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