusing to recognize it.
Or even exactly define what its borders should be. Is it only the old Nagorno Karabakh ASSR? Well it is occupying large amounts of land outside that.

I am sympathetic towards the demands of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh, and think they should not forced to be under Azeri rule, BUT the borders need to be clearly defined and legally regularized.

The problem Armenia has it is fighting on land Armenia acknowledges as being part of Azerbaijan.

The problem with “land for peace” is you are openly given the other side justification to fight, because you admit to occupying their land.

Yeah, no, that’s not how that works. CSTO has a very weird problem whereby if Armenia recognises Artsakh CSTO won’t be able to provide assistance if Azerbaijan attacks Armenia proper..

“I cannot legally claim this land because if I do I cannot join this alliance” is not a valid legal argument to claim land.
Yes all other members of CSTO recognize the land as belonging to Azerbaijan. But that is a problem for Armenia, joining and organization that undermines your claim.

Armenia does not have to be part of CSTO, and yes by joining CSTO it undermines itself here, but that is the point.

Try going to court over a property dispute and act like Armenia. Your case will be tossed out with prejudice and your neighbor will win.

That is the problem. I support the moral right of the people of Nagorno Karabakh to self determination, and they have made a clear legal claim (although they admit much of the territory does belong to Azerbaijan which is still a major problem for them, as they admit to occupying Azerbaijani lands).

But Armenia has not even filed any legal claim. And why not then at least acknowledge the Republic of Artsakh and its claims? Armenia could have recognized Artsakh as independent, but did not even do that!

You need more than just a vague moral claim. And Armenia COULD actually have a claim with legal justification. Yet it refuses to make one.

As fair as the Minsk Group goes (and it is a complete failure) Azerbaijan has claimed the whole land.
The group is supposed to mediate it (and the Minsk Group is not a legal treaty so does not override international law) but it has never actually done so, because it is not impartial and moreover the first step of mediation is to make your claim.

Which Armenia has not done.

Again self determination here is morally right, but Armenia has made no legal claim (again it could have one but does not even make a legal claim)z. Which is a problem.
Because being morally right but the other side having a better legal claim still leaves you in a bad place.

[Lower Nubia]

Yeah, no, that’s not how that works. CSTO has a very weird problem whereby if Armenia recognises Artsakh CSTO won’t be able to provide assistance if Azerbaijan attacks Armenia proper..

“I cannot legally claim this land because if I do I cannot join this alliance” is not a valid legal argument to claim land.
Yes all other members of CSTO recognize the land as belonging to Azerbaijan. But that is a problem for Armenia, joining and organization that undermines your claim.

Armenia does not have to be part of CSTO, and yes by joining CSTO it undermines itself here, but that is the point.

Try going to court over a property dispute and act like Armenia. Your case will be tossed out with prejudice and your neighbor will win.

That is the problem. I support the moral right of the people of Nagorno Karabakh to self determination, and they have made a clear legal claim (although they admit much of the territory does belong to Azerbaijan which is still a major problem for them, as they admit to occupying Azerbaijani lands).

But Armenia has not even filed any legal claim. And why not then at least acknowledge the Republic of Artsakh and its claims? Armenia could have recognized Artsakh as independent, but did not even do that!

You need more than just a vague moral claim. And Armenia COULD actually have a claim with legal justification. Yet it refuses to make one.

That’s not what I said, and I outlined why it was.

Recognition is mediated through the Minsk group. Your suggestion is that Armenia unilaterally recognises Artsakh breaking international law set out by the Minsk group, through which to then settle the law on recognition?

That’s not how that works. Recognition first comes through the coordination of the Minsk group.

Armenia would have a conundrum if it recognises other breakaway territories beyond Artsakh, but it does not. It first wants to have Artsakh recognised through the efforts of peace with Azerbaijan.

[Novus America]

“I cannot legally claim this land because if I do I cannot join this alliance” is not a valid legal argument to claim land.
Yes all other members of CSTO recognize the land as belonging to Azerbaijan. But that is a problem for Armenia, joining and organization that undermines your claim.

Armenia does not have to be part of CSTO, and yes by joining CSTO it undermines itself here, but that is the point.

Try going to court over a property dispute and act like Armenia. Your case will be tossed out with prejudice and your neighbor will win.

That is the problem. I support the moral right of the people of Nagorno Karabakh to self determination, and they have made a clear legal claim (although they admit much of the territory does belong to Azerbaijan which is still a major problem for them, as they admit to occupying Azerbaijani lands).

But Armenia has not even filed any legal claim. And why not then at least acknowledge the Republic of Artsakh and its claims? Armenia could have recognized Artsakh as independent, but did not even do that!

You need more than just a vague moral claim. And Armenia COULD actually have a claim with legal justification. Yet it refuses to make one.

That’s not what I said, and I outlined why it was.

Recognition is mediated through the Minsk group. Your suggestion is that Armenia unilaterally recognises Artsakh breaking international law set out by the Minsk group, through which to then settle the law on recognition?

That’s not how that works. Recognition first comes through the coordination of the Minsk group.

Armenia would have a conundrum if it recognises other breakaway territories beyond Artsakh, but it does not. It first wants to have Artsakh recognised through the efforts of peace with Azerbaijan.

The Minsk Group is a failed mediation group (that will never work), it is not legally binding.
It does not make international law. It is not a treaty.
And it has not stopped Azerbaijan from staking its claim.
The first step to mediation is you both make your claims.

Armenia should admit it has failed, make an legal claim, and then it can claim the law is on its side.

But right now the law is simply not on its side. Which gives Azerbaijan a good argument.
Being morally right but failing to legally justify it still causes you to lose legally.

If I you and I claim a piece of property, we both take our claims to court or arbitration, who then decides whose claim is better, if mediation fails (and it has here).

But how can an arbitrator rule you claim is valid, when you have not even made one?

[Lower Nubia]

That’s not what I said, and I outlined why it was.

Recognition is mediated through the Minsk group. Your suggestion is that Armenia unilaterally recognises Artsakh breaking international law set out by the Minsk group, through which to then settle the law on recognition?

That’s not how that works. Recognition first comes through the coordination of the Minsk group.

Armenia would have a conundrum if it recognises other breakaway territories beyond Artsakh, but it does not. It first wants to have Artsakh recognised through the efforts of peace with Azerbaijan.

The Minsk Group is a failed mediation group (that will never work), it is not legally binding.
It does not make international law. It is not a treaty.
Armenia should admit it has failed, make an legal claim, and then it can claim the law is on its side.

But right now the law is simply not on its side. Which gives Azerbaijan a good argument.
Being morally right but failing to legally justify it still causes you to lose.

Of course it’s legally binding. You don’t just get to say: “it’s not legally binding” that’s nonsense you’ve just made up. Internationally it’s agreed that it’s the most appropriate mediation for all parties in this conflict.

The problem, as you have continued to ignore, Is that both sides have agreed and accepted the Minsk groups mediation and thus have also agreed to the precepts for achieving peace in this conflict, which are, as per the 2007 agreement.

“Future determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally
binding expression of will;”

Therefore, recognition of Artsakh is determined not by unilateral action, as you claim, but through the precepts of the Minsk group.

Now the claim of conundrum would be valid, if Armenia recognises any break away state, but they recognise none, precisely because recognising any break away state before Artsakh is recognised would be a contradiction in international law. Seeing as that is not the case, there is no contradiction.

[Novus America]

The Minsk Group is a failed mediation group (that will never work), it is not legally binding.
It does not make international law. It is not a treaty.
Armenia should admit it has failed, make an legal claim, and then it can claim the law is on its side.

But right now the law is simply not on its side. Which gives Azerbaijan a good argument.
Being morally right but failing to legally justify it still causes you to lose.

Of course it’s legally binding. You don’t just get to say: “it’s not legally binding” that’s nonsense you’ve just made up. Internationally it’s agreed that it’s the most appropriate mediation for all parties in this conflict.

The problem, as you have continued to ignore, Is that both sides have agreed and accepted the Minsk groups mediation and thus have also agreed to the precepts for achieving peace in this conflict, which are, as per the 2007 agreement.

“Future determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally
binding expression of will;”

Therefore, recognition of Artsakh is determined not by unilateral action, as you claim, but through the precepts of the Minsk group.

Now the claim of conundrum would be valid, if Armenia recognises any break away state, but they recognise none, precisely because recognising any break away state before Artsakh is recognised would be a contradiction in international law. Seeing as that is not the case, there is no contradiction.

Your source does not support you claim. “This group exists” does not make international law. Under what principles of international law does Armenia own the land?
And again how can Azerbaijan make a claim, but Armenia cannot?

Cite the law. Do not simply say “the Minsk Group exists!”.

Also according to the US, Russia and France here is what they agreed to:
“ Return of the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijani control;
 An interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh providing guarantees for security and self-
governance;
 A corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh;
 Future determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally
binding expression of will;
 The right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their former places
of residence; and
 International security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation.”

So they even recognize much of the land as belonging to Azerbaijan.

But Azerbaijan and Armenia have not signed a treaty agreeing to that.

Really you have two competing internationals principles here. Territorial integrity and self determination.
You can argue self determination is more valid principle here, and I agree. But Armenia has not claimed that. Because it has not legally made a claim!

Also for mediation to make any sense the mediator had to be impartial. Which is not the case here. The Minsk Grouo is a failure. It will not solve the situation. It will indefinitely extend the Status Quo, which is to Armenia’s benefit.

But it does not legally say all the land belongs to Armenia. Because it it clearly does not.

[Lower Nubia]

Of course it’s legally binding. You don’t just get to say: “it’s not legally binding” that’s nonsense you’ve just made up. Internationally it’s agreed that it’s the most appropriate mediation for all parties in this conflict.

The problem, as you have continued to ignore, Is that both sides have agreed and accepted the Minsk groups mediation and thus have also agreed to the precepts for achieving peace in this conflict, which are, as per the 2007 agreement.

“Future determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally
binding expression of will;”

Therefore, recognition of Artsakh is determined not by unilateral action, as you claim, but through the precepts of the Minsk group.

Now the claim of conundrum would be valid, if Armenia recognises any break away state, but they recognise none, precisely because recognising any break away state before Artsakh is recognised would be a contradiction in international law. Seeing as that is not the case, there is no contradiction.

Your source does not support you claim. “This group exists” does not make international law. Under what principles of international law does Armenia own the land?
And again how can Azerbaijan make a claim, but Armenia cannot?

Cite the law. Do not simply say “the Minsk Group exists!”.

Also according to the US, Russia and France here is what they agreed to:
“ Return of the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijani control;
 An interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh providing guarantees for security and self-
governance;
 A corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh;
 Future determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally
binding expression of will;
 The right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their former places
of residence; and
 International security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation.”

So they even recognize much of the land as belonging to Azerbaijan.

But Azerbaijan and Armenia have not signed a treaty agreeing to that.

Really you have two competing internationals principles here. Territorial integrity and self determination.
You can argue self determination is more valid principle here, and I agree. But Armenia has not claimed that. Because it has not legally made a claim!

No, no, no. You’re discussing two separate topics as one. I’m talking about whether Armenia can unilaterally recognise Artsakh through international law. You’re talking about the validity of Armenias claim to the land. Both sides have agreed that the solution to the conflict is through international mediation, which includes recognition as the final stage.

I have already previously stated that Azerbaijan has international law on its side concerning territorial integrity. I have also said that claim is not exclusive, as Artsakh has a claim, but, because Artsakh is not recognised - neither can the validity of the claim under international law. However, if the recognition of Artsakh is dependant on the mutual recognition by Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace, the moment Artsakh is recognised, so too is the validity of their claim.

That paragraph above is different to a discussion on unilateral recognition,

[Novus America]

Your source does not support you claim. “This group exists” does not make international law. Under what principles of international law does Armenia own the land?
And again how can Azerbaijan make a claim, but Armenia cannot?

Cite the law. Do not simply say “the Minsk Group exists!”.

Also according to the US, Russia and France here is what they agreed to:
“ Return of the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijani control;
 An interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh providing guarantees for security and self-
governance;
 A corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh;
 Future determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally
binding expression of will;
 The right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their former places
of residence; and
 International security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation.”

So they even recognize much of the land as belonging to Azerbaijan.

But Azerbaijan and Armenia have not signed a treaty agreeing to that.

Really you have two competing internationals principles here. Territorial integrity and self determination.
You can argue self determination is more valid principle here, and I agree. But Armenia has not claimed that. Because it has not legally made a claim!

No, no, no. You’re discussing two separate topics as one. I’m talking about whether Armenia can unilaterally recognise Artsakh through international law. You’re talking about the validity of Armenias claim to the land. Both sides have agreed that the solution to the conflict is through international mediation, which includes recognition as the final stage.

I have already previously stated that Azerbaijan has international law on its side concerning territorial integrity. I have also said that claim is not exclusive, as Artsakh has a claim, but, because Artsakh is not recognised - neither can the validity of the claim under international law. However, if the recognition of Artsakh is dependant on the mutual recognition by Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace, the moment Artsakh is recognised, so too is the validity of their claim.

That paragraph above is different to a discussion on unilateral recognition,

So okay, because there is international law on Azerbaijan’s side, it gives Azerbaijan a good claim. That was my point.
I actually agree with you on that. But that is a problem for Armenia.

I also think there is a good, even better self determination claim to be made.

But Armenia has NOT made that claim.
Again cite the specific treaty or law, not simply say “the Minsk group exists” to show Armenia cannot make a claim.

See here is the problem, you admit to there being a conundrum, by claiming the two issues are separate, because they contradict each other.

Also how can Azerbaijan make a unilateral claim then? Here is how mediation works. Both competing parties make unilateral claims, and then the mediator tries to get both sides to de-conflict their claims.
But if mediation fails, then you move to arbitration or a court.

Mediation has failed here. So then you need an outside party to rule on the final legal disposition of issue in question.

Just stalling forever does not reach any answer to the question.

[Lower Nubia]

No, no, no. You’re discussing two separate topics as one. I’m talking about whether Armenia can unilaterally recognise Artsakh through international law. You’re talking about the validity of Armenias claim to the land. Both sides have agreed that the solution to the conflict is through international mediation, which includes recognition as the final stage.

I have already previously stated that Azerbaijan has international law on its side concerning territorial integrity. I have also said that claim is not exclusive, as Artsakh has a claim, but, because Artsakh is not recognised - neither can the validity of the claim under international law. However, if the recognition of Artsakh is dependant on the mutual recognition by Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace, the moment Artsakh is recognised, so too is the validity of their claim.

That paragraph above is different to a discussion on unilateral recognition,

So okay, because international law is on Azerbaijan’s side, it gives Azerbaijan a good claim. That was my point.
I actually agree with you on that. But that is a problem for Armenia.

I also think there is a good, even better self determination claim to be made.
But Armenia has NOT made that claim.
Again cite the specific treaty or law, not simply say “the Minsk group exists” to show Armenia cannot make a claim.

That’s not how this always works. International law isn’t just treaties or laws, it literally can be as simple as decorum between nation states. However, first we have UN Security Council Resolution 822 (1993) which calls for the “Urges the parties concerned immediately to resume negotiations for the resolution of the conflict within the framework of the peace process of the Minsk Group of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and to refrain from any action that will obstruct a peaceful solution of the problem;”

We can clearly see the process is internationally determined through the Minsk principle’s which includes; legal position of Nagorno-Karabakh, as part of that peace coordination.

Also how can Azerbaijan make a unilateral claim then?

Because it’s claim is the status quo, I.e. pre-1994.

Here is how mediation works. Both competing parties make unilateral claims, and then the mediator tries to get both sides to de-conflict their claims.
But if mediation fails, then you move to arbitration or a court.

Unilateral claims are not the same as unilateral recognition in this case. The pretence for war is not the same as the final conclusion of that war, I.e, whether Artsakh is recognised.

Mediation has failed here. So then you need an outside party to rule on the final legal disposition of issue in question.

We’re already dealing with the highest authorities already; international agreements. There is no higher court. Indeed, this issue went to the highest court, the UN Security Council.

Just stalling forever does not reach any answer to the question.

This isn’t stalling. It’s the logical conclusion of statehood; whereby no other authority exists to tell another nation what to do, outside of internationally recognised mediation, which in this case, already exists.

[Novus America]

So okay, because international law is on Azerbaijan’s side, it gives Azerbaijan a good claim. That was my point.
I actually agree with you on that. But that is a problem for Armenia.

I also think there is a good, even better self determination claim to be made.
But Armenia has NOT made that claim.
Again cite the specific treaty or law, not simply say “the Minsk group exists” to show Armenia cannot make a claim.

That’s not how this always works. International law isn’t just treaties or laws, it literally can be as simple as decorum between nation states. However, first we have UN Security Council Resolution 822 (1993) which calls for the “Urges the parties concerned immediately to resume negotiations for the resolution of the conflict within the framework of the peace process of the Minsk Group of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and to refrain from any action that will obstruct a peaceful solution of the problem;”

We can clearly see the process is internationally determined through the Minsk principle’s which includes; legal position of Nagorno-Karabakh, as part of that peace coordination.

Also how can Azerbaijan make a unilateral claim then?

Because it’s claim is the status quo, I.e. pre-1994.

Here is how mediation works. Both competing parties make unilateral claims, and then the mediator tries to get both sides to de-conflict their claims.
But if mediation fails, then you move to arbitration or a court.

Unilateral claims are not the same as unilateral recognition in this case. The pretence for war is not the same as the final conclusion of that war, I.e, whether Artsakh is recognised.

Mediation has failed here. So then you need an outside party to rule on the final legal disposition of issue in question.

We’re already dealing with the highest authorities already; international agreements. There is no higher court. Indeed, this issue went to the highest court, the UN Security Council.

Just stalling forever does not reach any answer to the question.

This isn’t stalling. It’s the logical conclusion of statehood; whereby no other authority exists to tell another nation what to do, outside of internationally recognised mediation, which in this case, already exists.

Okay, that is a better argument, but still does not explicitly bar Armenia from making a claim. I would if I was Armenia argue making my claim actually helps peacefully advance negotiations more than failing to make one.

Because again how can you rule who is wrong or right, if both sides have not made their case?

The resolution does not say “keep the 1994 Status Quo forever”. But that is all the Minsk Group does.

It is a failure, we need to acknowledge that.

But the Minsk Group is not a court, and although the Security Council can act as a court of sorts, it has failed to rule on who owns what.
The purpose of a court is to make a final determination, not simply be a forum of discussion.

And there is the exact court for this. The International Court of Justice.
Because Minsk Group is a failure, it should go to the ICJ for final determination.
Or the Security Council could make a final determination.

But if this is not just stalling, when is a final determination of who owns what going to be made?
What is the date for the final decision?

How will Minsk possible do anything but indefinitely keep the Status Quo?
And if it is indefinitely avoiding reaching an answer, how is that not stalling?

I again actually agree with self determination applying here, but the Minsk Group is worthless except to avoid actually make a decision.

[Lower Nubia]

That’s not how this always works. International law isn’t just treaties or laws, it literally can be as simple as decorum between nation states. However, first we have UN Security Council Resolution 822 (1993) which calls for the “Urges the parties concerned immediately to resume negotiations for the resolution of the conflict within the framework of the peace process of the Minsk Group of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and to refrain from any action that will obstruct a peaceful solution of the problem;”

We can clearly see the process is internationally determined through the Minsk principle’s which includes; legal position of Nagorno-Karabakh, as part of that peace coordination.



Because it’s claim is the status quo, I.e. pre-1994.



Unilateral claims are not the same as unilateral recognition in this case. The pretence for war is not the same as the final conclusion of that war, I.e, whether Artsakh is recognised.



We’re already dealing with the highest authorities already; international agreements. There is no higher court. Indeed, this issue went to the highest court, the UN Security Council.



This isn’t stalling. It’s the logical conclusion of statehood; whereby no other authority exists to tell another nation what to do, outside of internationally recognised mediation, which in this case, already exists.

Okay, that is a better argument, but still does not explicitly bar Armenia from making a claim. I would if I was Armenia argue making my claim actually helps peacefully advance negotiations more than failing to make one.

Armenia’s claim is the defence of Armenians and their right to self determination. That’s pretty clear from the Minsk meetings. I would not say that claim is dependant on the legal status of the Nagorno-Karabakh territory in terms of whether it exists under Armenia or Artsakh. Indeed that legal status of recognition would be done, likely, through the Madrid Principles.

Because again how can you rule who is wrong or right, if both sides have not made their case?

The resolution does not say “keep the 1994 Status Quo forever”. But that is all the Minsk Group does.

It is a failure, we need to acknowledge that.

The resolution doesn’t say much in terms of a solution as much as it puts entities in charge who mediate the conflict. The Budapest summit, I believe, mediated a ceasefire and that satisfied both sides at the time. That’s all that can be done from an international perspective outside of intervention, but seeing as Armenia is in CSTO and Azerbaijan is with Turkey who is NATO and the general stance that: “this is a minor conflict not worth involving ourselves into” there really is no incentive (prior perhaps to this clash) for direct intervention from any Minsk group power.

Which means it was never going to happen for more than both sides agreeing to a ceasefire.

But the Minsk Group is not a court, and although the Security Council can act as a court of sorts, it has failed to rule on who owns what.
The purpose of a court is to make a final determination, not simply be a forum of discussion.

It isn’t court, this is true, but this is beyond a territorial dispute in the legal sense as it is an open and, recently, volatile front. The claims for either side are recognised internationally, directly and indirectly, as we can see in Resolution 62/243, which “ The resolution reaffirmed "continued respect and support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Azerbaijan "within its internationally recognized borders", demanded the "immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of Azerbaijan", and emphasized that "no state shall render aid or assistance" to maintain the occupation of Azerbaijani territories.”

But with one important component, the countries that mattered in the vote, didn’t totally agree, and all abstained. Europe, the US, China, or Russia. The UK having the reasoning that:

“[UK abstained] as the resolution did not take into account the Madrid Principles or Minsk Group process.”

Which tells me that the Minsk group has a more prominent role in mediating the outcome of the claims concerning the final peace of this conflict more than we recognise, which is undoubtedly true seeing as a lot of the agreements and meetings are never made public.

And there is the exact court for this. The International Court of Justice.
Because Minsk Group is a failure, it should go to the ICJ for final determination.
Or the Security Council could make a final determination.

There’s nothing inherent in the ICJ that would resolve this conflict of claims than the Minsk group, which is my point. The Minsk group already consists of the US and Russia who are preeminent in the region one way or the other, the ICJ isn’t topping that.

That’s without consulting the relevancy of this court, as this problem comes more under the CSCE than the ICJ.

But if this is not just stalling, when is a final determination of who owns what going to be made?
What is the date for the final decision?

How will Minsk possible do anything but indefinitely keep the Status Quo?
And if it is indefinitely avoiding reaching an answer, how is that not stalling?

I again actually agree with self determination applying here, but the Minsk Group is worthless except to avoid actually make a decision.

Stalling assumes an intention to stall, the reality is that Minsk doesn’t stall as much as the two combatants, Armenia and Azerbaijan, are at war with different goals, neither side will agree to anything but total victory. The Minsk can’t really do anything beyond that.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

Kremlin says CSTO commitments do not apply to Karabakh. In this just cause of Azerbaijan, it should continue with honor without giving up, peace passes through justice. Do not forget the pain of Khojaly massacre, no to genocidal mentality !

[Loben III]

Kremlin says CSTO commitments do not apply to Karabakh. In this just cause of Azerbaijan, it should continue with honor without giving up, peace passes through justice. Do not forget the pain of Khojaly massacre, no to genocidal mentality !

(Image)

That’s a rather unfortunate image you have there.

[New Rogernomics]

Kremlin says CSTO commitments do not apply to Karabakh. In this just cause of Azerbaijan, it should continue with honor without giving up, peace passes through justice. Do not forget the pain of Khojaly massacre, no to genocidal mentality !

(Image)

There is no 'honor' in ethnic cleansing, which was carried out by both sides in the past war, and if Azerbajian 'wins', that is exactly what they will carry out in Karabakh i.e. the forced removal of all Armenians from the territory. Khojaly probably did occur, though you seem to ignore all the massacres conducted by Azerbaijan in said war, and place a one-sided story where Armenians have no right to live there. Azerbaijan is an oppressive dictatorship that needs ethnic hatred to survive*, as much of the population is poor and deprived of any political freedom. It is pretty clear that the Azerbaijan dictatorship want this war as they were politically desperate to hold power, which had been weakened by Covid-19.

Though, to actually defeat Armenia, and take Karabakh, Azerbaijan would have to attack Armenian forces within Armenia, and shell Armenia. Thus drawing in Moscow, as if they don't intervene Armenia will end its alliance and sue for peace, becoming an enemy of the Russian Federation pretty much forever because of the great betrayal. Armenia isn't wrong though that this is continuation of the Turkish government's policy of genocide i.e. the systematic murder of the Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians from 1915 to the early 20s. A few hundred dead in Khojaly, even a thousand, is nowhere as much as the millions murdered during the break up of the Ottoman Empire. War is immoral, not 'honorable', and I won't be celebrating over the dead bodies of either side.

What I would want is a ceasefire and for Azeris to be allowed to return and live in peace with Armenians, and the blood-letting to stop, but the Azerbaijan government will never accept that because they need the war to keep in power.

I think that hatred has blinded both sides, and it is tragic that Karabakh can't be lived in people from both countries.

*To the point that Azerbaijan's government pen's medals on axe murderers as a propaganda victory i.e. Ramil Safarov.