According to point 5 of the protocol on the establishment of diplomatic relations between Eastern Armenia and the Turkish government, the parties undertake to establish the existing border.
Therefore, Western Armenia Television considers it necessary to address a very important, although at first glance strange, issue.
– Are the authorities of Eastern Armenia and Turkey, from the point of view of international law, authorized to “confirm the existing border”?
It should be noted that from the point of view of international law, any international multilateral agreement, regardless of the form of its manifestation: contract, agreement, protocol, etc., can be changed, terminated or canceled only with the participation and the agreement of all parties that are part of the given document. This principle, with respect to treaties, is enshrined in Articles 39 to 41 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties.
“Establishment” of the Armenian part of the border of the former USSR as the border between Armenia and Turkey means a change of border from a legal point of view, since the de jure border between Armenia and Turkey is very different from the Soviet-Turkish border. . The said legal (de jure) border, therefore the only legal border, has been “confirmed” by a multilateral document, therefore, “confirmation of the existing border” essentially means a change of border and in this case it goes out of scope bilateral relations for the above reason.
Let us recall that in 1918 On October 30, the Ottoman Empire, after suffering a crushing defeat during the First World War, signed the Mudros armistice. From a legal point of view, this armistice was an unconditional surrender, therefore all sovereignty of Turkey, until the conclusion of the peace treaty, is transferred to the victorious powers. In other words, it was now up to the victorious Allied forces to decide in which part of the Ottoman Empire and to what extent the sovereignty of the Turkish state would be restored. A peace assembly is convened in Paris to discuss the terms of the peace treaties.
On January 27, 1920, the General Secretariat of the Peace Conference informed the chairman of the Armenian national delegation that during the session of January 19, 1920, the Supreme Council had adopted the following two decisions:
1. Recognize the Armenian state government as a de facto government
2. This recognition does not predetermine the question of the possible borders of this state: Artsakh, Nakhichevan, Javakhk, the current Caucasian Armenian Republic, Cilicia and Western Armenia are part of the State of Armenia .
The question arises: on what bases of international law do the authorities of Eastern Armenia and Turkey want to ignore their own international obligations and annul the irrevocable multilateral international decision, the arbitral award, by a bilateral protocol?
At the same time, it should be noted that international law fundamentally lacks a procedure or precedent for modifying, suspending or revoking a legally effective arbitral award.