Pashinyan explains why Armenia doesn’t seek Azeri constitutional change
5 minute read
YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 13, ARMENPRESS. There is no need for changing the Armenian constitution, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has said.
Speaking in parliament, Pashinyan denied Azerbaijani claims that the Armenian constitution contains territorial demands against Azerbaijan.
Pashinyan said that Azerbaijan’s claims are based on the argument that the preamble of the Armenian constitution contains a general reference to the Declaration of Independence, which mentions Nagorno-Karabakh. However, on September 26, 2024, the Armenian Constitutional Court issued a judgment that the reference pertains exclusively to the provisions that are literally enshrined in the Constitution’s articles.
“The text of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia does not contain any provision, neither directly nor indirectly, about Nagorno-Karabakh. There is a clear hierarchical difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, in accordance with the adopting entities. Meaning, whereas the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Armenian SSR Supreme Council, as a state body of one of the 15 republics of the USSR, the Constitution was adopted by the sovereign people of the internationally recognized independent state, the Republic of Armenia,” Pashinyan said.
Pashinyan said on the contrary it is the Azeri constitution that contains territorial demands against Armenia.
PM Pashinyan said that the preamble of the Azerbaijani Constitution contains a reference to the Constitutional Act of October 18, 1991, which in turn refers to the May 28, 1918 Declaration of Independence of the First Republic of Azerbaijan. The First Republic of Azerbaijan included Eastern and Southern Transcaucasia.
Pashinyan said that in November of 1919 the Azerbaijani Republic presented its administrative map to the Entente, according to which the Republic of Armenia’s Syunik province and Vayots Dzor province, as well as parts of the provinces of Ararat, Armavir, Gegharkunik, Tavush, Lori and Shirak, in other words nearly 60% of the present-day territory of Armenia, was drawn as part of Azerbaijan.
“Therefore, these references make it obvious that the Azerbaijani constitution contains territorial demands against the Republic of Armenia. However, the Republic of Armenia doesn’t raise an issue of changing the Azerbaijani constitution for two reasons. First of all, such a demand would bring the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process into a deadlock and second of all, the agreed-upon part of the peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan contains an article stipulating that the parties cannot refer to their internal legislation as a justification for failure to implement the treaty,” Pashinyan said.
Another agreed-upon article says that the parties recognize each other’s territorial integrity, do not have any territorial demands against each other, and are bound to not make such demands in the future as well.
In accordance with the Armenian legislation, the peace treaty must be ratified by parliament after its signing. Before that, the government must submit the treaty to the Constitutional Court to verify its compliance with the constitution.
“If the constitutional court were to rule that the text of the peace treaty does not correspond to the constitution, which is unlikely after its September 26 judgment, then Armenia could initiate constitutional changes, because we would have signed the peace treaty then. But if the constitutional court decides that the text of the peace treaty corresponds to the constitution, it will pass the ratification process in parliament,” Pashinyan said.
The constitution’s paragraph 3 of article 5 stipulates that in the event of contradiction between international treaties and laws, the norms of international treaties shall apply. “Thus, after passing ratification in parliament, the peace treaty will gain superior legal force against Armenia’s laws and other normative legal acts, which is likewise the case for Azerbaijan. This is why we are not raising the issue of constitutional change in Azerbaijan, and with the same logic we believe that there is no need for a change in Armenia’s constitution in this context,” Pashinyan said.