When was azerbaijan admitted to the un

A state of aggression continued because of the ongoing occupation. The representative had referred to self-determination, but the Armenian ethnic minority did not fit into any of the three categories recognized as being entitled to self-determination. Skip to main navigation Skip to content. Welcome to the United Nations. Moreover, in Armenian society, a mindset of victimhood resulting from the Armenian genocide and exacerbated by the Nagorno-Karabakh war continues to prevail such that Armenians may lack sufficient critical self-reflection to be able to remain completely objective in investigating possible wrongdoing on their part.

The same can be said of Azerbaijani society, which has lived with the burden of roughly , internally displaced people from the first Nagorno-Karabakh war. However, the situation in Azerbaijan is much more dangerous because there state-sponsored anti-Armenian hatred is known to be extreme , the erasure of Armenian culture is a matter of state policy , and crimes against Armenians are glorified.

In Armenia, the conversation is shifting toward granting amnesties for crimes of minor or medium gravity such as desertion committed during the war. Such a reproach is not without merit, as Amnesty International and Freedom House have reported that trials in Azerbaijan are systemically unfair, especially when politically motivated. Both sides expect a lot from the ECHR and the ICJ in helping to prevent further atrocities, resolve the conflict, and bring restorative justice to the victims thereof.

As Armenia signed the Rome Statute in , it need now only ratify it, and Yerevan appears more receptive to the idea than Azerbaijan, which has done neither and seems far less inclined to expose itself to international scrutiny. An alternative, tailor-made accountability mechanism—such as the one created for crimes committed by the Islamic State, called UNITAD —would therefore be more suitable.

Baku is attempting to assert sovereignty through force and ethnic cleansing while denying Armenians the right to self-determination. In the s, the Azerbaijani population was expelled. Now Armenians could face the same fate. Such a mechanism should include independent, impartial international experts and be mandated to collect, preserve, and analyze testimonial, documentary, and forensic evidence of serious violations committed during the Nagorno-Karabakh war to prepare files for criminal proceedings in national, regional, or international courts that have or may in the future have jurisdiction over such crimes, including on the basis of universal jurisdiction.

The UNITAD model is ideal because it works in partnership with the government of the country in which the crimes occurred, thus necessitating the consent and cooperation of Armenia or Azerbaijan or preferably both as consent by either will be limited to investigations of their own nationals or within their respective territories. Such a forum could also be brought under the auspices of regional bodies such as the European Union which created something similar for Georgia in or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, whose Minsk Group is still mandated with finding a peaceful resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Whatever the model or overseeing organization, the most important thing is to end impunity for serious violations of international law. Sheila Paylan is an international criminal lawyer and human rights expert with more than 15 years of experience advising the United Nations.

She regularly consults for a variety of international organizations, NGOs, think tanks, and governments. Commenting on this and other recent articles is just one benefit of a Foreign Policy subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log In. Subscribe Subscribe. If it was a critical time in the Minsk process, then there could be no better occasion for the General Assembly to extend its support for the early and peaceful settlement of the year-old conflict. The draft resolution sufficiently addressed the core of the predicament. The representative of Armenia said it was unprecedented for a draft resolution to be put to the vote without there having been any consultations on it, in cynical disregard of the foundation of the United Nations and every other organization.

The purpose of the drafters had never been to encourage or facilitate discussion. It was simply a way for Azerbaijan to list its wishes on a piece of paper. If the intention had truly been to contribute to the success of ongoing negotiations, Azerbaijan would have put its energy into the existing Minsk Group negotiation format. He said that, after Azerbaijan had militarized the conflict 20 years ago, there had been a full-scale war between Armenians of Nagorno Karabagh and Azerbaijan.

The result was thousands dead, nearly 1 million refugees and lost territories on both sides. Today, there was a self-maintained ceasefire and negotiations under the auspices of the Minsk Group. Despite that and attempts by Azerbaijan to divert from the peace process, the talks were indeed moving forward. There was now a negotiating document on the table that addressed all fundamental issues, security being foremost among them.

Yet, Azerbaijan risked sabotaging that process by presenting a draft that ignored fundamental international norms and the real issues, which must be addressed, he continued. In short, the draft was counterproductive. It called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of armed forces, while ignoring the security vacuum that would result.

The draft also called for self-governance within Azerbaijan, he noted. That had become impossible 20 years ago and was not possible today, when the security of the Armenian minority was clearly endangered.

The international community had demonstrated that it understood that, in various conflicts around the world. The Government of Azerbaijan had forfeited its right to govern people it considered its own citizens when it had unleashed a war against them 20 years ago. Armenians would not return to such a situation. Just as victims of domestic violence were not forced back into the custody of the abuser, the people of Nagorno Karabagh would not be forced back into the custody of a Government that sanctioned pogroms against them, and later sent its army against them.

Noting that the draft also asked for commitment by the parties to humanitarian law, he questioned their commitment to the non-use of force, the peaceful resolution of disputes and all the other provisions of the Helsinki Final Act.

The draft talked about territories and refugees, but not how the consequences of the conflict would be resolved if the original cause was not addressed. Only when the initial cause was resolved would the fate of all the territories and refugees in question be put right. That was not how responsible members of the international community conducted the difficult but rewarding mission of bringing peace and stability to peoples and regions.

Armenia also knew it would undermine the peace process and asked other delegations not to support it. Taking action on the draft resolution, the Assembly adopted the text by a recorded vote of 39 in favour to 7 against Angola, Armenia, France, India, Russian Federation, United States, Vanuatu , with abstentions see annex. The representative of Indonesia , speaking in explanation of position after the vote, said he had voted in favour of the text because it reaffirmed Charter principles and objectives in addressing the conflict; it supported the peaceful settlement of the conflict and underlined the principles of respect for territorial integrity and the inviolability of internationally recognized State borders.

It was to be hoped that the adoption of the resolution would contribute to the intensifying of efforts to achieve a settlement that was acceptable to both sides and in accordance with international law. Indonesia continued to support the mediation efforts within the framework of the Minsk Group, as well as bilateral consultations between the parties.

Both parties should remove obstacles to the peace process. As a member of the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Union, South Africa affirmed the territorial integrity of States and took note with concern of the latest developments in the region, specifically the outbreak of violence between the two sides on 4 March.

The parties should return to negotiations based on the norms and principles of international law. The representative of Libya , having also voted in favour, said he supported countries under the yoke of occupation and the right of refugees to return. Libya had hoped that the parties would have reached agreement, but the international community had been asked to pronounce itself on the item.

The will of the international community should be supported, as should the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Jan Kavan on his assumption of the Presidency of the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly and to express gratitude to Mr. Nowadays the United Nations, called upon to play leading role in ensuring international peace and security, is passing through a serious examination of its ability to unify efforts of Member States and organize efficient international cooperation in confronting the threats and risks, which acquired global dimension.

The tragic events occurred in New York a year ago made all of us to look at the world in a new way and to realize the global interdependence of the challenges of the new era. We have to recognize that the world itself has grown up the monster of terrorism by ignoring problems, turning a blind eye to the violations of the norms of international law, tolerating aggression, not responding to threats caused by the illegal actions of some states, separatism, proliferation of weapons.

It is necessary to learn lessons from the mistakes made and to launch broad offensive against terrorism on the basis of common approaches. Respect for universal approach, excluding inconsistency, selectiveness and double standards is an indispensable condition of the world consolidation in confronting the terrorism. The legal basis of such approach has to be laid down in the Comprehensive Convention on Fight against Terrorism. Any political, social, ideological, religious and other reasons cannot justify any acts, methods and practices of terrorism.

Mission of effective counter-action against terrorism and its total eradication demands use of the most broad, complex approach, which takes into consideration various aspects of problem and its root causes.

It is obvious that the terrorist groups recruit new members and flourish most easily in the environment characterized by economic and social degradation, armed conflicts, poverty, illiteracy and self-isolation. Necessary resources should be mobilized to open up new and expand the existing programs of assistance to the developing and less developed countries.

The implementation of the UN decisions regarding the assistance for the sustainable development and revival of the economic growth in these countries does play a great role.

We need to take a special note of the rendering urgent international assistance to Afghanistan. Avoidance of inter-civilization frictions, creation of the spirit of mutual respect between religions and cultures is another important aspect of the problem of eradication of terrorism. Supporting a trend towards continuing and deepening of the dialogue between civilizations, we stress its multi-profile meaning.

We think that realization of programs in the fields of education, information and cultural dialogue between the civilizations will facilitate formation of relations of mutual understanding and trust, which are of a great need for solution of common problems that the West and East face. In this context I would like to particularly stress the importance of international conference initiated by Azerbaijan on the Role of Religion in contemporary democratic society: search for the ways of struggle against terrorism and extremism, to be held in cooperation with the OSCE on October in Baky.

The priority in combating the international terrorism should be given to such manifestations of it as militant nationalism and aggressive separatism. Very often terrorist groups of separatists and nationalists of various kinds maintain close ties between each other and are directly sponsored by states.

Fight against terrorism constitutes an extremely complicated problem in the so-called uncontrolled territories, having emerged as a result of armed separatism and foreign aggression. It is for ten years now that such uncontrolled zone exists in the territory of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenia.