Category Archives: SCIENTIFIC

THE UNPRECEDENTED RESPOND OF WORLD KNOWN INTELLECTUALS – 2019-2

To Armenian Pogroms in Azerbaijan in late 1980s – early 1990s

Summary

Narek A. Mkrtchyan Gevorg A. Tshagharyan

Key words – ‘‘The New York Times’’, open letter, Nagorno Karabakh, Sumgait, universal intellectuals, Armenian pogroms, international community, Michel Foucault, Edward Said, genocide, Antonio Gramsci, indifference, ‘‘Circle of Humanity’’.

In the last years of Soviet Union, the humanity faced several genocidal episodes like ethnic cleansings, destruction of cultural heritage of a nation, massacres, pogroms etc. More than seven decades after the Armenian Genocide, the Armenian nation was condemned to become a victim of ethnic cleansing and atrocities planned by the authorities of Soviet Azerbaijan. As a result of international indifference, the Armenian communities of Azerbaijan, particularly in Sumgait (February 27-29, 1988), Kirovabad (November 21-27, 1988) and Baku (January 12-19, 1990) have been subjected to atrocities. The aim of the paper is not the examination of these events, but the representation and study of an open letter signed by the internationally recognized intellectuals of the second half of the XX century. Being a joint initiative of the Helsinki Treaty Watchdog Committee of France and intellectuals from the Collège International de Philosophie, Paris the letter was published in “The New York Times” on July 27, 1990. Unfortunately, the letter had skipped the eyes of wider public in Armenia and abroad. The uniqueness of the letter can be measured by its content and the prominence of the signatories. It is more than obvious that the message of intellectuals was aimed at warning international community that necessary measures should be taken to prevent and save Armenians from another genocide. We translated the material from English into Armenian and provided it with introduction containing information about the signatories of the letter. Among them stand out Jurgen Habermas, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jacques Derrida, Jean-François Lyotard, Sir Isaiah Berlin, Emmanuel Levinas, Paul Ricoeur, Charles Taylor, Luc Ferry and others. On the other side, the letter is discussed within the context of different theoretical approaches in order to shed light on the nature, position and influence of intellectuals on the world of crises.

ON THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF UN CONVENTION ON DECEMBER 9, 1948 TO THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE – 2019-1

Analysis and suggestions on the occasion of 70th anniversary of adopting the document

Summary

Armen Ts. Marukyan

Key words – Ottoman Empire, Genocide of Armenians, AllArmenian declaration, overcoming consequences of genocide, UN Convention on December 9, 1948, Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.

The all-Armenian declaration on January 29, 2015 according to which except the international recognition and condemnation also the task of overcoming consequences of the Armenian Genocide was set, again staticized a question of applicability of provisions of the UN Convention of genocide in relation to the crime committed against the Armenian people.

Still on May 28, 1951 in the Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice it was noted that under the conditions of lacking the convention the provisions specified in the Convention of the UN on genocide were obligatory for civilized countries even without conventional fixing. It follows from this that signing and entry into force of the convention cannot be speculated for the purpose of restriction of use of these principles and norms to the events taking place before the adoption of this document.

In 20 years after adoption of UN Convention on genocide the convention of the UN “About non-use of a limitation period to war crimes and crimes against humanity” on which the principle of inapplicability of limitation periods concerning military crimes and crimes against humanity irrespective of time of their implementation was adopted on November 26, 1968. This convention meant by “crimes against humanity” also the crime of genocide as it is formulated in UN convention on genocide.

Finally it is impossible to forget that consequences of the Armenian Genocide are still not overcome, and the Armenian people – the victims of this crime, continues to test its consequences, that is, it is about the continuing crime. Denialing policy of the Armenians Genocide on a national level by the modern Republic of Turkey and also implementation by the Turkish authorities of “cultural genocide” – destructions of historical and cultural heritage of the Armenian people on its historical homeland – in the Western Armenia, is continuation of genocidal policy of its predecessor – the Ottoman Empire. In this case the question of retroactive application of provisions of the Convention of the UN on genocide in general disappears.

THE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AS AN ISSUE OF INVESTIGATION FOR POLITICAL SCIENCE – 2018-3

Summary

Ludwig G. Vardanyan
Vahe W. Poghosyan

Key words – politics, political science, leadership, political leadership, management, group, organization.

The article considers political leadership as one of the directions of scientific research in the field of political science. Moreover, the prospect of such research depends entirely on the ability of political science to use the intersystem approach to the subject under study. The article makes an attempt to refer to the combination of the terms “leader”, “head”, the notion of “political leadership” as the most important issue in modern political science. Conceptual discussions of political leadership are presented in various aspects: (a) the relationship between political leadership and political management (government), b) the complexity of the formation of political leadership in the psychological aspects (psychoanalytic study); c) discussion of political leadership by observing the relationship between the concepts of “leadership”, “ rule” and “management”, primarily by organizing “social and political” (social, economic, political, spiritual) and various institution

ARTSAKH-AZERBAIJAN CONFLICT – 2018-2

Summary

Aleksandr S. Manasyan

Key words – the Karabakh conflict, ethnopolitical confict, own legal basis of the problem, the problem of the legality of the Republic of Azerbaijan, legitimacy of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

A century has passed since the issue of the conflict between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan was included in the international political agenda. The conflict began in 1918, when the Turkish army invaded Baku, removed the legitimate authorities and established Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR). The latter made unreasonable territorial claims, including the historical province of Armenia Nagorno-Karabakh (NK). Before this conflict there was not and could not be such a conflict, since in Transcaucasia there was neither a state with the name of Azerbaijan nor a people with such an ethnonym. First, with the support of the Turks, and then of the Englishmen who entered the region, ADR tried to subordinate NK by force. The problem took the form of an armed confrontation. Congresses of plenipotentiary representatives of NK population rejected these claims and declared NK as an integral part of the Republic of Armenia. A question that took the form of an international conflict was included in the agenda of the League of Nations. The struggle of the people of the NK for their reunion with Armenia was not pursued in the new geopolitical conditions, when the Bolshevik Russia returning to Transcaucasia forcibly included the NK in the borders of Soviet Azerbaijan with the status of broad autonomy. The NagornoKarabakh Autonomous Region was formed as a form of Soviet statehood. In the continuation of the uninterrupted struggle of the Artsakh Armenians in 1988, the Karabakh movement began to demand the reunion of the region with Soviet Armenia.

During the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the Republic of Azerbaijan (AD) adopted a Declaration on the Restoration of the State of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan (existed in 1918-1920) and refused to be the legal successor of Soviet Azerbaijan based on the laws of the USSR and the principles of international law, deputies of all levels of the Soviets of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous District and the adjacent Armenian-populated Shaumyan district have proclaimed the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR).

Baku again took the strategy of a forceful solution of the problem. The conflict entered a new phase. The resolution of the problem, which took the form of an international armed conflict, turned out to be under the auspices of the OSCE.

The international experience in the settlement of such conflicts suggests that it is appropriate to divide the documents of the two types in the legal grounds of the problem by placing them in different packages. The first package may include documents on the problem, accepted by the parties to the conflict and recognized by the competent authorities for them.

The second package is the documents adopted by international institutions that have taken care of the settlement of the problem.

The first package documents are separated in the article as their own legal basis. The analysis of the article shows that there is no document in the legal grounds of the issue that could make the legitimate claims of the modern Azerbaijan towards Nagorno-Karabakh.

THE LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT BODIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA 1918-1920 – 2018-1

Summary

Anna E. Asatryan

Key words-local self-government bodies, city, economy, province, council, executive board, mayor, party, law, election..

Formation of local self-government bodies was of decisive importance for the creation and strengthening of the Republic of Armenia. On May 23, 1919, the RA government approved the laws “On the adoption of the city statute in several regions of the RA” and “On the establishment of land management in several regions of the RA”. The above-mentioned laws became the legal points on the basis of which local government elections were organized.

In 1918-1920, two self-governing bodies were formed in the Republic of Armenia – provincial and city governments, and members of these autonomous bodies were elected on the basis of democratic principles. Various political forces participated in the elections, but the majority of the council members were representatives of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun.

The provincial autonomies of Echmiadzin, Yerevan, Vagharshapat and Alexandropol were the most effective of the local self-government bodies.

The activity of the local self-government bodies was aimed at improving the socio-economic and educational life of the population. On the initiative of the autonomous executive bodies and departments, schools, libraries, hospitals, medical centers, pharmacies, shops, workshops, etc. were re-opened in Armenia.

The existence of local self-government bodies proves once again that Armenia was a state based on democratic values of this period.

DERSIM DURING THE TURKISH-ARMENIAN WAR IN 1920 – 2017-4

Summary

Aram S. Sayiyan

Key words – Dersim, the Republic of Armenia, Turkey, Kurdistan, Turkish-Armenian war, Mustafa Kemal, Bolshevik Russia, Kars, Said Riza, Mehmet Nuri Dersimi, Nureddin Pasha.

The situation in Dersim was quite explosive in 1919. Negotiations in Paris between the Ottoman Empire and the victorious powers, which discussed the transfer of some part of the eastern vilayets to the Republic of Armenia, as well as the nationalist movement in Anatolia under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal, caused serious concern not only in Dersim but also among the Shiite Kurds in Arabkir and Malatia. Britain, which was also initially concerned about M. Kemal’s success, sent an intelligence officer named Noel to the region. Taking advantage of this, a number of Kurdish tribal leaders organized a council of leaders with Noel’s participation in a place called Shiro in the vicinity of Malatia, during which the principles of independent Kurdistan were declared, and preparations for an anti-Kemalist riot were also initiated. However, Mustafa Kemal managed to disperse the rebels, but the people of Dersim were determined. In early 1920, at the head center of the congregation of Hossein Abdal, a number of tribal leaders vowed to fight for the independence of Kurdistan. Without the necessary forces Mustafa Kemal was forced to yield to them, appointing some of the leaders as deputies or kaymakams of the TBMM. However, this move did not give the expected result. At the end of the summer and in autumn of 1920, the rebels of Dersim, led by Seid Riza, Alishan, Alisher and others, attacked the camps and warehouses of the Turkish army in the Erzincan vilayet. However, the majority of Kurds in Western Armenia remained loyal to M. Kemal and took an active part in the Turkish-Armenian war, which began on September 23, 1920. And when the Turkish troops approached Kars, the Dersim rebels one by one defeated the Kemalists. However, these two forces fighting with the Turks could not unite against the common enemy, which had catastrophic consequences for both sides. On December 2, 1920, according to the Treaty of Alexandropol, Armenia acknowledged its defeat, after which the Kemalists transferred the Turkish troops to Dersim and, before the beginning of June 1921, defeated the rebels. The study of the reasons for the failed Armenian-Kurdish cooperation is of great practical importance for the two peoples.

INDIVIDUALITY OF ARAM MANUKYAN AS THE DRIVING FORCE OF HISTORY-MAKING – 2017-4

Summary

Armen S. Asryan

Key words – Aram Manukyan, individuality, unshakable will, nation, power, Armenia, political figure, republic, prudence, decisiveness, responsibility, consistency.

In the histories of many nations, including that of Armenia, individuals appeared periodically and had significant impact on the development of the history, becoming the driving force of it. In the newest history of Armenia that very person was Aram Manukyan (Sargis Hovhannisyan 1879-1919), the biggest national and political figure of 20th century, who is remembered as the founder of the First Republic of Armenia. This statement fist of all refers to his activities in 1918, a fatal period for the nation of Armenia. Aram Manukyan, in fact, was the sole executive of Yerevan province, which occupied a considerable territory of Eastern Armenia. At the end of 1917, after the fall of Russian empire, Transcaucasia and Eastern Armenia were separated from Russian empire and were left alone against Turkey, giving the latter an opportunity to bring about its pan-Turkish objectives. One of the objectives was the occupation of Transcaucasia. Undoubtedly, it would include the genocide of the Armenians of Eastern Armenia as well. The urgent creation of powerful government and armed forces became a necessity. The fact that it was Aram who was entrusted with the leadership of Yerevan province in that critical period distinguishes him from other political figures of the time.

Aram, who can be characterized as a person of great endurance, unshakable will, decisiveness, consistency, prudence and strategic thinking, was able to get together skillful military leaders, political and social figures and organize new governmental bodies. With their help, he also created efficient military formations, suppressed Тatars’ mutiny and anti-state activities, resolved many other vital problems during short period of time. In May, which was a fatal month, he played an important role in the organization of triumphant battles of Sardarabad and Aparan, which made the reshaping of the independence possible. Holding several offices in the government, Aram by all means contributed to the strengthening of the republic. Hence, he can be viewed as the founder of the First Republic of Armenia and a driving force of the history.

THE CHALLENGE OF STATEHOOD – AR Federation and the political status of both parts of Armenia in 1917 – 2017-3

Summary

Lilit Hr. Hovhannisyan

Key words – ARF Dashnaktsutyun, Western Armenia, Eastern Armenia, Transcaucasia, autonomy, independence, the right of nations to self – determination, H. Zavriyan, Rostom (Stepan Zoryan), Russian Provisional Government, Armenian question, Armenian separate army corps.

In 1905 «Caucasus Project» ARF Dashnaktsutyun brought up a proposal out of necessity to settle of the issue of Western and Eastern Armenia’s political status separately. In 1907 the idea was fixed in the Party program, and in 1914 it was approved by the Eighth General Assembly of ARF. It was set a task to achieve broad autonomy for Western Armenia within the Ottoman state, and to demand autonomy for Eastern Armenia within the Federal Republic of Transcaucasia; the latter was to be an integral part of the Russian Federative Republic. After annexation of Western Armenia by the Russian army in 1915 – 1916 only one change was made in demand of autonomy for Western Armenia – that is the word «Ottoman« was replaced by the word «Russian«, respectively. The claim of Western Armenia’s autonomy did not contradict to idea of it’s independence, moreover it was considered to be a feasible intermediate phase on the way of the real preparing for and attaining independence for the Western Armenia.

The victory of the February revolution in Russia in 1917 created prerequisites for the realization of the program aims of ARF Dashnaktsutyun. Thanks to the efforts of ARF, in particular H. Zavriyan, Lip. Nazaryants and A. Chilingirian, on April 26 (May 9) Russian Provisional Government adopted decision «On governance of the war by right conquered regions of Turkish Armenia«, by which the civil administration of Russian army conquered Western Armenia was withdrawn from the Caucasian authorities, as well as military authorities of Caucasian Front and was handed over directly to the Provisional Government henceforth the final decision on the province’s status due to the peace treaty. So, a status of a separate administrative unit in the Russian state was passed to Western Armenia. This decision, as well as the instructions, given by the Provisional Government on May 15 to the General Commissioner of Western Armenia, established a legal basis to consolidate Armenians in western armenian territories and to achieve the autonomy. In late 1917, about 150 thousand Armenian refugees returned to their homeland – Western Armenia. The socio – economic, political and cultural life of Western Armenians became organized and noticeably active.

It was important also to ensure the physical security and protection of Armenian population and Armenia not only from Turk’s and Kurd’s attacks and robbery, but also from the possible attacks of the Turkish army. For this purpose ARF Dashnaktsutyun (Rostom (Stepan Zoryan) and Lip. Nazaryants) made efforts to move the Armenian soldiers and officers of the Russian army to Armenia and create an Armenian separate army corps, due to the Provisional Government’s policy of the nationalization of the army. So was founded the Armenian national army. This played a decisive role not only to save the Armenian people from physical extermination during the Turkish invasion to Western Armenia and Transcaucasia in 1918, but also to restore the independent statehood on the small part of historical Armenia.

The problem of the political status of Eastern Armenia was essential as well for ARF. In the summer of 1917 the Party brought forth a project to the Russian central and Transcaucasian local authorities on administrative repartition of Transcaucasian region, worked out by Av. Shakhatunyan. According to the project, it was proposed to separate mountainous regions largely populated by Armenians from the Muslim – dominated lowland regions, so as to found an Armenian Canton in the Armenian highlands, including therein the Erivan Province, the mountainous – Armenian part of the Elizavetpol Province, the Akhalqalaq county from Tiflis Province, the Armenian part of the Borchaloo county, Kars and Kaghzvan counties of the Kars region. The Georgians and the Tatars were against the creation of the Armenian Canton, having territorial claims towards the Armenian territories, while the Provisional Government did not realize it because of its short existence.

In conditions of the Russian army’s defeats in Western Front, as well as the Provisional Government’s political crisis, the increasing Bolshevik threat the ARF Dashnaktsutyun raised the issue of self – determination and independence of Western Armenia, strengthening political ties with the US and European countries in order to obtain guarantees of international supervision, if necessary. But the realization of this idea became impossible in 1917 because of the Bolshevik government’s yielding policy towards Quadruple Alliance countries in the name of prompt signing of separate peace treaty, as well as the German – Turkish military and diplomatic pressure, the withdrawal of Russian troops from Western Armenia, the insufficiency of human, economic and military resources therein.

THE ORGANIZATION OF MILITARY–INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IN ARMENIA DURING THE FIRST YEARS OF THE INDEPENDENCE (1991–1993) – 2017-2

Summary

Karen H. Khachatryan

Key words – Republic of Armenia, military-industrial complex, military-industrial Commission, manufacturing, weapons, ammunition, military equipment.

During the first years of Armenia’s independence the authorities have mainly succeeded in forming a quite flexible system of management of the MIC (military–industrial complex), which contributed to the organization of military production and its development within the country. In the conditions of blockade, socio-economic crisis, war activities the MIC enterprises produced and provided the army with a large amount of weapons and ammunition, military equipment and uniform, renovated and equipped military equipment, etc., thereby greatly contributing to the glorious victory of Armenians in Artsakh war, as well as in the strong defense of newly–independent Armenia’s borders.

THE ISSUE OF OVERCOMING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE – 2017-2

Summary

Armen.Ts. Marukyan

Key words – Overcoming of consequences of the Armenian Genocide, Road map, Republic of Armenia, Armenian Diaspora, Ottoman Empire, Turkey, Arbitral award of Woodrow Wilson, Treaty of Sevres, Treaty of Lausanne.

Recently have begun to extend opinions on allegedly impossibility of process of overcoming consequences of the Armenian Genocide because of lack of mechanisms and methods of realization of this process have begun to extend. Willy-nilly the problem becomes primitive by similar reasonings, discussion of a question is transferred to unscientific, household level, than, in fact, the idea of compensation for the Armenian Genocide depreciates. Meanwhile, if not to go into extremes and to be guided by realistic concepts, then it is quite possible to find rational solutions of this problem. On the basis of historic facts, norms and the principles of international law, and also in particular on a precedent on which compensation to the Jewish people for Holocaust consequences is still carried out, it is quite possible to develop certain tools, methods and mechanisms of realization also of compensation for Genocide to the Armenian people. In this article are offered certain methods and mechanisms of overcoming territorial, cultural and civilization, material, and also moral and psychological consequences of Genocide made concerning the Armenian people.