On Philip Gordon, the Decision of the Constitutional Court and the Rule of Law
[ 2010/01/30 | 12:12 ]
Numerous opinions have been expressed following the decision (on the 12th of January, 2010) of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia on the Armenia-Turkey protocols. I believe, as I have already had the chance to say, that the decision was extremely significant. Although the decision itself does not resolve any issues in terms of international law, nevertheless, the legal position of the decision – which is mandatory for all, including the legislative and executive branches – creates serious tools for damage control with regards to the potential dangers of the protocols. Accordingly, everything henceforth depends on the level of abidance to the law of the president and the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia.
One finds, in all this, a very interesting statement by the US Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon: “We view the court decision as a positive step forward in the ratification process of the normalization protocols between Turkey and Armenia. The court decision permits the protocols, as they were negotiated and signed, to move forward towards parliamentary ratification, and does not appear to limit or qualify them in any way”.
I believe that the most important and just as problematic idea in this paragraph is the phrase, “as they were negotiated and signed”. The problem is just that; the parties do not subscribe to the same interpretation of the very same paragraphs, expressions, or even words. Their interpretations are often not only fundamentally different, but also contradictory. It is enough to compare the statements on the same questions about the protocols by the president and foreign minister of the Republic of Armenia and by the prime minister and foreign minister of Turkey for it to be clear that the parties do not see eye-to-eye on the issues at hand, and it is therefore impossible to generalise, “as they were negotiated and signed”.
And for this very reason the decision in question of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia is very significant. It is nothing short of the legal interpretation of the Armenian party on the issues taken up in the protocols, based on the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Armenia, as well as international law.
I agree with Mr. Gordon, that the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia does not hinder the ratification of the protocols. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia has decided that the object and purpose of the protocols – to establish diplomatic relations and to open the border – and also the obligations arising from them, do not violate the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Armenia. The Constitutional Court simply clarifies the Armenian side’s position on other issues included in the protocols, giving legal expression to the interpretations of the Armenian party to those issues.
Here one must remind Mr. Gordon of a few facts. Firstly, the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia is a final ruling which is in force. Secondly, the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia is a non-negotiable and binding document for all citizens of the Republic of Armenia, including the president and foreign minister of the Republic of Armenia, as well as deputies of the National Assembly, just as any decision by the Supreme Court of the United States would apply to all Americans. Thirdly, the decision of the Constitutional Court is a complete document as a whole, where the legal position has just as much legal force as the conclusion.
And so, taking into account, to begin with, the requirements of the law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia, as well as the positive reaction by the Americans to the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia, the president of the Republic of Armenia is obliged to present the protocols in question for ratification to the National Assembly alongwith the legal position as per the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia, having thus added them in as reservations.
It is mandatory for the president of the Republic of Armenia to demonstrate by his own example that he abides by the laws of the land. And the Americans are obliged to demonstrate in turn that they respect rule of law in general, and not just American law.
Ara Papian
Head, “Modus Vivendi” Center
25 January 2010
January 30th, 2010 at 23:33
Last developments in Turkey’s foreign ministry show that turkey has setback from its harsh criticism regarding RA CC decision. Ignoring all speculations (to say that turkey has learned no support to its concerns etc.) I can tell that the ratification process will go on sooner or later. And the question is not about when this will happen (ratified) but how much Armenian side can avoid any damage that these protocols contain or, do we have chance to stop this process at all?
Ironically the whole context is not in favor of Armenia’s basic interests. The only logical (for normal neighbors) expectations from these protocols are the diplomatic relationship and the opened borders for Armenia and, again, the whole deal is tied to recognition of “existing” borders and historical “sub”-commission to examine THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE. Not talking about already new pre-conditions drugged by turkey, namely the Artcakh issue and the state sponsored worldwide Armenian genocide recognition process (to stop).
Ignoring all phony explanations from our state fathers and verbal treats from Turks on both sides these facts (signing the protocols including the road map declarations) have already surrounded Armenia’s core interests TODAY. This has already impacted the current political-military etc. balance in south Caucasus where Armenia has lost its position compared to pre-roadmap “time”. In one word: the process of so called “reconciliation” is already a state of balance where Armenia is the looser.
I don’t need to bring here facts that opened borders will have very little or no economical affect to Armenia’s economy; there are good number of articles to show the opposite, that is: opened borders will have catastrophic impact to out already weak economy in addition to demographic intervention and more corruption on political landscape to lead total collapse of Armenia’s state.
Personally I do not see any political power (party) in Armenia to bind my concerns and hopes to their policies and actions to stop this process. ARF is playing dysfunctional family member with the government; ANC has centered itself to a person (Levon Ter-Petrosyan) whom I conceder a biggest adventurist of our time (Արկածախնդիր ավազակ). I see that all political parties in Armenia have their stakes in this oligarchic economy with the permission of the king (Serj Sargisyan) and have no voice and will to talk against the king.
It may sound naïve but there are few INDIVIDUALS in Armenia whose voice has been heard by large audience inside and out from Armenia and these are people whom my hope is based on. Ara Papyan, Armen Aivazyan are one of them…
January 31st, 2010 at 04:16
Պր. Պապեան,
«ՀՀ ՍԴ-ի որոշումը, ինչպես ամերիկացիների համար ԱՄՆ ՍԴ-ի որոշումը»
ԱՄՆը ՍԴ չունի։ Ունի Գերագոյն Ատեան, որ սահմանադրական որոշումներ չէ որ կը կայացնէ միայն. թէեւ իր բոլոր որոշումներն ալ կրնան, որոշ չափով սահմանադրական նշանակութիւն ունենալ։
January 31st, 2010 at 10:47
Some Armenians are led to believe that should Turkey open its closed borders with Armenia, that all of Armenia’s problems will simply dissipate and the country will flourish.
No, Armenia’s problems are solved only when corruption is eradicated across the board and the rule of law and order is enforced. Only then, Armenia will be truly strengthened.
God Bless Armenia’s Constitutional Court! and Keep an eye on Mt. Ararat
January 31st, 2010 at 18:36
Հարգելի Երվանդ,
Զուտ անվանումի առումով Դուք ճիշտ եք, ԱՄՆ-ում չկա կառույց որը կոչվի “Սահմանադրական դատարան”: Սակայն գործառույթի առումով ԱՄՆ Գերագույն դատարանին է վերապահված ԱՄՆ սահմանադրության հետ համապատասխանության հարցերի քննումը: Հետևաբար ԱՄՆ Գերագույն դատարաննն է ԱՄՆ սահմանադրական դատարանը: Ուրիշ բան, որ նրան վերապված է նաև վճռաբեկ դատարանի գործառույթ ևս (appellate jurisdiction):
Արդյոք կարելի է ասել, որ ԱՄՆ արտաքին գործերի նախարարություն չունի, քանի որ այնտեղ այդ անունով կառույց չկա, (ինչպես գիտեք այն կոչվում է պետքարտուղարություն) կամ սխալ կլինի Հիլարի Քլինտոնին կոչել ԱՄՆ արտգործնախարար: Կարծում եմ ոչ:
Եթե ես գրեի ԱՄՆ-ի Գերագույն դատարան (Supreme Court), ապա ստիված էի լինելու առնվազն մի պարբերություն ևս գրել` բացատրելու համար Գերագույն դատարանի և սահմանադրականի գործառութային նմանությունը: Իսկ լրագրային հոդվածներում ծավալը խիստ կարևոր է` ինչքան կարճ ու սեղմ, այնքան լավ: Պետք է հիշել նաև, որ Սովետական Հայաստանում և անկախության առաջին տարիներին, գործել է “Գերագույն դատարան”, որը սահմանադրական հարցեր քննելու լիազորություն չուներ: “Գերագույն դատարան” բառակապակցության օգտագործումը ընթերցողների զգալի մասին մոտ, որոնք գալիս են Սովետական Միությունից, լուրջ շփոթություն կառաջացներ:
Կարծում եմ ճիշտը գործառույթի թարգմանումն է, այսինքն իրերի ու առարկաների կոչումը դրանց համարժեքներով, և ոչ թե բառացի թարգմանությունը: Չէ որ մենք motherland –ը թարգմանում ենք հայրենիք և ոչ թե մայրենիք:
Հարգանքով`