France and Nagorno-Karabakh: The Senate Requests Recognition in Disregard of International Law
While Armenia still does not recognize the Nagorno Karabakh, the French Senate has just voted in favor of recognizing it. Only one senator out of 305 voted against the recognition. The French Senate requests the recognition of the Nagorno Karabakh by the French government and the immediate withdrawal of Azerbaijani armed forces. This result must be viewed in light of what international law states regarding the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In this context, it is pertinent to recall the dispute and the claims of both sides, analyzing them above all through the lens of international law.
The Dispute
The dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan is fundamentally a territorial disagreement. Armenia claims Nagorno-Karabakh as an Armenian territory due to its majority Armenian population. In 1992, a separatist movement occurred within this territory with the support of the Armenian army. According to Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh should declare its independence and become part of Armenia. Approximately 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory, generally recognized by the international community, was under Armenian occupation.
Since the beginning of the dispute, Azerbaijan has maintained a single motive: commitment to preserving the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and unity of the country. Consequently, it categorically rejects Armenia’s claims for decades.
Arguments of the Parties
According to Armenia, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh have the right to freely exercise their right to self-determination. Self-determination denotes the legal right of a people to decide its own destiny in the international order. This principle is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and explained by UN resolutions. However, Armenia’s broad interpretation of this scope leads to confusion. In Armenia’s view, the right to self-determination must apply ‘to any people,’ without exception. Under that right, they freely determine their political status, which can be the establishment of a sovereign and independent State. On the other side, Azerbaijan claims that resolving the dispute is only possible if its territorial integrity is protected.
International Law on the Issue
The occupation and conflict have resulted in mass killings and ethnic cleansing, leading to several violations of international law. Notable violations include the prohibition on territorial conquest by force, disrespect for territorial integrity, and breaches of all international conventions regarding human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The United Nations Security Council adopted several Resolutions during a short period to stop these breaches of international law. First, Resolution 822 called on Armenia to cease occupation and immediately halt hostilities to reach an agreement on a permanent ceasefire. Furthermore, Resolution 853 affirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and condemns the use of force against its territorial integrity. Additionally, Article 25 of the UN Charter provides that “The Members of the UN agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.” The Council of Europe has repeatedly invited Armenia to comply with these resolutions.
Conflicting Interests Difficult to Reconcile
If negotiations fail and the conflict continues for decades, it is due to the difficulty in reconciling the two claimed principles. Nevertheless, international law offers an approach that attempts to balance these rights.
The right to self-determination applies only to colonial people, not universally. Resolution 1514 of December 14, 1960, explains the scope of this principle, limiting its enjoyment only to colonial peoples and recognizing the right to independence without external interference.
The International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion on *Namibia*, holds that self-determination applies to territories under colonialism. Resolution 2625 specifies that self-determination shall not be understood “as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.” The principle of *uti possidetis juris* has been developed as an attempt to obviate territorial disputes by fixing the territorial heritage of new States at the moment of independence and converting existing lines into internationally recognized borders.
Finally, the independence and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan within Nagorno-Karabakh are recognized by every international organization and State, with the sole exception of Armenia. While Armenia itself does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh, the French Senate is the first institution to do so as an independent State. This vote, lacking any legal force and contrary to international law, is largely motivated by political considerations and affinities favoring Armenia and the Armenian diaspora in France.
It is hoped that the French government will respond to this demand not by yielding to political motivations but by reaffirming international law.
