"Criminal Conspiracy" (continued) - Yuri BARSEGOV

Yuri Barsegov's article is devoted to an international-legal analysis of the Moscow (1921) and Kars (1921) treaties as key instruments of the criminal collusion between Kemalist Turkey and Bolshevik Russia against Armenian statehood. This work is a continuation of the publication begun in the previous issue of ANIV and is based on materials from the author's book "The Armenian Genocide: Turkey's Responsibility and the Obligations of the World Community."

Introduction and Methodology
The author considers the Moscow and Kars treaties not as independent acts but as a single whole: the Kars Treaty is presented as a direct continuation and legal consolidation of the conditions imposed by Moscow. To assess their legitimacy, the classical doctrine of the conditions for the validity of international treaties is applied, including requirements concerning the parties involved, the free expression of will by the parties, and the lawfulness of the object and purpose of the agreement.

Conditions Relating to the Parties to the Treaty
Barsegov demonstrates that the Armenian SSR — the state whose territorial interests were directly affected — was effectively excluded from the negotiations:
• The Moscow Treaty was concluded between the RSFSR and Turkey without the participation and consent of the Armenian side;
• At the same time, the Azerbaijan SSR, which had no common border with Turkey, actively participated in resolving territorial issues, acting in the interests of the redistribution of Armenian lands;
• Two states, lacking the corresponding right, disposed of the territory of a third — the Armenian SSR — including Nakhichevan, Sharur-Daralagyaz, and Shakhtakhty.
The author invokes the principles nemo dat quod non habet and nemo plus juris transfere potest quam ipse habet, proving the legal nullity of such disposal of another's territory.

The Mechanism of Coercion and the Kars Treaty
Particular attention is devoted to Article XV of the Moscow Treaty, which obligated Russia to "secure" recognition of its terms by the Transcaucasian republics — in effect sanctioning political pressure on Armenia. It is shown that the Kars Treaty became the instrument for implementing this pressure: the Armenian SSR was compelled to sign an agreement that repeated the terms of the Moscow Treaty. The author points to the contradiction between the renunciation of recognition of acts adopted under coercion, as declared in the texts of both treaties, and the actual practice of imposing borders by force.

International Legal Qualification
Drawing on Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Barsegov qualifies the Kars Treaty as null and void due to coercion carried out in violation of the principles of international law that were in effect regardless of the timing of the adoption of the UN Charter and the Convention itself. It is noted that Turkey's non-participation in the Vienna Convention does not affect this legal assessment, since the relevant norm reflects general international law.

Historical and Political Context
The author also analyzes the position of the Western powers after World War II, who refused to support the USSR's demands for a revision of the Soviet-Turkish border, and emphasizes the hypocrisy of the argumentation used by the British Foreign Office, which disregarded the fact that it was precisely the Armenian side that had been coerced. The responsibility of the Entente powers, who failed to fulfill their obligations under the Treaty of Sèvres and in effect facilitated the success of the Turkish-Bolshevik collusion, is examined separately.

Key Conclusion
The article concludes that the Moscow and Kars treaties represent an example of the cynical trampling of the norms of international law, based on violence and coercion against the defenseless Armenian people, drained of blood by genocide, and therefore must be legally qualified as null and void international acts that produce no legal consequences.