Why Armenia And Serbia Might Seek Iranian Drones

[HGV]

Agreement said there will be a corridor in Zangezur (under Russian peacekeeper watch) but Armenians didnt apply and now there is use of force.

Irrelevant to the original claim: "according to the 2020 treaty Azerbaijan is entitled to those lands".

Does the agreement say that Azerbaijan is entitled to those lands, or not?

 

[Trisolaran]

Irrelevant to the original claim: "according to the 2020 treaty Azerbaijan is entitled to those lands".

Does the agreement say that Azerbaijan is entitled to those lands, or not?

To lands? No.. But to corridor? Yes.. This two is different thing..

 

[HGV]

To lands? No.. But to corridor? Yes.. This two is different thing..

The original claim in full:

"Sooner or later Azerbaijan will march into Zangezur. Yes Armenia is a CSTO member but according to the 2020 treaty Azerbaijan is entitled to those lands"

It is obvious that by "those lands" he meant the land itself, not a corridor across it. But glad you agree that Azerbaijan is NOT entitled to those Armenian lands.

 

[LegionnairE]

To lands? No.. But to corridor? Yes.. This two is different thing..

it won't really matter. It will be impossible to enforce the 2020 treaty without annexing some lands.

Armenia just can't be reasoned with.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Agreement said there will be a corridor in Zangezur (under Russian peacekeeper watch) but Armenians didnt apply and now there is use of force.

That would be illegal under international law and Baku would then be the aggressor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_in_international_law

A state can only resort to military means against another if:

* In a situation of self-defence i.e. if subjected to an armed attack.

* Part of collective action authorized by the UN Security Council.

In addition to the above, some have argued in favor of a legal casus belli for interventionary pre-emptive force if military attack by an adversary appears imminent, others added protection of nationals to the list and others yet humanitarian intervention, more recently. These are all controversial and not backed by consensus of jurists or governments.

Baku invading Zangezur under the pretext that Armenia did not keep its end of the 2020 ceasefire agreement, would not fall under any of the aforementioned categories. Therefore there's no legal basis for such a move. There are legal and political avenues at Baku's disposal to protest purported Armenian violations of the accord. Military means let alone occupation of Armenian land however are illicit.

 

[Trisolaran]

The original claim in full:

"Sooner or later Azerbaijan will march into Zangezur. Yes Armenia is a CSTO member but according to the 2020 treaty Azerbaijan is entitled to those lands"

It is obvious that by "those lands" he meant the land itself, not a corridor across it. But glad you agree that Azerbaijan is NOT entitled to those Armenian lands.

If armenia just give that corridor without any problem there wouldnt be a crisis now, But now ıf Azeri army take action ofc they will take more than corridor..
But in the end, Armenia was supposed to open that corridor

That would be illegal under international law and Baku would then be the aggressor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_in_international_law

A state can only resort to military means against another if:

* In a situation of self-defence i.e. if subjected to an armed attack.

* Part of collective action authorized by the UN Security Council.

In addition to the above, some have argued in favor of a legal casus belli for interventionary pre-emptive force if military attack by an adversary appears imminent, others added protection of nationals to the list and others yet humanitarian intervention, more recently. These are all controversial and not backed by consensus of jurists or governments.

Baku invading Zangezur under the pretext that Armenia did not keep its end of the 2020 ceasefire agreement, would not fall under any of the aforementioned categories. Therefore there's no legal basis for such a move. There are legal and political avenues at Baku's disposal to protest purported Armenian violations of the accord. Military means let alone occupation of Armenian land however are illicit.

If Armenia didnt like the idea of zangezur corridor than they should have refuse to sign that agreement

 

[SalarHaqq]

If armenia just give that corridor without any problem there wouldnt be a crisis now, But now ıf Azeri army take action ofc they will take more than corridor..
But in the end, Armenia was supposed to open that corridor


If Armenia didnt like the idea of zangezur corridor than they should have refuse to sign that agreement

Armenia is not supposed to grant Baku authority or sovereignty over any corridor. Only a right of passage.

 

[Trisolaran]

Armenia is not supposed to grant Baku authority or sovereignty over any corridor. Only a right of passage.

It was supposed to be under Russian peacekeepers watch not Azeri forces

 

[SalarHaqq]

If Armenia didnt like the idea of zangezur corridor than they should have refuse to sign that agreement

It does not affect the legal situation now. Baku cannot put forward unilateral claims of Armenian violation of paragraph 9 of the agreement as a justification for unprovoked military action. This would remain an illegal act under international law.

 

[HGV]

If armenia just give that corridor without any problem there wouldnt be a crisis now, But now ıf Azeri army take action ofc they will take more than corridor..
But in the end, Armenia was supposed to open that corridor

None of that alters the fact that the agreement does NOT entitle Azerbaijan to ANY part of Armenian land, only a right of passage across a part of it supervised by Russian forces. That is the crux of this debate, not whether or not Armenia is complying with its obligations under the agreement (a separate issue which you raised yourself and is not relevant to the topic).

But I will humour you on this new topic you raised: if Azerbaijan thinks Armenia is not complying with its obligations under that agreement then it should pursue the dispute resolution / enforcement mechanisms within the agreement (to the extent it negotiated for those, I don't know if that's the case).

 

[Trisolaran]

It does not affect the legal situation now. Baku cannot put forward unilateral claims of Armenian violation of paragraph 9 of the agreement as a justification for unprovoked military action. This would remain an illegal act under international law.

None of that alters the fact that the agreement does NOT entitle Azerbaijan to ANY part of Armenian land, only a right of passage across a part of it supervised by Russian forces. That is the crux of this debate, not whether or not Armenia is complying with its obligations under the agreement (a separate issue which you raised yourself and is not relevant to the topic).

But I will humour you on this new topic you raised: if Azerbaijan thinks Armenia is not complying with its obligations under that agreement then it should pursue the dispute resolution / enforcement mechanisms within the agreement (to the extent it negotiated for those, I don't know if that's the case).

İt is what it is guys.. I don't want to argue about who is right and who is wrong.
It seems easy to find a solution when a person viewed this whole situation objectively, but the Azeri-Armenian hatred is so deep and this makes it difficult to find a logical solution.

 

[HGV]

İt is what it is guys.. I don't want to argue about who is right and who is wrong.
It seems easy to find a solution when a person viewed this whole situation objectively, but the Azeri-Armenian hatred is so deep and this makes it difficult to find a logical solution.

I'm not talking about who is right or who is wrong. I'm talking about a very specific assertion (the 2020 agreement entitles Azerbaijan to the Zangezur area), which is provably false.

 

[KediKesenFare3]

You lay claim on Azerbaijan, Iran can lay claim on the whole Turkey from historic point of view. Let's not open a discussion like that.

But i don't, in any way, want your supoort for Azerbaijan to be reduced. Good going!.

Well, unlike you, Turks respect Azerbaijan and its territorial sovereignty. This is the sole reason why many of us will always raise objection whenever a Persian tries to incorporate the Azeri nation.

They are Turkic, our next-door next-of-kin and no amount of Iranian regime propaganda is going to change this FACT. It's reality. Deal with it.

On that note, I hope you guys realise how absurd your claims are. It is as if the entire world agrees that 2+2 equals 4 while you Persians insist that 2+2 equals 5.

 

[LegionnairE]

I'm not talking about who is right or who is wrong. I'm talking about a very specific assertion (the 2020 agreement entitles Azerbaijan to the Zangezur area), which is provably false.

it didn't. But the Armenians are creaing a situation that can only be resolved through force. One way or another, Zangezur corridor will connect Turkey and Azerbaijan. And anybody who stands in the way of that will get their *** kicked.

 

[HGV]

it didn't.

You said it did. Glad we could clarify.