a). Based on the taws and Constitution of the former USSR.

On February 20, 1988, a session of the Supreme Soviet of the Nagorny Karabakh Autonomous Region (Nagorny Kara­bakh region) appealed to the Supreme Soviet of Armenia, Azerbaijan and the USSR to allow it to be joined to Armenia. The Azerbaijani government quickly rejected this request on the basis of the USSR Constitution of 1977, Article 78 which provides that "The territory of Union Republics may be altered by mutual agreement of the Republics concerned, subject to ratification by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". This constitutional act of Azerbaijan was received in Nagorny Ka­rabakh and in Armenia with hostilities against Azeris. Strikes and mass demonstrations were organized in order to exert pressure on the central government.

However, on July 18, 1988, a special session of the Presi­dium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR discussed the Resolu­tion of the Supreme Soviet of the Nagorny Karabakh region on secession from Azerbaijan and incorporation into Armenia and adopted a decision confirming that Nagorny Karabakh remain an Autonomous Region within Azerbaijan. The res­ponse to this decision in Nagorny Karabakh was again strikes, mass protests.

All attempts of Azeri authorities to discuss with Arme­nians of Nagorny Karabakh possible solutions to existing prob­lems in the Region were rejected. Representatives of the Azeri government visiting Stepanakert were attacked and beaten.

On December 1, 1989, the Supreme Soviet of Armenia abopted a resolution on unification of Nagorny Karabakh with Armenia. Such a resolution violates Azerbaijan's territorial in­tegrity and makes the territorial claims official. The Autonomous Regions in the former USSR did not have constitutions as did Autonomous Republics, neither had the right of secession as did the Union Republics. The princip les of granting autonomous status (Region or Republic) to the national minorities in the former USSR did not have any logi­cal basis and their creation had more political aims rooted in imperialistic rule, than desire for protection of minorities rights.

b). Based on the Treaty of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

After the coup d'etat failure and the USSR's collapse, Ar­menia and Azerbaijan as independent states entered the Com­monwealth of Independent States. One of the major principles of the Comonwealth Treaty is inviolability of the borders of the constituent sovereign states, that is, territorial integrity. However, the Armenian population in Nagorny Karabakh held a referendum, declared the establishment of the Nagorny Ka­rabakh "Republic" as an "independent" state and appealed to the Commonwealth for membership. This separatist action contradicts to the principles of the Treaty, signed by 11 sovereing republics, the Helsinki Final act and International Law, and was not recognized by the Commonwealth or any other states of the world.

c). Based on International Law, CSCE and U. N. principles

At the present time Armenia has changed its policy to­wards the Nagorny Karabakh problem. President Tcr-Petro-syan and other officials stated that Armenia had no territorial claims to Azerbaijan and Nagorny Karabakh was the internal matter of Azerbaijan and the problem of self-determination of Armenian population there. Even the official approach of the Armenian government changed but the resolution on incorpo­ration of Nagorny Karabakh still exists. Armenian officials say that it is not valid, but it was not annulled and officially still exists. The deputies elected in Nagorny Karabakh are still members of the Armenian Parliament and the citizens of Ar­menia are fighting on the territory of Azerbaijan and killing its citizens. Though Armenia's authorities changed their stan­ce on the problem, the facts show the volume of political and military interference of the Republic of Armenia into internal affairs of Azerbaijan.

Armenians of Nagorny Karabakh also at this stage of the conflict changed their position. At present time they do not want to join Armenia, but want to establish an independent state based on the principle of rights of peoples to self-deter mination. In that case it is very important to differ between the rights of "people" and the rights of "minorities". Armenians living in Azerbaijan are a national minority which has a mot­her-nation in Armenia that has the right of self-determination of its status for effective participation in political, social, eco­nomic, cultural, religious and public life in a manner which is not threatening to the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and its sovereignty. After the collapse of Russian empire the Arme­nian people established their rights on the territory of present Armenia plus Zangesur, given to it by the Bolshevik govern­ment after the occupation of the two republics in

1920-21. The Armenian people achieved independence and their rights on the territory of the present Armenia again after the collapse of communist empire in 1991. The strictly legal ar­guments against Secession were summarized by Lee C. Buchhe-it and include the following:

1. That the right of self-determination can only be exerci­sed once on the basis of the maxim pacta sunt servanda;

2. International Law is the law of states and not of peoples or individuals. States are the subject of international law and peoples (majorities of minorities) are the objects of that law;

3. The so-called argument from mutuality; as states cannot oust one of their provinces, equally a province cannot secede.

How many times will the Armenian people determine their rights by building independent states? Today they plan to do it on the territory of Azerbaijan, in the future it can be in Geor­gia, Russia, etc. Armenian scholars emphasize that Nagorny Karabakh is a special case and differs from the other Arme­nian communuties outside of Armenia as it had Autonomous Status, which is the starting point for self-determination and as a result of it, for secession. But the Autonomous Region of Na­gorny Karabakh did not have the right of secession on the ba­sis of the Constitutions of the former USSR and Azerbaijan. So, there is no any legitimate difference in terms of secession, between Armenians of Nagorny Karabarh and Armenians li­ving in compact communities in other countries. No doubt that Armenians living in Nagorny Karabakh in Azerbaijan or on the territory of other states are national minority and have the right to determine their status inside the states they are inhabi­ting, but should not take measures for its dismemberment.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs (the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples) shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or it pari, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as descri­bed above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or color(1).

Armenians in Azerbaijan as a national minority have the right for internal self-determination which enable their free participation in the political life of Azerbaijan, pursue their economic, social and cultural development, to establish and maintain, without discriminarion, free and peaceful contacts across frontiers with citizens of Armenia to whom they are related by national, religious and linguistic ties. Self-determinati­on does not necessarily mean secession, particularly by the use of force.

The problem of self-determination, and as result of it seces­sion, is a very complicated question, especially, in such area as a Caucasus, where the state borders don't coincide with ethnic. The secessionist approach in this area will lead to instability, iinfrontation, bloodshed. It will not serve the purposes of iiendly relations between the Transcaucasian republics. The resent situation in Transcaucasia proves it, particularly, Na­gorny Karabakh in Azerbaijan, South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia. The demands for the secession of Nagorny Karabakh om Azerbaijan after the deportation of Azeris from Armenia, violation of their rights for this self-determination seems to be not only illegal, on the basis of the Constitution of the lormer Soviet Union, the principles of the CSCE and U.N., but also immoral.

So, the solution of minorities problem in the framework of the present borders and on the basis of Art. 27 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is more constructive than secessi­on which was always the factor of destabilization in Trans­caucasia.

The express acceptance in (relevant U. N. resolutions) of the principles of the national unity and the territorial integrity of the State implies non-recognition of the right of secession.

The right of peoples to self-determination, as it emerges from the United Nations, exicts for peoples under colonial and alien domina­tion, that is to say, who are not living under the legal form of a slate. The right to secession from an existing Stale Member of the United Nations does not exist as such in the instrument or in the practice followed by the Organization, since to seek to invoke it in order to disrupt the national unity and the territorial integrity of a State would be a missapplication of the principle of self-determination contrary to the purposes of the United Nations Charter(2).

This is how a prominent expert on international law and the problems of selfdetermination Antonio Cassese describes the issue in his article "Self-Determination of Peoples: "The right of self-determination, I have said, belongs also to "natio­nal" peoples in a multi-national state like the federated repub­lics of the USSR. Unlike ethnic minorities in unitary states who are not "peoples" for purposes of Article 1, national peop­les, federated in a sovereign state and enjoying distinct consti­tutional status, enjoy the right of external self-determination. This includes the right to independence which the central so­vereign, if a party to the Covenant, is bound to honor. Armenians living in Azerbaijan and Georgia, Georgians living in Azerbaijan are considered to be ethnic minorities who have the rights formulated in Art 27 of the Covenant on Civiland Political rights, but not in Art. 1 of the same Covenant.

The free interpretation of Art. 1 of the Covenant on Civil and Political rights, due to the self-determination of peoples with regard to the Armenian population of Nagomy Karabakh, used by Armeni­an side, is nothing more than the speculation on U. N. document in order to justify the military occupation of Azerbaijani territory, inha­bited by Armenians. Commenting U. N practice, Professor Van Dyke wrote that the U. N. would be in an extremely difficult position if it were to interpret the right of self-determination in such a way as to invite or justify attacks on the territorial integrity of its own mem­bers(3).

Armenia and Azerbaijan became the members of the CSCR and the United Nations, objects of International Law, and thus arc obli­gated to follow its principles. However, Armenia violates the territori­al integrity of Azerbaijan as well as the principles of the United Nati­ons by sending armed forces into Nagomy Karabakh. Such use of force is prohibited, according to Art. 2 (4), unless Armenia's use of force is authorized by the U. N. Secuntty Council. Armenia's inva­sion of the part of Azerbaijani territory is therefore a violation of the prohibition of the use of inted-stale force in the U. N. Charter Art. 2 (4) and inconsistent with Art. 2 (3) of the U. N. Charter which states that the conflicts, between states shall be settled in a peaceful man­ner. In accordance with our obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and commitments under the Helsinki Final Act, we renew our pledge to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of political independence of any Stale, or from ac-tind in any other manner inconsistent with the principles or purposes of those documents. We recall that non-compliance with obligations under the Charter of the United Nations constitutes a violation of in­ternational law(4).

Armenia denies the presence of its troops in Nagorny Karabakh, trying to convince the international community that Armenia does not violate the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and international law. There are many facts showing the parti­cipation of the citizens of Armenia in military and terrorist ac­tions on the territory of Azerbaijan. All these facts are based on investigations, photo and video materials. The presence of Armenian military troops on the territory of Azerbaijan is said to be for "set-defence" purposes. In that case it is not clear, why Armenian "self-defenders" attacked Azeri villages, burnt their houses, killed civilians and evicted the Azeri population from Nagorny Karabakh. The refence to self-defence is an attempt to justify the undeclared war against Azerbaijan over five years, during which the international community was mostly misinformed by USSR information agencies and the Armenian propaganda machine. But, from the beginning of 1992 several CSCE, U. N. fact-finding missions visited the area and gat­hered more detailed and objective information about the con­flict over Nagorny Karabakh. On February 27-28 the first CSCE fact-finding mission presented its report on the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorny Karabakh to the Committee of Senior Officials of the CSCE. The members of the Committee adopted the recommendations to conflicting sides, which was based on the principle of inviolability of the borders (one of the basic principles of CSCE) and human and minority rights protection. Azerbaijani authorities stated that local and cultural autonomy can be given to Armenians in Na­gorny Karabakh and they arc ready to negotiate on that matter with the participation of international mediators. Unfor­tunately, the Armenian side is opposing the rcccommcndalion of the Committee of Senior Officials of the CSCE relevant to the inviolability of the borders between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The Armenian side consider that secession of Na­gorny Karabakh from Azerbaijan and establishment of inde­pendent Nagorny Karabakh republic is the only resolution of the conflict. Such an option is not acceptable to Azerbaijan as it violates its territorial integrity and sovereignty and contra­dicts to CSCE and U. N. principles:

Any attempt aimed at the partial of total disruption of the natio­nal unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charted of the United Nations(5).

But Armenia is continuing the forcible occupation of the territories of Azerbaijan, planning to break through the terri­tory of Azerbaijan and link Nagorny Karabakh with Armenia. Such actions by Armenia will escalate the tension and the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and will threaten the stabi­lity of the whole region.

No Stale or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal of external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference of attempted threats against (he personality of the State of against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law(6).

1. UN Resolution 2625 (XXV) adopted at 24 October 1970.

2. G.Kspiell, The Ridhi to self-Detcrmination, supra note 151, para. 90.

3 V.Van Dyke, Human Rights, The United Slates and the word Community 102, 1971.

4. Charter of Paris For a New Europe, Paris, 1990.

5. The Right of Self-determination. Declaration on the Granting of Indepen­dence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.

6. 2625 (XXV) Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendlv Relations and Co-operation among states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 24. 10. 1970.