Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry: Remarks by Armenian MFA Spokesperson on peace-loving stance are pure manipulation
“Remarks by the Armenian MFA Spokesperson about the peace-loving stance of Armenia, which is equipping with offensive weaponry by all means and continuing its territorial claims against Azerbaijan in its constitution and other legal acts, are pure manipulation that aims at misleading the international community.

Interestingly, now the Armenian MFA Spokesperson refers to the recent decision of the Constitutional Court of Armenia on compliance of the regulations governing the joint activities of the Armenian and Azerbaijani border delimitation commissions with the Armenian constitution as a “confirmation” that their constitution “does not contain territorial claims against its neighbors.

Fact-checking this claim is enough to recall how the Armenian side has justified its constitutional court ruling about the conformity of Protocols for the normalization of their relations with Türkiye with its constitution back in January 2010, when a detailed statement elaborating the grounds of its decision did not renounce the claims to so-called “Western Armenia,” said Aykhan Hajizada, Spokesperson for Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, commenting on the remarks of the Spokesperson of the Armenian Foreign Ministry about Armenia’s justification for its militarization and the alleged threats from Azerbaijan.

Hajizada then added: “The same logic and approach were applied during the adoption of the court’s decision on the conformity of the regulation of the border commissions between Azerbaijan and Armenia with the Armenian constitution on 26 September 2024. Although the court ruling has enumerated the regions that currently belong to Armenia, it also emphasized the importance of the preamble as an inalienable part of the constitution, where there is a reference to the Declaration of Independence of Armenia with its claim to the territories of Azerbaijan. Especially, in the court ruling, the preamble and indirectly the Declaration of Independence were characterized as “basic principles of Armenian statehood” and it was noted that they are immutable (unchangeable) provisions, which further increases the threat emanating from Armenian claims against the territories of Azerbaijan.

Regarding the Almaty Declaration question, it is well-known that the provisions regarding respect for territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders, as stipulated in the 8 December 1991 Agreement on the Creation of the CIS and the 21 December 1991 Almaty Declaration, do not pertain to the issue of what the actual borders are between the CIS member states or which territories are included within each state. Thus, the Almaty declaration cannot be considered a confirmation of the “good intentions” of Armenia.

It could not be denied that Armenia ratified the CIS founding agreement on 18 February 1992 with reservations. Moreover, Armenia officially announced its intention to make reservations as early as 26 December 1991, when the Supreme Council of Armenia ratified the Protocol to the CIS founding agreement. Clause 10 of the Supreme Council’s decision of 18 February 1992 on the ratification of the CIS founding agreement clearly indicates that the Republic of Armenia considered the so-called “Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh to be an independent state with the right to join the CIS.”

Following this decision by the Supreme Council, Armenia has never recognized “Nagorno-Karabakh” as part of Azerbaijan, a stance that was reaffirmed in the Decision of the Supreme Council of 8 July 1992, and further solidified in the Constitution of Armenia of 5 July 1995. Without judgement, whether it was necessary to submit the reservation to the attention of other contracting parties or not, and whether Armenia acted as such or not, the reservations is part of Armenia’s legislation that could not be denied.

Accordingly, also considering the already existing claim in the constitution of Armenia against the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan upon joining the Almaty Declaration and its reservations, Armenia excluded the recognition of “Nagorno-Karabakh” as part of Azerbaijan. Therefore, statements that Armenia recognizes the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan have no legal ground until Armenia makes changes to its constitution and renounces all the legal and political acts that reflect its claim to Azerbaijan.

Also, taking into account the history when Armenia has conducted aggression against Azerbaijan while joining the Almaty Declaration, it is time to ask for clarification on what is meant by the “recognition of each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty along the administrative borders of the former Soviet republics” for Armenia back in 1992 and now?

Against this background and due to the unpredictable nature of Armenian policy, the arguments about the rights of self-defense as a justification for mass militarization are both fictitious and dangerous.

Moreover, Armenian MFA’s false propaganda asking to refrain from visiting Azerbaijan for COP29 claiming that Azerbaijan is using the COP29 as a “smokescreen” for alleged preparation for an attack against Armenia is regrettable.

The logic of the Armenian side that these problems can be ignored demonstrates that this country is not interested in sustainable peace and is only trying to keep this situation as a backup option to start aggression against Azerbaijan once again in the future.

Armenia should refrain from contradictory statements and provocative steps, and show that it respects the norms and principles of international law with its actions and real steps.”