Neither the presidential triumvirate of Obama, Sarkozy, Medvedev, nor officials of our neighbouring or our own republic are authorised to make decisions or declare rulings on questions of international law. They are solely officials carrying out political activities in the field of international law which exists separately. Of course, officials may express their own opinions and pass judgements, but interpreting matters of international law does not fall to them in the least, neither by their own countries’ legislation and certainly not by international law itself. As the conflict over Artsakh has begun to be viewed progressively through the lens of international law, the parties to the conflict as well as the mediators must appeal to bodies empowered correspondingly, instead of passing their own judgements and in order to receive legal input. The only establishment in the current international system which has the authority to make rulings on questions of international law and to determine the violation of international law is the International Court of Justice (ICJ), an arm of the UN. The second part of Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice codifies that authority. As, according to Article 92 of the UN Charter – The International Court of Justice shall be the principle judicial organ of the United Nations – it follows that all member-states of the UN, ipso facto, have recognised the aforementioned authority of that court. I have already had the opportunity to write that, in order for any situation to be categorised as “occupation”, the circumstances must correspond to a number of characteristics. The so-called wronged party must demonstrate that, until the current conditions arose, the title to the territory in question was indisputably of that state and that state had carried out effective control over the territory. In our case, before throwing about accusations, Azerbaijan must affirm through the court that, until the existing circumstances over the territories currently under control of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh were established, the title to that territory belonged unquestionably to the Republic of Azerbaijan and that Azerbaijan fulfilled effective control over that territory. If not, without having established these two facts, all claims that the territory of Artsakh ever belonged to the Republic of Azerbaijan are laid bare and rendered baseless, in turn nullifying any allegation of occupation. I believe that, instead of making naive statements, the presidents of the countries of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs ought to call on the leadership of the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan to appeal to the International Court of Justice to answer the following question: Does the Republic of Azerbaijan bear the title under international law to the lands currently under the control of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh? If one of the parties should decline, the countries of the three co-chairs can appeal to the ICJ on behalf of the UN Security Council to request an advisory opinion on the matter, as per Article 65 of the ICJ Statute. Without an answer to the question above, any mention of “occupied territories” or any such thing have no meaning. Without a legal ruling by a competent authority, the Republic of Azerbaijan cannot accuse anyone of occupation. I can accuse Azerbaijan in the same vein for my part of occupying territories of the Republic of Armenia in April-December, 1920 with the help of the Bolshevik 11th Army, still continuing to occupy some of it. Or did people think that what Lenin and Stalin did legitimised or could possibly legitimise the Bolshevik occupation of territories belonging to the Republic of Armenia? If yes, then open up the roads; the Russian army is advancing to take its position in the heart of Germany. Ara Papian Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre 30 June, 2010