Unimpeded Transport Communication: Legal Interpretations and International Context

The signing of the Trilateral Declaration in Washington sparked lively discussions in Armenia regarding the nature of the so-called “Trump Route”: is it merely a transport road or effectively a corridor? Despite the declaration’s provision ensuring Armenia’s sovereignty over the territory through which the route would pass, particular controversy surrounds the wording of “unimpeded communication” that would connect Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan.

According to many experts, the term “unimpeded” could be interpreted as the absence of mandatory customs and border procedures for Azerbaijani goods and passengers on Armenian territory. Additional uncertainty arises from contradictory statements by Armenian officials regarding the role of national control authorities, as well as Baku’s claims that it has achieved its desired outcome.

In this context, a key question emerges: what does international law imply by “unimpeded communication”? Should it be understood as a complete exclusion of control by the transit state, or are other regulatory mechanisms established in international practice?

From the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to the Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets

“Unimpeded transport communication” is a broader and more practical concept of transport policy and infrastructure, ensuring the real capability for effective and continuous transport connectivity. The legal status, enshrined in international treaties and guaranteeing unimpeded passage of goods through foreign territory, is the concept of “freedom of transit.”

The concept of “freedom of transit” is governed by Article 5 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1947. According to the article: “Each contracting party shall provide freedom of transit through its entire territory, via the most convenient routes, for transit traffic to or from the territory of another contracting party, without any distinction between vessels or transport vehicles based on their flag, country of origin, departure, destination, owner, or other circumstances.” Furthermore, the article specifies that: “Each contracting party may require that transit traffic pass through the appropriate entry customs office, but, except in cases of violation of customs laws and regulations, transit shall not be subject to unreasonable delays, restrictions, or taxes, except for charges related to transportation or fees corresponding to administrative expenses incurred by transit or the cost of services provided.” Moreover, all fees and formalities related to transit, according to the article, “shall be reasonable and proportionate, shall not impede the freedom of transit, and shall not be discriminatory.”

A clear formulation regarding unimpeded transport communication is also found in the Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets (1975). Specifically, its key provisions reflect the assurance of unimpeded movement of goods with minimal delays and maximum security. According to the convention, the payment of customs duties is secured by an international guarantee system; goods are accompanied by a customs document recognized by all member states—the TIR Carnet, which is used for control in the countries of departure, transit, and destination; and customs control measures taken in the country of departure are recognized by all transit and destination countries.

However, this does not mean that the transit country has no right to inspect goods. On the contrary, according to the 1975 TIR Customs Convention, transit countries retain the right to conduct customs control of goods passing through their territory. However, such control is carried out within the framework of a simplified and standardized TIR procedure, using the TIR Carnet, which serves as a unified customs document recognized by all member states. In this case, inspections are limited to verifying the integrity of seals and the compliance of documents, without conducting full repeated checks, to avoid delaying transit.

“Freedom of Transit” and Sovereign Control

Thus, in the international legal context, “unimpeded communication” is not synonymous with the absence of control or the loss of sovereignty by the transit state. On the contrary, “freedom of transit” implies an obligation for the party to ensure the unimpeded passage of goods and passengers, but within established procedures, including passage through customs authorities, the collection of administrative fees, and compliance with applicable regulations.

International practice supports this interpretation. For example, in Central Asia, transit through third countries is carried out with mandatory customs procedures, although it is formally considered “free.” The example of the WTO is also illustrative: in disputes related to transit, the Arbitration has repeatedly noted that “freedom of transit” does not preclude a state’s right to establish reasonable control measures, provided they are non-discriminatory and do not impede transport communication.

Thus, international practice interprets “unimpeded communication” as a regime of simplified and non-discriminatory transit, but not as a complete relinquishment of sovereign control. For Armenia, this means the possibility of balancing obligations to ensure freedom of transit with the preservation of national regulatory mechanisms, which, in the long term, allows for minimizing risks while fulfilling international treaty obligations.