International law often anthropomorphises states. In terms of law, the chief characteristic of a state is its international legal personality.* That is, the capacity to enter into individual relations in the international political arena. Accordingly, inter-state relations are very similar in many ways to relations between individuals, as, generally speaking, the interests of a state – a well-ordered state – is derived from the collective interests of its individual citizens.

And so, depicting a state as an individual, vocabulary pertaining to individuals is used by international law to describe political and legal phenomena. For example, there is a concept of the “injured state” in the international law. International law clearly defines injured states: An injured state is a state whose right has been infringed through a breach of obligation by another state’s internationally wrongful act (ibid., p. 70). When we glance at our not-too-distant past, it becomes evident that, in the years 1920-1921, deep wounds were indeed inflicted upon the body of the Armenian state as a consequence of Bolshevik and Kemalist intrigues. Disregarding the international obligations it bore, with the encouragement of the Bolsheviks and the carte blanche of the West, Turkey violated our rights and denied the minimal resources necessary to maintain our statehood. That is, the injury caused to our statehood rendered a qualitative decline in the viability of our state. It is important to clearly distinguish between a simple territorial loss and the loss of viability. For example, the occupation of the northern part of Cyprus by Turkey is a loss of territory and wealth, but it does not cause any qualitative shifts. Even though it has lost 37% of its territory, Cyprus has not lost the ability to freely communicate with the world, and has thus maintained its ability to develop. The Republic of Armenia, however, in losing the region of Kars (even putting aside for the moment the territory granted to the Republic of Armenia by the arbitral award of Woodrow Wilson), at the very least lost its ability to interact with the rest of the world, to defend its own capital, along with some leverage over Georgia. In order to come up with solutions to such circumstances, one must bear a sober outlook on the current reality; with such frontiers, in such a geo-political position, and with such neighbours, today’s Republic of Armenia has no future. The injuries caused to our statehood are incompatible with the functioning of our state. As long as those injuries have not been addressed, it is at the most a form of late mediaeval romanticism to hope that it would be possible to have a safe and prosperous country. If I were a poet, I would say that the marks of the nails are still crying in our palms and our wounds are as yet flowing with blood. I would like to emphasise something very important here. There is no alternative to the establishment of democracy and rule of law in Armenia. What is more, in terms of time, I would prioritise them foremost. Without them, nothing would be possible, nothing at all. For the existence of our statehood itself, democracy and rule of law are vitally important conditions. But the real problem is that they are necessary, but still insufficient conditions. Armenia needs the minimal resources for its viability, that is, the resolution to the Armenian Question, as it has been referred to by the international community for a century and more. What was the Armenian Question finally about? It was the guarantee of the minimal necessities for the dignified existence of the Armenian people. At the current stage, the approach to a resolution to the Armenian Question has changed. It is now the restoration of territorial, material and moral rights accorded to or reserved by the Republic of Armenia as per international law. The approach may have changed, but it remains essentially the same – the minimal resources of viability are necessary for the existence of the Republic of Armenia, which can be achieved only through a resolution to the Armenian Question. We must make ourselves aware of this, so that we may clearly imagine that which we ought to do and avoid any wrong steps. Ultimately, the destructive Damoclean Sword of the Armenia-Turkey protocols is hanging over our heads. (*for further details, see B.A. Boczek,

The A to Z of International Law, Toronto, 2010, pp. 37-144; Chapter II, International Legal Personality, States: Recognition, Jurisdiction, Responsibility, Succession)

Ara Papian

Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre 9 November, 2010