BY DAVIT ABRAHAMYAN

What happens when a country’s legal order is demanded to be changed by an external power? Armenia currently confronts this dilemma as the Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev insists that Armenia amend the preamble of its constitution to formalize plans of “long-lasting peace” between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

On July 10th, 2025, Armenian prime minister Nikol Pashinyan and the Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev met in Abu Dhabi to advance negotiations on a comprehensive Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement, a process supported by the United States. During the summit, leaders of both countries primarily focused on discussions of moving from the draft peace agreement to a ratified treaty that would establish peace between both countries. Although the meeting advanced negotiations, it left one fundamental issue unresolved: Aliyev’s proposal of amending the preamble of the Armenian constitution, a proposal that prime minister Pashinyan has indicated he is prepared to consider.

While it is presented as an initiative towards peace, Aliyev’s intentions of amending the Armenian constitution extends beyond a simple factual correction. It serves as a strategic effort to increase Azerbaijan’s leverage in future negotiations. The Azerbaijani president aims to alter the preamble of the Armenian constitution based on the belief that it references the 1990 Declaration of Independence, which itself is assumed to refer to the 1989 reunification of Armenia and Artsakh. Factually, this is not entirely true, as the current Armenian constitution itself contains no active territorial claim, nor does it explicitly mention Artsakh to be a part of the Armenian territory. Indeed, Armenia’s Constitutional Court has concluded that the constitution does not prevent recognition of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. This suggests that Azerbaijan is merely objecting to symbolism, rather than an operative territorial claim in the Armenian constitution.

Though the genius of the constitution lies in its capacity to adapt to a changing world, its fundamental purpose has always remained the same – to serve as a foundational covenant between the state and its people; these do not include neighboring governments, foreign leaders, or military adversaries, but the citizens and the institutions that govern them. This understanding was reaffirmed between the Republic of Armenia and its people through the 1990 Declaration of Independence, which is the very same provision that Baku seeks to amend.

The Declaration of Independence is not simply ink on paper that references the reunification of territory no longer under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Armenia. It is a foundational document establishing democracy, sovereignty, and self determination by and for the Armenian people. Over the thirty-five years since Armenia regained independence, leaders have passed through history, carrying out referendums that amend the very same constitution that establishes sovereignty for the Republic of Armenia, but these changes have been carried out through Armenia’s own legal system with no outside intervention.

Embodying the collective will of a nation, a constitution not only limits the power of the government, but it defines the relationship between the state and its people – hence, rightfully vesting the citizens of Armenia with the authority of modifying the constitution. If constitutions derive their legitimacy from the people, public opinion becomes especially relevant. In 2024, a poll was conducted in Armenia after Azerbaijan made constitutional change a condition for long-lasting peace, to which a substantial number of Armenian citizens objected. The results showed only 12.2{90b964f27ce7bc9c36fdb61368f54201be816e5f12bfa29e2a237d6d22ae241b} to be in favor of amending the 1990 Declaration of Independence for peace purposes, while a staggering 80.3{90b964f27ce7bc9c36fdb61368f54201be816e5f12bfa29e2a237d6d22ae241b} strongly opposed amending the constitution. Prime minister Pashinyan’s continuous negotiations of constitutional reform in disregard of majority opinion challenge the principle embodied in Article 2 of the Armenian constitution, which states that “In the Republic of Armenia, the power belongs to the people.” Therefore, Pashinyan’s initiative towards amending the Armenian constitution by demands of Azerbaijan stands in opposition to the democratic will of the people, as he uses his constitutional rights to empower the government, with great disregard to the citizens of Armenia.

Although supporters believe that prime minister Pashinyan’s decision of amending the constitution is essential to a long lasting peace with Azerbaijan, this assumption is based on an incomplete understanding of the issue. On the surface, it seems that by submitting to the demands of the Azerbaijani president, prime minister Pashinyan reduces the likelihood of renewed military conflict – serving the intentions of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the United States, which has supported and facilitated plans of peace between the neighboring countries. However, by supporting this idea, we overlook the fact that weakening the sovereignty of a nation limits control over its own affairs. By simply complying with the proposal of constitutional amendment, prime minister Pashinyan endangers not only the political, but also the economic sovereignty of the Armenian government – granting leverage to Azerbaijan for future negotiations over issues involving regional transit corridors, customs arrangements, and security guarantees.

As peace talks progress between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the struggle for influence intensifies between the neighboring countries. By preserving its legal order with no outside intervention, Armenia strengthens its sovereign position and enhances its strategic advantage in the peace process with Azerbaijan. To prevent any intervention in Armenia’s domestic stability, the peace treaty, by all means, should be separated from constitutional reform. Given Armenia’s current geopolitical stance, the best approach would be to pursue peace with Azerbaijan while vehemently objecting to any alteration of the constitutional order – advocating for sovereignty of the Republic of Armenia. If Baku remains unwilling to accept mutual terms, a viable diplomatic alternative for Armenia is to seek support from the United States, which has played an important role in facilitating the peace process between the neighboring countries.

Ultimately, a democratic system of government dictates that the constitution serves to empower the people. If, for any reason, the amendment of the constitution is not carried out by the independent will of the people, then the constitutional sovereignty of the nation must be called into question. As our nation strives toward peace, may it never forget that peace is only lasting when it is built upon grounds of sovereignty, democracy, and the freely expressed will of the people.

Davit Abrahamyan is a junior at the University of California, Berkeley, where he is studying political science. He pens articles for Asbarez in his free time.

—