The battle of ideas over the legal ownership of Nagorno-Karabakh

Just as no individual country can exist without a legal framework within which its citizens can operate, so the world cannot get by without the concept of international law. And that law has to be based on one fundamental tenet: that of territorial integrity.

Without territorial integrity, chaos, war and bloodshed inevitably ensue. That, sadly, is what we have seen in the South Caucasus for the last quarter century. An international body is needed that can promote that principle, and ultimately introduce sanctions when it is flouted. Countries that invade their neighbours have to know that there is a price to be paid.

Fortunately there is such a body. It is called the United Nations, and it has made its position crystal clear. Its Security Council has passed four resolutions (numbers 822, 853, 874 and 884) and its General Assembly has passed resolution 62/243 saying the same things: Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven surrounding districts currently under Armenian military occupation are Azerbaijani sovereign territory. They also demand that Armenia withdraw its armed forces.

The UN’s word should be enough. However, other bodies (including the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) have said the same.

Armenia’s responsibility for the occupation of Azerbaijani land has been spelt out by The European Court of Human Rights, acknowledging that: “Armenia exercised effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories.”

To date, not even Armenia recognises the puppet state that it helped to set up by bloody force of arms.

Of course, the Armenian people need their own homeland, which, fortunately, they already have: Armenia. This country has a struggling economy and a shrinking population. All the more reason for it to give up its expansionist ambitions and concentrate on restoring its own fortunes so that it is no longer dependent on international handouts.

Armenians living in multicultural Azerbaijan, by contrast, have prospered, and all future inhabitants of a post-settlement Nagorno-Karabakh have been offered the highest level of autonomy.

The Government of Azerbaijan, the people of Azerbaijan and the hundreds of thousands of refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) have been patient for many years. The OSCE Minsk Group has had every chance to bring about a diplomatic solution, and in due course it developed the ‘Madrid Principles’.

This compromise solution would have allowed Azerbaijanis and Armenians to live side by side once again. Azerbaijan accepted it, but sadly Armenia walked away. The status quo leaves Armenia holding onto the land it has occupied; talk of conflict resolution threatens that grip.

The UNHCR has stated that “Azerbaijan hosts one of the largest IDP populations per capita in the world” and over the last few years I have spoken to scores of them. Although they are well cared for, I have yet to hear one of them say that they did not want to return to their ancestral homes and lands.

Attempts to visit, like that of DilgamAsgarov, ShahbazGuliyev and HasanHasanov who returned to tend their family graves, are met with violence. Of these three, one was killed and the others were sentenced to life incarceration.

Despite the harsh treatment many of them received from the invading Armenian forces, I have yet to hear one refugee or IDP declare anything other than a desire to once again live next to their Armenian neighbours in peace – as they had previously done for generations. In multicultural Azerbaijan, Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant communities continue to thrive – in stark contrast to mono-ethnic Armenia.

-------------------

Euronews enables both sides to state their case over Nagorno-Karabakh

Press Release: The respected Lyon-based TV channel Euronews has facilitated an exchange of views between Azerbaijani and Armenian representatives in the battle of ideas over the legal ownership of Nagorno-Karabakh. An estimated 350 million households in 155 countries watch the channel.

The brief was to produce a 600-word article and a two-minute video setting out the legal case for legal ownership of Nagorno-Karabakh. The two organisations tasked with making these presentations were The European Azerbaijan Society (TEAS) and the European Friends of Armenia.

Lionel Zetter, Director, TEAS clearly and calmly set out the legal framework within which such disputes are settled. He pointed out that the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) all backed Azerbaijan’s legal claim to the territories.

His counterpart from EUFOA somewhat obscurely referred to Stalin, Lenin and some long-abolished oblasts.

Lionel Zetter’s video message can be seen at http://lawnewsindex.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/22nd-may-law-news.html

Let's never bring back the death penalty!

Treason remains the only legally viable excuse to hang. Considering that the Crown Prosecution Service is unlikely to bring on a case for treason against any individual, we shall be spared the medieval repeat of dark retribution. The arguments for hanging someone on the ground of treason is perhaps twice as heinous to those who would like rapists, murderers and shoplifters persecuted by hanging from the noose - 'let this be a lesson to the odious scumbags!'. Yet the principal argument against hanging is that it does not work as a deterrent to would be perpetrator of such crimes as treason. There might be greater powers at play. The terrorist bomber might be driven to one's destructive state of mind by following alternative philosophies. On a lesser scale, the rapist, murderer (whether predetermined or accidental) and shoplifter had never been deterred by even the mere prison term, fixed penalty and in their day, the ASBO.

The nature of punishment is that it always takes place after the criminal act had taken place. E. M Forster rued over how christening, wedding and funeral always took place after the physical acts of birth, coitus and death, striking too early or too late to really add any realistic meaning to the events. Perhaps, Forster, writing in the years before the Great War was taken in by a spirit where the celebratory nature of such events for those associated with the individual had not been properly taken into account. I for one would add the greatly emancipating event of graduation to the group of irrelevant events. Getting a 'first' in Philosophy is itself an achievement and needs no further accolade. Yet the day is served up on a photographic frame as a permanent reminder on the proud living room of middle class parents up and down the country. The reader might argue whether the gravity of getting a first, being born, getting married or death as acts could ever be compared to committing a crime. Yet these are all events where the act of working hard, physical communion on the part of the parents to bring about new life, falling in love (one shall ignore all the other reasons for getting married) and death are never really premeditated under reasonable circumstances. Coitus might well be initiated over a period to conceive, a first might be studied for, death could be the result of a lifetime of poor lifestyle choices making the body prone to incurable disease or mere exhaustion, and a crime can be planned, yet the punishment does not really dawn on the individual before they are committing the act.

The principal difference between committing a crime and the other acts is that the criminal punishment is never celebrated by the one being punished. Not in the normal criminal circle that is and for the purposes of this discussion we shall refrain from referencing the masochist. The other events, christening, wedding, funeral and graduation might well be. However, christenings and weddings are affairs of hope. It is hoped that those involved would have a long, joyous and righteous life under the gaze of a watching creator. The criminal is expected to rot in jail or be hanged. We need never look back upon their lives as positive events even if they had been christened, graduated and married. Death, whether initiated immediately through the direct play of state legal machinery or a line on page 5 of the Independent is as close to a ceremony.

Miscarriages of justice is never really a consideration when the jury or judge is sentencing. The scope of the legal framework is that it can only examine evidence and the sentence is delivered based on available evidence. This process is exactly the same when the criminal is contemplating the act of crime. The ability to get away with it might play a part but any future punishment after having been caught is not in mind as the crime is being committed.

Either way, the death penalty is long buried under the ashes of Derek Bentley, Guildford Four, Renault Five and Birmingham Six. The various arguments have lost any semblance of meaning in every quarter but the staunch right wing Daily Mail reader's breakfast table.


© TTR