The Ankara Center for Crisis and Policy Studies (ANKASAM) presents its interview with Emil Hasanov, Deputy Chairman of the Public Council under the Azerbaijan Mine Action Agency (ANAMA), conducted to assess the problems caused by landmines planted during Armenia’s 30-year-long occupation in the context of Azerbaijan’s mine action efforts.
1. From the perspective of international humanitarian law, do you think Armenia holds a legal responsibility to clear the landmines it laid in the territories it previously occupied, or at least to provide accurate maps of those minefields?
The issue of landmines and accountability in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict is complex under international humanitarian law (IHL), especially since neither country is a party to the Ottawa Treaty (Mine Ban Treaty). Despite this, several IHL principles provide guidance.
Armenia’s Legal Responsibility
1. International Humanitarian Law (IHL):
– IHL applies to all parties in armed conflict, regardless of treaty status, covering key principles such as distinction, proportionality, and the prohibition of unnecessary suffering as outlined in the Geneva Conventions.
– Prohibition of Indiscriminate Weapons: The use of anti-personnel landmines in civilian areas without proper marking may violate the prohibition against indiscriminate weapons (CIHL Rule 71), which mandates distinguishing between civilians and combatants.
2. Obligation to Clear:
– Although Armenia is not part of the Ottawa Treaty that establishes mine clearance obligations for signatories, IHL also requires a similar duty. Article 6 of Additional Protocol II requires parties to take precautions to protect civilians, implying responsibility for addressing landmine dangers.
3. Providing Accurate Maps by Armenia:
– The obligation to provide accurate minefield maps falls under the duty to inform and protect civilians from conflict-related dangers. Lack of transparency can worsen civilian suffering and hinder clearance efforts.
Azerbaijan’s efforts and Costs
Azerbaijan’s decision to clear its territory of landmines, even those laid during Armenian occupations, reflects its efforts to ensure safety environment for civilians on their own cost. Yet, seeking international reimbursement poses challenges:
Relevant Case Study:
– A pertinent example is Cambodia’s claim against the U.S. for landmine use during the Vietnam War, which illustrates how affected states might pursue compensation. Similar legal frameworks and negotiation platforms would be needed for Armenia and Azerbaijan, likely involving international courts.
-The Nicaragua vs. United States case (1986) analysed the legality of U.S. actions in Nicaragua during the 1980s, particularly its support for Contra rebels and military operations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the U.S. violated international law by: Intervention in Internal Affairs: U.S. support for the Contras was deemed unlawful interference in Nicaragua’s internal matters.
Use of Force: The mining of Nicaraguan harbours was considered a breach of the principle against the use of force in international relations.
Customary International Law: The Court highlighted that customary international law protects states from aggressive acts, even without specific treaties.
The ICJ ordered the U.S. to halt its unlawful activities and provide reparations to Nicaragua, establishing key precedents for state responsibility and international humanitarian law, particularly in armed conflict contexts.
Moreover, Under the “Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts,” Azerbaijan has several potential actions it could consider taking against Armenia due to the fact Armenia has committed internationally wrongful acts. Here are some key steps and actions Azerbaijan could impose:
Litigation at the International Court of Justice (ICJ): Azerbaijan could bring a case against Armenia before the ICJ, claiming that Armenia has violated international law. This would involve presenting evidence of the alleged wrongful acts and seeking a ruling on state responsibility.
Seeking Reparations: Armenia committed wrongful acts, Azerbaijan could seek reparations, which may include compensation for damages caused by those acts.
Imposing Sanctions: While the authority to impose sanctions may depend on broader international consensus and mechanisms, Azerbaijan could advocate for targeted sanctions against Armenia through international bodies if it can substantiate claims of wrongdoing.
2. Given that only around 25% of the minefield maps provided by Armenia have been deemed reliable, how does this affect the operational efficiency and safety of demining efforts on the ground?
The reliability of minefield maps is crucial for the operational efficiency and safety of demining efforts. With only about 25% of the maps provided by Armenia deemed reliable, several significant challenges arise:
Increased Operational Costs: The lack of reliable landmine records means demining teams must conduct extensive surveys to identify and verify mine locations, which significantly increases costs. While planting landmines might cost around $2 each, humanitarian demining can escalate to up to $50 per square meter. This disparity places a financial strain on demining operations.
Safety Risks: The presence of unreliable maps increases the risks to demining personnel. Mines laid by irregular and regular Armenian armed forces may not have been accurately recorded due to a lack of skill or resources. Additionally, the intentional tactics and pressures from occupying forces can create potential hazards for deminers and civilians who may unknowingly enter dangerous areas.
Demining challenges: Many minefields are found in difficult locations, such as mountains and riverbanks, which makes humanitarian demining efforts more challenging. These environments increase risks and create operational difficulties, especially during extreme weather conditions, like summer temperatures 40°C+ or winter temperatures dropping to -20°C. This makes it harder to work safely and effectively. Additionally, Mine Detection Dogs and mechanical equipment have limitations based on temperature, humidity, terrain, and other factors.
Time Consumption: Humanitarian demining is a meticulous process, especially since Azerbaijan aims to meet the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) with a 99% clearance rate. The need for thorough verification, especially in the context of unreliable maps, extends the timeline for completing demining operations.
Humanitarian Considerations: Given Azerbaijan’s focus on humanitarian demining, the emphasis on safety and certification means that efforts are not only more costly but also take considerably longer compared to military or less thorough approaches. The need for certification (via QA/QC) adds an additional layer of complexity, cost and time to the process.
In conclusion, the unreliability of minefield maps provided by Armenia severely impacts the efficiency, safety, and cost-effectiveness of demining efforts in Azerbaijan. This situation necessitates a more extensive and careful approach to ensure the safety of demining personnel and civilians and the successful clearance of mined areas.
Afterwards, approximately 1 million landmines were planted by Armenia on the occupied territories of Azerbaijan during the 30 years of occupation. These occupied lands, which make up about 20% of Azerbaijan’s total area (approximately 86,600 sq. km), amount to around 17,000 sq. km. This results in a significant density of landmine contamination in these regions.
3. What are the main challenges Azerbaijan faces in its large-scale demining process? In your view, are current international contributions—both technical and financial—sufficient?
I believe that current international contributions may not be sufficient. It seems that the international community has not given adequate attention to Azerbaijan’s landmine issues. While there is some support, the situation is often overshadowed by political considerations, particularly following Azerbaijan’s liberation of its territories based on four UN and UNSC resolutions. As a result, the focus on Azerbaijan’s landmine problem in some major cases influenced by varying political sympathies, Armenian lobby, which may not align with the urgent needs on the ground. While some contributions are appreciated, there is certainly room for increased support to address the challenges effectively.
4. What mechanisms can the international community, including the United Nations and the OSCE, employ to ensure accountability for such long-term post-conflict hazards? Could there be a precedent for imposing diplomatic or legal consequences in similar cases?
The OSCE office in Baku was closed in 2009.
The OSCE Minsk Group was established to mediate the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and is co-chaired by the United States, Russia, and France. However, its effectiveness has been questioned due to perceived biases favouring Armenia, influenced by strong Armenian lobbying in these countries. As a result, Azerbaijan has called for the official closure of the OSCE Minsk Group, due to its bias approach in maintaining the status quo of occupation.
Azerbaijan liberated its territories during the 2020 conflict and anti-terror operation in September 2023. This restoration is supported by four United Nations Security Council and General Assembly resolutions that reaffirm Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and demand the withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied territories, including Nagorno-Karabakh and five other regions. Unfortunately, Armenia didn’t implement these resolutions, forcing Azerbaijan to take decisive action to reclaim its territory.
While these UN resolutions do not fully invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which addresses threats to peace and acts of aggression, they highlight the necessity for accountability. Articles 39 through 42 of the Charter outline the measures that should be taken against those who violate international law or commit acts of aggression. The failure to enforce these articles in past conflicts, like the Balkans and Syria, underscores the importance of holding violators accountable.
It is crucial to draw parallels between Azerbaijan’s situation and past instances where the international community took action, such as the sanctions imposed on Serbia and the no-fly zone established in Syria. In those cases, the international community acted decisively to uphold international law and respond to violations, reinforcing the idea that such actions should not be ignored.
Given these circumstances, it is essential to assess whether the international community has the will and capacity to impose similar diplomatic or legal consequences for the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, despite the UN resolutions that were adopted in favour of Azerbaijan, which called for the withdrawal of Armenian forces from these territories, including Nagorno-Karabakh and five other regions. Such actions would reinforce adherence to international norms and ensure accountability for Armenia’s past violations.
It is time for the international community to acknowledge Azerbaijan’s rights and obligations under international law, ensuring that violations are addressed swiftly and decisively.
