Analysis: Ankara is lingering, Yerevan is responding
The Armenian president’s unexpected response to Turkey’s attempts at linking the ratification of the Armenia-Turkey protocols with the Karabakh issue settlement could not have emerged overnight, and is an ‘escape hatch’ in case if the normalization process reaches a deadlock. It is also obvious that the president’s statement is Yerevan’s official message to the international community as a response to Ankara’s uncompromising stand.
“If Turkey keeps delaying the ratification process of the Armenian-Turkish protocols Yerevan will immediately reply by taking measures regulated by the international law,” Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan said last week in Yerevan.
What are those measures the president was referring to?
The president has assigned corresponding bodies to amend the country’s legislation on signing, ratifying and annulling international agreements. Most probably this means that the October 10 Zurich protocols on establishing diplomatic relations between Armenian and Turkey can be defined as ‘international agreements’.
The thing is that up to December 10 the documents had been presented by the Armenian side as ‘bilateral protocols’ not regulating border or land issues, rather that as an ‘international agreement’.
Despite the formulations on ‘stability of borders’ and mutual ‘respect for the territorial integrity of states’ official Yerevan contended that those points in the protocols had not been concerted and were serving only the main purpose of establishing diplomatic relations.
This standpoint contradicted Article 7 of the RA Law ‘On international agreements of the Republic of Armenia’, regulating ‘relations with other countries: friendship and cooperation, defense, mutual renunciation of use of force or threat of use of force; peace, creation of or membership in political or military alliances, settlement of border and land issues, establishment of diplomatic and consular relations, acquisition or provision of loans, credits, guarantees, financial cooperation and other relations of vital importance for the Republic of Armenia.”
Many of the listed functions can be found in the Zurich protocols, consequently, these documents should have been called ‘international agreements’ right from the beginning, something Yerevan persistently refused to do.
And so, finally, on December 10, the Armenian president used the term ‘international agreement’ in reference to the Zurich protocols and even did not exclude the possibility of annulling them.
Why?
The fact that the protocols will be considered within a legal framework where they are seen as ‘international agreements’ creates opportunities for nullifying them.
Article 57 Point 2.1 of the RA law on international agreements states that “effectiveness of an RA international agreement can be halted if the Republic of Armenia, in a state of war or martial law, of economic or any other kind of blockade, in an earthquake aftermath state or that of any other natural disaster, or under any force majéur circumstance, for objective reasons cannot fulfill the undertaken obligations in a timely and appropriate manner”.
Consequently the Armenian president’s non-accidental reference to RA law on international agreements means that according to the regulations of that law ‘the Armenia-Turkey international agreement’ can be annulled, since Armenia is currently in a state of war and economic blockade.
Along with that, President Sargsyan made it clear that the country’s legislation on signing, ratifying and annulling international agreements will be amended, most probably implying the same Article 57 Point 2.1. The following addition may be considered: “effectiveness of an RA international agreement can be halted if the other side renounces the undertaken obligations”.
“If Turkey keeps delaying the ratification process of the Armenian-Turkish protocols Yerevan will immediately reply by taking measures regulated by the international law,” Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan said last week in Yerevan.
What are those measures the president was referring to?
The president has assigned corresponding bodies to amend the country’s legislation on signing, ratifying and annulling international agreements. Most probably this means that the October 10 Zurich protocols on establishing diplomatic relations between Armenian and Turkey can be defined as ‘international agreements’.
The thing is that up to December 10 the documents had been presented by the Armenian side as ‘bilateral protocols’ not regulating border or land issues, rather that as an ‘international agreement’.
Despite the formulations on ‘stability of borders’ and mutual ‘respect for the territorial integrity of states’ official Yerevan contended that those points in the protocols had not been concerted and were serving only the main purpose of establishing diplomatic relations.
This standpoint contradicted Article 7 of the RA Law ‘On international agreements of the Republic of Armenia’, regulating ‘relations with other countries: friendship and cooperation, defense, mutual renunciation of use of force or threat of use of force; peace, creation of or membership in political or military alliances, settlement of border and land issues, establishment of diplomatic and consular relations, acquisition or provision of loans, credits, guarantees, financial cooperation and other relations of vital importance for the Republic of Armenia.”
Many of the listed functions can be found in the Zurich protocols, consequently, these documents should have been called ‘international agreements’ right from the beginning, something Yerevan persistently refused to do.
And so, finally, on December 10, the Armenian president used the term ‘international agreement’ in reference to the Zurich protocols and even did not exclude the possibility of annulling them.
Why?
The fact that the protocols will be considered within a legal framework where they are seen as ‘international agreements’ creates opportunities for nullifying them.
Article 57 Point 2.1 of the RA law on international agreements states that “effectiveness of an RA international agreement can be halted if the Republic of Armenia, in a state of war or martial law, of economic or any other kind of blockade, in an earthquake aftermath state or that of any other natural disaster, or under any force majéur circumstance, for objective reasons cannot fulfill the undertaken obligations in a timely and appropriate manner”.
Consequently the Armenian president’s non-accidental reference to RA law on international agreements means that according to the regulations of that law ‘the Armenia-Turkey international agreement’ can be annulled, since Armenia is currently in a state of war and economic blockade.
Along with that, President Sargsyan made it clear that the country’s legislation on signing, ratifying and annulling international agreements will be amended, most probably implying the same Article 57 Point 2.1. The following addition may be considered: “effectiveness of an RA international agreement can be halted if the other side renounces the undertaken obligations”.
Source URL: http://www.armenianow.com/commentary/analysis/20140/armenian_turkish_protocols_ratification_analysis