THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF TERRITORIAL AND BORDER SETTLEMENT USING ARMENIA’S TERRITORIAL CLAIMS AGAINST AZERBAIJAN AS AN EXAMPLE
Tofik Musaev, Second-rank aide, deputy head, International Law and Treaty Department of the Azerbaijan Foreign Ministry (Baku, Azerbaijan)
Armenia’s approach, which disputes that Nagorny Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan, has been brought to the attention of international public opinion on numerous occasions, whereby at the most diverse levels, and mainly asserts that the former autonomy’s secession from Azerbaijan in 1991 was legal.
The Independent Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan ceased to exist on 28 April, 1920 when, following an invasion by the 11th Red Army of Bolsheviks, the foundation of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. was declared, which subsequently became part of the Soviet Union. The Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) reviewed the question of the Armenian S.S.R.’s territorial claims to the Azerbaijan S.S.R. several times, and at a meeting held on 5 July, 1921 it adopted a decision in which Nagorny Karabakh was to remain part of Azerbaijan, whereby the latter was supposed to grant Nagorny Karabakh broad autonomy. The following citation from the resolution part of the Bureau’s decisions shows precisely that Nagorny Karabakh was to remain part of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, and not be transferred to it, as the Armenian side insistently maintains: “Based on the need for national peace between the Muslims and Armenians, as well as economic relations between Upper and Lower Karabakh and its permanent relations with Azerbaijan, Nagorny Karabakh shall remain part of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, which shall grant it broad regional autonomy…”1
According to the Armenian side, this decision was made by an entity that did not have the right to participate in the national state-building activities of another state and, consequently, constituted an act of gross intervention in the internal affairs of another sovereign Soviet republic.2
It is difficult to say on what grounds official Erevan considers review of the Nagorny Karabakh question by the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) to be interfering in the internal affairs of Soviet Armenia. What is more, it is still not clear what “entity,” according to the Armenian side, had the right in 1921 to participate in the national state-building activities, if the Treaty on the Formation of the U.S.S.R. was entered on 30 December, 1922, and the first Constitution of the Union State was adopted on 6 July, 1923. It is interesting that the decree On the Formation of the Nagorny-Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAR) was issued in the Azerbaijan S.S.R. the day after the U.S.S.R. Constitution was adopted, that is, on 7 July, 1923.
The 1936 U.S.S.R. Constitution stipulated that the Nagorny-Karabakh Autonomous Region belonged to the Azerbaijan S.S.R. (Art 24), while the Armenian S.S.R. did not have any autonomous republics, or any autonomous territories or regions (Art 29).
Pursuant to Art 86 of the 1977 U.S.S.R. Constitution, an autonomous region belonged to a union republic or territory. The Supreme Soviet of a Union Republic adopted a law on an autonomous region on the proposal of the Soviet of People’s Deputies of that region. There were a total of eight autonomous regions in the U.S.S.R., the list of which is set forth in Art 87 of the Constitution. Pursuant to the provisions of this Article, the Nagorny-Karabakh Autonomous Region was part of the Azerbaijan S.S.R.
Pursuant to the U.S.S.R. and Azerbaijan S.S.R. constitutions, the legal status of the NKAR was defined by the Law on the Nagorny-Karabakh Autonomous Region, adopted on the proposal of the NKAR Soviet of People’s Deputies by the Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. on 16 June, 1981.
It was this law, adopted by a higher state power organ of the Azerbaijan S.S.R., that contained provisions to which the Armenian side appealed: “…the NKAR was represented in the highest legislative organs of the U.S.S.R.” and “the region’s borders cannot be changed without its consent.”3
According to the Armenian side, the legal basis for declaring the “Republic of Nagorny-Karabakh (NKR)” on 2 September, 1991 is the U.S.S.R. law of 3 April, 1990, On the Procedure for Treating Matters Arising from the Secession of a Union Republic from the U.S.S.R., which gave autonomous entities and compactly settled nationalities the right to decide for themselves the question of their legal national status.4 For example, the report by Armenia presented in accordance with Arts 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, says the following:
“With perestroika beginning to take place in the U.S.S.R., the Autonomous Region of Nagorny-Karabakh in February 1988 applied to the Supreme Soviets of the Azerbaijan and Armenian Soviet Socialist Republics with a request ‘to consider and resolve in a positive manner the question of the transfer of the Nagorny-Karabakh Autonomous Region from the S.S.R. of Azerbaijan to the Armenian S.S.R.’
“On 1 December, 1989, with a view to restoring historical justice, the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian S.S.R. and the National Soviet of Nagorny Karabakh adopted a decision to comply with that request. The decision was based on universally accepted principles of self-determination of nations and responded to the lawful aspiration to reunify two forcibly separated parts of the Armenian people.
“On 30 August, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. proclaimed the restoration of the national independence of 1918-1920, thereby initiating the process of secession of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. from the U.S.S.R.
“On 2 September, 1991, proceeding on the basis of the U.S.S.R. Law on the Procedure for Treating Matters Arising from the Secession of a Union Republic from the U.S.S.R., which gave autonomous entities and compactly settled nationalities the right to decide for themselves the question of their legal national status, the joint session of people’s deputies of all levels of the NKAR and the adjacent district of Shaumyan proclaimed the creation of the Republic of Nagorny-Karabakh.
“The secession of the NKAR/NKR from the Azerbaijan S.S.R./Republic of Azerbaijan and the holding of a referendum on independence in the presence of international observers took place before the de facto disintegration of the U.S.S.R. On the date on which the Republic of Azerbaijan obtained its recognition, the Republic of Nagorny-Karabakh no longer formed part of it. The establishment of the Republic of Nagorny-Karabakh was irreproachable from the point of view of standards of international law.”5
With respect to this, it should be noted that the procedure for changing the borders of union republics was set forth in precise terms in the constitutions of the U.S.S.R. and the Union republics. For example, pursuant to Art 78 of the U.S.S.R. Constitution, the territory of a Union republic could not be changed without its consent. The borders between Union republics could be changed according to a mutual agreement between the republics in question, which had to be approved by the U.S.S.R. This provision in the Union’s Constitution was also enforced in the constitutions of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. and Armenian S.S.R.
In response to the above-mentioned decision of the Regional Council of the NKAR of 20 February, 1988, the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian S.S.R. adopted a resolution on 15 June, 1988, in which it gave its consent to the NKAR becoming part of the Armenian S.S.R., and also asked the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet to review and make a positive decision on the transfer of the NKAR from the Azerbaijan S.S.R. to the Armenian S.S.R.
In turn, the Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. and its Presidium, in the resolutions adopted on 13 and 17 June, 1988, respectively, deemed it unacceptable and impossible, on the basis of Art 78 of the U.S.S.R. Constitution and Art 70 of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. Constitution, to transfer the NKAR from the Azerbaijan S.S.R. to the Armenian S.S.R.
It would seem that, in compliance with the provisions of the U.S.S.R. Constitution and constitutions of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. and Armenian S.S.R. in effect at that time, this exhausted the question, particularly since there were no pressing grounds for even discussing the possibility of changing the borders between the Union republics.
But on 12 July, 1988, at a session of the Regional Council of the NKAR, an illegal decision was adopted on the autonomy’s secession from the Azerbaijan S.S.R. In addition to violating the corresponding provisions of the U.S.S.R. and Azerbaijan S.S.R. constitutions, this decision also contradicted Art 42 of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. Law on the Nagorny-Karabakh Autonomous Region, according to which the Soviet of People’s Deputies of the Nagorny-Karabakh Autonomous Region could adopt decisions within the authorities granted it by U.S.S.R. and Azerbaijan S.S.R. legislation. What is more, the Article of the law under review envisaged the possibility of annulment by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. of a decision adopted by the Regional Council if it contradicted the law.6
In this way, guided by Art 87 of the U.S.S.R. Constitution, Art 114 of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. Constitution, and Art 42 of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. Law on the Nagorny-Karabakh Autonomous Region, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. adopted (on 13 July, 1988) a resolution in which it deemed the decision of the Nagorny-Karabakh Autonomous Region Soviet of People’s Deputies of 12 July, 1988 on the unilateral secession of the NKAR from the Azerbaijan S.S.R. illegal and lacking in juridical force.
Nevertheless, the so-called NKAR Congress of People’s Plenipotentiary Representatives held on 16 August, 1989 unequivocally announced its refusal to accept the status of Nagorny Karabakh as an autonomous region belonging to the Azerbaijan S.S.R. At this congress, the region was proclaimed an “independent union territory,” in which the Constitution of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. and other republican laws ceased to be valid. The “Congress” created a “National Council,” which was declared as the only national power in the NKAR.
Naturally the reaction of the Azerbaijani side was not long in coming. On 27 August, 1989, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. adopted a resolution in which it deemed illegal the decision of the so-called NKAR Congress of People’s Plenipotentiary Representatives.
As could only be expected, the Armenian S.S.R. made active attempts to legalize secession of the NKAR from the Azerbaijan S.S.R. In addition to the above-mentioned resolution of the Armenian S.S.R. Supreme Soviet of 20 February, 1988, the higher legislative organ of this Union republic adopted a multitude of other anti-constitutional decisions, the most well known of which is the Resolution on Reunification of the Armenian S.S.R. and Nagorny Karabakh of 1 December, 1989. Pursuant to this resolution, the Supreme Soviet Presidium and Council of Ministers of the Armenian S.S.R., as well as the Presidium of the NKAR National Council were entrusted with undertaking all the measures ensuing from the mentioned resolution for carrying out a real merging of the political, economic, and cultural structures of the Armenian S.S.R. and Nagorny Karabakh into a single political national system.
As already noted, one of the key arguments by the Armenian side in favor of legitimacy of the demand for Nagorny Karabakh’s secession is its supposedly illegal transfer to Azerbaijan by the Caucasian Bureau of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) Central Committee. For this very reason, on 13 February, 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian S.S.R. adopted the resolution On Deeming Illegal the Decision of the Caucasian Bureau of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) Central Committee of 5 July, 1921.
Of course, before Azerbaijan and Armenia gained their independence and the Nagorny Karabakh conflict was reviewed by international organizations, the U.S.S.R. central power structures acted as arbiter. The higher legislative organ of the former Union, the Supreme Soviet and its Presidium, reviewed and made decisions several times on matters arising from the Nagorny Karabakh crisis.
For example, on 23 March, 1988, in its resolution On Measures Regarding Appeals from the Union Republics about the Events in Nagorny Karabakh, and the Azerbaijan and Armenian S.S.R., the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet Presidium deemed it “…impermissible for attempts to be made to resolve complex national and territorial questions by putting pressure on the state power structures in an atmosphere of charged emotions and fervor and by creating all kinds of illegal entities in favor of changing the national state and national administrative borders envisaged in the U.S.S.R. Constitution, which could lead to unpredictable consequences.”7
In a resolution of 18 July, 1988, On Decisions of the Supreme Soviets of the Armenian S.S.R. and Azerbaijan S.S.R. on Nagorny Karabakh, the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet Presidium considered it “…impossible to change the borders and national territorial division of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. and Armenian S.S.R. set forth on a constitutional basis.” It went on to emphasize that “…by adopting this decision, the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet Presidium is proceeding from the U.S.S.R. Constitution provision (Art 78) pursuant to which the territory of a Union republic cannot be changed without its consent.”8
In the resolutions of 10 January and 3 March, 1990, the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet once more confirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. after recognizing the above-mentioned decisions by the Armenian S.S.R. Supreme Soviet as unconstitutional.
Another attempt to legalize the secession of Nagorny Karabakh was made on 2 September, 1991, when the so-called Republic of Nagorny-Karabakh was proclaimed. As mentioned above, according to the Armenian side, this step was legally based on the law of the former Soviet Union of 3 April, 1990, On the Procedure for Treating Matters Arising from the Secession of a Union Republic from the U.S.S.R. But, as a simple analysis of all the questions relating to this law shows, the “irreproachability” of official Erevan’s arguments, from the viewpoint of the rights it refers to, is subject to serious doubt.
For example, this law referred to Art 72 of the U.S.S.R. Constitution, pursuant to which, every Union republic had the right to secede from the Soviet Union. (It should be noted that this right was enforced for each of the Union republics as early as the Treaty on the Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of 30 December, 1922 and the U.S.S.R. Constitution of 1923.) The purpose of this law was to regulate relations within the U.S.S.R. by envisaging a certain procedure that the Union republics were supposed to observe in the event of their secession from the U.S.S.R. In particular, such a decision was to be made by the free will of the people of this republic by means of a referendum, for which the law set forth a specific procedure. Art 3 deserves particular attention, pursuant to which in a Union republic that has autonomous republics, autonomous regions, or autonomous areas, a referendum must be held separately in each autonomous entity. In so doing, the people of the autonomous entities had the right to decide for themselves whether to remain in the U.S.S.R., or in the Union republic seceding from it, or raise the question of their legal national status.9
But when the U.S.S.R. ceased to exist as an entity of international law, this law lost its juridical force, since not one Union republic, including Azerbaijan and Armenia, took advantage of the secession procedure envisaged in it. Only if Azerbaijan had tried to secede from the U.S.S.R. while it existed and pursuant to the Law on the Procedure for Treating Matters Arising from the Secession of a Union Republic from the U.S.S.R. would the NKAR have obtained the right to hold a separate referendum in order to decide among three alternatives, whether to remain in the U.S.S.R., to secede from it along with Azerbaijan, or raise the question of its legal national status.
Reference to this law in the context of the declaration adopted by the Azerbaijan S.S.R. Supreme Soviet of 30 August, 1991 On Restoration of the State Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan does not hold water either. It is obvious that this document, which proclaims restoration of the state independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan of 1918-1920, and not secession from the U.S.S.R., was adopted without bearing in mind the secession procedure envisaged in the Union law. In this way, if the letter and meaning of the law of 3 April 1990 are followed through, the adoption of the above-mentioned declaration cannot serve as a legal basis for the NKAR to raise the question of its legal national status according to the law.
What is more, according to the law, the declaration under review did not have any legal consequences for the U.S.S.R. either. For example, according to Item 2 of the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet resolution of 3 April, 1990, On Putting into Effect the U.S.S.R. Law on the Procedure for Treating Matters Arising from the Secession of a Union Republic from the U.S.S.R., “…any action involving the secession of a Union republic from the U.S.S.R. and contradicting the U.S.S.R. Law on the Procedure for Treating Matters Arising from the Secession of a Union Republic from the U.S.S.R., undertaken both before and after it went into effect, do not have any legal consequences either for the U.S.S.R. or for its Union republics.”10
In addition, adoption on 30 August, 1991 of the declaration did not mean the final legalization of the restoration of state independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan, but only paved the way to this process. For this very reason, the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Azerbaijan adopted the resolution On Drawing up a Draft Act on Restoration of the State Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan on the same day. As early as 18 October, 1991, that is, after proclamation of the “Republic of Nagorny-Karabakh,” the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Azerbaijan adopted a constitutional Act on the State Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
When reviewing the issues arising from the U.S.S.R. law of 3 April, 1990, another significant detail cannot escape our attention—the reasons for its adoption. It is obvious that the necessity for such a legislative act was dictated by the increasingly insistent calls from Union republics to secede from the U.S.S.R. Closer acquaintance with the text of this law draws us to conclude that the main purpose for its adoption was not the desire to streamline the procedure for a Union republic to secede from the U.S.S.R., but an attempt to hinder execution of the right to free secession granted it by Art 72 of the Soviet Union Constitution. This conclusion is also drawn by the fact that, in addition to the provisions on holding a separate referendum in each autonomous entity, similar rights were also given to compactly settled nationalities residing in the Union republic, who constituted most of the population of that particular territory. It is not difficult to see how an attempt by a Union republic to secede from the U.S.S.R. would have ended by observing the procedure envisaged for this in the law of 3 April, 1990. Therefore, it is even stranger to hear references to this law from the uncompromising fighters for the people’s unlimited right to self-determination, which was restricted by this law.
According to R. Mullerson, the tactic used by the Soviet leadership when adopting the controversial law not only failed to prevent the disintegration of the U.S.S.R., but also aggravated the situation even more. The majority of the population began to view the minority (sometimes justifiably, and sometimes not) as the Kremlin’s “fifth column.”11
In addition, pursuant to the law adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Azerbaijan on 26 November, 1991, the Nagorny-Karabakh Autonomous Region was abolished as a national territorial entity. The decree of the Azerbaijan Central Executive Committee of 7 July, 1923 On Formation of the Nagorny-Karabakh Autonomous Region and the law of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. of 16 June, 1981, On the Nagorny-Karabakh Autonomous Region, were deemed invalid. It is worth noting that this decision was motivated in particular by the fact that the creation of the NKAR fomented national strife between the Azeri and Armenian people.
Soon after the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the fifteen republics belonging to it were de jure recognized by the international community. In this respect, interest in the international legal regulation of questions relating to the territory and borders of the new independent states which formed as a result of a federation’s disintegration would seem entirely justified.
A broad consensus was achieved in the U.N. with respect to the fact that the borders of the Union republics both in the former U.S.S.R. and in former Yugoslavia should not be established on the basis of ethnic settlement, but on the principle uti possidetis juris, which means that the borders that previously existed as the borders of the federation’s Union republics should be considered the new borders.12 And questions relating to the establishment of borders between the new independent states that formed after the collapse in the U.S.S.R. were not reviewed in depth at the international level.
Nevertheless, escalation of the Armenian-Azeri armed conflict in 1993 led to this problem being reviewed by the U.N. Security Council, which adopted four resolutions: 822 (1993) of 30 April, 1993; 853 (1993) of 29 July, 1993; 874 (1933) of 14 October, 1993, and 884 (1993) of 12 November, 1993. They confirmed respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan taking into account the formulation “the Nagorny-Karabakh Region of the Republic of Azerbaijan,” which makes all the previous and subsequent claims by the Armenian side to Nagorny Karabakh absolutely senseless.
In addition, bearing in mind confirmation by the U.N. Security Council (see its resolution on the Nagorny Karabakh conflict) of the inviolability of international borders, the impermissibility of using force to acquire territory, and condemnation of the seizure of the Republic of Azerbaijan’s territory, actions by the opposite side, which are interpreted as the Armenian population of Nagorny Karabakh executing its right to self-determination, should be viewed as nothing other than the gross violation of the well-known provisions of the U.N. Charter.
In this context, clear interest is aroused by the results of the activity of the Arbitration Commission of the European Conference on Yugoslavia, in particular, conclusions No. 2 and No. 3, approved by this commission on 11 January, 1992. For example, according to conclusion No. 2, on 20 November, 1991, the chairman of the Arbitration Commission received a letter from the chairman of the Conference on Yugoslavia, which asked for this commission’s opinion on the following question put forward by the Republic of Serbia: “Does the Serbian population of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as a constituent entity of the nationalities of Yugoslavia, have the right to self-determination?”13
With respect to this question, the commission noted that, “This approach, that self-determination must be seen as subject to the principle of the territorial integrity of independent states, is reaffirmed by other practice. In particular, the Arbitration Commission of the European Conference on Yugoslavia in an influential pronouncement declared that it is well established that, whatever the circumstances, the right to self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers at the time of independence (uti possidetis juris) except where the states concerned agree otherwise.”14
Thus, the conclusion of the Arbitration Commission undoubtedly expands the meaning of the principle uti possidetis juris, which was originally used in the context of decolonization in America and Africa. In current international law uti possidetis juris is a general principle, according to which old administrative borders, which existed within the framework both of former colonies and federative entities, become international borders when new independent states form as a result of the political division.
There is no doubt that this principle is also directly related to the situation arising from the disintegration in the U.S.S.R., the Constitution of which contained a provision stating that the territory and borders of a Union republic could not be changed without its consent. As was mentioned above with reference to the conclusion of the Arbitration Commission, a similar provision was also contained in the Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
According to T. Frank, who set forth his opinion in his work Postmodern Tribalism and the Right to Secession, uti possidetis applies equally to Croatia and to Azerbaijan. This principle is adapted to protecting the borders of these states from demands to review them, which come not only from the outside (for example, Serbia with respect to Croatia), but also from the inside (for example, the Croatian region of Krajina). Uti possidetis repudiates the demands by Krajina and Nagorny Karabakh for secession.15
In summary, it can be concluded beyond doubt that actions aimed at unilateral secession of the Nagorny-Karabakh Region from Azerbaijan are illegal. This region was part of the Azerbaijan S.S.R., which is shown both by the U.S.S.R. and Azerbaijan S.S.R. constitutions, as well as by other legislative acts, in particular the Azerbaijan S.S.R. Law on the Nagorny-Karabakh Autonomous Region. The autonomous region existed until 26 November, 1991, when the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Azerbaijan adopted a law on its abolishment. Not one of the decisions adopted in violation of the constitutional provision of the U.S.S.R. (Art 78 of the Constitution) with the purpose of changing the territory and borders of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. without its consent had any legal consequences.
The references to the provisions of the U.S.S.R. law of 3 April, 1990 On the Procedure for Treating Matters Arising from the Secession of a Union Republic from the U.S.S.R., with the aid of which the Armenian side is trying to legally justify the proclamation on 2 September, 1991 of the so-called Republic of Nagorny-Karabakh, do not have a leg to stand on either. After all, Azerbaijan, like all the other Union republics, did not take advantage of the procedure for seceding from the U.S.S.R. set forth in the mentioned law.
Until full restoration of the state independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan and its recognition by the international community, the territory on which the Nagorny-Karabakh Autonomous Region of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. existed until 26 November, 1991 was a constituent part of Azerbaijan.
According to the principle of uti possidetis juris, at the moment the Republic of Azerbaijan gained its independence, the former administrative borders of the Azerbaijan S.S.R., within which the Nagorny-Karabakh Autonomous Region was located, are considered international and are protected by international law. This thesis is also unequivocally and unconditionally confirmed in the well-known resolutions of the U.N. Security Council on the Nagorny Karabakh conflict.
1 K istorii obrazovaniia Nagorno-Karabakhskoi avtonomnoi oblasti Azerbaidzhanskoi SSR. Dokumenty i materialy / Iz protokola zasedaniia plenuma Kavburo TsK RKP (b), Baku, 1989, p. 92.
2 See: U.N. Report E/1990/5/Add.36. Armenia’s report submitted in accordance with Arts 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, p. 2.
3 U.N. Document E/1990/5/Add.36, p. 2.
4 See: Ibid., p. 4.
5 U.N. Document E/1990/5/Add.36, pp. 4-5.
6 See: Zakon Azerbaidzhanskoi SSR “O Nagorno-Karabakhskoi avtonomnoi oblasti”. Chapter 2, “Sovet narodnykh deputatov Nagorno-Karabakhskoi avtonomnoi oblasti, Art 42, Baku, 1987, pp. 38-39.
7 Nagorny Karabakh: razum pobedit. Dokumenty i materiaky, Baku, 1989, p. 41.
8 Ibid., p. 153.
9 See: Zakon SSSR “O poriadke reshenia voprosov, sviazannykh s vykhodom soiuznoi respubliki iz SSSR,” Art 3, Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, No. 15, 1990, p. 303.
10 Postanovlenie Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR “O vvedenii v deistvie Zakona SSSR ‘O poriadke reshenia voprosov, sviazannykh s vykhodom soiuznoi respubliki iz SSSR,’” Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, No. 15, 1990, p. 308.
11 R. Mullerson, Self-Determination. Right to Secession or Entitlement to Democracy? London, New York, 1994, p. 75.
12 For more detail, see: A. Eide, Territorial Integrity of States, Minority Protection and Guarantees for Autonomy Arrangements: Approaches and Roles of the United Nations. Local Self-government, Territorial Integrity and Protection of Minorities, Council of Europe Publishing, 1996, p. 282.
13 Conference on Yugoslavia. Arbitration Commission. International Law Reports, Vol. 92, pp. 167-169.
15 See: T.M. Frank, Postmodern Tribalism and the Right to Secession. Peoples and Minorities in International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1993, p. 20.