MFA_Report_on_the_occupied_territories_March_2016_1

Recommendations

Info

Serious breaches of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law give rise to additional consequences affecting not only the State bearing the responsibility, but also all other States. As stated in the ILC commentary to the Articles on State Responsibility, “[e]very State, by virtue of its membership in the international community, has a legal interest in the protection of certain basic rights and the fulfilment of certain essential obligations.” 633 A significant role in securing recognition of this principle was played by the International Court of Justice in the Barcelona Traction case, in which the Court identified the existence of a special category of obligations - obligations towards the international community as a whole. According to the Court, “By their very nature the former [the obligations of a State towards the international community as a whole] are the concern of all States. In view of the importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection; they are obligations erga omnes”. 634 In its later proceedings the International Court has reaffirmed this idea. 635 Inasmuch as all States have a legal interest, particular consequences of a serious breach of an obligation under peremptory norms of general international law include, inter alia, duties of States to cooperate in order to bring to an end such breaches by lawful means and not to recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation. 636 The maxim ex injuria ius non oritur provides the basis for the obligation of nonrecognition; that is, a legal right cannot stem from an unlawful act. As territory cannot be acquired by the unlawful use of force, and States are obliged to not give legal credence – recognition of authority over the territory – to the unlawful acquisition. 637 It is, at a minimum, intended to prevent “the validation of an unlawful situation by seeking to ensure that a fait accompli resulting from serious illegalities do not consolidate and crystallize over time into situations recognized by the international legal order.” 638 The doctrine of the obligation of non-recognition of illegal territorial acquisitions and claims to sovereignty can be traced back to the early practice of States in the beginning of twentieth century. 639 The principle of non-recognition was reaffirmed by the International Court in its Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970). 640 There the Court held that the presence of South Africa in the mandated territory of Namibia, following the revocation of the mandate, was illegal. 641 Accordingly, it held that States are under an obligation not to recognize that unlawful situation and must refrain from “lending any support or any form of assistance to South Africa with reference to its occupation of Namibia”. 642 The Court set out the scope of the doctrine of non-recognition at paragraphs 122-124 of the Namibia Opinion. In the first place, States may not enter into treaty relations with an unlawful regime with regard to the territory in question. In addition, States may not invoke or apply vis-à- 633 See James Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. Introduction, Text and Commentaries, op. cit., commentary to Article 1, p. 79, para. 4. 634 See Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 05 Febrary 1970, I.C.J. <strong>Report</strong>s, para. 33. 635 See East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 30 June 1995, I.C.J. <strong>Report</strong>s, para. 29; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 08 July 1996, I.C.J. <strong>Report</strong>s, paras. 31-32; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 11 July 1996, (Preliminary Objections), I.C.J. <strong>Report</strong>s, paras. 31-32, See also James Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. Introduction, Text and Commentaries, op. cit., commentary to Article 1, p. 79, para. 4. 636 See James Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. Introduction, Text and Commentaries, op. cit., p. 69, and commentary to Article 41, pp. 249-253, paras. 1-14. See also UN General Assembly resolution 62/243 of 14 March 2008, entitled “The situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan”, operative para. 5. 637 See James Crawford, “Opinion on Third Party Obligations with respect to Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories”, op. cit., p. 18. 638 See Martin Dawidowicz, “The Obligation of Non-Recognition of an Unlawful Situation”, in James Crawford, Alain Pellet & Simon Olleson (eds.), The Law of International Responsibility, op. cit., p. 678. 639 See James Wilford Garner, “Non-Recognition of Illegal Territorial Annexations and Claims to Sovereignty”, 30 The American Journal of International Law 4 (1936); David Turns, “The Stimson Doctrine of Non-Recognition: Its Historical Genesis and Influence on Contemporary International Law”, 2 The Chinese Journal of International Law 1 (2003). 640 See Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, I.C.J. <strong>Report</strong>s 1971. 641 See James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, 2nd ed.), p. 163; James Crawford, “Opinion on Third Party Obligations with respect to Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories”, available at . 642 See Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), op. cit., para. 119. 99
vis the unlawful regime of the territory existing treaties applicable to the territory. The Court also indicated (in accordance with Security Council Resolution 283 (1970)) that States must refrain from any diplomatic or consular relations with the unlawful regime which imply recognition of the authority of the regime over the territory. Finally, the Court set out the requirement of States to “abstain from entering into economic and other forms of relationship or dealings with South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia which may entrench its authority over the Territory.” 643 At the same time, the Court stated that: “In general, the non-recognition of South Africa’s administration of the Territory should not result in depriving the people of Namibia of any advantages derived from international Cooperation. In particular, while official acts performed by the Government of South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia after the termination of the Mandate are illegal and invalid, this invalidity cannot be extended to those acts, such as, for instance, the registration of births, deaths and marriages, the effects of which can be ignored only to the detriment of the inhabitants of the Territory.” 644 Commenting on this opinion of the Court, Crawford noted that: “the obligation [of non-recognition] has an inherent flexibility that will permit (or, at least, not expressly prohibit) the acceptance of acts which do not purport to secure or enhance territorial claims, but which as a result of their commercial, minor administrative or ‘routine’ character, or which are of immediate benefit to the population, should be regarded as ‘untainted by the illegality of the administration’”. 645 According to Stewart: “attempts by the then South African government to grant title in Namibian natural resources were ‘illegal and invalid,’ since the expropriation of natural resources could hardly be reconciled with the humanitarian exceptions to the general rule – expropriating natural resources is not analogous with registering births, deaths, and marriages.” 646 One of the judges on the case explicitly confirmed this interpretation in a separate opinion by stating that “other States should not regard as valid any acts and transactions of the authorities in Namibia relating to public property, concessions, etc.” 647 The principle of collective non-recognition has been applied to the unlawful acts of Armenia, and the illegality of the separatist entity and its structures, established by Armenia in the occupied territory of Azerbaijan, has been repeatedly stated at the international level. 648 The attempt to unilaterally effect the secession of a part of the internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan is directly connected with the unlawful use of force and other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens). Among a number of international political and judicial institutions, this fact has been affirmed in the aforementioned resolutions of the UN Security Council adopted in response to the occupation of the territories of Azerbaijan. It is notable that those resolutions, recognizing that Nagorno-Karabakh constitutes part of Azerbaijan and reaffirming the inviolability of international borders and the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory, were adopted after the so-called “independence” of 643 See Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), op. cit., para. 124. 644 Ibid., para. 125. 645 See James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, op. cit., p. 167; James Crawford, “Opinion on Third Party Obligations with respect to Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories”, op. cit., p. 22. 646 See James G. Stewart, Corporate War Crimes. Prosecuting the Pillage of Natural Resources (New York: Open Society Foundation, 2011), p. 48, para. 69. 647 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), op. cit., Separate Opinion of Judge De Castro, pp. 218-219; see also Steward, ibid. 648 See e.g. UN Docs. A/64/851–S/2010/345, 29 June 2010; A/66/890–S/2012/661, 23 August 2012; A/69/914–S/2015/384, 27 May 2015. 100
Page 2 and 3:
___________________________________
Page 4 and 5:
Contents A. Introduction 5 B. Execu
Page 6 and 7:
A. Introduction At the end of 1987,
Page 8 and 9:
The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen co
Page 10 and 11:
B. Executive Summary The examined e
Page 12 and 13:
Armenian statistical information sh
Page 14 and 15:
thus profit from and support the oc
Page 16 and 17:
programmes that ultimately serve th
Page 18 and 19:
the field commanders. 20 S.Ohanyan
Page 20 and 21:
II. Continued attempts of Armenia t
Page 22 and 23:
the country’s president.” 44 Ar
Page 24 and 25:
the NKR.” 58 According to the Arm
Page 26 and 27:
Armenian public to be a subsidiary
Page 28 and 29:
planning, development of collaborat
Page 30 and 31:
Settlement activities in the occupi
Page 32 and 33:
and mechanical growth. 134 In 2001,
Page 34 and 35:
the separatist regime Arthur Aghabe
Page 36 and 37:
Orientation for the newly arrived S
Page 38 and 39:
There are reports that Syrian Armen
Page 40 and 41:
Armenia’s Dorozhnik LLC company i
Page 42 and 43:
as of 2013. Thus, for example, whil
Page 44 and 45:
X. Providing products, investments,
Page 46 and 47:
in Armenia lack sufficient financia
Page 48 and 49:
consists of public figures and busi
Page 50 and 51: percent shares of Armenia's Armswis
Page 52 and 53: Armenia’s Prime Minister Hovik Ab
Page 54 and 55: “Kataro” wine production facili
Page 56 and 57: It is difficult to determine the ac
Page 58 and 59: The Asmaryan family from Syria work
Page 60 and 61: Former Prime Minister Tigran Sargsy
Page 62 and 63: Bako Sahakyan visits agricultural f
Page 64 and 65: Armenia is particularly interested
Page 66 and 67: President of Armenia visits “Trgh
Page 68 and 69: Wheat and other crops harvested in
Page 70 and 71: Back in February 1995, the National
Page 72 and 73: Caterpillar heavy machines are used
Page 74 and 75: 270 tons 460 ). Extracted unprocess
Page 76 and 77: Unprocessed ore form Soyudlu gold m
Page 78 and 79: acquainted with the works there. 48
Page 80 and 81: Prime Minister of Armenia Hovik Abr
Page 82 and 83: As far as gold is concerned, Armeni
Page 84 and 85: protection) in the Bashitchay Natio
Page 86 and 87: As of 2015, approximately 460 mines
Page 88 and 89: Juma Mosque in the occupied city of
Page 90 and 91: E. Obligations and Responsibility u
Page 92 and 93: should follow the UN Guiding Princi
Page 94 and 95: No exception or provision for derog
Page 96 and 97: the invoked laws cannot be consider
Page 98 and 99: “One of the cornerstones of the l
Page 102 and 103: Nagorno-Karabakh was unilaterally d
Page 104 and 105: A large number of domestic criminal
Page 106 and 107: F. Urgent Measures to Cease and Rev
Page 108: G. ANNEXES Original designations of
show all

MFA_Report_on_the_occupied_territories_March_2016_1

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?