The positions of leading Western Europe countries on the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict within international organizations

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Azerbaijan University of Languages, PhD student of the Institute of Law and Human Rights of ANAS (Azerbaijan)

The positions of leading western Europe countries on the armenia- azerbaijan, nagorno-karabakh conflict within international organizations

Qasimova Lamiya Hasan.,

Lecturer of tte department of International Relations

The purpose of the article is to reveal the conflicting interests and contradictions of the leading Western European countries in their positions on the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict within international organizations, to systematically investigate, analyze and make generalized conclusions the impact of the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the relations between the international organizations represented by Western Europe and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the basis of important sources.

Methodological basis and methods of the article. The article was written on a broad scientific, theoretical and methodological basis. The universal universal principles and methods accepted in political science were used during the research. The sources and literature on the problem were collected, systematized, commentary, analysis, critical analysis, generalizations, and important scientific results were obtained.

Novelty of the article. First and foremost, the problem and the idea of the article are of scientific novelty. For the first time, national scientific researches substantially investigated the positions of the leading Western Europe countries in the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict within international organizations.

Conclusion. In conclusion, the author concludes that after the restoration of Azerbaijan's state independence, Western European countries did not show a clear position in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh within international organizations. It is reported that, despite the recognition of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan by the European countries, some of these countries have shown a neutral attitude towards the documents adopted by international organizations on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This was explained by the fact that the truth about Azerbaijan was not properly communicated to the world community and that the Armenian Diaspora had a dominant position. It is worth noting that after the re-election of national leader Heydar Aliyev in 1993, Western European countries got a clear idea of the conflict that Azerbaijan was involved in. Although the Armenian diaspora has a strong presence in Western Europe, the recognition of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity within international organizations, the adoption of relevant documents on the occupation of its lands, the ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis was made possible by the successful foreign policy of our country.

Keywords: Azerbaijan, Western Europe, Armenia - Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, European Parliament.

nagorno karabakh conflict

Мета написання статті. Виявити збігаються інтереси і суперечливі моменти провідних країн Західної Європи в вірмено - азербайджанському, нагірно - Карабахському конфлікті в рамках міжнародних організацій, аналізувати вплив вірмено - азербайджанського, нагірно - карабахського конфлікту на відносини між міжнародними організаціями в особі західноєвропейських країн, аналізувати і робити узагальнені висновки.

Методологічні основи і методи. Стаття написана на широкій науковій, теоретичній і методологічній основі. В ході дослідження були використані загальні універсальні принципи і методи, прийняті в політології. Були зібрані, систематизовані джерела і література з цієї проблеми, проведені коментарі, аналіз, критичний аналіз, узагальнення та отримані важливі наукові результати.

Новизна в статті. Перш за все, проблема і ідея статті носять характер наукової новизни. Вперше в національних наукових дослідженнях істотно досліджувалися позиції провідних країн Західної Європи в вірмено - азербайджанському, нагірно - карабаському конфлікті в рамках міжнародних організацій.

Висновок. На закінчення автор, підбиваючи підсумки дослідження, проведеного в статті, приходить до висновку, що після відновлення державної незалежності Азербайджану країни Західної Європи не продемонстрували однозначної позиції в вірмено - азербайджанському конфлікті з - через Нагірний Карабах в рамках міжнародних організацій. Заявляється, що незважаючи на визнання територіальної цілісності Азербайджану європейськими країнами, деякі з цих країн проявили нейтральне ставлення до документів, прийнятим в рамках міжнародних організацій в зв'язку з нагірно - Карабахського конфлікту. Це пояснювалося тим, що правда про Азербайджан не була належним чином доведена до світової громадськості і що вірменська діаспора займала домінуюче становище. Варто відзначити, що після другого приходу до влади загальнонаціонального лідера Гейдара Алієва в 1993 році країни Західної Європи отримали чітке уявлення про конфлікт, в який був залучений Азербайджан. Хоча вірменська діаспора має сильну позицію в Західній Європі, визнання територіальної цілісності Азербайджану в рамках міжнародних організацій, прийняття відповідних документів про окупацію його земель, про етнічну чистку азербайджанців стала можливою завдяки посиленню успішної зовнішньої політики нашої країни.

Ключові слова: Азербайджан, Західна Європа, вірмено - азербайджанський, нагірно-Карабахська конфлікт, Європейський Парламент.

Introduction (problem setting)

The Armenian- Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, which emerged in the political space of the USSR in the late 1980s, has become an interstate problem of two new independent states - the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia. It is worth noting that the Armenian leadership, which succeeded in establishing a mono-ethnic state, has invaded the Nagorno- Karabakh area and seven regions of Azerbaijan as a result of armed aggression. Armenia violated its territorial integrity by applying aggressive policy against Azerbaijan. As a result, the principles of international law, as well as international relations such as not to use force or not to threaten, inviolability of borders and territorial integrity were violated. As a result of the occupation, the rights of the refugees and internally displaced persons were violated, thus, the principle of respect for human rights of international law has also been violated.

It is shown that the four basic documents of the Security Council of the United Nations (hereinafter the UN) on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh have been adopted - resolutions 822, 853, 874, 884, the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the requirements for the return of refugees to their homes in the documents adopted within the framework of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation at the summits of the Organization for Security and Cooperation of Europe (hereinafter the OSCE) and its Parliamentary Assembly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the European Union and the North Atlantic Ocean Security Organization (hereinafter NATO) were reflected.

The purpose of the article is to reveal the conflicting interests and contradictions of the leading Western European countries in their positions on the Armenia- Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict within international organizations, to systematically investigate, analyze and make generalized conclusions the impact of the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the relations between the international organizations represented by Western Europe and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the basis of important sources.

Methodological basis and methods of the article. The article was written on a broad scientific, theoretical and methodological basis. The universal universal principles and methods accepted in political science were used during the research. The sources and literature on the problem were collected, systematized, commentary, analysis, critical analysis, generalizations, and important scientific results were obtained.

The novelty of the article. First and foremost, the problem and the idea of the article are of scientific novelty. For the first time, national scientific researches substantially investigated the positions of the leading Western Europe countries in the Armenia- Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict within international organizations. The article notes that after the re-election of national leader Heydar Aliyev in 1993, Western European countries got a clear idea of the conflict in which Azerbaijan was involved. Leading Western Europe countries have already begun to demonstrate their positions in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, not only bilaterally, but also within international organizations. Despite the fact that the Armenian Diaspora has a strong presence in Western Europe, documents have been adopted to recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, occupation of its lands and ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis within international organizations.

The degree of development of the theme At the time of writing the article, works on this topic have been widely used and analyzed. The research shows that a number of works in the Azeri, Russian and English languages on the positions of the leading Western Europe countries on the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict within international organizations were devoted, and this literature was used during the research.

The statements and resolutions adopted by international organizations on the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as well as the conflicts in other parts of Europe played an important role in the research process.

In the article, the two-volume work “The Foreign Policy of Azerbaijan (1991-2003”) by M.C. Gasimli was of great importance. International efforts to restore Azerbaijan's state independence, prevent Armenian aggression, the establishment and activities of the OSCE Minsk Group, UN Security Council resolutions on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno- Karabakh, diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict after the ceasefire was announced. The consequences for Azerbaijan and the situation in the occupied territories, Azerbaijan's position on the settlement of the conflict, etc. issues have been investigated on the basis of archival materials and important scientific results have been obtained [5].

The article collection published by the Center for Strategic Studies under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan was useful for the article. It is widely commented on the resolution of the Armenian-Azer- baijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as the main priority of the foreign policy of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan's relations with global and regional forces have been analyzed and the participation of Azerbaijan in the activities of international organizations - UN, Council of Europe, NATO, CIS, Non-Aligned Movement, Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization was reviewed [2].

Ahmadov's work reflects the documents adopted within the framework of the international organizations - the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, NATO and the European Union on the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh problem. The electronic resources of the official websites of foreign policy departments of Azerbaijan and European countries, diplomatic missions and international organizations were used in the research [3].

Presentation of the main material

After Azerbaijan regained its independence, one of the main foreign policy tasks was to thoroughly explain the history, essence and roots of Nagorno-Karabakh and the problems around it, to convey the true voice of Azerbaijan to the world community, to fill the existing information gap and change public opinion in the world [4, s. 33].

Therefore, the restoration of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and the study of political relations with Western European countries in this regard, respect for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia, the multi-faceted study of the Western European states' position on the issue of ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis are of scientific and political importance and are one of the priorities of science.

In the 1992-1993 UN declarations, the actions of the attacker were underestimated. On April 30, 1993, the UN Security Council adopted the first resolution on the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The UN Security Council Resolution No. 822 expresses concern about the stability and security of the region, the growing number of internally displaced persons, and the need to address the emergence of the emergency situation in Kalbajar, and the need to address the need for Azerbaijan demanded the expulsion from other areas. Although the document confirms the occupation of Azerbaijani lands, it does not specify who carried out this, and stressed that military operations were allegedly carried out by “local Armenians” [1, s. 33].

At the end of July 1993, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution no. 853 on the Armenian-Azer- baijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict [22]. However, the resolution does not name the aggressor but prefers to just say “local Armenians”.

Although the ceasefire agreement was reached in August 1993, the Armenians did not. Azerbaijan was forced to apply again to the UN Security Council. The appeal reflected Azerbaijan's dissatisfaction with the “updated schedule of urgent measures” prepared by the Minsk Group. On October 14, 1993, the UN Security Council again discussed the Nagorno-Karabakh problem and adopted Resolution 874. The resolution expresses concern over the tension between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the fact of occupation of Azerbaijani territories, supported the CSCE efforts to resolve the conflict, and reaffirmed the inviolability of the territorial integrity of the states [20].

On November 11, 1993, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 884 at the request of Azerbaijan. The resolution expresses concern over the occupation of Horadiz settlement and Zangilan district of Azerbaijan and required the withdrawal of occupying forces from these territories [21].

Many important principles of international law are forgotten in the UN documents, and no specific mechanism for punishing the aggressor has been defined [1, s. 35].

The OSCE Minsk Group is acting as a mediator in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno- Karabakh. Azerbaijan, which is a member of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) on January 30, 1992, signed the organization's documents on July 8 at the CSCE Summit in Helsinki. On March 24, the Council of Foreign Ministers of the CSCE discussed the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and decided to convene a peace conference on Nagorno-Karabakh to ensure a peaceful settlement of the conflict. This laid the basis for the Minsk process.

In December 1994, the participants of the CSCE Summit in Budapest discussed the Armenia-Azerbai- jan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and agreed to create a section on “intensification of the CSCE activity on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict”.

Article 20, which was reflected in the Declaration at the summit of the heads of state and government of the OSCE member states in Lisbon in December 1996, contained the principles of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia vetoed it. Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev strongly opposed the withdrawal of the article and said he would veto all documents of the summit. Azerbaijan vetoed all documents of the summit using its right not to agree. This meant that the Lisbon summit would be ineffective.

Article 20 in the statement demonstrates the possibility of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on three principles. After a long and intense discussion, a consensus has been reached to establish these principles in a special statement by the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office. The statement said: “The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs have proposed 3 principles that will be part of the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. They are responsible for ensuring the territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, the legal status of Nagorno- Karabakh, the highest self-determination established by a self-determination agreement in Azerbaijan, the commitment of all parties to ensure compliance with the provisions of the resolution [8].

It was a very important success for our country in the diplomatic dimension.

In June 1997, the co-chairs drafted and presented to the parties their first concept for the settlement of the conflict, the so-called comprehensive agreement on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The proposal consisted of two understandings contained in one package. The first was to end the armed conflict, and the second to determine the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The recognition of the territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders of Azerbaijan and Armenia was a key principle. According to this document, Nagorno-Karabakh is a state and territorial body within Azerbaijan and its self-determination was formalized in an agreement between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh after ratified by the Minsk Conference, and denounced by the constitutions of Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. The agreement also showed the possibility of having a constitution of Nagorno-Karabakh. Despite a number of shortcomings, the Azerbaijani side has accepted the proposal [1, s. 46-47].

In September 1997, the co-chairs introduced a new package of proposals. The new draft agreement, called “Stop the Nagorno-Karabakh Armed Conflict”, which provides a step-by-step plan for the resolution of the conflict, was more favorable for Azerbaijan than ever before. The “Staged Solution” plan outlines the release of 6 of the seven other seven occupied regions of Azerbaijan, including Kalbajar, Aghdam, Fuzuli, Jabrayil, Gubadli and Zangilan, except Nagorno-Karabakh. The fate of the Lachin region had to be resolved at a later stage. However, this proposal did not materialize as well.

On December 2, 1997, the co-chairs introduced a new version of the project, which involves the participation of the separatist regime in Nagorno-Karabakh as a party. However, this has led to sharp objections from the Azerbaijani side [1, s. 47].

The proposal of the “common state” proposed by the co-chairs on November 7, 1998, did not satisfy Azerbaijan. It has been shown that Nagorno-Karabakh will create a common state with it within the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan [10].

Articles 20 and 21 of the Declaration adopted by the OSCE at the Istanbul Summit were devoted to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, which clearly stated the need to continue the peace process [10].

At the OSCE Astana summit on December 1, 2010, there was concern about the conflicts in the OSCE region. In the resolution of the conflicts, the views were expressed on the principle of territorial integrity, the peaceful settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and other issues [7].

Cooperation between Azerbaijan and the European Union (hereinafter referred to as the EU) began in 1993. On April 7, 1993, the EU issued a statement on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. In the statement, the member states expressed concern about the escalation of the conflict and expressed regret over the expansion of operations in Kalbajar and Fuzuli regions [12]. However, this statement does not state any specific relation to the fact of occupation of the territories of Azerbaijan by Armenia and does not indicate the real causes of the conflict.

On November 9, 1993, the EU adopted the next statement on the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In a statement, the organization noted it was concerned about the escalation of clashes, and that the increase in the number of refugees would lead to an escalation of tension in the region. On October 24, 1993, the EU condemned the termination of the ceasefire agreement in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and called on all forces to withdraw from the occupied territories [9].

One of the key events that articulated the EU's position on the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict occurred in 2003. The organization proposed the return of 5 of the occupied areas of Azerbaijan in exchange for the opening of communication lines to resolve the conflict.

The EU sometimes exhibits a dual approach to conflict. Although the document which was signed by the EU and Azerbaijan in December 2006 under the “New Neighborhood Policy” with Azerbaijan and Armenia, supports the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict based on recognized norms of international law, UN resolutions and OSCE documents and decisions,also states that the agreement with Armenia supports the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict within the norms and principles of international law, including the right of nations to “determine their own destiny” [6, s. 177].

On October 23, 20l3, the European Parliament adopted a new resolution on Nagorno-Karabakh. The European Parliament's resolution stated that the occupation of the territory of one state participating in the Eastern Partnership Program contradicts the fundamental principles and aims of the Eastern Partnership. The document emphasizes that the conflict must be resolved on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions and the OSCE basic principles, which “require the immediate, unconditional and complete withdrawal of occupation forces from the occupied Azerbaijani lands” [19].

The Council of Europe was biased and unfair in the first documents adopted on the Armenia-Azerbai- jan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and did not attempt to explain the true nature of the problem.

On November 10, 1994, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (hereafter PACE) adopted its first resolution on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh - resolution 1047. The resolution did not give a fair assessment of the problem and distorted its essence. Although the fact that more than 20,000 people were killed and one million people were displaced, it was not reflected in the fact that refugees were Azerbaijani and left their lands as a result of Armenia's aggressive policy [12].

In April 1997, PACE adopted another resolution on the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The resolution “on conflicts in the Transcaucasia” stressed the importance of the Council of Europe's efforts to resolve the conflicts in Abkhazia and Nagorno- Karabakh. However, the resolution emphasized the need for direct negotiations between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. This meant recognizing the separatist regime in Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent party [1, s. 52].

At a session in January 2001, when Azerbaijan and Armenia were accepted as full members of the Council, British MP George Taylor spoke about the atrocities committed by Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan. Taylor made a strong statement on the political assessment of the genocide committed by Armenians against Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh. Although Taylor's remarks were met with serious objections by the Armenians, they reflected objective truths [11].

The PACE Declaration on the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide against Azerbaijanis was adopted on April 26, 2001. The Declaration reflected the facts that massacres against Azerbaijanis in 1906-1907, massacres committed by Armenians against Azerbaijanis in Baku, Shamakhi, Guba, Karabakh, Zangazur, Nakhchivan, Lankaran and other areas in March 1918, deportation of Azerbaijanis from Azerbaijan's historic lands in Armenia in 1948-1953, the mass deportation of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis from their historical lands in 1988 and the total destruction of the Khojaly population by Armenians on February 26, 1992 [13].

At a meeting of the PACE political commission on November 17, 2004, David Atkinson, a member of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly,was listened to and accepted the report entitled “Conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region where the OSCE is engaged in the settlement of the Minsk Conference”. Resolution 1416 “The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, Involved by the OSCE Minsk Conference”, officially recognizing Armenia as an aggressive state and also condemning Armenia's ethnic cleansing policy was adopted on the basis of that report as part of the winter session in Strasbourg, January 25, 2005 [6, s. 168]. Thus, the CE became the second international organization to recognize Armenia as an aggressor.

On May 20-23, 2014, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the President of PACE visited Azerbaijan and met with President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev. During the meeting, referring to the PACE Resolution No. 1416, which touched upon the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 2005, emphasized PACE's unanimous and principled position in support of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan [15].

NATO has also expressed its position on the Ar- menia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. On June 11, 1993, the NATO Declaration was adopted. The statement called for immediate cessation of military operations, the withdrawal of all occupying forces from Kalbajar and other occupied Azerbaijani regions, the creation of necessary conditions for the return of internally displaced persons to their homes and the resumption of negotiations [3, s. 902].

The final communique, adopted at a meeting of the North Atlantic Council Ministers in Brussels on December 1, 1994, “fully supported the efforts of the CSCE in the field of peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the existing conflict” [2, s. 904]. However, the missing feature of the document was that the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was referred to as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and the aggresive and aggrieved parties were not mentioned.

The report on the South Caucasus, which was on the agenda of the 52nd Annual Session in Canada, in November 2006, and the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict were discussed at a meeting of the Defense and Security Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on November 14 and appropriate decision was made. The document “The role of the South Caucasus in NATO” includes the occupation of 20% of Azerbaijani territories, four UN Security Council resolutions, as well as the PACE decision on the conflict. 25 of the 26 participating States voted in favor of the document.

Conclusion

The study shows that after Azerbaijan regained its independence, Western European countries did not show a clear position in the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict within international organizations. This was explained by the fact that the truth about Azerbaijan was not properly communicated to the world community and that the Armenian diaspora had a dominant position. After the re-election of national leader Heydar Aliyev in 1993, Western European countries have gained a true idea of the conflict in which Azerbaijan is involved. Despite the fact that the Armenian Diaspora has a strong presence in Western Europe, international documents have been adopted to recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, occupation of its lands and ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis.

References

1. Abdullaev E. (2004). Abdullayev E. [The Nagorno-Karabakh problem is at the heart of international law. Baku: Education 216 p]. Dagliq Qarabag problemi beynslxalq hьquq mьstsvisinds. Baki: Tshsil, 216 s.

2. Azsrbaycan Respublikasinin xarici siyasstinin ssas istiqamstlsri (2017) (1991-2016). Baki: “Poliart” MMC, 904 s. [The main directions of the foreign policy of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Baku: Poliart LLC, 904 p].

3. Ohmsdov E. (2012). Ahmadov E. [Armenia's aggression against Azerbaijan: Chronicle of analysis (1987-2011) Baku: Encyclopedic Edition, 912 p]. Ermsnistanin Azsrbaycana tscavьzь: Tshlili xronika (19872011). Baki: Ensiklopedik ns§r, 912 s.

4. Hsssnov 9. M. (1998) Hasanov A. M. Azsrbaycanin xarici siyassti: Avropa dцvlstlsri vs AB§ (1991-1996). Baki: Azsrns^r, 315 s. [The foreign policy of Azerbaijan: The European countries and the United States of America Baku: Azernews, 315 p].

5. Qasimli M. C. (2015) Gasimli M.D. [The foreign policy of Azerbaijan: Volume I, Baku: Translator, 648 p.; Gasimli M. The Foreign Policy of Azerbaijan. (19912003):, Volume II, Baku: Translator, 664 p]. Azsrbaycanin xarici siyassti (1991-2003): 2 cildds, I c., Baki: Mьtsrcim, 648 s.; Qasimli M. C. Azsrbaycanin xarici siyassti (19912003): 2 cildds, II c., Baki: Mьtsrcim, 664 s.

6. Ruintsn K. (2008) Ruinten K. [Armenia's aggression against Azerbaijan and world politics. Baku: Adiloglu, 260 p]. Ermsnistanin Azsrbaycana tscavьzь vs dьnya siyassti. Baki: Adiloglu, 260 s.

7. ATOT-in Astana sammiti (1-2 dekabr 2010-cu il) [Astana Summit of the OSCE (December 1-2, 2010)] // http://files.preslib.az/site/ karabakh/gl2.pdf

8. ATOT-in Lissabon sammiti (2-4 dekabr 1996-ci il) [Lisbon Summit of the OSCE (December 2-4, 1996)] // http://anl.az/el/emb/ QARABAQ/beynelxalq-senedler/ atet(lissabon-sammiti).pdf

9. Avropa Birliyinin Dagliq Qarabaga dair bsyanati (Brьssel, 9 noyabr 1993-cь il) [The statement of European

Union on Nagomo Karabakh (Brussels, November 9, 1993)] // http://files.preslib.az/site/karabakh/gl2.pdf

10. Avropada Tshlьkssizlik vs Omskda^liq Ts^kilati Zirvs gцrь^ь (Istanbul, 19 noyabr 1999-cu il), Istanbul Zirvs gцrь^ьnьn Bsyannamssi [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Summit (Istanbul, November 19, 1999), Istanbul Summit Declaration] // http://files.preslib. az/ site/karabakh/gl2.pdf

11. Avropa §urasi Ermsnistanin Azsrbaycan srazilsrini i§gal etmssi faktini taniyir. [The Council of Europe recognizes the fact that Armenia has invaded Azerbaijan territories ]. // http://files.preslib.az/site/karabakh/gl2.pdf

12. Avropa $urasi Parlament Assambleyasi, Dagliq Qarabagdaki mьnaqi^sys dair 1047 (1994) sayli qstnams (Strasburq, 10 noyabr 1994-cь il) [Parliament Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution No: 1047 (1994) on dispute in Nagorno Karabakh (Strasburg, November 10 of 1994)] // http://files.preslib.az/site/karabakh/gl2.pdf

13. Azsrbaycan vs Avropa §urasi [Azerbaijan and The Council of Europe]

// http://www.mfa.gov.az/content/857

14. Dagliq Qarabaga dair bsyanat. Brьssel, 7 aprel 1993- cь il [The Statement on Nagorno-Karabakh. Brussels, April 7, 1993] // http://www.mfa.gov.az/ content/570

15. Dagliq Qarabag silahli mьnaqi^ssinin hsrtsrsfli hsllinin prinsiplsri haqqinda (7 noyabr 1998-ci il) [On principles of comprehensive resolution of the armed conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh (November 7,1998)] // http://files.preslib.az/site/karabakh/gl2.pdf

16. Ermsnilsrin azsrbaycanlilara qar§i soyqirimi siyasstinin taninmasi haqqinda yazili bsyannams (Strasburq, 26 aprel 2001-ci il) [Written Declaration on Recognition of Armenians' Genocide Policy against Azerbaijanis (Strasbourg, April 26, 2001)]. // http://files.preslib.az/site/ karabakh/gl2.pdf

17. NATO PA-nin Mьdafis vs Tshlьkssizlik komitssi Ermsnistanin Azsrbaycan srazilsrini i§gal etmssi faktini tssdiqlsmi^dir. “Xalq qszeti”, Baki, 2006, 16 noyabr [The Defense and Security Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly has confirmed the fact that Armenia has invaded Azerbaijan territories. “People's newspaper”, Baku, November 16, 2006].

18. Улахович В. Е. (2005). Ulakhovich V. E. [International organizations. Minsk.: 381 p]. Международные организации. Минск.: 2005, 381 s.

19. European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2013 on the European Neighbourhood Policy: towards the strengthening of the partnership. Position of the European Parliament on the 2012 reports (2013/2621(RSP)) //http:// www. europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef

20. Resolution 874 (1993) / adopted by the Security Council at its 3292nd meeting, on 14 October 1993. // https:// digitallibrary.un.org/record/174420

21. Resolution 884 // http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/884

22. UN Security Council Resolution 853 (1993) // https:// www.sipri.org/ node/2020

Размещено на Allbest.ru