Armenia calls on Azerbaijan to swiftly sign peace treaty to dispel any concerns regarding constitution

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan addressed on Tuesday the Azeri claims that the Armenian constitution contains territorial demands against it.

Speaking to lawmakers in parliament, Pashinyan said in order to address the issue one must presume that Azerbaijan has sincere concerns and not a pretext for refusing to sign the peace agreement, like many analysts believe.

“We must also sincerely understand the essence of the issue, the political and legal content. And therefore, we must note that only the Constitutional Court of Armenia can give an official interpretation of the text of the Constitution of Armenia, meaning the Constitutional Court is the body that can officially say what the Constitution of Armenia contains and what it doesn’t. In September 2024, our Constitutional Court examined the regulation on the joint activity of the Commission on Delimitation and Border Security of the State Border between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan and the State Commission on the Delimitation of the State Border between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia and recorded that the regulation, where the Alma-Ata Declaration is stipulated as the base principle for delimitation between the two countries, is in line with the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia. This means that our Constitutional Court has recorded that the principle of the Alma-Ata Declaration whereby the territory of independent Armenia is identical with the territory of Soviet Armenia, while the territory of independent Azerbaijan is identical with the territory of Soviet Azerbaijan, and based on which the parties, on October 6, 2022 in Prague, agreed to normalize relations, is fully in line with the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia. And therefore, the body authorized to interpret the Constitution of Armenia, with an irreversible ruling, has recorded that the Constitution of Armenia doesn’t contain territorial demands against Azerbaijan or any other country. This is a decision of highest legal force not subject to overturning,” Pashinyan said.

Pashinyan said that although Armenia doesn’t have territorial demands, it has noticed that the Azeri constitution in fact contains wordings that can be perceived as claims against Armenia, however Yerevan is not raising this issue, because the draft peace agreement would resolve the issue by recording that “the parties don’t have territorial demands against each other and are bound to not make such demands in the future with the understanding that both countries recognize each other’s territorial integrity with the territory of Soviet republics, as mentioned in the Alma-Ata Declaration.

“So if we assume that Azerbaijan’s position regarding our Constitution is not a pretext but a sincere concern, the most effective measure to dispel that concern would be the signing of the agreement, and not [refraining] to sign it. Why? Because under our legislation the government must send the text of the agreement to the Constitutional Court to validate its compliance with the Constitution. Although after the Constitutional Court’s 2024 decision experts don’t see a high likelihood, but if the Constitutional Court were to rule that the peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan doesn’t comply with the Constitution of Armenia, then Armenia would have a concrete situation and need to make a choice between peace or conflict. But if the Constitutional Court of Armenia decides that the text of the peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan is in line with the Constitution of Armenia, then there would be no obstacle for its ratification in parliament, and after ratification the paragraph 3 of article 5 of the Armenian Constitution would take effect, which says in case of conflict between the norms of international treaties ratified by the Republic of Armenia and those of laws, the norms of international treaties shall apply.” This means that the peace agreement, after ratification in Armenia and in Azerbaijan, would gain supreme legal force, and therefore Azerbaijan, with its current stance in the peace agreement issue, is obstructing the resolution of the issues which it itself has brought forward, and this gives many experts the grounds to say that Azerbaijan is simply stalling the signing of the peace agreement with made-up pretexts,” Pashinyan said.

Pashinyan reiterated that in case of any interpretation, the path to address the issues raised by Azerbaijan is to sign the peace agreement, and not refrain from signing it.

“And since we also have similar questions, the same pertains to Armenia too,” Pashinyan said.