Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nagorno-Karabakh


 * (Nagorno-Karabakh | talk)

Users should only edit one position or view, for each dispute, other than to endorse.

Dispute 1
(add a general summary of the dispute here, but without taking sides)

This is the intro dispute:


 * User:Grandmaster asserts that Nagorno-Karabakh is a "de jure region of Azerbaijan".
 * User:TigranTheGreat, User:Fadix and User:Eupator all assert that Nagorno-Karabakh is a "disputed region, officially an autonomous Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan".

- FrancisTyers 18:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Position 1
The dispute is mostly over the word de-jure, because User:TigranTheGreat and those who support his position don’t want to accept that according to international laws the region is legally part of Azerbaijan. NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan republic. UN Security Council refers to it as Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. See UN Security Council resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh. PACE resolution states that the region is under control of separatist forces and also: The Assembly reiterates that the occupation of foreign territory by a member state constitutes a grave violation of that state’s obligations as a member of the Council of Europe and reaffirms the right of displaced persons from the area of conflict to return to their homes safely and with dignity. PACE Resolution # 1416 This is the position of international community, which recognizes NK as part of Azerbaijan. None of these documents refer to NK as a disputed region, which my opponents want to insert into the intro, as such status simply does not exist.

Rapporteur David Atkinson in his report to Political Affairs Committee of PACE stated that ''the borders of Azerbaijan were internationally recognised at the time of the country being recognised as independent state in 1991. The territory of Azerbaijan included the Nagorno-Karabakh region''. And also: ''ethnic Armenians had established a “government” in the Nagorno-Karabkah region with its “capital” in Stepanakert (or Khankendi in Azerbaijani). This “government” is not recognised by any of the Council of Europe member states, nor by the OSCE, European Union and the United Nations. Armenia maintains close political, economic and military relations with them, but does not recognise the area as an independent state and hence has not established diplomatic relations with this “government”. According to the information given to me, Armenians from Armenia had participated in the armed fighting over the Nagorno-Karabakh region besides local Armenians from within Azerbaijan. Today, Armenia has soldiers stationed in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and the surrounding districts, people in the region have passports of Armenia, and the Armenian government transfers large budgetary resources to this area.''

Council of Europe does not recognize legitimacy of the NK de-facto authorities and objects to staging one-sided elections in NK by them. See ,

International laws provide for inviolability of international borders, and such authoritative information service as BBC says about status of NK: de jure part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, unilaterally declared itself an independent republic in 1991. Therefore I think that the intro should state that the region is de-jure part of Azerbaijan.

As for autonomy, it was abolished by the parliament of Azerbaijan in 1991, so formally NK is just a region of Azerbaijan. Regards, Grandmaster 20:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~ )
 * It doesn't take a scientist to understand that if NK is internationally/officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan while in fact is controlled by the Armenians, then it means that it is de jure part of Azerbaijan and de facto under Armenian control. --Tabib 13:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * NK is a region, not an entity of any sort. Therefore, it is pointless to consider any "position" by NK. As for Armenia, it is a foreign country, therefore Armenia's position about the status of it's neighbour's region is irrelevant. The only relevant position here is the official position of the Azerbaijan government. Not because it is correct or it is not a POV, only becuase it relevant. As a neutral source, Wikipedia may acknowledge the existence of other views, but not as a factual information. --TimBits [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px| ]] 23:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Position 2
To decide whether "de jure" is applicable in this case, we need to look at the peculiar circumustances in which NK declared its independence. It was not the simple case where a region A splits from a long-established independent state B. In this case, NK was an autonomous region of the Soviet Republic Azerbaijan (AzSSR). As USSR was collapsing in 1992, both NK and AzSSR declared independence simultanously (within 3 days). NK soon held a referendum even before Azerbaijan's independence was recognized by the UN. Furthermore, under existing Soviet law, an autonomous region had the right to split from a Soviet Republic, if such Republic declared independence. In this case, AzSSR declared its independence, and NK split from AzSSR according to the laws of then existing, and internationally recognized USSR. In its final months, USSR never disapproved of NK's decision.

There are reputable legal experts who believe, based on the above, that NK followed the existing law of seceding from AzSSR--and therefore its independence is legally (i.e. under the law, i.e. "de jure") warranted. Such is the conclusion, for example, of a legal analysis by New England School of Law's Center for International Law & Policy. Such is the position of Armenia and NK itself.

Of course there are other experts who disagree with this. Under the Wikipedia strict NPOV policy, we are not allowed to adopt one position over another. There are those who believe NK is legally not part of Azerbaijan, and there are those who believe it is. According to NPOV, we never assert positions--we state and attribute them to their authors. The "International Status" section of the article does just the same. The introduction, being a short paragraph, is not the place for listing of various positions. It should list pure facts. What we know as pure facts is that NK declared its independence, and its' not recognized.

Also, the PACE Resolution, quoted by User:Grandmaster, does not even once use the phrase "NK, region of Azerbaijan." While 3 UN Security Council resolutions do, UNSC resolutions are not mandatory for states, and do not constitute a mandatory law--and therefore do not mean that "under the law, i.e. de jure, NK is part of Azerbaijan." The relevant law in this case is the Soviet one, according to which NK seceded from AzSSR (while USSR was still functional).--TigranTheGreat 03:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~ )
 * Eupator 00:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Partially agree. Fad (ix) 17:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Position 3
I do not have a clear request, what I advance is that this section should be as neutral as possible and not left in the hand of POV pushers. I have never denied that it is officially a part of Azerbaijan, what I have advanced is that the term de jure is problematic to be used under such a situation and I have presented many arguments for the why of this. De jure is not to be equaled with officially, De jure has legal implications and it takes one legal argument to claim Karabakh de jure independent for this term to not be used as an established fact. Karabakh maintains that it is de jure and de facto independent on the ground that it has used the same legal means and Soviet laws to get out of the Soviet Union as independent as Azerbaijan used. While, no one denies that Karabakh is officially recognised as part of Azerbaijan, even thought some local autorities in some states have made remarks recognizing its independence, there is no question that under such a situation de jure is not a term to be used. Also, those that oppose the deletion of this word maintains that it is parallel to de facto, I opposed to this on the ground that de facto is simply an observation and not an interpretation of law. Karabakh manage the international funds, it has a minister of finance that has an unofficial recognition to handle the loands from the World Bank and various countries monatary helps, such as those of the United States. De facto clearly apply, while de jure is an interpretation. If I am wrong, and it could be that I am, like all the editors here, I am not immune to that, at least I request further discussion on that. I oppose edit waring, and I refused to drag myself into that. Also, due to one editors us vs them mentality, it is difficult to have a serious discussion, I advanced that people here are above all, all Wikipedians a community and this should go before nationalistic feelings. If people can not understand that, they can not understand that when they register they become a member of a community and that they get babtisized a Wikipedian and that this for every single minute they log here to contribute their assossiation and Wikipedian community feelings should pass first. This also applies with those I have agreed in this discussion, one in particular that has templates in his user page maintaining political positions that are related with the article which may be problematic to the discussion. Maybe it is about time that Wikipedia regulate the uses of templates in user pages. I know that those last issues I brought have nothing to do here, but I believe that it is part of the conflict. And lastly, if we kill this us vs them mentality, I maintain that most of the conflicts on articles which are politically hot will get solutioned. Fad (ix) 16:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~ )

Outside view by Dcabrilo
Having looked at both sides, I think the dispute is blown out of proportions. If we all agree that NK is not internationally recognized as independent (which, it seems, we do), we come to a conclusion that it's not a state and is in fact a part of another state (which is just proper deduction according to usual perception of what a state is - and the definition usually involves defined borders, sovereign government and international recognition). Furthermore, if it's not an independent state we have to look at it from Azerbaijan's perspective for a part of definition. So, we can totally avoid any of the two wordings proposed and find a way out in verbosity. E.g. "Nagorno-Karabakh is a region in Azerbaijan. The region proclaimed independance in 1992 and currently functions as a de-facto independant state. This state is not internationally recognised as a republic and within Azerbaijan NK has a de jure status of autonomous oblast (or whatever the internal de jure status is)." --dcabrilo 00:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion (sign with ~ )
 * FrancisTyers 00:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Partially agree, I think the solution lies somewhere between Dcabrilo and Tigrans proposition. Fad (ix) 17:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * abakharev 05:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Sean Black
Well, I think that the parties should firstly try to see each other's viewpoints better. Compromise is the solution here&mdash;What that compromise is, however, is another thing entirely. I'm not sure I can say, really. However, note that I think the intro should only contain a brief overview and relatively uncontroversial facts. Note that there is a dispute, and whatt it entails, but don't try to cram it all in the intro. That's my two cents- Try to balance your POV's. Additionally, I'd like to say that it's totally innapropriate to use the term, "opponents" in reference to other editors- We may have disagreements, but this is a collaborative project. Make friends, not enemies, or at the very least, make neutral aquiantances.--Sean Black (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion (sign with ~ )
 * FrancisTyers 01:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fad (ix) 17:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * abakharev 05:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view
(add neutral suggestions for a solution here)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Dispute 2
(add a general summary of the dispute here, but without taking sides)

Position 1
Users who endorse this position (sign with ~ )

Position 2
Users who endorse this position (sign with ~ )

Outside view
(add neutral suggestions for a solution here)

Users who endorse this suggestion (sign with ~ )

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Dispute 3
(add a general summary of the dispute here, but without taking sides)

Position 1
Users who endorse this position (sign with ~ )

Position 2
(add summary here of the position of one side, and provide evidence and references to back it up, where appropriate)

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~ )

Outside view
Users who endorse this suggestion (sign with ~ )

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Dispute 4
(add a general summary of the dispute here, but without taking sides)

Position 1
(add summary here of the position of one side, and provide evidence and references to back it up, where appropriate)

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~ )

Position 2
(add summary here of the position of one side, and provide evidence and references to back it up, where appropriate)

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~ )

Outside view
(add neutral suggestions for a solution here)

Users who endorse this suggestion (sign with ~ )

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.