SAEDNEWS: The initialed 17-article agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan contains several legal ambiguities that could hinder its effective implementation and lead to future disputes.
These days, many Azerbaijani media outlets are seeking to portray the recent signing of an agreement in Washington between Ilham Aliyev and Nikol Pashinyan, mediated by Donald Trump, to build a new communicative route (which connects Nakhchivan and Azerbaijan) as a historic achievement. However, there are several legal ambiguities in the text of the initialed 17-article agreement that could hinder its effective implementation and lead to future disputes. One of these ambiguities is that while the deal recognizes Armenia's sovereignty over the Zangezur corridor, in the meantime, it leases this corridor to the United States.
Ambiguities and challenges are not only related to that agreement's document which is dubbed the ‘Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity’ (TRIPP), but there are also ambiguities in the points mentioned by Aliyev and Pashinyan for starting the peace process.
As usual, Donald Trump’s media team boasts that the agreement was an achievement by Donald Trump and are calling for nominating the US president for winning the next Nobel Peace Prize. This is despite the fact that even many media outlets and analytical websites in the US and Europe argue that there are significant challenges to the effective implementation of the agreement.
For example, some geopolitical observers at Oxford Analytica warn that the challenge of changing the draft Armenian constitution, undefined customs mechanisms and the ambiguous military presence of Azerbaijan in the border areas could hinder any progress towards reconciliation. The analytical website also points to the important factor of Iran’s attitude and assesses the remarks by the Leader’s advisor Ali Akbar Velayati on the corridor as important. The analysis on Oxford Analytica further says that Armenia has ensured that Iran’s direct land connection remains intact. However, Iran is concerned about the broader strategic consequences. Because from Tehran's perspective, this corridor is a means to increase American and Israeli influence in the region.
Three Challenges in a short statement:
1- During the recent summit in Washington, the second major document initialled was the Agreement on the Establishment of Peace and Interstate Relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Signed by the foreign ministers, Jeyhun Bayramov and Ararat Mirzoyan, the agreement acknowledges the need for further work towards final ratification.
According to Oxford Analytica report on the agreement, both parties also agreed to dissolve the OSCE Minsk Group — a longstanding mediator in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This dissolution was a core Azerbaijani demand and represents a concession from Yerevan, which had previously insisted it would only agree to such a step after the peace treaty’s formal signing.
While the agreement includes refraining from the use of force against these principles, the specific interpretation of these terms in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains undefined. This could lead to disputes over the status of territories and the extent of sovereignty claims.
The agreement calls for settling all interstate claims, but the definition of what constitutes an "interstate claim" is not explicitly stated. This could lead to disagreements about which past grievances are covered by the agreement and which are not.
While the agreement establishes a commission to oversee implementation, the structure, powers, and decision-making processes of this commission are not detailed. This could lead to paralysis or disputes over the commission's authority.
2. Ambiguity regarding dispute resolution:
The agreement prioritizes direct consultations for resolving disputes, but there's no specified process for initiating or conducting these consultations. The agreement also doesn't clarify what constitutes a "result acceptable for both Parties".
While the agreement mentions seeking other means of dispute resolution if consultations fail, it doesn't specify what those means are. This lack of detail could lead to disagreements about the appropriate forum or process for resolving future conflicts.
The agreement lacks specific mechanisms for implementing crucial provisions, such as border demarcation, prisoner exchange, and the return of refugees. This could lead to delays and disputes during the implementation phase.
3. Ratification and Constitutional Issues:
The agreement's effectiveness is contingent on domestic ratification by both countries. The process for ratification, particularly regarding potential constitutional challenges in Armenia, remains a potential point of contention.
The agreement's provisions must be compatible with the respective constitutions of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Any inconsistencies could lead to legal challenges and further complicate the implementation process.
In conclusion, the agreement's legal ambiguities and lack of detailed mechanisms for implementation could create significant challenges in the future. Careful consideration and clarification of these ambiguities will be crucial for ensuring a lasting and stable peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan, according to analysts and reports available online on the Internet. Therefore, one can say that this the so-called TRIPP serves the US and its president's geopolitical ambitions more than regional stability in the Caucasus.
