By Tural Heybatov
An intriguing piece of news has emerged from Armenia. According to the newspaper Graparak, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan plans to remove the reference to the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution. This declaration contains claims to Azerbaijani territories. Pashinyan intends to amend the Constitution as part of his "Real Armenia" concept, despite potential resistance from the country's political circles.
Such resistance is indeed likely-and it will be strong. If Graparak's information is accurate, Pashinyan's move can be seen as a bold step. However, there are reasons to doubt the authenticity of these reports. In early February, during a press conference, Pashinyan stated: "It has been de jure confirmed that our Constitution contains no territorial claims against Azerbaijan." He assured that once a peace treaty is signed, all problems would be resolved. Furthermore, Pashinyan emphasized that the treaty would be submitted to the Constitutional Court for review. However, if the document recognizes Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, the Court is likely to deem it incompatible with the Constitution. Such an outcome would cause a major scandal. It is evident that Pashinyan is aware of this risk, which explains his cautious and contradictory statements.
Source: JAMNews
The facts suggest that without amendments to the preamble of Armenia's Constitution, signing a peace agreement would be meaningless. The preamble states that "the Armenian people, based on the fundamental principles of Armenian statehood and the national goals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia…" and so forth. But what are these "fundamental principles"? The Declaration asserts: "The Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR, expressing the unified will of the people of Armenia… based on the Joint Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR and the National Council of Nagorno-Karabakh of December 1, 1989, 'On the Reunification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh'… proclaims the beginning of the process of establishing independent statehood."
And this is just part of the problem. The Declaration also contains claims to "Western Armenia," referring to Turkish territories. In such circumstances, the notion of good-neighborly relations becomes highly questionable.
Armenia commenced its state-building process by blatantly violating international law, incorporating claims to neighboring countries' territories. This has become a significant obstacle to long-term peace. The "fundamental principles of statehood" have backfired for Armenia: they failed to legitimize the occupation of Azerbaijani lands. Even Armenia's allies did not recognize the "NKR" (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic), and Yerevan itself never did-neither under the rule of the Karabakh clan nor during Pashinyan's tenure.
It appears that Pashinyan does not fully grasp the significance of the Constitution as the supreme law. Without resolving the contradictions between the preamble and a potential peace treaty with Azerbaijan, the treaty will hold no legal force for the Armenian side. It would rely solely on Pashinyan's goodwill-but his tenure is not eternal. Given the rising revanchist sentiments in Armenia, a new prime minister might renounce the principles of good-neighborliness altogether.
Source: Lragir.am
It is also noteworthy that several months ago, Armenia's Constitutional Court, at Pashinyan's request, declared that the Declaration of Independence is merely a document with no impact on the Constitution. Meanwhile, in 2010, the very same Court ruled that no international treaties could contradict the Declaration or the preamble. This contradiction casts doubt on the credibility of Graparak's report.
Azerbaijan should not lower its guard. A referendum on constitutional amendments in Armenia is scheduled for 2026. Baku has no reason to rush: while Armenia desperately needs a peace treaty, Azerbaijan can afford to do without it.
