Read on Twitter
(1/1) In order to be entitled to exercise a remedial secession there should be 2 grounds: 1) responsible national administration must have committed most severe, massive and systematic HR violations and discriminations towards the ethnic group or minority; https://twitter.com/nikolpashinyan/status/1322599030292160515
(1/2)
2) Situation must have reached a point at which such rights can only be ensured by means of secession as a last resort.
Did Armenians had a right to remedial secession then?
2) Situation must have reached a point at which such rights can only be ensured by means of secession as a last resort.
Did Armenians had a right to remedial secession then?
(1/3)
Considering prior neighborly relations between Azerbaijanis & Armenians and participation of Arm|s in political as well as cultural affairs, exercise of such a right was obviously out of question.
Considering prior neighborly relations between Azerbaijanis & Armenians and participation of Arm|s in political as well as cultural affairs, exercise of such a right was obviously out of question.
(1/4)
Referring to 1915 Armenian genocide or 1988 Sumgait pogrom in order to justify massive HR violations against Armenians has nothing to do with Azerbaijan or NK, let alone providing Arm|s who reside in NK a right to secession.
Referring to 1915 Armenian genocide or 1988 Sumgait pogrom in order to justify massive HR violations against Armenians has nothing to do with Azerbaijan or NK, let alone providing Arm|s who reside in NK a right to secession.
(1/5) Furthermore, recognition by international community of states can only complete the exercise of alleged right when the creation of a new state may be completed on the basis of classical concept of statehood.
That is ex factis jus oritur (law arises from the facts).
(1/6)
However, if the status achieved does not comply with IL, this is viewed as being non-compliant with the doctrine of statehood. ‘Exercise of effective authority’ criteria lacks, let alone recognition. That’s why there is no state practice to recognize these entities either.
However, if the status achieved does not comply with IL, this is viewed as being non-compliant with the doctrine of statehood. ‘Exercise of effective authority’ criteria lacks, let alone recognition. That’s why there is no state practice to recognize these entities either.
(1/7)
That is ex injuria jus non oritur (illegal acts do not create legal rights). Hence, illegally formed entity cannot demand recognition where they do not possess a right or title to exercise authority on a certain territory. NK had not had such a right or title, now neither.
That is ex injuria jus non oritur (illegal acts do not create legal rights). Hence, illegally formed entity cannot demand recognition where they do not possess a right or title to exercise authority on a certain territory. NK had not had such a right or title, now neither.
(1/8)Mr. PM should also have a look at the definition of genocide indicated in the UN Convention of 1948. If Arm|s voluntarily flee Azerbaijani land of #Karabakh it does not mean that Azerbaijan commits genocide towards them. It is ridiculous to mention that.
(1/9)
Azerbaijan, unlike Armenia, has never had an inclination to commit genocide or attempted any ethnic cleansing. Conversely, @presidentaz has clearly stated that we have nothing to do with civilians, we’d rather protect them from the criminal regime they have suffered from.
Azerbaijan, unlike Armenia, has never had an inclination to commit genocide or attempted any ethnic cleansing. Conversely, @presidentaz has clearly stated that we have nothing to do with civilians, we’d rather protect them from the criminal regime they have suffered from.
(1/10)Interesting: Does that mean that Aze|s who were forcibly expelled from their homes in Arm also claim a territory of Arm given it they were treated inhumanely, their nationals were killed in #Khojaly genocide, 1M ppl became refugees? Why not huh?Should we? @NikolPashinyan
