After Argentina’s victory over England in the semi-finals of the World Cup, the memory of the dispute over the Falkland Islands, Malvinas, came back into focus. Politicians, war veterans and commentators openly linked the meeting to the unresolved issue of sovereignty. Former RA Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan wrote about this.

“However, the fact that Argentina’s demand is not only political is often overlooked. it is fixed by the Constitution of the country. Since 1994, the Argentine Constitution defines the return of the Malvinas as a permanent national goal, at the same time clearly obliging the country to achieve this goal exclusively through peaceful means, diplomacy and within the framework of international law.

This raises an important question for Armenia. Azerbaijan claims that Armenia should remove all references to Nagorno Karabakh from its Constitution, presenting it as a precondition for peace. But if Argentina has the right to maintain its constitutional position regarding the Malvinas, while remaining faithful to the peaceful and diplomatic path, then why should Armenia be deprived of the same right? Constitutional aspiration, when pursued through dialogue and international law rather than the use of force, is not an obstacle to peace. it is a legitimate expression of national policy.

The real criterion is not whether the state upholds a constitutional requirement, but by what means it pursues it. “Peace is strengthened when states are committed to diplomacy, respect for international law and the protection of human rights, not when they are forced to erase their own history or abandon their constitutional principles,” he wrote.

—