The peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan is fraught with two “mines” — the signing of a peace agreement is directly tied, firstly, to providing Azerbaijan with unimpeded access to Nakhchivan, and secondly, to implementing constitutional reforms. This was stated by Grigor Muradyan, former advisor to the Chairman of the Constitutional Court.
According to him, no one in Armenia’s leadership can commit to amending the Constitution, as constitutional reforms depend solely on the will of the citizens, who have not made any such commitments.
“A legitimate question arises: what if the citizens do not ensure a quorum or vote against the constitutional reforms? Can Azerbaijan then refuse to sign the peace agreement, not ratify it, or ratify it with a reservation that the document will take effect only after changes are made to Armenia’s Constitution?” Muradyan asked.
He emphasized that the very fact of Azerbaijan raising this issue is unacceptable and should receive a response from the Armenian side. “It was inadmissible to agree to such a linkage, as the authorities cannot guarantee anything. The presence of such a precondition jeopardizes the entire process, and a blow could be struck at any stage, even after the peace agreement is signed,” he noted.
The second “mine,” according to Muradyan, is the effective linkage of the peace agreement’s signing with providing Azerbaijan “unimpeded access” to Nakhchivan. This is confirmed by the fact that the initialing of the peace agreement occurred in parallel with the signing of the Washington trilateral declaration, which formalized the operation of the road through Syunik. Moreover, the very phrasing of “unimpeded access,” the expert believes, already implies a limitation of Armenia’s sovereign powers. The legal wording of the declaration also suggests that restrictions are excluded. But this raises a fundamental question: will Armenia retain its authority to conduct customs, sanitary, and passport controls?
“If unimpeded access implies transferring these functions to a private company, it contradicts the Constitution. However, if it refers to contactless control through technical means, that is a different matter,” Muradyan noted.