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.

—

A group of climbers display the “We are our Mountains” painting atop Mt. Ararat

A story that sparked widespread public attention in Armenia has taken an unexpected and deeply symbolic turn. A painting by 11-year-old Artsakh native Eva Danielyan, which had previously been forcibly removed from an exhibition at Yerevan’s Anoushavan Ter-Ghevondyan Music School No. 1, was carried to the summit of Mount Ararat.

The symbolic act was dedicated to every individual’s right to memory and to the enduring values that no prohibition can erase, the participants said.

The controversial removal of the child’s painting was reported earlier this month by Artsakh Cultural Preservation Center, which said the school’s acting principal summarily removed the painting, deeming it “anti-state act.”

The 11-year-old Danielyan, who is a displaced Artsakh Armenian living in Yerevan, painted the “We are Our Mountains’ monument several days before an exhibition featuring students’ art, using bright colors she said reflected how she pictured it.

“I chose these colors because this is how I imagined it,” she said. “I really love these colors.”

Her art teacher, Sona Jarahyan, placed the painting in the exhibition area the evening before the event. It was gone the next morning after being removed on the administration’s orders. Jarahyan later returned it to the display, while Danielyan learned about the controversy only afterward.

“I never imagined that a painting about Artsakh would be removed from an exhibition wall,” Danielyan told an Armenia media outlet earlier this month.

Jarahyan, the art teacher, met with the school’s administration after the exhibition, submitted her resignation and left the school. She declined to discuss the circumstances in detail but has since found another job.

Danielyan said that she was devastated to hear about her teacher leaving, and said she planned to stop attending the Anushavan Ter Ghevondyan school and will follow her teacher.

In response to the removal of the artwork, Danielyan’s painting was put on auction online and was purchased last week Gayane Aghabekyan, an Artsakh native living in Moscow, bought the painting for $1,800.

According to members of the climbing expedition, the initiative to take Danielyan’s drawing to Mt. Ararat was their response to the incident, which generated broad public outrage both within and outside Armenia.

Danielyan’s artwork, the climbers said, was dedicated to the idea of returning to Artsakh.

“Memory cannot be erased,” one of the climbers said. “We wanted to express our support for Eva and demonstrate that justice and kindness stand above everything else, and that the most important values cannot be prohibited.”

The group also encouraged the young artist to continue creating, painting, and never fear to express herself freely through art.

“From the very first day we printed copies of the painting in Yerevan, we received overwhelming support from the public—both for Eva and for our initiative,” the participants noted.

The painting’s ascent to the summit of Mt. Ararat became a symbol of values that transcend any ban: memory, love for one’s homeland, and artistic freedom. Organizers emphasized that the story should serve as a reminder that creative _expression_ cannot be restricted to serve any ideological agenda.

The organizers said they view the incident not merely as the story of a single painting, but as an opportunity to foster a broader public discussion about the right to freedom of artistic _expression_.

“Here, on the summit of Mt. Ararat, we have no doubt which painting carried the exhibition’s most meaningful and profound message,” they said.

—

Forty-three years ago in Lisbon, five young Armenian men carried in their hearts a vision of a free, independent, and united Armenia, along with the demand for universal recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

Setrak Adjemian, Vatche Daghlian, Simon Yahniyan, Sarkis Aprahamian, and Ara Kurchulian belonged to a generation that refused to accept silence, assimilation, and the denial of Armenian rights. At a time when the world largely ignored the Armenian Cause, their action forced international attention onto a history that many preferred to forget.

The Lisbon operation was not only about recognition. It expressed a deeper conviction: that Armenians must not become detached from their homeland, history, and national purpose. For the five men, the Armenian Cause was not an abstract idea. It was a responsibility that demanded complete devotion.

In Lisbon, ideals and sacrifice became one.

Their legacy became part of the political and moral chain connecting earlier generations of struggle with the Artsakh movement, Armenia’s independence, and the continuing pursuit of justice. Only five years later, the Artsakh movement demonstrated that the Armenian people remained prepared to defend their right to self-determination and national unity.

The principles associated with that period later found their way in Armenia’s Declaration of Independence and in the Pan-Armenian Declaration adopted on the centennial of the Armenian Genocide. Recognition, justice, reparations, national security, and the protection of Armenian rights became part of the stated mission of the Armenian state.

Today, many of those principles are under attack. Efforts are being made to separate Armenia from the symbols, ideas, and national commitments that shaped its independence. Historical rights are increasingly portrayed as burdens, while surrender is presented as realism.

But the spirit represented by Lisbon cannot be erased. Its meaning lies not in repeating the methods of the past, but in preserving the determination behind them: the refusal to accept denial, dispossession, and the disappearance of the Armenian Cause from public life.

The message of the Lisbon Five remains directed especially toward Armenian youth in the homeland and the Diaspora. It calls on them to know their history, preserve their national identity, and understand that freedom and justice are not maintained through comfort or indifference.

The Idea survives when it is carried forward through political work, education, organization, public service, and unwavering commitment to Armenian national rights.

That is the enduring legacy of Lisbon.

ARF Western USA Central Committee
July 27, 2026