Tweet
Economic Blockades and International Law: The Case of Armenia
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2014/02/20/economic-blockades-and-international-law-the-case-of-armenia/
By Armen Sahakyan // February 20, 2014
An adequate Armenian policy towards Turkey has spurred much debate,
especially since the signing of the 2009 Armenia-Turkey protocols in
Zurich. The opening of the border was considered one of the
cornerstones of the protocols; thus, it is important to understand why
the de-facto border was closed in the first place, and what
alternatives to the protocols the Republic of Armenia has in mind.
The Armenia-Turkey border
This article presents the legal and historical background of the
unilateral economic blockades imposed on Armenia by Turkey and
Azerbaijan, and proposes certain measures that Yerevan may take to
protect its national interests. This article will not, however, cover
the topic of the de-jure borders of Armenia with its neighbors.
Interestingly, Turkey was one of the first states to recognize the
independence of the Republic of Armenia (the legal heir of the
Armenian Democratic Republic of 1918) on Dec. 24, 1991, following the
collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1993, due to the ongoing war between
the Artsakh Republic and the Republic of Azerbaijan, Turkey
unilaterally closed its land and air borders with Armenia, although
the airspace was later re-opened in 1995. Despite the closed border,
some indirect trade still takes place between the two states, mostly
through Georgia. However, transit entails additional costs and,
obviously, an under-realization of the trade potential. The closed
borders additionally block Armenia's guaranteed access to the sea,
which would enable more efficient trade opportunities. This has
certainly translated negatively on Armenia's ability to take part in
international economic cooperation and to better integrate with
multilateral trading blocs. The primary imported goods from Turkey to
Armenia are food products, textile, chemical industries, and household
goods. Armenia, on its part, exports raw and processed leather,
jewelry, and various metal products to Turkey. To this day, Turkey and
Azerbaijan have refused to establish diplomatic relations with
Armenia. Additionally, Azerbaijan closed its border with Armenia and
Artsakh during the Soviet era.
An economic blockade is a type of unilateral coercive measure. It is
widely acknowledged that the term "unilateral coercive measure" is
difficult to define. Nevertheless, these measures often refer to
economic steps taken by one state to compel a change in the policy of
another. The most widely used forms of economic pressure are trade
sanctions in the form of embargoes and/or boycotts, and the
interruption of financial and investment flows between sender and
target countries. While embargoes are often understood as being trade
sanctions aimed at preventing exports to a target country, boycotts
are measures seeking to refuse imports from a target country.
Frequently, however, the combination of import and export restrictions
is referred to as a trade embargo.
Turkey and Azerbaijan have effectively been exercising an illegal
unilateral economic blockade against Armenia, which has hurt the
latter economically. The UN Security Council, the sole body to legally
authorize sanctions against states, has not done so against Armenia.
On Dec. 1, 2011 the Second Committee of the UN General Assembly
approved the text of "Unilateral economic measures as a means of
political and economic coercion against developing countries" by a
recorded vote of 118 in favor, 2 against (Israel, United States), and
49 abstentions. The General Assembly called on the international
community to condemn and reject the imposition of such measures, while
requesting that the Secretary General continue to monitor their
imposition and to study their impact on countries and on development.
Earlier in October 2002, the General Assembly had adopted a resolution
on unilateral coercive economic measures that called on states to not
recognize or apply such measures imposed by any state across
territorial boundaries, as they are contrary to recognized principles
of international law. Armenia said that by voting in favor of the
resolution, it condemned the continuing practice of imposing such
measures, particularly in the South Caucasus region. Such measures
contravene international law and the principles of the UN Charter, and
their practice is detrimental to developing countries, as well as
those with economies in transition.
Armenia is not yet recognized by the UN as a victim state of
unilateral coercive measures. Its first objective should be to make
sure that the economic blockades by Turkey and Azerbaijan are
categorized as a unilateral coercive measure. Armenia has previously
stated at the UN that the negative consequences of sanctions have been
felt beyond the countries directly affected, as they have also had
adverse implications for the free flow of international trade and the
effectiveness of international economic cooperation. Additionally,
Armenia said that it does not agree with the imposition of unilateral
economic measures as instruments of political and economic coercion
against developing countries.
The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly
Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter
of the United Nations was adopted by the General Assembly on Oct. 24,
1970. The maintenance of international peace and security and the
development of friendly relations and co-operation between nations are
among the fundamental purposes of the UN. According to the Charter,
the people represented by the UN are determined to practice tolerance
and live together in peace as good neighbors.
Turkey and Azerbaijan are in clear violation of the Principle of Good
Neighborliness, as well as all of the General Assembly resolutions
condemning unilateral coercive measures. Armenia, as a subject of
international law, has to take actions to protect its rights and
ensure that Turkey and Azerbaijan adhere to the accepted international
norms and principles. Even though the General Assembly resolutions are
not obligatory, they do create the guidelines and parameters for
moving forward. Armenia must use this card to deal with the dual
blockade as well as Azerbaijan's accusations that Armenia is in
violation of Security Council resolutions.
Treaty law provides countries and individuals the right to life, the
right to an adequate standard of living (including food, clothing,
housing and medical care), the right to freedom from hunger, and the
right to health. By blockading Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan have
violated these rights. The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights concluded that human rights must be taken fully into account
when designing an appropriate sanctions regime; that effective
monitoring should be undertaken throughout the period that sanctions
are in force; and that the external entity imposing the sanctions has
an obligation to take steps, individually and through international
assistance and cooperation, in order to respond to any
disproportionate suffering experienced by vulnerable groups within the
targeted country. None of the requirements of this Committee have been
followed by either Azerbaijan or Turkey.
Turkey and Azerbaijan are also in violation of customary international
law and general principles. Within the United Nations more broadly,
Member States have expressed their view that unilateral coercive
measures of an economic character may constitute unlawful
interferences. The 1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of
Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of
Their Independence and Sovereignty, the 1970 Declaration on Friendly
Relations, and the 1981 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of
Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States--with a
particular emphasis on economic measures, among others--establish the
basis for the customary law.
In order to be regarded as intervention, the measures must be aimed at
influencing the sovereign will of another state in undue fashion.
Thus, where unilateral coercive measures intend to induce compliance
with international legal obligations, such as non-use of force or
human rights, they are less likely to infringe on the principle than
when they are directed against the legitimate sovereign political
decision-making of a state. The Turkish-Azerbaijani blockade in this
case is clearly an intervention.
According to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, the
Security Council may impose forcible or non-forcible measures in
situations that constitute at least a threat to international peace
and security. This has not been done with regards to Armenia.
Some states view unilateral coercive measures as infringing on the
right to self-determination, basing their claim on Articles 1,
Paragraph 2, and 55 of the Charter of the United Nations. Finally,
these states note that unilateral coercive measures can also have the
impact of the deprivation of one's means of subsistence, and can
constitute an obstacle to the realization of the right to development.
Armenia can and should also use these factors in its argumentation.
Armenia needs to be more aggressive in the international arena in
presenting its predicament. The border is not simply closed, but has
been closed in violation of the accepted international norms and
international documents. Once the brief but aggressive phase of
awareness-building bears some positive results, and once the
government of Armenia finds the right time, it needs to take the next
step of introducing various resolutions within all possible
international organizations (especially the OSCE) and pressure Turkey
to abide by international rules and norms. It would be helpful to
study the economic blockade resolutions regarding Cuba that pass in
the General Assembly every year. Some other strategies may prove to be
useful for Armenia as well.
At the same time, it is important to keep the Artsakh issue on the
margins. At the beginning, the pursuit should only be geared towards
the Turkish blockade, and not the Azerbaijani one. There is a high
risk of also discussing the Artsakh conflict in the UN, should Armenia
involve Azerbaijan in its demands. It would be less risky to first
pressure Turkey and then, based on the experience, decide on the
course of action regarding Azerbaijan's blockade.
It is clear that Armenia, as a member of the international community,
has certain rights and privileges provided by international law, and
should thus use all possible instruments in its toolbox to ensure that
its national interests are served well. International law by itself is
unlikely to produce any tangible results for Armenia, but it should be
incorporated into the Republic of Armenia's wider strategy and foreign
policy.
From: Baghdasarian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2014/02/20/economic-blockades-and-international-law-the-case-of-armenia/
By Armen Sahakyan // February 20, 2014
An adequate Armenian policy towards Turkey has spurred much debate,
especially since the signing of the 2009 Armenia-Turkey protocols in
Zurich. The opening of the border was considered one of the
cornerstones of the protocols; thus, it is important to understand why
the de-facto border was closed in the first place, and what
alternatives to the protocols the Republic of Armenia has in mind.
The Armenia-Turkey border
This article presents the legal and historical background of the
unilateral economic blockades imposed on Armenia by Turkey and
Azerbaijan, and proposes certain measures that Yerevan may take to
protect its national interests. This article will not, however, cover
the topic of the de-jure borders of Armenia with its neighbors.
Interestingly, Turkey was one of the first states to recognize the
independence of the Republic of Armenia (the legal heir of the
Armenian Democratic Republic of 1918) on Dec. 24, 1991, following the
collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1993, due to the ongoing war between
the Artsakh Republic and the Republic of Azerbaijan, Turkey
unilaterally closed its land and air borders with Armenia, although
the airspace was later re-opened in 1995. Despite the closed border,
some indirect trade still takes place between the two states, mostly
through Georgia. However, transit entails additional costs and,
obviously, an under-realization of the trade potential. The closed
borders additionally block Armenia's guaranteed access to the sea,
which would enable more efficient trade opportunities. This has
certainly translated negatively on Armenia's ability to take part in
international economic cooperation and to better integrate with
multilateral trading blocs. The primary imported goods from Turkey to
Armenia are food products, textile, chemical industries, and household
goods. Armenia, on its part, exports raw and processed leather,
jewelry, and various metal products to Turkey. To this day, Turkey and
Azerbaijan have refused to establish diplomatic relations with
Armenia. Additionally, Azerbaijan closed its border with Armenia and
Artsakh during the Soviet era.
An economic blockade is a type of unilateral coercive measure. It is
widely acknowledged that the term "unilateral coercive measure" is
difficult to define. Nevertheless, these measures often refer to
economic steps taken by one state to compel a change in the policy of
another. The most widely used forms of economic pressure are trade
sanctions in the form of embargoes and/or boycotts, and the
interruption of financial and investment flows between sender and
target countries. While embargoes are often understood as being trade
sanctions aimed at preventing exports to a target country, boycotts
are measures seeking to refuse imports from a target country.
Frequently, however, the combination of import and export restrictions
is referred to as a trade embargo.
Turkey and Azerbaijan have effectively been exercising an illegal
unilateral economic blockade against Armenia, which has hurt the
latter economically. The UN Security Council, the sole body to legally
authorize sanctions against states, has not done so against Armenia.
On Dec. 1, 2011 the Second Committee of the UN General Assembly
approved the text of "Unilateral economic measures as a means of
political and economic coercion against developing countries" by a
recorded vote of 118 in favor, 2 against (Israel, United States), and
49 abstentions. The General Assembly called on the international
community to condemn and reject the imposition of such measures, while
requesting that the Secretary General continue to monitor their
imposition and to study their impact on countries and on development.
Earlier in October 2002, the General Assembly had adopted a resolution
on unilateral coercive economic measures that called on states to not
recognize or apply such measures imposed by any state across
territorial boundaries, as they are contrary to recognized principles
of international law. Armenia said that by voting in favor of the
resolution, it condemned the continuing practice of imposing such
measures, particularly in the South Caucasus region. Such measures
contravene international law and the principles of the UN Charter, and
their practice is detrimental to developing countries, as well as
those with economies in transition.
Armenia is not yet recognized by the UN as a victim state of
unilateral coercive measures. Its first objective should be to make
sure that the economic blockades by Turkey and Azerbaijan are
categorized as a unilateral coercive measure. Armenia has previously
stated at the UN that the negative consequences of sanctions have been
felt beyond the countries directly affected, as they have also had
adverse implications for the free flow of international trade and the
effectiveness of international economic cooperation. Additionally,
Armenia said that it does not agree with the imposition of unilateral
economic measures as instruments of political and economic coercion
against developing countries.
The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly
Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter
of the United Nations was adopted by the General Assembly on Oct. 24,
1970. The maintenance of international peace and security and the
development of friendly relations and co-operation between nations are
among the fundamental purposes of the UN. According to the Charter,
the people represented by the UN are determined to practice tolerance
and live together in peace as good neighbors.
Turkey and Azerbaijan are in clear violation of the Principle of Good
Neighborliness, as well as all of the General Assembly resolutions
condemning unilateral coercive measures. Armenia, as a subject of
international law, has to take actions to protect its rights and
ensure that Turkey and Azerbaijan adhere to the accepted international
norms and principles. Even though the General Assembly resolutions are
not obligatory, they do create the guidelines and parameters for
moving forward. Armenia must use this card to deal with the dual
blockade as well as Azerbaijan's accusations that Armenia is in
violation of Security Council resolutions.
Treaty law provides countries and individuals the right to life, the
right to an adequate standard of living (including food, clothing,
housing and medical care), the right to freedom from hunger, and the
right to health. By blockading Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan have
violated these rights. The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights concluded that human rights must be taken fully into account
when designing an appropriate sanctions regime; that effective
monitoring should be undertaken throughout the period that sanctions
are in force; and that the external entity imposing the sanctions has
an obligation to take steps, individually and through international
assistance and cooperation, in order to respond to any
disproportionate suffering experienced by vulnerable groups within the
targeted country. None of the requirements of this Committee have been
followed by either Azerbaijan or Turkey.
Turkey and Azerbaijan are also in violation of customary international
law and general principles. Within the United Nations more broadly,
Member States have expressed their view that unilateral coercive
measures of an economic character may constitute unlawful
interferences. The 1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of
Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of
Their Independence and Sovereignty, the 1970 Declaration on Friendly
Relations, and the 1981 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of
Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States--with a
particular emphasis on economic measures, among others--establish the
basis for the customary law.
In order to be regarded as intervention, the measures must be aimed at
influencing the sovereign will of another state in undue fashion.
Thus, where unilateral coercive measures intend to induce compliance
with international legal obligations, such as non-use of force or
human rights, they are less likely to infringe on the principle than
when they are directed against the legitimate sovereign political
decision-making of a state. The Turkish-Azerbaijani blockade in this
case is clearly an intervention.
According to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, the
Security Council may impose forcible or non-forcible measures in
situations that constitute at least a threat to international peace
and security. This has not been done with regards to Armenia.
Some states view unilateral coercive measures as infringing on the
right to self-determination, basing their claim on Articles 1,
Paragraph 2, and 55 of the Charter of the United Nations. Finally,
these states note that unilateral coercive measures can also have the
impact of the deprivation of one's means of subsistence, and can
constitute an obstacle to the realization of the right to development.
Armenia can and should also use these factors in its argumentation.
Armenia needs to be more aggressive in the international arena in
presenting its predicament. The border is not simply closed, but has
been closed in violation of the accepted international norms and
international documents. Once the brief but aggressive phase of
awareness-building bears some positive results, and once the
government of Armenia finds the right time, it needs to take the next
step of introducing various resolutions within all possible
international organizations (especially the OSCE) and pressure Turkey
to abide by international rules and norms. It would be helpful to
study the economic blockade resolutions regarding Cuba that pass in
the General Assembly every year. Some other strategies may prove to be
useful for Armenia as well.
At the same time, it is important to keep the Artsakh issue on the
margins. At the beginning, the pursuit should only be geared towards
the Turkish blockade, and not the Azerbaijani one. There is a high
risk of also discussing the Artsakh conflict in the UN, should Armenia
involve Azerbaijan in its demands. It would be less risky to first
pressure Turkey and then, based on the experience, decide on the
course of action regarding Azerbaijan's blockade.
It is clear that Armenia, as a member of the international community,
has certain rights and privileges provided by international law, and
should thus use all possible instruments in its toolbox to ensure that
its national interests are served well. International law by itself is
unlikely to produce any tangible results for Armenia, but it should be
incorporated into the Republic of Armenia's wider strategy and foreign
policy.
From: Baghdasarian