Category Archives: SCIENTIFIC


Comparative Examination


Sarkis M. Mkrtchian
What is Pan-Azerism? What is the difference and what does it have in common with Pan-Turkism? The study proves that these two concepts are closely related.

At present, given that the conditions for raising and implementing pan-Turkic ideas are not favorable, the panturkists have promoted pan-Nazism, for which there is favorable land and with which anti-Iranian forces and countries are interested.

As those Pan-Turkic organizations and figures who pursue the idea of the creation of Whole Azerbaijan outwardly do not use the words Pan-Turkism and Great Turan, even though all of their programs and words refer to the principles of Pan-Turk theorists.

Pan-Azerism, like Pan-Turkism, is an expansionist ideology. But if it is a mean for the panturkists towards creation of Great Turan, for Iranian-minded figures it is a historically-based project on the way to returning lost territories of Iran.

Atrpatakan intellectuals have played (and have) an important role in the preservation, strengthening of the Iranian identity and struggle against pan-Turkic programs, who consider themselves to be Azeris rather than Turks, for the simple reason that the spread of Turkish language in Atrpatakan has only changed the language of that society, but not identity, yet language is not the sole criteria for nationality.

Therefore, the pan-Azerists with pan-Turkic thinking believe that the northern and southern regions of the Arax River were, for thousands of years, a part of the Turks’ homeland, which later fell under the rule of Iran, and by the treaties of Gulistan (1813) and Turkmenchay (1828) it was divided between Iran and Russia.

And Iranian-minded pan-Azerists believe that by the two treaties mentioned above, Aran and Shirwan which used to be inseparable parts of Iran, were cut off from Iran and annexed to tsarist Russia due to the misguided policy of the kings of Qajar dynasty and in the early 20th century for various political reasons, already renamed, came to exist as a separate independent republic.

Since the second view has a serious scientific basis, it should serve as a guiding idea also for us in our understanding of the relationship between PanTurkism and Pan-Azerism.



Sargis M. Mkrtchian
At the end of the 20th century, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the selfdetermination of its separate republics also brought to the fore in Iran the issues of identity, which had certain manifestations especially in the Azeri-populated regions of Iran.

Organizations and figures appeared in the public, presenting various demands, from the teaching of the mother tongue in secondary schools and educational and cultural freedoms to the idea of separating Atrpatakan from Iran and joining “Northern Azerbaijan” or the Republic of Azerbaijan.

What is identity? What are the elements of identity? Is the identity of the Azeris of Iran different from the identity of the Iranian people? What do we understand under Iranian identity? What are the Azeris of Iran like and how are they different from the rest of the Iranian people? Recording that elements of national identity are considered to be a united history, united religion, united homeland, united culture, united economy, united language, common feelings, united state and political heritage, collective consciousness, sense of belonging, we conclude that the Azeris are an Iranian ethnic group whose identity cannot be separated from the common Iranian identity. Speaking Turkish of Atrpatakan, which belongs to the Turkish language family, imposed on them as a result of the invasion and coercion of the Mongol-Turkic tribes, is not enough to prove that they are a foreign nation. Since the Azeris of Iran bear all the elements of Iranian identity – geographical borders, history, religion and confession (Shiite religion of Islam), their constant presence in the state-political system of Iran, their integration into the Iranian economic system, bearing the cultural heritage, etc., all are evidence of that the Azeris have Iranian roots and are Iranians.



Gevorg M. Ghukasyan
The article presents the foundations, origins and development of “soft power” theory, as well as the interests served by that theory. The post-war perception of traditional power and the need for a “soft power” theory are also discussed.

There are many parallels between the “soft power” theory and the lobbying institute, functional similarities and correlations in the framework of Political Science. The article tries to present that correlations, which can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of individual or complex applications of these tools and on better understanding of phenomena within political science.

The thing is that both the lobbying toolbar and “soft power” technology actually work on public opinion to have influence. The only difference is that normally the “soft power” technology dictated by the dominant actor, but in the case of lobbying, the decoration of public opinion is implemented in public scope, however, the ultimate target is not the society but the decision makers through that society. So the ultimate target of both are the elites anyway.

In “soft power” technology, one of the targets is the formation of decision-making frameworks with a specific outlook, and in the case of lobbying, as a rule, the decisionmakers are again the target. The toolkits for reaching the target may be different.

In other words, “soft power” policy usually seeks to form an elite, and lobbying attempts to turn the already formed elite into a target of political pressure, often using technological tools of “soft power” policy.

Therefore, it is important to understand the theoretical and practical aspects of the above correlation and many other parallels, as well as to find out what layers of parallel development apply to functional co-operation and theoretical combination.

Thus, both in the use of “soft power” and in lobbying, an attempt is made:
– some modification or targeted guidance of public opinion in ways that exclude traditional use of force,
– to achieve the desired decisions by methods that exclude the traditional use of force,
– to achieve the expected result through persuasion and attraction, as well as by sharing the same civilizational perceptions and values,
– to create a circle of friends and relatives to solve any issue,
– to take advantage of the wide range of tools and opportunities provided by public diplomacy, etc.

In both cases, we are dealing with unique and well-established institutions of the political process that are political forces and factors that exclude the use of traditional perceptions of force – military, financial transactions, and coercion, with the exception of corrupt manifestations of lobbying, but of an elementary nature. they don’t.

It should be noted that the theory of “soft power”, formed in the political school of a state seeking global influence, and, in effect, being a tool of state policy, was adopted and adapted by non-state organizations, especially lobbying organizations. So it is no coincidence that “soft power” tools began to be used, in fact, long before their introduction, which coincided with the unprecedented rise of the lobbying institute. Therefore, it can also be concluded that the advance and present rise of the “soft power” policy and lobbying institute have been largely dependent on one another.


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


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.


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


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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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.