Azerbaijan

Constitutional Stalemate and Strategic Tensions: Azerbaijan’s Demand for Lasting Peace with Armenia

by CASPRI

The ongoing Azerbaijan-Armenia negotiations have reached a critical impasse due to a core demand from Azerbaijan: that Armenia remove any territorial claims against Azerbaijan from its constitution. Azerbaijan argues that without this constitutional change, a peace treaty could remain vulnerable to future repudiation, especially if a new Armenian government opposes the agreement. For Azerbaijan, the peace treaty must have lasting force, binding not just the current Armenian administration under Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan but also future governments. Azerbaijani officials, including the representative on special assignments, Elchin Amirbekov, emphasize the need for a constitutional commitment that permanently nullifies Armenia’s territorial claims to prevent any future government from challenging the peace treaty’s validity.

Armenia, however, counters that international treaties take precedence over domestic laws, suggesting that any ratified peace treaty with Azerbaijan would automatically supersede constitutional clauses that could imply territorial claims. Armenia’s position, conveyed by Prime Minister Pashinyan, is that constitutional amendments would only follow a signed peace treaty and the Constitutional Court’s approval. This approach has raised concerns in Azerbaijan that Armenia might use constitutional interpretations or loopholes to undermine the peace agreement in the future. Indeed, recent decisions by the Armenian Constitutional Court indicate that while international agreements can hold authority, ambiguous constitutional language on territorial claims remains, leaving open the possibility of future reinterpretation.

Another point of contention is Azerbaijan’s demand to jointly request the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, which has historically mediated the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Azerbaijan regards the Minsk Group as a relic that could allow external powers to reinsert the Karabakh issue into international discourse, which Baku sees as a threat to its territorial integrity. For Azerbaijan, dissolving this group would represent a final step in closing the chapter on territorial disputes with Armenia. However, Armenia appears to be resisting this condition, possibly to retain some leverage in negotiations and to keep the door open for external diplomatic support.

Despite Armenia’s public declarations of readiness to sign a peace treaty “even tomorrow,” Baku remains skeptical, viewing these statements as strategically crafted to create an impression of compliance while delaying substantial concessions. Azerbaijan suspects that Armenia’s delay tactics could be aimed at buying time to re-establish a military balance or secure international backing. Baku has well-founded reasons to believe that Armenia’s approach may be to conclude a “truncated” peace agreement without removing constitutional claims, leaving room for future revision and potential claims against Azerbaijani territories.

A critical development in this negotiation process has been the recent ratification by Armenia’s parliament of an agreement on joint activities for border delimitation. This move appears to respond to Azerbaijan’s conditions, as border delineation has been a contentious issue with implications for territorial control. Yet, ambiguity remains, as Armenia’s Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan admitted that there is no definitive basis for delimitation, adding that relying on any single map would be “too risky”. This stance reveals Armenia’s caution regarding fixed boundaries, especially as Azerbaijani enclaves within Armenian territory lie along strategic highways that would pose logistical and strategic challenges if conceded to Azerbaijan.

Additionally, Azerbaijani troops advanced into disputed areas within Armenia in 2021 and 2022, prompting further complications. While Armenia seeks the withdrawal of Azerbaijani forces, Pashinyan has noted that Armenia does not intend to reclaim these areas through military means but rather through border delimitation. This diplomatic route underscores Armenia’s efforts to avoid direct confrontation while subtly retaining claims over these disputed regions.

Western pressures, especially from the United States, further complicate the situation. Letters from US President Joe Biden to both Aliyev and Pashinyan, delivered by special envoy Michael Carpenter, suggest an American interest in resolving the conflict, possibly to secure Armenian diaspora support in the upcoming US elections. Azerbaijan, however, remains adamant that its conditions must be met and is wary of perceived US favoritism towards Armenia, which could undermine the integrity of the negotiation process.

In conclusion, the Azerbaijan-Armenia peace negotiations are stalled by foundational differences in how each country views the legal and political terms of peace. Azerbaijan’s insistence on Armenian constitutional amendments stems from a desire for a robust and durable peace framework that future Armenian administrations cannot easily contest. Armenia’s reluctance, on the other hand, reflects an unwillingness to foreclose any territorial claims, potentially viewing the peace process to secure short-term stability without a complete surrender of long-term aspirations. The involvement of Western powers, particularly the US, adds another layer of complexity, as Azerbaijan remains cautious of external influences that might favor Armenia’s stance. This strategic stalemate underscores the deeply embedded mistrust and geopolitical stakes at play, complicating prospects for a final, mutually acceptable peace treaty.