“The co-chair countries today, it is possible, are more openly expressing their opinions. The following important factor is being emphasised: the issue must be resolved on the basis of the Helsinki principles. What are the Helsinki principles? Territorial integrity is an important principle among them. There is also the principle of self-determination of peoples. But that principle must not go against the territorial integrity of a country by being opposed to it. Possibilities for self-governance and self-determination of peoples must not violate the territorial integrity of a country. Such is the essence and meaning of the Helsinki principles,” said the president of Azerbaijan (7 July, 2010; hayrenater.com). Considering that Ilham Aliyev, as always, is trying to distort the essential facts of the case, the Helsinki principles this time, I consider it appropriate to present to the reader a part of the article “The issue of Nagorno-Karabakh in the context of self-determination of peoples and territorial integrity”, published back in 2007. The other very important international document which is often cited when referring to territorial integrity is the Con­ference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, Final Act, of the 1st of August, 1975. It is better-known as the Helsinki Final Act. It is said that this document supposedly contains declarative clauses on territorial integrity and inviolability of borders. Not in the least, and quite the contrary. The Helsinki Final Act (part 1, section a, sub-section I, paragraph 2) clearly states that borders of states can be changed, and the ways they can be changed are outlined: “They [the partici­pating States] consider that their frontiers can be changed, in accordance with international law, by peaceful means and by agreement”. The Helsinki Final Act also clarifies (part 1, section a, sub-section II, paragraph 1) that it is unacceptable to violate territorial integrity or political independence through coercive measures of an external force: “The participating States will refrain in their mutual relations, as well as in their international relations in general, from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State”. It is therefore evident that the Helsinki Final Act, as was also mentioned earlier with regards to the UN Charter, does not refer to the absolute and unqualified preservation of territorial integrity, but only to the unacceptability of changes to territorial integrity as a result of external armed invasion. That is to say, it is a question of the unacceptability of a military attack or the use of some such threat by one country party to the Helsinki Final Act towards another country party to the same document in order to modify its territorial integrity or to change that country’s political regime. It is necessary to always bear in mind that the real goal of the Helsinki Final Act, as also of the UN Charter before it, was and remains the assurance of peace and security through the prohibition of use of force or threat of use of force in international relations, and not the preservation of borders as they are or the bestowal of sacrosanct status to territories of states. National self-determination is one of the basic principles of international law, through which borders of states have been legally changed (USSR, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Yugoslavia, etc.) and will be changed (Serbia). Summarising the above, one concludes that neither the UN Charter nor the Helsinki Final Act contain clauses calling for “territorial integrity” or “the inviolability of borders”. Those documents merely direct countries signatory to them to refrain from use or threat of use of force to modify territorial integrity or change borders. And so, if Azerbaijan has reacted to the free and fair expression of will of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh (through rallies, demonstrations, referenda, petitions, declarations, etc.) with brute force against peaceful civilians, with internal armed forces, using disproportionate punitive measures, organising massacres of Armenians of Azerbaijan (Sumgayit, Baku, Kirovabad, etc.) by the state, against its own citizens, unleashing a ruthless war with the aid of mercenaries (Ukrainians, Afghans, Russians, etc.) and bearing an ignominious defeat, as a result of which it has lost control over a part of a territory which it considers its own, then that has nothing to do with the concepts of the preservation of territorial integrity or the inviolability of borders which are cited in the aforementioned documents. Ara Papian Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre 7 July, 2010 (First published in the Azg Armenian daily, 22 May, 2007)