“On May 15, during an interview in Albania with Azerbaijan Public Television, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan once again attempted to mislead the international community regarding the territorial claims enshrined in the Armenian Constitution and the dissolution of the Minsk Group.
It is an undeniable fact that expressions of support for territorial integrity in international agreements hold no significance for the Armenian side. To prove this, it is pertinent to recall the process of Armenia’s accession to the frequently referenced Almaty Declaration and how it has grossly violated this agreement. The Armenian reservations made during the process of joining the Almaty Declaration, and the existence of legislative acts in force that oppose recognizing Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, are well known,” said Aykhan Hajizada, spokesperson for Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, commenting on the Armenian Prime Minister’s remarks.
“The Prime Minister’s attempt to substantiate his claims by referencing the constitutional provision that international treaties ratified by Armenia take precedence over domestic laws is entirely baseless. To disprove this, it is sufficient to examine Article 5 of the Armenian Constitution (on the hierarchy of legal norms). According to this provision, the Armenian Constitution holds supreme legal force, and the Prime Minister’s reference to the supremacy of international treaties is irrelevant. It is also well known that Armenia’s coat of arms, referenced in Article 21 of the Constitution, reflects territorial claims against neighboring countries. Thus, regardless of the treaties Armenia accedes to, retaining constitutional provisions that contradict Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity clearly serves a deliberate purpose,” Hajizada emphasized.
“In addition, while the draft peace agreement discussed since October 2022 included provisions supporting territorial integrity, no one has forgotten how, in parallel, the Armenian leadership continued to support and legitimize the puppet regime until the anti-terror measures of September 2023.
Moreover, it would be better for the Armenian side to explain why, for nearly 35 years, it has failed to adhere to the borders of 1991 and the agreements based on the Almaty Declaration, and why it has refused to recognize the borders reflected in Soviet-era maps.
Furthermore, it is necessary to remind the Prime Minister—who frequently references the decisions of the Armenian Constitutional Court—that Armenia has not renounced its claims to the so-called 'Western Armenia' as of January 2010. This was evident in the Constitutional Court’s detailed justification of the compliance of the Protocols on normalizing relations with Türkiye with the Armenian Constitution. The same logic and approach were applied by the Court in its decision on September 26, 2024, regarding the compliance of the border delimitation commission regulations between Azerbaijan and Armenia with the Armenian Constitution. Notably, the Court's designation of the preamble—and by extension, the Declaration of Independence—as the 'fundamental principles of Armenian statehood' and immutable provisions demonstrates the threat Armenia’s territorial claims pose to Azerbaijan,” the spokesperson noted.
“The logic of the Armenian Prime Minister in suggesting that these issues can be ignored indicates that Armenia is not genuinely interested in sustainable peace and is merely trying to maintain this situation as a fallback option for future aggression against Azerbaijan. Furthermore, Armenia’s opposition to the official dissolution of the Minsk Group—a remnant of the past conflict—and its efforts to link the peace process to that structure demonstrate the existence of a hidden agenda targeting Azerbaijan.
All of this further proves that amending Armenia’s Constitution, which poses a direct threat to Azerbaijan’s national security, is a fundamental condition for peace, and demanding this is Azerbaijan’s legitimate right,” Hajizada added.
