The court gave on September 26 the green light for parliamentary ratification of a recent agreement with Azerbaijan supposedly laying out the principles of delineating the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. But the main focus of its ruling publicized a few days later is not the agreement itself but the constitution’s preamble that mentions a 1990 declaration of Armenia’s independence.
The declaration in turn cites a 1989 unification act adopted by the legislative bodies of Soviet Armenia and the then Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. Baku says that this continues a territorial claim to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani leaders have regularly stated in recent months that Baku will not sign a peace treaty with Yerevan unless this and other, unspecified Armenian legal acts are repealed.
The Constitutional Court downplayed the legal significance of the preamble, effectively echoing the Armenian government’s assurances that it does not call into question its recognition of Azerbaijani sovereignty over Karabakh. It said the reference to the 1990 declaration “does not apply to any principle or aim which is not enshrined in the [articles of the] Constitution.”
Armenian opposition figures and legal experts critical of the government condemned this interpretation of the preamble, accusing the court of overstepping its powers. Some of them said Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian ordered the unusual ruling in a further bid to convince Azerbaijan to drop its precondition.
The ruling did not satisfy Baku, with the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry claiming over the weekend that the court actually underscored the alleged territorial claims. The Armenian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Ani Badalian, claimed the opposite on Monday.
“The decision of the Constitutional Court makes it very clear that only those provisions of the 1990 Declaration of Independence of Armenia which are literally expressed in the articles of the Constitution of Armenia have constitutional force,” Badalian said in written comments. “And therefore, what is not written in … the articles of the Constitution cannot be ascribed to the Constitution.”
This means that they contain “nothing that can be interpreted as a territorial claim against any country,” added the official.
In recent weeks and days, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has also set other conditions for signing a peace deal Yerevan. Aliyev made fresh threats of military action against Armenia on Friday, accusing it of playing “dangerous games.”
The threat came two days after Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan said that Azerbaijan may be planning to invade Armenia. Badalian also warned of such a possibility in her comments to the official Armenpress news agency.
“Official Baku’s aggressive rhetoric and rejection of proposals to sign a Peace Treaty including its agreed articles lead many Armenian and international experts to conclude that Azerbaijan will use the COP29 [summit in Baku next month] to create a smokescreen of legitimacy for escalating the situation in the near future,” she said.