Decisions on Nakhchivan and the Constitutional Unity of Azerbaijan – An Analysis by a Doctor of International Law

Author: Namig Aliyev, Doctor of Law, Professor, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Head of the Department of International Relations and Foreign Policy at the Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan 

Last week, the Milli Majlis of Azerbaijan adopted, in the second reading, amendments to the Constitution of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic.

The Constitution of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic was adopted by the Supreme Mejlis of the autonomy on 28 April 1998 and entered into force on 8 January 1999 after ratification by the Milli Majlis and official publication. This was the fourth Constitution of Nakhchivan. The first was adopted in 1926, the second in 1937, and the third in 1978.

The adoption by the Parliament of Azerbaijan, in the second reading, of amendments to the Constitution of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic constitutes an important stage in the evolution of state-legal relations between the Republic of Azerbaijan and its autonomous entity. These changes are not revolutionary in nature; however, they possess significant legal and symbolic importance, as they are aimed at clarifying the constitutional foundations of autonomy, eliminating contradictory historical-legal interpretations, and aligning the status of Nakhchivan more closely with the nature of Azerbaijan as a unitary state.

In a broader context, these amendments reflect an aspiration to complete the prolonged transitional period shaped by Soviet legacy and post-Soviet conflicts, and to achieve institutional consolidation of state sovereignty.

Azerbaijan as a unitary state and the issue of “unnatural autonomy”

According to the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan is a unitary state, which presupposes the unity of sovereignty, the legal system, and the vertical structure of state authority. Within this framework, the existence of an autonomous entity in a unitary state constitutes an exception rather than a norm and requires a specific historical and political explanation.

The autonomy of Nakhchivan was not the result of the organic internal development of Azerbaijani statehood. Its emergence was a consequence of Soviet national-territorial policy, under which territorial decisions were taken not on the basis of historical justice or ethno-political integrity, but in accordance with the geopolitical and ideological considerations of the central authorities.

A key factor necessitating the autonomous status of Nakhchivan was the transfer of Zangezur to Armenia, as a result of which Nakhchivan became territorially separated from the main part of Azerbaijan. In the absence of this artificially created geographical isolation, there would have been no objective need for autonomy. Consequently, Nakhchivan’s autonomy was not an expression of a special form of self-determination, but rather a compensatory mechanism intended to mitigate the consequences of an externally imposed territorial decision.

Soviet legacy and the conflict factor

Following the collapse of the USSR, Azerbaijan’s movement toward institutional unitarism was impeded by the ongoing Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. The unresolved territorial issues, security threats, and the need to preserve internal stability objectively constrained profound reform of relations between the center and the autonomy.

Under these conditions, the autonomous status of Nakhchivan primarily performed a stabilizing and protective function rather than serving as an instrument of expanded political subjectivity. Over time, however, Soviet legal constructions enshrined in the autonomous constitution began to conflict with the logic of a unitary state and contemporary standards of public administration.

In this context, the exclusion from the preamble of the Constitution of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic of references to the Moscow and Kars Treaties of 1921 carries particular significance. Legally, these treaties never implied the “transfer” of Nakhchivan to Azerbaijan. Historically and legally, Nakhchivan has always been an integral part of the Azerbaijani space. The Moscow and Kars Treaties merely закрепили (enshrined) the special autonomous status of Nakhchivan within Azerbaijan under conditions of external pressure and geopolitical compromise in the early twentieth century.

However, the retention of direct references to these treaties in the constitutional text of the autonomy created grounds for deliberate misinterpretations, primarily on the part of Armenia, which attempted to portray these documents as a basis for the “transfer” of territory.

The exclusion of references to these treaties does not negate historical facts but removes legal ambiguities, eliminating the possibility of foreign policy speculation and reinforcing the thesis that the Nakhchivan autonomy constitutes an internal administrative-legal entity of Azerbaijan rather than the result of an international “mandate.”

Legal significance of the amendments for Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan

For the Republic of Azerbaijan, the adopted amendments signify: strengthening of the constitutional unity of the state; clear subordination of autonomous institutions to the nationwide system of authority; elimination of historical-legal constructions potentially undermining the sovereign narrative; and bringing the governance model of Nakhchivan closer to the logic of a unitary state without formally abolishing autonomy.

It is important to emphasize that this is not about dismantling autonomy, but about its legal normalization—bringing it into conformity with the actual character of Azerbaijani statehood.

For the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, the amendments imply a reduction in symbolic political autonomy while preserving administrative functions; enhanced coordination with central authorities; a transition from the Soviet model of “quasi-autonomy” to a modern format of regional governance; and increased legal certainty regarding the status of autonomy within Azerbaijan.

Thus, autonomy is increasingly perceived not as a special political subject, but as a specific region within a unified state.

In conclusion

The amendments to the Constitution of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic should be regarded as a logical stage in the post-Soviet evolution of Azerbaijani statehood. They do not disrupt the existing balance but gradually eliminate legal and symbolic elements inherited from an era of external governance and geopolitical compromise.

In the long term, these changes strengthen the unitary nature of Azerbaijan, minimize space for external interpretations, and create a more sustainable model of relations between the center and the region. Nakhchivan is thereby definitively закрепляется (consolidated) not as an “exception,” but as an integral part of Azerbaijan’s state and legal order.