Sovereignty 'By Choice': How the Armenian Opposition Entangles Itself in Its Own Principles
By Namik Aliyev, Doctor of Law, Professor, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Head of Department at the Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan
The letter from the 'Hayastan' faction to U.S. Vice President JD Vance was sent on the eve of his visit to the South Caucasus—a time when Washington's attention to the region is objectively increasing, and any public appeal takes on the character of not just an internal signal, but also an element of foreign policy pressure.
The timing of such a letter can hardly be considered coincidental: it is clearly calculated to use the visit of a high-ranking American official as a lever of influence on regional processes.
The appeal of the faction became a vivid illustration of how quickly and unabashedly sovereignty transforms from a principle into a tool in Armenian political discourse. The document, intended as a diplomatic appeal, in reality turned out to be a collection of contradictions that are hard to overlook even with the most favorable reading.
On one hand, the authors of the letter emphasize that they 'do not expect interference in the internal life of the Republic of Armenia' and proclaim the exclusion of any interference by geopolitical centers as one of their key priorities. This sounds convincing—until the discussion turns to Azerbaijan.
It is telling that the faction sent the letter in unison with yet another meaningless resolution of the French parliament and an appeal from the Armenian lobbying structure in Russia, the 'Lazarev Club,' represented by the infamous Konstantin Zatulin.
When Sovereignty Ends at the Border
In the same letter, the 'Hayastan' faction directly appeals to the U.S. Vice President with the expectation of his involvement in the issue of the 'return' of individuals detained in Azerbaijan, including former representatives of the military-political leadership of the so-called, non-existent 'Artsakh.'
Here arises a simple but fundamental question: if sovereignty and independence are universal values, then why, according to the Armenian opposition, do they not extend to Azerbaijan?
Has the experience of nearly four decades been in vain for you?
The individuals in question committed crimes and were detained on the territory of Azerbaijan for actions classified as aimed at undermining its constitutional order and territorial integrity. Their cases are being considered by Azerbaijani courts under Azerbaijani legislation. They were not arrested in Yerevan, Brussels, or Washington—and this is a key point that is deliberately ignored.
The call to a high-ranking American official to 'facilitate' their release is nothing less than a direct demand for interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, no matter how carefully it is disguised with humanitarian or political rhetoric.
Selective Legal Logic
The particular cynicism of the situation lies in the fact that the Armenian opposition simultaneously declares the inadmissibility of pressure on Armenia's judicial system—while demanding pressure on Azerbaijan's judicial system. The rule of law, according to this logic, is not a universal category but a strictly selective one.
This approach is not new. Over the past few years, both the Armenian side and several European institutions have systematically attempted to:
- cast doubt on the decisions of Azerbaijani courts, without having jurisdiction, legal, or factual grounds to do so;
- portray individuals convicted of specific crimes as 'political prisoners,' ignoring the nature of the crimes and the case materials;
- exert political and informational pressure to effectively secure the release of individuals against whom guilty verdicts have already been issued.
Such practices directly violate the principle of the independence of the judiciary, which these same European structures declare as a cornerstone of democratic governance.
Politics Instead of Law
The letter from the 'Hayastan' faction is not about concern for the law or a fight for democracy. It is an attempt to take a politically inconvenient issue for Armenia out of the legal framework and resolve it through external pressure. This is precisely why the text so insistently emphasizes: 'we are not calling for interference'—while the entire essence of the appeal is exactly that.
In effect, the following scheme is proposed:
- the internal affairs of Armenia (a non-sovereign country with a foreign military base on its territory, whose borders are also guarded by that state) are inviolable,
- the internal affairs of Azerbaijan, known for its independent and balanced policy, are a subject of international bargaining.
A Dangerous Substitution of Concepts
This approach is not just hypocritical—it is dangerous. It undermines the very idea of international law, turning it into a set of slogans applied depending on political expediency. Today, it is a demand to release convicts; tomorrow, it is the denial of court decisions; the day after, it is an attempt to delegitimize the state institutions of an entire country.
If the Armenian opposition truly stands for sovereignty, democracy, and non-interference, then these principles must be universal, not applied 'by list.'
Otherwise, this is not about values, but about banal political manipulation aimed at external players—with the hope that law can be replaced by pressure, and the court by diplomacy.
