(London based Azerbaijani international lawyer Dr Farhad Mirzayev has commented on the current situation with delimitation and demarcation and recent clash between Armenian and Azerbaijani border services.

The views expressed are the author’s, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Tribune.)

In fact, delimitation and change of sovereign states’ boundaries in general is always a painful process which has a serious impact on the concerned parties.  As it is known the boundaries among all former Soviet republics are defined under the principle of uti possidetis juris, which transformed the former administrative borders of constitutional units of the Soviet Union into international boundaries of independent states.

Article 5 of the 8 December 1991 Agreement on establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) signed in Minsk proclaimed that the Parties recognise and respect the territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing boundaries within the CIS. It was affirmed again in the 21 December 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration signed by the eleven former USSR republics. This Declaration affirmed the obligations of CIS member states to recognise and respect the territorial integrity and inviolability of existing boundaries of member states. The CIS Charter adopted on 22 January 1993 in Minsk in article 3 affirmed the respect of the territorial integrity of member states and recognition of existing boundaries.  In other words, the aforementioned instruments affirmed a transformation of the former administrative borders of the former USSR republics into their international boundaries. Moreover, in 1994 the member states of the CIS signed the new Declaration on Respect of Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity and Inviolability of Boundaries of Member States which reinforced application of the principle of uti possidetis to the territory and boundaries of the former USSR republics. The European Community expressed exactly similar position in the EC Guidelines on Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union of 16 December 1991.  From the foregoing it may therefore be argued that under the CIS Charter and other agreements jointly signed and ratified by the former USSR republics, the principle of uti possidetis had been applied by the former republics of the Soviet Union.

For the effective application of the principle of uti possidetis, the relevant parties may require to refer to the texts of old boundary delimitation treaties, geographical maps and other evidences.  It was a serious problem in case of uti possidetis juris application in Latin America and Africa.  In most cases uti possidetis juris boundaries were explicitly defined neither on the places nor on the maps. Some of these territories were never used and remained as black holes, but in the meantime legally they were included within the territorial frameworks of certain colonial powers. The boundaries of these territories in some cases were unknown and the available maps were not explicit; the names of the rivers, villages, regions, mountains and lakes mentioned in the maps were distorted. The lack of clearly drawn maps with an express delimitation of the former administrative borders was one of the main obstacles against determining the international boundaries of the newly independent states of Latin America and Africa.

The geographical maps to a certain extent should serve as an evidence for the position of the boundary lines. Especially important ones are the maps that were attached to the boundary treaties since such maps clearly reflect the delimitation lines pursuant to the provisions of the treaties.  The maps published by the official authorities of a state with the indication of its boundaries reflect the official position of that state with respect to its territorial limits.  It is obvious that in the twentieth century it was possible to clearly define and put on maps the boundaries of states or constitutive parts of a state and their administrative borders. It is not difficult to refer to the officially published maps of the USSR produced by the relevant state authorities, where the boundaries of the former Soviet republics can be clearly defined and visually seen.

If in the case of Latin America and Africa the absence of the clear geographic maps did not allow the parties to determine the former administrative borders of the former colonial units and it created huge problems for the concerned parties, in the case of the USSR there was a sufficient number of high-quality maps clearly defining the former administrative borders among the former Soviet republics, including the borders of the Azerbaijan SSR and the Armenian SSR. These maps were final, published in huge numbers in the USSR and abroad, and were approved by experts in cartography. Such maps published in the USSR pursuant to the cartography rules and with the application of modern technologies and measurements instruments allow today to determine the boundary lines of the former Soviet republics pursuant to requirements of the principle of uti possidetis juris.

All USSR republics, constitutional units of the Soviet Union, had exact internal boundaries between and among each other. In the case of Azerbaijan, along with such internal delimitation agreements with the neighbouring Soviet republics, there is a still-valid multilateral treaty referred to as the Treaty of Kars concluded among the Azerbaijan SSR, the Georgian SSR and the Armenian SSR with the Turkish Republic with participation of the RSFSR.

In fact, the Azerbaijani border service is currently acting strictly in line with the requirements of International Law. In other words, they are restoring the former administrative borders which have now turned into international boundaries between the Azerbaijan and Armenia.  Under the above referred principle of International Law, the territories around the lake Qaragol in the liberated Lachin district of Azerbaijan lie within the sovereign territory of Azerbaijan.  The Azerbaijani border forces are taking their positions as per the delimitation lines defined as international boundaries of Azerbaijan as per its former administrative borders with Armenia within the Soviet Union, and which are expressly definable under the existing Soviet maps.

It is extremely surprising that legal councillors of the French President Macron and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the US State Department or other Western states haven’t spent a bit of their time and efforts to understand the problem and react in appropriate way.  It is also disappointing that Azerbaijan has clearly faced with a groundless bias despite acting in line with the requirements of International Law. The French President’s groundless hysteria, his statement in social media blaming Azerbaijan in occupation of the Armenian territory, clearly indicates his incompetence in international law and international relations, and is a serious signal to deprive France to act as one of the international mediators for Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.  Clearly its mandate within the OSCE Minsk Group and the latter in general shall be dismissed by Azerbaijan based on solid grounds of a strong bias.