Peace Agreement: Legal insights from Dr. Hajar Gasimova

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to briefly consult with Dr. Hajar Gasimova, a highly respected teacher of international law at Baku State University and one of Azerbaijan’s most distinguished experts in the field, regarding the text of the recently initialed Peace Agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Today, we will publish her statement. I am very grateful to her for providing valuable guidance that helped me prepare a legal commentary on the matter.

Her assessment was clear: it is impossible to legitimately criticize this document on legal, political, sociological, or any other grounds, because each clause is firmly grounded in concrete international legal principles and norms.

I would like to emphasize that these principles and norms existed independently of us, and Armenia had, at various times and in various forms, undertaken commitments to abide by them. Yet, in practice, Armenia consistently acted in direct violation of these standards in relation to Azerbaijan. This very contradiction is what necessitates the Agreement. By initialing this document with a view to its eventual signing, we are compelling Armenia to renounce territorial claims against Azerbaijan, to abandon separatism and revanchism, to replace a conflict situation with cooperation and constructive competition, and to desist from leveraging third-party support against our country.

Therefore, I fully support Dr. Gasimova’s view that, as a result of Azerbaijan’s military, diplomatic, and political victory, the real concern should not be the initialing or likely signing of this Agreement in the near future, but rather its potential failure to be signed at all. I believe Nikol Pashinyan must immediately undertake constitutional reforms within Armenia, sign this document without delay, and prevent forces such as Iran and Russia from obstructing the dawn of a new era of peace in the South Caucasus.

Our concerns are well founded. For many years, Armenia operated as a state sponsor of terror and used acts of terrorism to shape its internal political dynamics. We can recall the armed assault on the Armenian parliament, which resulted in the assassination of Vazgen Sargsyan and Karen Demirchyan. Parties like the Dashnaktsutyun and other war factions built on hatred towards Azerbaijan and Turkey have already vehemently opposed the Peace Agreement text. This suggests that, with external support, they may attempt to destabilize Armenia ahead of the constitutional referendum.

However, the Armenian leadership has substantial resources to thwart this scenario.

The first of these is that the Agreement text fully complies with international principles and norms. Nikol Pashinyan must explain to his society that years of defiance against international law have left Armenia isolated and disappointed, and that now Armenia is returning to the sphere of international legitimacy. The Peace Agreement with Azerbaijan primarily grants Armenia a legitimate state status.

Second, the Pashinyan administration must instill in Armenian society the importance of peace. Suppose the Peace Agreement fails, and instead of peace, the region descends into war again. Thousands of Azerbaijanis would be killed or disabled, and Baku would divert its economic resources to armament once more. What would that mean for Armenia? Given the realities following the Second Karabakh War, if thousands of Azerbaijanis fall in battle, tens of thousands of Armenians will perish as well. Yesterday, the fighting took place on our land; tomorrow, it could erupt in Zangezur, Goycha, or around Yerevan. We had oil and sustained our economic resilience throughout the Karabakh conflict. Will Armenia be able to maintain economic independence amid military operations in its own territory, reliant on apricots and brandy?

Third, geopolitical developments compel Armenia towards peace. After the Soviet Union’s collapse, one of the countries providing Armenia with a “lifeline” was Iran. Today, to put it mildly, Iran is in distress. For a while, Iran may continue exporting oil, gas, and consumer goods to Armenia and may politically support Yerevan’s pressure on Azerbaijan. But after the recent 12-day war with Israel, it is clear to any rational observer where Iran is headed. Armenia has only four neighbors — three are Turkic, and the fourth, Georgia, cooperates with both Azerbaijan and Turkey. Engaging in war against Azerbaijan, which has resolved the Karabakh issue, serves Armenia no purpose. Especially now, when Russia is weakened by the Ukraine war and unlikely to recover its former influence soon.

Fourth, Nikol Pashinyan is no longer a novice. He has served as Armenia’s Prime Minister for seven years — just one year less than two presidential terms in the United States. Over this period, Armenia’s state institutions have been significantly cleansed of sympathizers of the Moscow-aligned Sargsyan-Kocharyan duo. Particularly noteworthy is the exposure of Russian influence within Armenia’s power structures. Hence, the “Karabakh clan” and other revanchist groups lack the open and sustained ability to destabilize Armenia or remove Pashinyan from power.

Finally, as President Ilham Aliyev put it, this document was initialed in the world’s most powerful country, in its most powerful capital, and in the most powerful office. Securing the signing of the Peace Agreement is both a matter of honor and a responsibility for the United States and the White House as a superpower. The U.S. and NATO will impose the harshest penalties on anyone attempting to obstruct this process. European Union member states — France in particular — will have to follow suit, compelled by the geopolitical realities set by Trump’s administration.

In short, the situation is far from “Russian.” The document has been signed in three languages: Azerbaijani, Armenian, and English.

Taleh Shahsuvarli,
Editor-in-Chief of AzNews.az Analytical-Information Portal