Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Territory controlled by the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.
  Claimed by the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic but controlled by Azerbaijan.

Nagorno-Karabakh is a landlocked region in the South Caucasus, calling itself the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, a de facto independent but unrecognized state. The territory is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan,[1][2] which has not exercised power over most of the region since 1991. Since the end of the Nagorno-Karabakh War in 1994, representatives of the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan have been holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group on the region's disputed status.

Political ties with Armenia[edit]

The politics of Armenia and the de facto Karabakh republic are so intermingled that a former president of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Robert Kocharyan, became first the prime minister (1997) and then the president of Armenia (1998 to 2008).

According to Human Rights Watch, "from the beginning of the Karabakh conflict, Armenia provided aid, weapons, and volunteers. Armenian involvement in Karabakh escalated after a December 1993 Azerbaijani offensive. The Republic of Armenia began sending conscripts and regular Army and Interior Ministry troops to fight in Karabakh."[3]

Positions and statements[edit]

The sovereign status of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is not recognized by any United Nations member state (including Armenia), but has been recognized by Transnistria,[4] Abkhazia and South Ossetia; Transnistria is not recognized by any UN member state, while the latter two have international recognition from several UN member states. Three UN Security Council Resolutions (853, 874, and 884) and United Nations General Assembly resolutions 49/13 and 57/298 refer to Nagorno-Karabakh as a region of Azerbaijan. None of these resolutions were passed under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter. Certain politicians and legal scholars have expressed the view that resolutions are only legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII of the Charter.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] According to a report prepared by British parliamentarian and rapporteur David Atkinson, presented to Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), "the borders of Azerbaijan were internationally recognised at the time of the country being recognised as independent state in 1991," and "the territory of Azerbaijan included the Nagorno-Karabakh region."[16]

The latest resolution, #1416, adopted by PACE, stated that "Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region." The resolution further stated: "The Assembly reiterates that the occupation of foreign territory by a member state constitutes a grave violation of that state’s obligations as a member of the Council of Europe and reaffirms the right of displaced persons from the area of conflict to return to their homes safely and with dignity." Recalling the Resolutions 822, 853, 874, and 884 (all 1993) of the UN Security Council, PACE urged "the parties concerned to comply with them, in particular by refraining from any armed hostilities and by withdrawing military forces from any occupied territories." The resolution also called on "the Government of Azerbaijan to establish contact, without preconditions, with the political representatives of both communities from the Nagorno-Karabakh region regarding the future status of the region."[17]

The Council of Europe called on the Nagorno-Karabakh de facto authorities to refrain from staging one-sided "local self-government elections" in Nagorno-Karabakh. "These so-called 'elections' cannot be legitimate," stressed Council of Europe Committee of Ministers' Chairman and Liechtenstein Foreign Minister Ernst Walch, Parliamentary Assembly President Lord Russell-Johnston and Secretary General Walter Schwimmer. They recalled that following the 1991–1994 armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a substantial part of the region's population was forced to flee their homes and are still living as displaced persons in those countries or as refugees abroad.[18] This position was reiterated by Walter Schwimmer, Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 4 August 2004 with regard to the next elections, staged in the province,[19] and by the Chair of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers on 12 July 2007 with regard to the presidential elections organised in Nagorno-Karabakh.[20] On 21 May 2010 Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, stated: "I would like to recall that the European Union does not recognise the constitutional and legal framework within which the "parliamentary elections" in Nagorno Karabakh will be held this Sunday. This event should not prejudice the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict".[21] OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs stated that "Although the Co-Chairs understand the need for the de facto authorities in NK to try to organize democratically the public life of their population with such a procedure, they underscore again that Nagorno-Karabakh is not recognized as an independent and sovereign state by any of their three countries, nor by any other country, including Armenia. The Co-Chairs consider that this procedure should not preempt the determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh in the broader framework of the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict".[22]

The European Union declared that "The European Union confirms its support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and recalls that it does not recognise the independence of Nagorno Karabakh. The European Union cannot consider legitimate the 'presidential elections' that were scheduled to take place on 11 August 2002 in Nagorno Karabakh".[23] The European Union reiterated this position with regard to the presidential elections, held in the region in 2007.[24]

The US Department of State's annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 2006, released on 6 March 2007 stated that "Armenia continues to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories. During the year incidents along the militarized line of contact separating the sides again resulted in numerous casualties on both sides".[25]

According to an analysis by New England School of Law's Center for International Law & Policy, "Nagorno Karabagh has a right of self-determination, including the attendant right to independence, according to the criteria recognized under international law." As the analysis elaborates, "the principle of self-determination is included in Articles 1, 55, and 73 of the United Nations Charter," and it has been "codified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights--which are considered to constitute the international 'Bill of Rights.'" Furthermore, "the right to self-determination has also been repeatedly recognized in a series of resolutions adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, the most important of which is Resolution 2625(XXV) of 1970." As the analysis continues, "the Azerbaijanis argue that political independence for Nagorno Karabagh violates the right of Azerbaijan to territorial integrity. But the claim to territorial integrity can be negated where a state does not conduct itself 'in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples' and does not allow a subject people 'to pursue their economic, social and cultural development' as required by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625(XXV). Moreover, it should be noted that when Azerbaijan declared independence from the Soviet Union, it claimed to be the successor state to the Azerbaijani Republic of 1918–1920.

The League of Nations, however, did not recognize Azerbaijan's inclusion of Nagorno Karabagh within Azerbaijan's claimed territory. The analysis further states that Nagorno Karabakh's secession was in compliance with the existing Soviet law. Following Soviet Azerbaijan's declaration of independence on 30 August 1991, "Nagorno Karabagh initiated the same process through the joint adoption of the 'Declaration of the Republic of Nagorno Karabagh' by the local legislative councils of Nagorno Karabagh and the bordering Armenian-populated Shahumian district. The only difference was that, for Karabagh, independence was declared not from the Soviet Union but from Azerbaijan.

This act fully complied with existing law. Indeed, the 1990 Soviet law titled 'Law of the USSR Concerning the Procedure of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR,' provides that the secession of a Soviet republic from the body of the USSR allows an autonomous region and compactly settled minority regions in the same republic's territory also to trigger its own process of independence." This act, as the analysis continues, was not annulled by the "USSR Constitutional Oversight Committee," as the "declaration was deemed in compliance with the then existing law." Furthermore, "on 10 December 1991, the Nagorno Karabagh Republic held its own referendum on independence in the presence of international observers. The vote overwhelmingly approved Karabagh's sovereignty. This action of Nagorno Karabagh, which at that time was part of a still existent and internationally recognized Soviet Union, corresponded fully with the relevant Soviet law pertaining to leaving the USSR." Finally, on 6 January 1992, the "parliament of Karabagh adopted its Declaration of Independence on the basis of the referendum results."[26]

A background paper prepared by the Directorate General of Political Affairs of the Council of Europe for the seminar "Youth and Conflict Resolution" (Strasbourg, 31 March – 2 April 2003), on the other hand, states, "The Armenian side maintains that the N-K independence referendum was conducted in accordance with the USSR law on the 'Procedure for Solving Issues of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR' of 3 April 1990. Article 3 of this law provided autonomous regions within the Soviet republics with the right to determine independently, by referendum, whether they wished to remain within the USSR or join the republic seceding from the USSR. It would however seem that according to this law N-K would have the choice of two options – to remain within the USSR or to join independent Azerbaijan; N-K independence does not seem possible".[27]

According to the article in "The Journal of Conflict Resolution", the Armenian side "justified its claim by Article 70 of the Soviet Constitution, which affirms the right to self-determination of the peoples of the USSR. In fact, this recognition of the principle of self-determination is only part of a general declaratory statement about the nature of the Soviet federation: “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is an integral, federal, multi-national state formed on the principle of socialist federalism as a result of the free self-determination of nations and the voluntary association of equal Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR embodies the state unity of the Soviet people and draws all its nations and nationalities together for the purpose of jointly building communism.” There is no mechanism, other than the right of the union republics to secede (Article 72 of the constitution), through which to express the right of self-determination".[28]

The actual declaration of establishment of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, issued on 2 September 1991, states that the republic is proclaimed pursuant to the USSR law of secession, and that it "enjoys the authorities given to Republics by the USSR Constitution and legislation and reserves the right to decide independently the issue of its state-legal status based on political consultations and negotiations with the leadership of Union and Republics." The Declaration further states that "the USSR Constitution and legislation, as well as other laws currently in force, which do not contradict the goals and principles of this Declaration and peculiarities of the Republic apply on the territory of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, until the NKR Constitution and laws are adopted."[29]

However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan states that "according to this Law, in a Union republic containing autonomous republics, autonomous provinces and autonomous regions, the referendum had to be held separately in each autonomous unit, the people of which retained the right to decide independently the question of staying in the USSR or in the seceding Union republic, as well as to raise the question of their own state-legal status. It is important to emphasize that the secession of a Union republic from the USSR could be regarded valid only after the fulfillment of complicated and multi-staged procedure and, finally, the adoption of the relevant decision by the Congress of the USSR People's Deputies. However, until the Soviet Union ceased to exist as international person the mentioned Law was without legal effect, since no Union republic, including Azerbaijan and Armenia, had used the procedure for secession stipulated in it".[30]

The OSCE Minsk Group has allowed the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (referring to it as the "leadership of Nagorny Karabakh"), as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan, to participate in the peace process as "parties to the conflict," and the Azerbaijani community of the region – as an "interested party". The Chairman of the CSCE Minsk Conference mentioned that "the terms 'party to the conflict' and 'leadership of Nagorny Karabakh' do not imply recognition of any diplomatic or political status under domestic or international law".[31][32] The Azerbaijani community is led by Bayram Safarov, the head of the executive power of Shusha region.

At a recent press conference in Yerevan, Yuri Merzlyakov, the OSCE Minsk Group Russian Co-Chair stated, "At the press conference in Baku I underlined that Nagorno Karabakh was a part of Azerbaijani SSR and not of Azerbaijan. I perfectly know that till 1917 Nagorno Karabakh was a part of the Russian Empire. The history is necessary in order to settle conflicts, but it is necessary to proceed from international law".[33] Meanwhile, on 10 June 2007 after US-Azerbaijani security consultations in Washington D.C. with Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov, Deputy Assistant Secretary of US Department of State, US Co-Chairman of OSCE Minsk group Matthew Bryza in a joint press conference announced: "In the circles of international law there is no universal formula for the supremacy of territorial integrity over the right of self-determination of people.".[34]

United Nations General Assembly[edit]

On 14 March 2008, the United Nations General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution by a vote of 39 to 7, with 100 abstentions, reaffirming Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, expressing support for that country's internationally recognized borders and demanding the immediate withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all occupied territories there. The resolution was supported mainly by members of the OIC and GUAM, both of which Azerbaijan is a member, as well as other nations facing breakaway regions. The resolution was opposed by all three members of the OSCE Minsk Group.[35]

European Parliament[edit]

On 20 May 2010, the European Parliament adopted a resolution "on the need for an EU strategy for the South Caucasus", which states that EU must pursue a strategy to promote stability, prosperity and conflict resolution in the South Caucasus.[36] The resolution "calls on the parties to intensify their peace talk efforts for the purpose of a settlement in the coming months, to show a more constructive attitude and to abandon preferences to perpetuate the status quo created by force and with no international legitimacy, creating in this way instability and prolonging the suffering of the war-affected populations; condemns the idea of a military solution and the heavy consequences of military force already used, and calls on both parties to avoid any further breaches of the 1994 ceasefire". The resolution also calls for withdrawal of Armenian forces from all occupied territories of Azerbaijan, accompanied by deployment of international forces to be organised with respect of the UN Charter in order to provide the necessary security guarantees in a period of transition, which will ensure the security of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh and allow the displaced persons to return to their homes and further conflicts caused by homelessness to be prevented; and states that the EU believes that the position according to which Nagorno-Karabakh includes all occupied Azerbaijani lands surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh should rapidly be abandoned. It also notes "that an interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh could offer a solution until the final status is determined and that it could create a transitional framework for peaceful coexistence and cooperation of Armenian and Azerbaijani populations in the region."[37]

In October 2013, the European Parliament adopted the Resolution on the European Neighbourhood Policy in which it is stated that the occupation by one country of the Eastern Partnership (which includes Armenia and Azerbaijan) of the territory of another "violates the fundamental principles and objectives of the Eastern Partnership and that the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict should comply with UN Security Council resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884 of 1993 and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group Basic Principles, enshrined in the L’Aquila joint statement of 10 July 2009".[38]

OSCE Minsk Group[edit]

On 26 June 2010, the presidents of the OSCE Minsk Group's Co-Chair countries, France, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America made a joint statement, reaffirming their "commitment to support the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan as they finalize the Basic Principles for the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict".[39]

Russia[edit]

Also in 2006, Russia published its 63-volume Great Encyclopedia which described Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent entity that belonged to Armenians historically, in its introduction to the region.[40] Azerbaijan has protested this passage in the Russian encyclopedia. It handed a protest letter to the Russian ambassador to Azerbaijan demanding that the encyclopedia be confiscated and amended.[40]

Independence recognition efforts[edit]

U.S. states[edit]

U.S. states recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh.png
Passed a bill recognizing
Nagorno-Karabakh
Rejected or deferred a bill recognizing Passed a bill recognizing
Azerbaijani territorial integrity
Azerbaijani territorial integrity Nagorno-Karabakh
 California (May 2014)[41][42]
 Louisiana (May 2013)[43]
 Maine (Apr 2013)[44]
 Massachusetts (Aug 2012)[45]
 Rhode Island (May 2012)[46]
 Hawaii (Feb 2014)[47]
 Mississippi (Apr 2014)[48]
 South Dakota (Feb 2014)[47]
 Tennessee (Mar 2014)[47]
 Wyoming (Feb 2014)[47]
 Vermont (Apr 2014)[49] None

Other[edit]

In October 2012, New South Wales, Australia, recognized Nagorno-Karabakh.[50]

Before California recognized Nagorno-Karabakh in May 2014, three places within the state had already recognized it:

Highland was twinned with Berdzor.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ UN Security Council resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
  2. ^ "Statement of the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group". OSCE. Retrieved June 25, 2011. 
  3. ^ "Human Rights Watch World Report 1995". Hrw.org. Retrieved 2012-05-06. 
  4. ^ "In detail: The foreign policy of Pridnestrovie". Pridnestrovie. 2010-05-26. Retrieved 2010-06-29. 
  5. ^ "Additionally it may be noted that the Security Council cannot adopt binding decisions under Chapter VI of the Charter" (De Hoogh, Andre. Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1 Jan 1996, p. 371).
  6. ^ "Council recommendations under Chapter VI are generally accepted as not being legally binding". (Magliveras, Konstantinos D. Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1 Jan 1999, p. 113).
  7. ^ "Within the framework of Chapter VI the SC has at its disposal an 'escalation ladder' composed of several 'rungs' of wielding influence on the conflicting parties in order to move them toward a pacific solution... however, the pressure exerted by the Council in the context of this Chapter is restricted to non-binding recommendations". (Neuhold, Hanspeter. "The United Nations System for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes", in Cede, Franz & Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. The United Nations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1 Jan 2001, p. 66).
  8. ^ "The responsibility of the Council with regard to international peace and security is specified in Chapters VI and VII. Chapter VI, entitled 'Pacific Settlements of Disputes', provides for action by the Council in case of international disputes or situations which do not (yet) post a threat to international peace and security. Herein its powers generally confined to making recommendations, the Council can generally not issue binding decisions under Chapter VI". (Schweigman, David. The Authority of the Security Council Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1 Jan 2001, p. 33).
  9. ^ "Under Chapter VI, the Security Council may only make recommendations but not binding decisions on United Nations members". (Wallace-Bruce, Nii Lante. The Settlement of International Disputes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1 Jan 1998, pp. 47–4 ).
  10. ^ "The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven." Iraq, Israel and the United Nations: Double standards?, The Economist, 10 October 2002.
  11. ^ "There are two sorts of security council resolution: those under 'chapter 6' are non-binding recommendations dealing with the peaceful resolution of disputes; those under 'chapter 7' give the council broad powers, including war, to deal with 'threats to the peace ... or acts of aggression'." Emmott, Bill. If Saddam steps out of line we must go straight to war, The Guardian, 25 November 2002.
  12. ^ "...there is a difference between the Security Council resolutions that Israel breaches (nonbinding recommendations under Chapter 6) and those Iraq broke (enforcement actions under Chapter 7)." Kristof, Nicholas D. Calling the Kettle Black, The New York Times, 25 February 2004.
  13. ^ "There is a hierarchy of resolutions... Chapter 6, under which all resolutions relating to the middle east have been issued, relates to the pacific resolution of disputes. Above that, there are the mandatory chapter 7 resolutions, which impose the clearest possible obligations, usually on a single state rather than on two or three states, which is what chapter 6 is there for. Chapter 7 imposes mandatory obligations on states that are completely out of line with international law and policy, and the United Nations has decided in its charter that the failure to meet those obligations may be met by the use of force." Straw, Jack. House of Commons debates, Hansard, Column 32, 24 September 2002.
  14. ^ "There is another characteristic of these resolutions which deserves a mention, and that is that they are under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. Chapter 7 has as its heading 'Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression'. This is the very serious chapter of United Nations rules, regulations, laws and principles, which the United Nations activates when they intend to do something about it. If the United Nations announces under chapter 7 that it intends to do something about a matter and it is not done, that will undermine the authority of the United Nations; that will render it ineffective. There are many other resolutions under other chapters. Resolution 242 gets a bit of a Guernsey here every now and then. Resolution 242 is under chapter 6, not chapter 7. It does not carry the same mandate and authority that chapter 7 carries. Chapter 6 is the United Nations trying to put up resolutions which might help the process of peace and it states matters of principle that are important for the world to take into consideration. Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw from territories that it has occupied. It also says that Israel should withdraw to secure and recognised boundaries and that the one is dependent upon the other. Resolution 242 says that, but it is not a chapter 7 resolution." Beazley, Kim, Waiting for blow-back (speech delivered in Parliament on 4 February 2003, The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 February 2003.
  15. ^ "There are several types of resolutions: Chapter 6 resolutions are decisions pursing the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, and put forward Council proposals on negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies, and other peaceful means. Chapter 7 resolutions are decisions for Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, involving use of force and sanctions, complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic radio and other means of communication and the severance of diplomatic relations. Resolutions passed under Chapter 7 of the Charter are binding on all UN members, who are required to give every assistance to any action taken by the Council, and refrain from giving any assistance to the country against which it is taking enforcement action." Iran dossier crosses the Atlantic: Where to from here? (Microsoft Word document), Greenpeace position paper on Iran.
  16. ^ Mr David Atkinson, United Kingdom, European Democrat Group, (Rapporteur) The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 29 November 2004
  17. ^ Resolution 1416: The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 25 January 2005
  18. ^ Council of Europe urges Nagorno-Karabakh to refrain from "elections", Council of Europe, 24 August 2001
  19. ^ Council of Europe Secretary General on "local self-government elections" in Nagorno-Karabakh, on Council of Europe website, dated 8 August 2004
  20. ^ "Chair of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers: Declaration on the "presidential elections" to be held in Nagorno Karabakh on 19 July 2007". Wcd.coe.int. Retrieved 2012-05-06. 
  21. ^ "Statement by High Representative Catherine Ashton on Nagorno Karabakh" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-05-06. 
  22. ^ OSCE Press release – OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs issue statement
  23. ^ Bulletin EU 7/8-2002: Common foreign and security policy (5/39), European Commission on 27 March 2003
  24. ^ "Declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on "presidential elections" in Nagorno-Karabakh on 19 July 2007". Eu2007.pt. Retrieved 2012-05-06. 
  25. ^ Armenia: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 2006 Released by the United States Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 6 March 2007
  26. ^ The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution New England Center for International Law & Policy
  27. ^ Mr David Atkinson, United Kingdom, European Democrat Group, (Rapporteur) The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 29 November 2004. See the section: AS/POL (2004) 24 Appendix IV 8 September 2004: subsection "The legal side of the dispute"
  28. ^ Niall M. Fraser; Keith W. Hipel; John Jaworsky; Ralph Zuljan. A Conflict Analysis of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Dispute. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4. (Dec., 1990), pp. 652–677.
  29. ^ Declaration on Proclamation of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic[dead link]
  30. ^ Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan Republic. Legal aspects of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict[dead link]
  31. ^ Letter Dated 1 October 1993 from the permanent representative to the United Nations addressed to the president of the Security Council(PDF)
  32. ^ Recommendation 1251 (1994)1 on the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
  33. ^ "Yuri Merzlyakov: I have stated in Baku that Karabakh was part of Azeri SSR and not of Azerbaijan". Panarmenian.net. 2007-06-07. Retrieved 2012-05-06. 
  34. ^ "Matthew Bryza: In the circles of international law there is no universal formula for the supremacy of territorial integrity over the right of self-determination of people". Armtown.com. Retrieved 2012-05-06. 
  35. ^ "UNO Department of Public Information. General Assembly adopts resolution reaffirming territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, demanding withdrawal of all Armenian forces". Un.org. Retrieved 2012-05-06. 
  36. ^ cs - čeština (2010-05-20). "South Caucasus: EU must help stabilise the region, say MEPs". Europarl.europa.eu. Retrieved 2012-05-06. 
  37. ^ cs - čeština. "Texts adopted – Thursday, 20 May 2010 – The need for an EU strategy for the South Caucasus – P7_TA-PROV(2010)0193". Europarl.europa.eu. Retrieved 2012-05-06. 
  38. ^ European Neighbourhood Policy, working towards a stronger partnership: EP's position on the 2012 progress reports. 23 October 2013.
  39. ^ "G8 Summit: Joint Statement On The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict by Dmitry Medvedev, President Of The Russian Federation, Barack Obama, President Of The United States Of America, and Nicolas Sarkozy, President Of The French Republic". Whitehouse.gov. 2010-06-26. Retrieved 2012-05-06. 
  40. ^ a b "APA". En.apa.az. Retrieved 2012-05-06. 
  41. ^ White, Jeremy B. (8 May 2014). "Capitol Alert: California Assembly calls for Nagorno-Karabakh Republic". Fresno Bee. 
  42. ^ Mason, Melanie (5 May 2014). "Calif. lawmakers to weigh in on dispute between Armenia, Azerbaijan". LA Times. 
  43. ^ http://senate.la.gov/sessioninfo/2013/RS/Journals/05-30-2013.pdf
  44. ^ http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=HP0987&item=1&snum=126
  45. ^ Massachusetts State Legislature Calls For Recognition Of Nagorno-Karabakh, RFE/RL, 2012
  46. ^ Rhode Island Legislature Calls For Nagorno-Karabakh Recognition, RFE/RL, 2012
  47. ^ a b c d "Pro-Azerbaijani forces failed passing anti-Armenian resolution in Tennessee". Panorama.am. March 26, 2014. Retrieved May 28, 2014. 
  48. ^ "Mississippi Senate rejected pro-Azerbaijani resolution". Times.am. April 10, 2014. Retrieved May 28, 2014. 
  49. ^ Laura Krantz (April 10, 2014). "Vermont Senate bows out of international squabble". Brattleboro Reformer. Retrieved May 28, 2014. 
  50. ^ http://news.am/eng/news/126086.html
  51. ^ a b "Azerbaijan Protests California Town’s Recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh". RIA Novosti. December 6, 2013. Retrieved February 17, 2014. 
  52. ^ http://www2.co.fresno.ca.us/0110a/Questys_Agenda/MG202114/AS202115/AS202120/AI202346/DO202347/DO_202347.pdf
  53. ^ http://www.tert.am/en/news/2013/11/27/haylend-berdzor/
  54. ^ "Los Angeles city council recognizes the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic". ARKA News Agency. January 29, 2014. Retrieved February 17, 2014. 

External links[edit]