Placeholder Photo

The Implications of the 1993 U.N. Security Council Action for the Settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict (Part 5)

52 mins read
Start

Conclusion: The implications of the U.N. Security Council action for the settlement of the conflict

The analysis of the terminology used in the four resolutions of the Security Council and the statements by its President viewed within the overall context of the unfolding events on the ground, as well as the attitudes of several of the permanent members of the Council towards the conflict, confirmed the supposition made in the introduction part of this article that the adopted resolutions were the result of a complex web of interrelated factors. The decision-making process of the Security Council, which transformed over the decades into an institutional constraint, the special interests of at least several permanent members of the Council, on the one hand, as well as the obligation to abide by the U.N. Charter in its daily practice, had a decisive impact on the Security Council’s actions in relation to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The resolutions did not prevent further escalation of the conflict. By May 1994, when a cease-fire was brokered, the Nagorny Karabakh region and surrounding seven administrative districts, which constitute almost one-fifth of the territory of Azerbaijan, were occupied by the Armenian forces. Approximately one of every eight persons in Azerbaijan became an internally displaced person or refugee, tens of thousands of people were killed, wounded or injured, and about 5,000 citizens are missing. The peaceful negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan with the mediation of the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group conducted for over fifteen years have yet to yield results.

Nevertheless, the gravity of the situation threatening international peace and security prevented the Security Council from adopting more watered-down and neutral resolutions, which was often the case when at least several permanent members of the Council had particular vested interests in a conflict situation. Although the Security Council followed the established pattern and fell short of pointing the finger, guided by the obligation to preserve objectivity and abide by the U.N. Charter, the Council determined that the territories of Azerbaijan were under occupation as a result of military activities. This determination put in motion the international legal instruments that were specifically designed to address the situations emerging from belligerent occupation, to protect these territories, and to ensure that their legal status remains unaffected by the occupation pending their return to the sovereign. Thus, the law on occupation, which is essentially framed by the 1907 Hague Regulations and the Geneva Convention IV, implies that occupation is considered temporary by international law and, hence, no transfer of sovereignty over the occupied territory to the occupier is possible.

Furthermore, the law on occupation puts clear-cut obligations on the occupying power in regard of the occupied territory. Among them are the obligations not to change the existing legal system and to respect the existing institutions. The law on occupation also prohibits the acts of pillage, looting and the exploitation of resources, the destruction by the occupying power of any real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the state, or to other public authorities. Of particular importance is Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV, which prohibits the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories consisting of the population of the occupying power or of persons encouraged by the occupying power with the intention of changing the demographic composition in these territories.[151]

Hence this recognition of the fact by the Security Council allowed Azerbaijan to keep the situation in the occupied territories under the scrutiny of the international community.[152] In 2005 in response to the concerns regarding the illegal settlements in the occupied territories raised by Azerbaijan before the U.N. General Assembly,[153] the OSCE dispatched a fact-finding mission to assess the situation on the ground.[154] In 2006, alarmed by the reports[155] of the wide-scale fires in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution entitled “The situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan,” as proposed by Azerbaijan, which stressed the necessity of the urgent conduct of an environmental operation and called for an assessment of the short-term and long-term impact of the fires on the environment of the region and its rehabilitation.[156] As a follow-up, another OSCE fact-finding mission was conducted in the occupied territories in October 2006.[157]

Furthermore, the Security Council resolutions provided a rather clear appraisal of the situation on the ground and identified the principles and norms of international law applicable to this conflict while emphasizing the inadmissibility of violating those norms. By pointing to internationally wrongful acts in the context of this conflict, the Security Council established the obligations of the perpetuator of those acts as well as the rights of the victim.

While reiterating its full support for the peace process being pursued within the framework of the OSCE, the Security Council through its resolutions established the overall legal framework for the conflict settlement in the context of the Minsk process and outlined the principles that should provide guidance for the mediation efforts to find a just and lasting solution to the conflict. In particular, the resolutions reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan, stressed the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory, demanded immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of the Armenian forces from all the occupied territories, called for the restoration of economic, transport and energy links in the region, and called for assisting the displaced persons to return to their homes. It is noteworthy that in the aftermath of the Budapest summit of the CSCE (1994), which decided to intensify CSCE action in relation to the conflict, the Security Council returned to this matter and issued a statement[158] in which it reaffirmed all its relevant resolutions on the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as the inviolability of international borders and stressed the urgency of concluding a political agreement on the cessation of the armed conflict on the basis of the relevant principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of the OSCE.

The step-by-step approach to the settlement of the conflict suggested by the U.N. Security Council through its resolutions is of practical relevance to the current peace negotiations conducted in the framework of the OSCE. The phased settlement model built into these resolutions and advocated for by Azerbaijan for the past decade is increasingly accepted not only by the international community but also by Armenia as the only viable strategy to break the stalemate in the resolution of this protracted conflict. The Joint Declaration[159] signed in Moscow on November 2, 2008, by the Presidents of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and the Russian Federation – the first ever document signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan since the cease-fire of 1994 – reflect the acceptance by the parties of the step-by-step approach to the settlement of the conflict on the basis of the principles and norms of international law and the decisions and documents adopted in this framework.


[1] S/RES/822 (April 30, 1993), S/RES/853 (July 29, 1993), S/RES/874 (October 14, 1993) and S/RES/884 (November 12, 1993). For simplicity in the article I will refer only to the consecutive numbers of these resolutions (i.e. 822, 853, 874, and 884). All U.N. documents are available publicly at www.un.org/documents/.

[2] See Michael C. Wood, “The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 2:73, (1998), http://www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/pdfmpunyb/wood_2.pdf  (accessed July 17, 2009).

[3] For example, in the aftermath of the Presidential elections in Armenia in March 1998, the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission in Armenia released its Final Report in which it expressed extreme concern “that one of the mobile boxes has crossed the national borders of the Republic of Armenia to collect votes of Armenian soldiers posted abroad (Kelbajar)”, thus confirming the deployment of Armenian troops in the Kelbadjar district of Azerbaijan, which was occupied in April 1993. See “OSCE/ODIHR Final Report on the Presidential Elections in Armenia,” issued on April 9, 1998, p. 8. Available at: http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/1998/04/1215_en.pdf (accessed October 29, 2009).

[4] The last such visit occurred in October 2009. Information on this visit and related photographs is available on the official web page of the President of the Republic of Armenia, http://president.am/events/news/eng/?day=22&month=10&year=2009&id=766 (accessed October 26, 2009).

[5] See, for example, the report entitled “The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference” (Doc. 10364) prepared by the Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Mr. David Atkinson, in November 2004, and the subsequent resolution 1416 adopted by PACE on  January 25, 2005. Available at http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta05/ERES1416.htm , (accessed October 29, 2009).

[6] Since 1994 – OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe).

[7] See Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council, Supplements 1989-1992 (ST/PSCA/1/Add. 11) and 1993-1995 (ST/PSCA/1/Add. 12). Items 19 and 9 respectively related to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Available at http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa//repertoire (accessed June 10, 2009).

[8] See Yearbook of the United Nations, 1992-1994, Department of Public Information, New-York. All issues are available at http://unyearbook.un.org/index.html (accessed June 10, 2009).

[9] Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice, U.N. Department of Public Information, DPI/511, United Nations, New York, 2006, [my emphasis].

[10] Rosalyn Higgins, “The Place of International Law in the Settlement of Disputes by the Security

Council”, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 64:1 (1970): 4, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300%28197001%2964%3A1%3C1%3ATPOILI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7 (accessed March 17, 2009).

[11] Ibid., p. 6.

[12] See David D. Caron, “The Legitimacy of the Collective Authority of the Security Council”, The American Journal of International Law, vol.87:4 (1993): 552-588, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300%28199310%2987%3A4%3C552%3ATLOTCA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E (accessed April 20, 2009).

[13] Rosalyn Higgins, “The Place of International Law in the Settlement of Disputes by the Security

Council”, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 64:1 (1970): 6, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300%28197001%2964%3A1%3C1%3ATPOILI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7 (accessed March 17, 2009).

[14] For a detailed account of the conflict, see Svante Cornell (ed.) Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethno-political Conflict in the Caucasus (London: Curzon Press, 2000); Thomas Goltz, Azerbaijan Diary (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1998); and Thomas de Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War (New York & London: NYU Press, 2004).

[15] The term “Nagorny Karabakh” is a Russian translation of the original name of the geographic area in Azerbaijani language – Dağlıq Qarabağ (pronounced Daghlygh Garabagh), which literally means “mountainous Garabagh.” In order to avoid confusion, the term “Nagorny Karabakh” referred to in the U.N. documents will be used here. For the similar purposes the names of the geographic locations will be used as they are referred to in the U.N. terminology.

[16] On February 20, 1988, the representatives of the Armenian community at the session of the Soviet of People’s Deputies of the NKAO adopted a decision to petition to the Supreme Soviets of the Azerbaijan SSR and the Armenian SSR for the transfer of the NKAO from the Azerbaijan SSR to the Armenia SSR. On December 1, 1989, the Supreme Soviet of the Armenia SSR adopted a resolution on the re-unification of the Armenia SSR and Nagorny Karabakh. On September 2, 1991, the joint session of the Nagorny Karabakh regional and Shaumian district Soviet of People’s Deputies declared the establishment of the “Nagorny Karabakh Republic” within the administrative frontiers of the NKAO and Shaumian district of Azerbaijan.

[17] This autonomy existed until November 26, 1991, when the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan adopted Law “On Abolition of the Nagorny Karabakh Autonomous Oblast of the Republic of Azerbaijan”.

[18] Elizabeth Fuller, “Nagorno-Karabakh: Internal Conflict Becomes International”, RFE/RL Research Report, (March 13, 1992).

[19] Elizabeth Fuller, “Paramilitary Forces Dominate Fighting in Transcaucasus”, RFE/RL Research Report, Vol.2:25 (June 18, 1993).

[20] The fact of the coordination of activities between the State Defence Committee of Armenia and the paramilitary structures in Nagorny Karabakh was confirmed by the Ministry of Defence of Armenia on its official web page at http://www.mil.am/eng/index.php?page=25 (accessed May 12, 2008).

[21] Thomas de Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War (New York and London: NYU Press, 2004), 169-172; and Thomas Goltz, Azerbaijan Diary (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1998), 117-129;

[22] See Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan annexed to the letter of the Chargé d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of Azerbaijan to the United Nations, U.N. Doc. S/23926 (May 14, 1992).

[23] Svante E. Cornell, “The Nagorny Karabakh Conflict Reconsidered”, Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 20:4 (1997): 8.

[24] Both Armenia and Azerbaijan became members of the United Nations on March 2, 1992.

[25] See letter dated March 13, 1992 from the Chargé d’Affaires of the Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, (U.N. Doc. A/47/122-S/23716); Letter dated March 27, 1992 from the Permanent Representative of Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General U.N. Doc. S/23760; Letter dated May 10, 1992 from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/23894.

[26] See U.N. doc. S/PV.3072, (May 12, 1992).

[27] See Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council, Supplement 1989-1992 (ST/PSCA/1/Add. 11), Item 19 related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa//repertoire (accessed June 10, 2009).

[28] See Statements by the President of the Security Council U.N. Doc. S/23904 (May 12, 1992); U.N. Doc. S/24493 (August 26, 1992); U.N. Doc. S/24721 (October 27, 1992); U.N. Doc. S/25199 (January 29, 1993); U.N. Doc. S/25539 (April 6, 1993).

[29] See Statement by the President of the Security Council UN Doc. S/24493 (August 26, 1992).

[30] See statements of the President of the Security Council on January 29, 1992 (U.N. Doc. S/23496) and on February 14, 1992 (U.N. Doc. S/23597) on the respective admissions of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

[31] Statement by the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/23904 (May 12, 1992).

[32] There were two other U.N. missions to the region from May 21-28 and July 4-10, 1992. See Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, submitted to the U.N. General Assembly U.N. Doc. A/47/1(September 11, 1992), 18.

[33] See statement by the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/25539 (April 3, 1993).

[34] See letters from the Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/23896, (May 11, 1992); U.N. Doc. S/24656, (October 12, 1992); U.N. Doc. S/25510, (April 1, 1993).

[35] See Elizabeth Fuller, “Paramilitary Forces Dominate Fighting in Transcaucasus”, RFE/RL Research Report, Vol.2:25 (June 18, 1993): 75; “Azerbaijan: Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno- Karabakh”, Human Rights Watch Report, USA (1994), 67-73; Svante E. Cornell, “The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict Reconsidered”, Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 20:4 (1997): 8; Thomas Goltz, Azerbaijan Diary (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1998), 341; and Thomas de Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War  (New York and London: NYU Press, 2004), 212.

[36] See “Note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Azerbaijani Republic” annexed to the letter from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/25488 (March 29, 1993).

[37] See Letters of the Chargé d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council U.N. Doc. S/1994/108 (February 2, 1994) and U.N. Doc. S/1994/147 (February 14, 1994) (with annexed photocopies).

[38] See Letters of the Chargé d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council U.N. Doc. S/1994/108 (February 2, 1994) and U.N. Doc. S/1994/147 (February 14, 1994) (with annexed photocopies).

[39] See Azerbaijan: Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Human Rights Watch Report, USA (1994).

[40] The Charter of the United Nations makes a clear distinction between the threat or use of force and an armed attack, the later being the gravest form of the use of force by a state against another sovereign state, invoking under Article 51 of the Charter the right to self-defence. This implies that an armed attack by definition is possible only in the context of interstate conflict.

[41] For the detailed analysis of the use of force against the Republic of Azerbaijan qualified as an “armed attack” in international law terms, see Report on the Legal Consequences of the Armed Aggression of the Republic of Armenia against the Republic of Azerbaijan, U.N. Doc. A/63/662-S/2008/812, annexed to the letter dated December 22, 2008 from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/669/16/PDF/N0866916.pdf?OpenElement (accessed April 20,2009).

[42] See statement by the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/26326 (August 18, 1993).

[43] See Report by the Chairman of the Minsk Conference of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe on Nagorny Karabakh to the President of the Security Council dated July 27, 1993, annexed to the letter from the Permanent Representative of Italy to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council U.N. Doc. S/26184 (July 28, 1993), 3.

[44] The map indicated that on the eve of the attack on Kelbadjar district the battalion was deployed in the settlement of Basargechar of the Republic of Armenia.

[45] See Letter of the Chargé d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council U.N. Doc. S/1994/147 (February 14, 1994).

[46] Ibid. (The copies of the maps were made available to the U.N. Security Council).

[47] See letter dated April 30, 1993, from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations, addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/25701(provides excerpts from the news reports).

[48] The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on press reports as a source for establishing existence of the facts in its Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) case, Merits Judgement, Para. 62 and 63 (1986).  All ICJ cases are available online at http://www.icj-cij.org/.

[49] See above, note 43.

[50] See below, note 121.

[51] See below, note 138.

[52] See letters of the Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations, addressed to the President of the Security Council: U.N. Doc. S/25776 (May 14, 1993); U.N. Doc. S/26036 (July 4, 1993); U.N. Doc. S/26044 (July 6, 1993); U.N. Doc. S/26135 (July 22, 1993); U.N. Doc. S/26154 (July 26, 1993); U.N. Doc. S/26328 (August 18, 1993); U.N. Doc. S/26394 (September 1, 1993); U.N. Doc. S/26409 (September 7, 1993).

[53] See U.N. Doc. S/25524 (April 3, 1993).

[54] See Statements by the President of the Security Council U.N. Doc. S/23904 (May 12, 1992); U.N. Doc. S/24493 (August 26, 1992); U.N. Doc. S/24721 (October 27, 1992); U.N. Doc. S/25199 (January 29, 1993).

[55] See statement by the President of the Security Council U.N. Doc. S/25539, (April 6, 1993).

[56] See Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to the Statement of the President of the Security Council in Connection with the Situation Relating to Nagorny Karabakh, para.10, U.N. Doc. S/25600 (April 14, 1993).

[57] See Statement of the European Community dated April 7, 1993, annexed to the letter dated April 7, 1993, from the Permanent Representative of Denmark to the United Nations, addressed to the President of the Security Council U.N. Doc. S/25564 (April 7, 1993).

[58] See U.N. Doc. S/25660 (April 8, 1993) and U.N. Doc. S/25671 (April 27, 1993).

[59] For the voting records and the texts of the statements made after the adoption of the resolution, see Provisional Verbatim Record of 3205th meeting of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/PV.3205 (April 30, 1993).

[60] See Provisional Verbatim Record of the statements of the members of the Security Council, made at the 3205th meeting of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/PV.3205 (April 30, 1993), 11.

[61] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/822 (1993), April 30, 1993, Preamble.

[62] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/822 (1993), April 30, 1993, Preamble.

[63] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/849 (1993), July 9, 1993; U.N. Doc. S/RES/854 (1993), August 6, 1993; U.N. Doc. S/RES/858 (1993), August 24, 1993; U.N. Doc. S/RES/1781 (2007) October 15, 2007; U.N. Doc. S/RES/1808 (2008), April 15, 2008.

[64] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/242, November 22, 1967.

[65] For a more detailed account of these principles, see Report on the Fundamental Norm of the Territorial Integrity of States and Right to Self-determination in the Light of Armenia’s Revisionist Claims, U.N. Doc. A/63/664-S/2008/823, annexed to the letter dated December 26, 2008, from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, available at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/670/89/PDF/N0867089.pdf?OpenElement (accessed April 20, 2009).

[66] See, for example, “The Declaration on the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and

Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the UN” adopted by the U.N. General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) on October 24, 1970; The “Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States” annexed to the U.N. General Assembly resolution 375 (IV) adopted on 6 December 1949; Principle IV of the Declaration of Principles adopted by the CSCE in the Helsinki Final Act (1975).

[67] See Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 22, 1969.

[68] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/822 (1993), April 30, 1993, Preamble and para. 1.

[69] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/822 (1993), para. 4.

[70] See Article 42 of the Regulations annexed to Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907).

[71] See the Report on the international legal responsibilities of Armenia as the belligerent occupier of Azerbaijani territory, U.N. Doc. A/63/692-S/2009/51, annexed to the letter dated January 27, 2008, from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/221/70/PDF/N0922170.pdf?OpenElement (accessed April 20, 2009), 6. See also Report “Military Occupation of the Territory of Azerbaijan: a Legal Appraisal, U.N. Doc. A/62/491-S/2007/615, annexed to the letter dated October 8, 2007, from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/558/52/PDF/N0755852.pdf?OpenElement (accessed April 20, 2009).

[72] See UN Doc. S/RES/822 (April 30, 1993), para. 3. The above-mentioned instruments are part of the body of treaties forming international humanitarian law.

[73] See the Report on the international legal responsibilities of Armenia as the belligerent occupier of Azerbaijani territory, U.N. Doc. A/63/692-S/2009/51, annexed to the letter dated January 27, 2008, from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/221/70/PDF/N0922170.pdf?OpenElement (accessed April 20, 2009), 4-5.

[74] See Article 3(a) of the Definition of Aggression, General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (1974), [my emphasis].

[75] See Michael C. Wood, “The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 2:73, (1998): 89, http://www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/pdfmpunyb/wood_2.pdf (accessed: July 17, 2009).

[76] See UN Doc. S/RES/660 (August 2, 1990), [my emphasis].

[77] See U.N. Doc. S/26522 (October 1, 1993); U.N. Doc. S/26718 (November 10, 1993); U.N. Doc. S/26732 (November 12, 1993).

[78] See above, note 61.

[79] For the analysis of the consequences of the domination in the Security Council by subgroup of permanent members see David D. Caron, “The Legitimacy of the Collective Authority of the Security Council”, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 87:4 (1993): 552-588, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300%28199310%2987%3A4%3C552%3ATLOTCA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E (accessed April 20, 2009). See also Frederic L. Kirgis, Jr., The Security Council’s First Fifty Years, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 89:3 (1995): 506-539, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300%28199507%2989%3A3%3C506%3ATSCFFY%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U (accessed May 14, 2009).

[80] For example, the French representative in his statement in the aftermath of the adoption of the second resolution by the Security Council on the matter (S/RES/853) underlined that “[his] Government has long taken a special interest in this painful conflict […]”. U.N. Doc. S/PV.3259 (July 29, 1993), at 6. The interest of Russia is elaborated in section VII of this article. For the factors affecting U.S. position towards the conflict see above, n. 79.

[81] Since 1997 the three countries are Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group dealing with the conflict.

[82] The domestic political considerations linked to the presence of large Armenian diasporas in these countries could have played a role in framing of the positions of these countries towards the conflict in which Armenia was involved. For the impact of the Armenian lobby on the domestic politics of states, see Heather S. Gregg, Divided They Conquer: The Success of Armenian Ethnic Lobbies in the United States, (The Rosemary Rogers Working Paper Series, Working paper #13, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA, August 2002).

[83] There is anecdotal evidence for this point.

[84] See above, note 60, p. 19, [my emphasis].

[85] See above, note 60, p. 11.

[86] See Annex to the letter dated March 31, 1993, from the Permanent Representatives of France and the Russian Federation to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. U.N. Doc. S/25499 (March 31, 1993), [my emphasis].

[87] For the applicable responsibilities, see in particular Articles 4 to 8 and 11 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts, annexed to U.N. General Assembly resolution 56/83 adopted on December 12, 2001.

[88] See Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to the Statement of the President of the Security Council in Connection with the Situation Relating to Nagorny Karabakh, U.N. Doc. S/25600 (April 14, 1993) para.10, p. 3, [my emphasis].

[89] See U.N. Docs. S/RES/822 (1993); S/RES/853 (1993); S/RES/874 (1993) and S/RES/8884 (1993), [my emphasis].

[90] See Report on the Legal Consequences of the Armed Aggression of the Republic of Armenia against the Republic of Azerbaijan, U.N. Doc. A/63/662-S/2008/812, annexed to the letter dated December 22, 2008, from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/669/16/PDF/N0866916.pdf?OpenElement (accessed  April 20, 2009), 21-22.

[91] For the analysis of the practice of the Security Council see Frederic L. Kirgis, Jr., The Security Council’s First Fifty Years, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 89:3 (1995): 511-514, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300%28199507%2989%3A3%3C506%3ATSCFFY%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U (accessed May 14, 2009).

[92] See Frederic L. Kirgis, Jr., The Security Council’s First Fifty Years, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 89:3 (1995): 518, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300%28199507%2989%3A3%3C506%3ATSCFFY%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U (accessed May 14, 2009).

[93] Ibid., 511-514.

[94] See above, note 60, p. 7.

[95] See above, note 60, p. 13.

[96] See above, note 60, p. 13.

[97] See above, note 60, p. 14.

[98] See above, note 60, p. 17.

[99] See above, note 60, p. 21.

[100] See U.N. Doc. PV.3313 (November 12, 1993), 5, (Pakistan).

[101] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/853 (July 29, 1993); U.N. Doc. S/RES/874 (October 14, 1993); U.N. Doc. S/RES/884 (November 12, 1993).

[102] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/853 (July 29, 1993), para. 3.

[103] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/242 (November 22, 1967).

[104] Ibid., para 1.

[105] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/853 (1993); U.N. Doc. S/RES/874 (1993); U.N. Doc. S/RES/884 (1993).

[106] See letters of the Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations addressed to the President of Security Council. U.N. Doc. S/23896 (May 11, 1992); U.N. Doc. S/26036 (July 4, 1993); U.N. Doc. S/26154 (July 26, 1993); U.N. Doc. S/26393 (September 1, 1993); U.N. Doc. S/26409 (September 7, 1993).

[107] See letter of the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the President of Security Council. U.N. Doc. S/24771 (November 7, 1992).

[108] See letter of the Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations addressed to the President of Security Council. U.N. Doc. S/24751 (October 31, 1992).

[109]The operative paragraphs of the U.N. Security Council resolutions state the opinion of the Council, or the action to be taken, whereas the preamble clauses of the resolutions generally recite the considerations on the basis of which action is taken.

[110] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/822 (April 30, 1993), [my emphasis].

[111] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/853 (July 29, 1993), [my emphasis].

[112] See, for example, the Declaration of the European Commission on “The Guidelines on Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union” adopted on December 16, 1991, at the Extraordinary European Political Cooperation Ministerial Meeting (Doc.4a/21), reproduced in European Foreign Policy: Key Documents, ed. Christopher Hill & Karen E. Smith (London & New York: Routledge, 2000), 282.

[113] For the detailed review of this and other legal aspects of the conflict, see Tofig Musayev, “From Territorial Claims to Belligerent Occupation: Legal Appraisal”, Diplomatiya Aləmi [“Diplomatic World”], Journal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, No. 18-19 (2008), available at http://mfa.gov.az/images/stories/jurnal/18-19.pdf; see also Report on the Fundamental Norm of the Territorial Integrity of States and Right to Self-determination in the Light of Armenia’s Revisionist Claims, U.N. Doc. A/63/664-S/2008/823, annexed to the letter dated December 26, 2008, from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, available at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/670/89/PDF/N0867089.pdf?OpenElement (accessed April 20, 2009).

[114] See statements issued on August 2, 1993, and October 20, 1993, by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia annexed to the letters of the Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations addressed to the President of Security Council U.N. Doc. S/26236 (August 4, 1993) and U.N. Doc. S/26612 (October 21, 1993).

[115] See above, note 105.

[116] See U.N. Doc. S/PV.3313 at 8 (November 12, 1993), (Russia); See also S/PV.3292 (October 14, 1993) at 4, (France); S/PV.3313 (November 12, 1993).

[117] Germany, the United States of America, Belarus, France, Italy, Russian Federation, Sweden, Czech Republic, and Turkey.

[118] See U.N. Doc. S/PV.3313 (November 12, 1993).

[119] See “Declaration of Nine” Enclosure I to the letter dated November 9, 1993, of the Permanent Representative of Italy to the United Nations addressed to the President of Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/26718 (November 10, 1993);

[120] U.N. Doc. S/RES/853 (July 29, 1993), para. 9.

[121] See Statement annexed to the Letter dated September 7, 1993, from the Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council U.N. Doc. S/26417 (September 15, 1993), [my emphasis].

[122] See Report by the Chairman of the Minsk Conference of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe on Nagorny Karabakh to the President of the Security Council dated July 27, 1993, annexed to the letter from the Permanent Representative of Italy to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council U.N. Doc. S/26184 (July 28, 1993).

[123] See Appendix “Statement of the Chairman of the CSCE Minsk Conference on the offensive on and the reported seizure of the Azerbaijani city of Agdam”, at 5, to the Report by the Chairman of the Minsk Conference of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe on Nagorny Karabakh to the President of the Security Council dated July 27, 1993, annexed to the letter from the Permanent Representative of Italy to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council U.N. Doc. S/26184 (July 28, 1993), [my emphasis].

[124] See above, note 119, p. 3.

[125] See U.N. Doc. S/26326 (August 18, 1993), [my emphasis].

[126] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/853 (1993), para. 10.

[127] U.N. Doc. S/RES/884 (November 12, 1993), para. 2.

[128] The representative of Brazil in his statement after the voting on the resolution S/RES/853 echoed the arguments, which reportedly were put forward during the off-the-record consultations in the Security Council and described the influence of Armenia as “constructive.” U.N. Doc. S/PV.3259 (July 29, 1993), 13.

[129] The fact that the attacks by the Armenian armed units continued even at a time when there was a real progress in the negotiating process was recognized even by the Permanent Members of the Security Council. See Statement by the Russian representative Mr. Vorontsov after the vote on the resolution S/RES/853 U.N. Doc. S/P.3259 (July 29, 1993), 9-10.

[130] The fact that the Armenian forces on the ground responded instantaneously to the “appeals” of the Government of Armenia can be seen from the letters of the Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (although there is no reported evidence on the ground, nor can it be verified that the retreat of the Armenian forces from the previously occupied territory had actually taken place). See U.N. Docs. S/26394 (September 1, 1993) and S/26393 (September 1, 1993).

[131] See above, note 48.

[132] See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), ICJ Judgment of February 26, 2007. All ICJ cases are available online at http://www.icj-cij.org/.

[133] For an extensive analysis of the issues of control by the state over the military activities of paramilitary forces, see Stefan Talmon, “The Various Control Tests in the Law of State Responsibility and the Responsibility of Outside Powers for Acts of Secessionist Entities”, Materials of the International Conference entitled “Basic Principles for the Settlement of the Conflicts on the Territories of the GUAM States”, Baku, April 15-16, 2008. Modified version of the article was published in International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 58 (May 2009).

[134] See letter dated August 30, 1993, from the Chargé d’Affaires  ad interim of the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran addressed to the Secretary-General, U.N. Doc. S/26387 (August 31, 1993), [my emphasis].

[135] In April 1993, protesting the attack and occupation of Kelbadjar district, Turkey cut diplomatic relations with Armenia and suspended the shipment of goods through its territory, which complicated already strained relations between these two countries.

[136] See letters dated April 5, 1993, and April 27, 1993, of the Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Docs. S/25524 (April 5, 1993) and U.N. Doc. S/25671 (April 27, 1993).

[137] See letter dated August 23, 1993, of the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/26345 (August 24, 1993).

[138] See letter dated September 7, 1993, of the Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/26417 (September 15, 1993).

[139] The occupation of the Lachin (May 18, 1992) and Kelbadjar (April 2, 1993) districts created a land connection between the Nagorny Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and Armenia, which was crucial for resupplying arms and ammunitions, while the seizure of Agdam (July 23, 1993) and Fizuli (August 23, 1993) districts cut off the northwestern districts from the rest of Azerbaijan, thus paving the way for the occupation of the Djabrail (August 23, 1993), Gubatly (August 31, 1993), and Zangelan (October 23, 1993) districts.

[140] See Elizabeth Fuller, Russia, Turkey, Iran, and the Karabakh Mediation Process¸ RFE/RL Research Report, vol.3:8 (February 25, 1994).

[141] The Russian-sponsored plan envisaged the signing of a cease-fire and the deployment of the CIS (essentially Russian) peacekeeping forces to the region. For more on this, see Svante Cornell (ed.) Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethno-political Conflict in the Caucasus (London: Curzon Press, 2000), 99-102.

[142] See Thomas Goltz, Letter from Eurasia: The Hidden Russian Hand, Foreign Policy, CEIP, No. 92, (Fall

1993); Elizabeth Fuller, Karabakh Mediation Process: Grachev versus the CSCE?¸ RFE/RL Research Report, vol.3:23 (June 10, 1994); and Elizabeth Fuller, Nagorno-Karabakh: Internal Conflict Becomes International, RFE/RL Research Report, (March 13, 1992).

[143] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/884 (1993), para. 1, [my emphasis].

[144] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/853 (1993), para. 2.

[145] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/874 (1993) and S/RES/884 (1993), paras. 10 and 6 respectively.

[146] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/884 (1993).

[147] See Frederic L. Kirgis, Jr., “The Security Council’s First Fifty Years”, The American Journal of International Law, vol.89:3, (1995): 519, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300%28199507%2989%3A3%3C506%3ATSCFFY%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U (accessed May 14, 2009).

[148] See Article 3 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts, annexed to U.N. General Assembly resolution 56/83 adopted on December 12, 2001.

[149] See U.N. Doc. S/RES/1839 (2008) (October 9, 2008); U.N. Doc. S/RES/1866 (2009) (February 13, 2008).

[150] See Opinion No. 516/2009 on “The Law on Occupied Territories of Georgia” approved by the Georgian Parliament on October 28, 2008, adopted in March 2009 on the 78th plenary session of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) of the Council of Europe.

[151] See the Report on the international legal responsibilities of Armenia as the belligerent occupier of Azerbaijani territory, U.N. Doc. A/63/692-S/2009/51, annexed to the letter dated January 27, 2008, from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. Available at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/221/70/PDF/N0922170.pdf?OpenElement (accessed April 20, 2009).

[152] On October 29, 2004, the U.N. General Assembly decided to include the item entitled “The situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan” to the agenda of its 59th session. The issue of the situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan has also been included on the agenda of the subsequent sessions of the U.N. General Assembly. On March 14, 2008, the General Assembly adopted at its 62nd session resolution A/RES/62/243 on the situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, in which the General Assembly expressed concern that the armed conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan continued to endanger international peace and security, and reaffirmed, inter alia, its continued strong support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan within its internationally recognized borders.

[153] See Information on the transfer of population into the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, annexed to the letter dated November 11, 2004, from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the General Assembly, U.N. Doc. A/59/568, (November 11, 2004).

[154] Based on the findings of the OSCE Fact-Finding Mission carried out from January 30 to February 5, 2005, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairmen in their recommendations have emphasized the inadmissibility of changes in the demographic composition of the region and urged appropriate international agencies to conduct needs assessment for resettlement of the population located in the occupied territories and return of the internally displaced persons to their places of permanent residence. For the details, see Letter dated March 18, 2005, from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. Annex II: Report of the OSCE fact-finding mission to the occupied territories of Azerbaijan surrounding Nagorny Karabakh, U.N. Doc. A/59/747-S/2005/187, (March 21, 2005).

[155] See Letter dated July 28, 2006, from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, annexed to the letter dated July 28, 2006, from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, U.N. Doc. A/60/963.

[156] See U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/285 (September 7, 2006).

[157] For details see letter dated December 20, 2006, from the Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. Annex: OSCE-led environmental assessment mission to the fire-affected territories in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region. Report to the OSCE Chairman-in-Office from the Coordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities. U.N. Doc A/61/696.

[158] See Statement by the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/PRST/1995/21 (April 26, 1995).

[159] For the English version of the text of the Joint Declaration, see annex to the letter dated November 10, 2008, from the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/2008/702, (November 11, 2008).

Previous Story

The Implications of the 1993 U.N. Security Council Action for the Settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict (Part 4)

Next Story

Moscow and the Delimitation of Karabakh in the 1920s (part3)

Latest from Articles