Stick (PRO)Nargorno Karabahk is a disputed region that lies between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The vast majority of residents in this region are ethnically Armenian (95%). This conflict started in 1919 (whilst the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians by Turkish forces was ending) when Azerbaijani forces, supported by the British, conquered the region, with much local resistance. When the Soviets took control of the region in 1921, though 94% of the population were Armenian, the region remained in the control of Azerbaijani authorities. In 1991, following years of tensions, Nargorno Karabahk had a referendum which indicated that the vast majority of residents still wished the region be reunited with Armenia, which sparked a war ending in a shaky 1994 ceasefire with much continued fighting. Armenia is presently in de facto control of the autonomous region.
Human Rights Watch is one of many organisations that have claimed that Afghan Mujahedeen and other Islamic extremist elements have been fighting alongside Azerbaijani forces, in their attempts to coerce the population of Nargorno Karabahk. The vast majority of Armenians are Christian, and the 5% that are not, are predominantly Kurdish. Particularly now with the threat posed to Armenians by terrorist groups in the region, such as the Islamic State, who think that everyone who does not believe in Sunni Islam should be killed: should the world not support forces that have consistently fought terrorism throughout their history, as opposed to quash them?
Historical evidence would suggest that the people of Nargorno Karabahk wish the region to be part of Armenia, which is evidenced in petitions, referenda, protests and declarations by popularly elected legislative bodies. I would be in support of holding yet another referendum, just in case there is any doubt about it.
States exist because the collective will of the people determines avoiding anarchy to be beneficial, and laws are instituted to reflect the collective subjective wills people have. Thus, political legitimacy exists solely because a population deems it to. If an entire region refuses to accept the legitimacy of a particular state by overwhelming majority, and rejects that states claim on a monopoly on the use of physical force within it then that state holds no legitimate claim over that region, and the only way to keep that region within the state would be brutal coercion. Thus for Nargorno Karabahk, Azerbaijan has no legitimacy in its rule.
Not only is this true in principle, but it is also widely recognised as being the case and affirmed in precedents in international law, such as in the decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to rule against Serbia when they complained about Kosovo’s declaration of independence. This precedent is a mere extension of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which is an underlying principle of international law – extending the doctrine to factor in not only the direct safety and security of the population, but also the aspirations of that population, away from the strict enforcement of negative freedoms and to the enforcement of positive freedoms, indicative of modern liberalism (upon which international law is founded). Thus as Kosovo was legally justified in seceding from Serbia, so too would the Nargorno Karabahk region be justified in seceding from Azerbaijan.
If the self-determination of the people of Nargorno Karabahk would dictate that acceding to Armenia to be beneficial and in the best interests of its population, then that self-determination should be able to be realised.
Return To Top | Posted:
abbasovame (CON)Opposition,
Return To Top | Posted:
Stick: Did not the Azerbaijanis in 1919, "rush in and kill everybody there", "then saying it shall belong to him" before systematically oppressing Armenians for decades? Why should a region that from 734BC-1919AD was part of Armenia join Azerbaijan if the vast majority of people from there do not want to?Stick: Also, why is a state's claimed sovereignty over a people more important than that people's self-determination?Stick: What would happen to the people of Nagorno Karabahk if Armenian forces left and the people surrendered to the Azerbaijanis? Would the way Shia Muslims have recently been treated in Nardaran (Azerbaijan) not indicate that the Salafist government of Azerbaijan might not be all too accepting of Armenian Christians?Return To Top | Speak Round
Stick (PRO)Firstly, I would like to point out that my opponent did not engage in cross-examination, and I would still like all three of my questions posed there responded to. Con made some outrageous points in her first round, and completely ignored all of the points that I made in my first round.
Return To Top | Posted:
abbasovame (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
Stick: Do you intend to finish this debate?Return To Top | Speak Round
Stick (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
Judge: Anthony Tai
Judge: Pinkie
debate*Posted 2015-12-23 07:03:55
Finish the denate? They didn't even start. It is a common practice round these parts.Posted 2015-12-23 06:58:56
Historically it's the Azerbaijanis that have stolen land, not the other way around. If say Mexico suddenly decided to conquer California, should the Californians that want to be part of the U.S. Be forced to move? Would the U.S. military be 'unjustified' in conquering it back?
I mean at the end of the day, if over 90% of people genuinely want something, that should be more important than what 'their government' wants. Posted 2015-11-30 06:11:17
The ethnic Armenians of Azerbaijan should move to Armenia if to be Armenian in nationality is what they want, but what the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh are doing is little more than Armenia trying to steal land from Azerbaijan and I don't condone it.Posted 2015-11-30 03:26:05