CENTURY-LONG TRAGEDY

In a speech delivered before the parliament, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan characterized his country's Declaration of Independence as "a significant problem and a tragedy." "In recent years, I have reread the Declaration of Independence on numerous occasions and have reached the disturbing conclusion that the fundamental tenet of this document is that the Republic of Armenia is inherently unsustainable. This represents our most significant challenge and a source of immense tragedy. The question thus arises as to what constitutes the authentic Armenia and who may be considered a citizen thereof. A citizen of the authentic Armenia is an individual who does not seek a sense of belonging or identity outside of this geographical location," Pashinyan said.

Meaning?

On August 23, 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR, in accordance with the joint resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR and the National Council of Nagorno-Karabakh of December 1, 1989, entitled "On the Reunification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh," which was developed in accordance with the democratic traditions of the independent Republic of Armenia established on May 28, 1918, adopted the Declaration of Independence of Armenia. The document was signed by Levon Ter-Petrosyan, the then Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR (he would later become the first President of Armenia), and Ara Sahakyan, the Secretary of the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR. The adopted document was in contravention of not only the Constitution of the USSR and the Constitution of the Azerbaijan SSR, but also the Constitution of the Armenian SSR.

In other words, the document that defines the independence and sovereignty of modern Armenia was based on an initially illegitimate resolution from the Soviet parliament of the Armenian SSR and a non-existent de jure separatist, illegitimate National Council of Nagorno-Karabakh. This situation renders the declaration of August 23, 1990 illegitimate by default. Therefore, Pashinyan's statement that "in its essence, this declaration means that the Republic of Armenia cannot exist" is a valid criticism.

Pashinyan goes further by inquiring, "what is the real Armenia and who is its citizen?" By "real Armenia," he refers to Armenia within its current borders. He identifies as a citizen someone "who does not seek his Motherland and Fatherland outside of this place." This statement not only clearly condemns territorial claims beyond its borders but also acknowledges that such claims exist in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia.

Moreover, aside from territorial claims against Azerbaijan, Article 11 of the declaration also includes territorial claims against Türkiye. It states that "the Republic of Armenia supports the international recognition of the Armenian genocide of 1915 in Ottoman Türkiye and Western Armenia." By referencing "Western Armenia" in this text, the declaration documents claims to territory in Türkiye as well. It raises the question: how can relations between Türkiye and Armenia be resolved without preconditions and without altering Armenia's legislation?

Legal Aspect of the Problem

A few years earlier, Pashinyan stated, albeit inconsistently, that Armenia needs a new Constitution "which will make the country more competitive and viable in the new geopolitical conditions." What issues exist with the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia? The Declaration of Independence in Article 12 declared itself as foundational for developing the Constitution of Armenia, introducing amendments and additions to the Constitution of the Armenian SSR that was in effect at the time of the USSR's collapse, guiding state bodies' actions, and shaping new legislation for the country.

The current Constitution of Armenia was adopted on July 5, 1995. It underwent some amendments in 2005 and was revised entirely on December 6, 2015. The preamble adheres to the illegitimate 1990 Declaration of Independence: "The Armenian People, recognising the fundamental principles of Armenian statehood and national aspirations engraved in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia, having fulfilled the sacred mission of its freedom-loving ancestors to restore the sovereign state, committed to the strengthening and prosperity of the fatherland, to ensure the freedom, general well-being, and civic harmony of future generations, declaring their faithfulness to universal values, hereby adopts the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia."

Accordingly, a method intrinsic to legislative technique was utilized in the Constitution to establish its foundation on the Declaration of Independence dated August 23, 1990. The absurdity and illegitimacy of this declaration resulted in its persistent violation and non-implementation by Armenia itself. For example, Article 5 stipulates that the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia may be used only at the discretion of its Supreme Council. Nevertheless, the head of state did not secure parliamentary approval for military action against Azerbaijan or for the occupation of its territories. It is evident that in the event that parliament had authorized such aggression, Yerevan would have recognized its occupation forces within Azerbaijan. Therefore, it attempted to execute this quietly, though the ultimate outcome was somewhat characteristic of Armenian actions. Notwithstanding Armenia's best efforts, this aggression and occupation have been recognized by nearly all serious international organizations. These include four UN Security Council resolutions from 1993, UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/62/243 from March 14, 2008, titled "The situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan," PACE resolution 1416 (2005) titled "On the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh region," which is being addressed by the OSCE Minsk Conference, and numerous others.

Article 6 of the declaration states that "the Republic of Armenia, as a subject of international law, pursues an independent foreign policy, establishes direct relations with other states, national states of the USSR, and participates in international organisations." The subjectivity of the Armenian state and its "independent foreign policy" have become a parable. Without elaborating further on this matter, let us simply note how Armenian identity and subsequently the Republic of Armenia have consistently shifted allegiances throughout different historical phases to serve various interests: Persia, Russia, and now France—while simultaneously betraying these powers to address their own issues.

Finally, an entirely anecdotal provision exists in Article 7 where Armenia asserts that it "has the right to a share of national wealth from the USSR, including gold reserves, diamond resources, and currency funds." It is widely known that throughout its history as part of the USSR, Armenia was a subsidized republic.

Legislative change and peace treaty Without annulling this declaration or amending both the Constitution and other normative acts within Armenia, any peace treaty would be a meaningless document. At minimum, it would hold no significance for Armenia since such an agreement would contradict fundamental national documents. Historical experience has shown us that signatures from Armenian leaders are unreliable. We recall Pashinyan's signature on a trilateral statement followed by an easy refusal to honour it.

Currently, both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of Armenia—as well as other legislative acts and international treaties based on them—aim at annexing territories from neighbouring countries. This reality renders any international peace treaty with Armenia inherently inconsistent with both its Constitution and domestic laws, risking either non-ratification or annulment by their Constitutional Court.

This situation has indeed formed a basis for Azerbaijan's categorical demand for amendments to Armenian legislation as a condition for signing any peace agreement.

Conclusion

The events that transpired during the parliamentary session represent an initial step towards aligning both the Constitution and broader Armenian legislation with democratic standards regarding respect for territorial integrity and inviolability of borders, while simultaneously honouring neighbouring states' sovereignty. The abrogation of the 1990 Declaration of Independence may offer the Republic of Armenia an opportunity to dispel the myths surrounding the concept of the so-called Greater Armenia, which have become deeply entrenched in Armenian consciousness and legislation. This could ultimately prevent the country and its people from pursuing a course of action that would lead them into a historical cul-de-sac.