Geum.ru

International University "Iberia"

Вид материалаДокументы

Содержание


To the Question of Integral Theory of the Right
Подобный материал:
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   ...   24

Teimuraz Tsurtsumia

To the Question of Integral Theory of the Right

Summary


On the threshold of new millenium theoretical jurisprudence goes through not the best times. Genetically, as it is known, it is connected with the desavuation of the old tradition of explanation of political and legal phenomena and the “black hole” being formed as a result of it in the theory of the state and the right, embedment of which is up to many generations of scientists. Majority of attempts undertaken in given direction do not reach purpose, as they represent either variants of modernisation of obsolete materialistic conceptions of etatistic normativism, or regeneration of scientific plan of insolvent doctrines of the natural right.

In this light more promising appear the efforts, which could avoid well-known weaknesses of the above mentioned approaches and give answer to those problems which were generated in ideological opposition of journalism and legal etatism. Among these problems it is possible to distinguish two main ones: 1). What is modus vivendi right; its ontological status? 2). Do aksiological characteristics have a right and what they represent? Legal etatism interprets the right as a standard establishing of the state not having an independent valuable worth. Jusnaturalism understands the right as a standard establishing of the nature having independent valuable worth. Is the dialogue of different variants of legitimacy possible? Is scientific arrangement of contradictory positions possible without eclectics and apologetics? Is it possible simultaneously to take into consideration the main intencias of natural and legal, etatistic sociological and psychological right awareness? Positive answer would mean recognition of opportunity of such legal; theory which would have an integral nature.

It is clear that such variant is essentially denied by the defenders of “cleanliness” of designated approaches. But the opportunity of justification by such integrated theory of right is often put under doubt even from other methodological positions. One of its sources is the idea of right as the phenomenon of pluralistic nature and by virtue of it incompatible with the uniform theory. Exactly consideration of these issues does the presented work fix as its goal.


История-History


________________________________________________________________


David Chitaia, Doctor of History, Professor, Sukhumi State University (Georgia)


The “Armenian Question” in the Past and Present Times


There are no other peoples in the world being more close than the Caucasian peoples. Therefore, it is no wonder that through the history span the peoples of Caucaus aspired to unify for the defence of their national interests and resistance to the regional and world powers.

Though from the very moment of appearing of Armenian statehood in Caucasus, a serious blow was inflicted to the idea of uniform Caucasus, since it was and is still being set in counterposition with the idea of “Great Armenia from sea and to sea”.

Chimerical idea of the reconstruction of “Great Armenia”, became a nationwide conception of all Khais of the world. “The giants of Armenian thought” urge that those territories which are now undeservedly called “Georgia”, “Azerbaijan”, “Turkey”, “Iran”, “Iraq”, “Syria” are the territorial possession of “Great Armenia”, exactly from here blond Arians – protoArmenians- spread over the whole world up to the core of India, to the British Isles, and even to the Scandinavian countries (“Armenian tundra”).

Juggling with the legends and, time to time, with other peoples’ lores, representing them as their own, a scrupulous disguise of limits between myth and reality is the substance of Armenian national ideology, the essence of historians and politicians of Armenia.

The claims of Armenian nationalists, constant throughuot centuries, require scrupulous research and unbiased interpretation. Relying on a smartly arranged propaganda machine, transmitting events unilaterally, Armenian ideologists managed to create a subjective attitude towards their history.

However the real history of the “much suffered” Armenian people is entirely different. Armenians, i.e. Khai – a nomad tribe expelled from its prohomeland which still remains undetermined, found their haven in Fore Asia. In the year 190 B.C. after disintegration of Seleukides’ state, the Khais managed to establish their first state settlement which received the title of “Great Armenia”, but according to Strabo, it possessed small territorial dimensions. This Armenian organization persisted with several intermissions until the 11th century. In 1045 this useless coinage was abolished by the Byzantine empire. After seven hundred years the wish of developing into state occured anew to Armenians. In the second part of the 18th century the proposal of Armenian patron of art was brought from distant India to the Georgian king (Tzar) Erekle II, in which a new ideologist of Armenian nationalism asked to create the Armenian Republic or the Georgian-Armenian Federative State, finanicial aid was guaranteed, moreover, the crown of the future uniform Georgian-Armenian state was offered to Erekle II. King of Kartl-Kakheti promised his advocacy in this business, however the Patriarch of the world Khais learning the intention of the Georgian king, immediately informed the Persian Shah about it. Armenian Catholicos fearing for the loss of his poor possessions betrayed his people, thus the idea of founding of the Georgian-Armenian state failed.

New hopes occured to Armenians with the apparition of Russia in Caucasus.

In connection with a successful termination of Russian-Iranian and Russian-Osmanli wars in the 20’s of XIX century, ample opportunities for Armenians’ migration to Southern Caucasus opened. By article XV of the Treaty of Turkmenchay the right of unhumpered transition “from Persian areas to Russian” was provided for all subjects of Persia who wished to leave its boundaries. Settling Armenians on conquered lands, Russia not inasmuch protected them from assimilation in Iranian or Osmanli states, as followed its own practical, military, economical, and colonial purposes as a whole. Russian officials, having established Armenian province on the territory of Azerbaijan, were guided by the decree of the Senate of Imperial Russia from March 21, 1828. It runs: “By the power of treatise with Persia concluded in February 10, 1828, joining to Russia of the Khanate of Nakhichevan is ordered to be referred henceforth in all pursuits as Armenian area .”

Having formed the so-called “Armenian area” in Southern caucasus, Russia was sure of Armenians’ becoming its reliable hold. The first influx of migrants from Persia and so the second from Turkey were settled in southern parts of Georgia and in Northern Azerbaijan. It was the beginning of a planned massive and purposeful migration of Armenians to Southern Caucasus.

Exactly from this time predominacy of Armenian population over Georgian begins in southern parts of Georgia. “Utter Armenian settlement has been formed in southern area of the Tiflis province” – not without gladness did one of the leaders of Armenian nationalist movement A.Shakhaturian write. By that “utter Armenian settlement” some similarity of legitimacy upon the claims to foreign land was endowed.

Regarding emerging situation, Vermishev wrote: “Armenians moved in from Turkish side and covered almost entire Akhalkalaki district with dense settlements and just here and there between them remained Georgian villages as small oases.

The new settlers were loose in their behavior. “Churches, towers and castles were destoyed, monasteries were withdrawn, holy images were robbed, precious remnants’ serenity was disturbed...” They unleashed to such an extent that intended to rename Akhaltsikhe into Nor-Erzerum, and Baku – into Bakukert, howerver, current authority - according to Zagurski’s words – sufficed sanity, for this time, not to yeld to their intention.

In this manner, Russia, having Armenians settled in Karabakh and Javakheti, reasonably eliminated number of indigenous population, in the following period demographical pressure strengthened, in consequence, Azeris in Karabakh and Georgians in Javakheti turned into minority. Ethnical expansion of the “Armenian area”, and a prospect of political unification of lands inhabited by Armenians, made Armenian leaders’ heads spin. They began to ponder over the reconstruction of once existing Great Armenia.

In 1838, the Council of Headquarters of Transcaucasian Region was formed, and on December 16, 1839, the Committee on Planning of Transcaucasian Region defines its attitude to the region as a part of Russia. In such a way, after longheld and laborious work, on April 10, 1840, the project was approved, according to which Transcaucasia was split into Georgian-Imeretian province and Kaspi area.

The leaders of engendering Armenian nationalist movement , ruminating on creation of “Great Armenia”, were confused by the fact, that the territory of their once celebrated realm had turned into a simple district of the Georgian-Imeretian province. However, rioting for this reason was inconvinient yet – they grew richer and firstly unnoticably prepared economical grounds for future “manoeuvres”.

Nominated in the end of the year 1844 as a deputy of Caucasus Mikhail Vorontsov conducted a series of reforms including those in the field of administrative division of area. This new area division was caused by seeking to create as many cultural centres as possible. So, instead of the Georgian-Imeretian province and the Kaspi region, in 1846 four provinces were established – Tiflis, Kutaisi, Shemakhini, and Derbenti. In 1849 by Armenians’ insistent complaints one more – Yerevan was added to them. It was the fierst insignificant victory of Armenian nationalism on the way to the “great” purpose. The nucleus of a future state was formed. Now it was possible to come to expanding of the limits of this formation. Armenification of the Georgian and Azeri toponymies, assignment of churches and monasteries, cities and villages, cultural monuments, took place in order to subsequently declare claim to the adjacent regions. Georgian community was astounded by such actions of Armenians. “Armenians” – Ilia Chavchavadze wrote –“ try to acquire dwelling where they have never had it before...wishing to assure everybody of their disposing of the historical right to settle in these places.”

Akaki Tsereteli was also consternated by ingratitude of Armenians, according to his words: “Georgian kings settled Armenians from pity in different parts of Georgia as merchants, cities were as well granted to them. Georgians, meanwhile, waged struggles against numerous conquerors and returning home exhausted, wearied out and wounded, they, to their astonishment, found their own houses occupied by the brothers – Armenians. And instead of apologising they shouted aloud: “Who are you, where have you come from? When didi you live here? This land is ours!” For evidence they pointed to Georgian churches and monasteries, where Georgian inscriptions had been erased and replaced by Armenian.

In the second half of XIX century Russia planned a further expansion and development of its aggressive-offensive policy in southern direction. In its politics Russia sought to use Armenians again and, on a new territory, promised them to establish Armenian statehood, which had been drained in some other place. Armenians’ struggle for their “national independence” began in Turkey, in separate periods this struggle grew into real national wars. It – Armenian movement subsequently received its title – “Armenian Question”.

Armenian patrons of art from different countries of the world, for preparation of historical base to the development of future independent “geat” Armenian state from the territories of neighbouring countries, started to care strenuously of creation of a special history of Armenia. Accordong to the opinion of patrons of art and “history makers”, it should draw attention of European countries. This smart policy soon bore its fruits, the fabricated “Armenian question” became a puzzle for international diplomacy.

Armenian historians and their hired bandits of quill expanded Armenian boundaries up to the fancy dimensions, laid claim to foreign lands asserting that they had once possessed territories far beyond the limits of their contemporary settlement and issued crazy maps of “Great Armenia”. Such direction of activity of Armenian nationalist movements is explained by the fact that throughout many centuries Armenia was deprived of statehood and represented a concept deficient of particular content and determined borders, besides by advertising of their past greatness they wanted to draw attention of world community to the so-called “Armenian question” and, at the same time, to get rid of existing unflattering reputation.

In order to assure the world of their plain possession of the claimed territories, such concepts as “Great Armenia”, “Western Armenia”, “Turkish Armenia”, “Armenian mountains”, “Armenian plateau”, promising “Armenian question” etc., were entered into historical literature and found in different variations. By these political, then by geographical terms, world community was conducted into unprecedented error.

Complicated international condition on the so-called Oriental question sharpened Russian-Turkish relations anew. So, Russian-Turkish 1877-1879 war ended by Russian victory and signing of the peace treaty of San Stefano. By this time exactly, Armenian movement begins. In 1878, when Russian troops moved through Anatoly, seizing Kars, Erzerum, and on the other front – set Bulgaria free and approached the vicinities of Constantinople, at that moment, Armenians, deciding that their hour had punched, sent deputation headed by Armenian Patriarch in Constantinople – Varzhapetyan, which was received by Caucasian deputy the Grand Duke Mikhail Nikolaevich. It was simultaneously followed by the reference of Armenian Patriarch Nersess to Russian government before negotiating the peace treaty of San Stefano,where he “on behalf of Armenian populace” demanded “protection from Russia”. Exactly this Armenian initiative served as a reason for including into the Treaty of San Stefano of paragraph 16, according to which Turkey should conduct reforms in the vilayets densely populated by Armenians granting self-order to them.

This Armenian initiative led, naturally, to significant strain of relations between Sultanese government and Armenian community in Turkey – the grains of enmity and mistrust were sown.

With the apparition of preliminary agreement of San Stefano, Armenian question for the first time became the object of international jurispudence, officialy entering to international contract. And European powers for the first time started to suspect Ottoman empire in a bad attitude to Armenians.

It is to be noted that before occurence of the “Armenian question” as a result of activity of Gregorian church on the one hand, and politics of great powers – on the other, in the life of Armenians in Ottoman empire did not happen anything extraordinary that could draw someone’s attention.

In 1878, after signing of Berlin treatise it became clear that European states would prevent a further advancing of Russian empire deep into Ottoman empire. Breaking Russia’s attempt of using Turkish Armenians in its own interests, Britain eventually supported them itself. In such a difficult situation a new turn of the “Armenian question” arouse, which had already been component of the so-called Oriental question.

In such a manner, great powers created the “Armenian question” in their own interests and used it and Armenians as a ball in their geopolitical plays. Subthrown idea of opportunity of formation of independent Armenian state was picked up by the leaders of Armenian political organizations at the end of XIX century.

To the armament of the party of Armenakan, Gnchak, and Dashnaktsutun was accepted idea of creation of “Great Armenia from sea to sea”. Excitements began in Sason and Van, consequences of which were sad for Armenians.

The continuation of this policy on the territory of Russian empire was occurence of Armenian-Azeri and Armenian-Georgian conflict in 1905. Armenian terrorists destroyed Georgian population in the vicinities of Tbilisi, and Azeri – in Baku. In interethnic collisions Armenian party pursued purpose – “to clear mixed inhabited territory from Georgians and Azeris” – and by that to prepare ethnical base for independent Great Armenian State.

Pursuant to such arrangement Dashnaks decided to separate Borchalo and Akhalkalaki districts from Tiflis province, and to form from these territories new – Aleksandropol province.

Czarism, definitely, could conduct high-banded administrative and territorial transformations and pass definite part of Georgian territory to Armenians, however the government counted it inexpedient to create an explosive atmosphere before the world war. Therefore, the field of action of Armenian nationalists was directed by czarism to Eastern vilayets of Ottoman empire, dexterously inspiring to Armenians the idea of weight of their situation in Turkey.

It was quite easy to excite Turkish Armenians. It happened that at the meetings somebody from Dashnaks would object to the raising of revolt in Turkey, noting that all Armenians there would be cut out – and then others answered – it is necessary to shed blood and by that to attract attention of the civilised world. So did the Dashnaktsutun’s leaders speculate of their plans.

It is known that the stony snow blockages in Caucasus are frequently caused by a small stone rolled down from under the raven flown up from a mountain top. Disastrous events, distempers and slaughter in the life of peoples have similarly infinitesimal ravens as their guilty debtors in the image of any fanatical instigator or self-interested propagandist.

Turkish Armenians, who conidered Russia as original hostage of Turkey and the sole protective of the Chistians in the East, willingly believed in the words of evil geniuses of their people, as if Russian government would undertake drastic measures for protection of Armenians at first blood spilt by them.

All the stones for hitting blockage before World War I had already been in a half-hanging state over the space of a huge track.

In 1914, when the war began, Armenians commenced to clear territories from ethnical Turks.

On February 26, 1914, 30 000 ethnical Turks were killed in Kars and Ardagan by Armenian bandformations and especially in the spring of 1915, Armenians, deciding that their time had come, ordained a ruthless slaughter of peacful Turkish population in several vilayets. Turkish villages occupied by Dashnak divisions were devastated – more than 90 000 ethnical Turks were killed.

Turkish government, seeing such actions of Dashnak “heroes” and knowing imperial plan of “resolution” of the so-called “Armenian question”, on April 24, 1915, made decision of general deportation of Armenians living in Turkey.

Cunning policy of Russia and European powers in “Armenian question” turned into a tragedy of Armenian people, Turks paid back to Armenians in their own coin.

By twist of fate, after the revolutionary explosion of 1917, Russia left war, its army abandoned advanced positions, together with them new hundred thousands of Armenians were overhauled to Transcaucasia, their big part settled in Southern Georgia again.

The Bolshevik coup in Russia and policy of Soviet Russia with regard to “Armenian question” led the Dashnaks into confusion, and Armenian public puzzled, how to remain further?

Dashnak leaders, having long before dreamt of becoming the owners of independent Armenian state, had to declare Armenia an independent republic after the restoration of independence of Georgia.

However, the territory of independent Armenia accounted for only 9 thousand sq. km. of high ground and desolate district. The plan of creation of “Great Armenia” failed, though after defeat of Germany in the world war, Armenia, as Antanta’s faithful ally in Caucasus, counted on a specific favour of England, France and USA, and required aid in an affair of expansion of the boundaries of Armenia from them.

In such a manner, hoping to support of powers, Armenia submitted territorial claims to Georgia and Azerbaijan. O.Kachaznuni’s government intended to attach to Armenia almost all Eastern Georgia, even the capital city of Georgia – Tbilisi. Pursuant to such arrangement, on December 7,1918, Armenian troops unexpectedly, without declaration of war , intruded into the limits of Georgia. However, Armenian troops were crushed within counted days, the road to Yerevan was open, but at this time for aid to Armenians the representatives of England and France came, on demand of which advancement of Georgian troops was suspended. Exactly with their aid, in the beginning of 1919, neutral zone of Lore was formed.

In the period of existence of Azeri Democratic Republic (ADR) in 1918-1920, when Armenia, having received pupolarity under the name of Ararat republic, untied aggressive war against Azerbaijan, and emptied Zangezur. In Zangezur district 115 Azeri villages were destroyed by Armenian terrorist and state formations. Moreover, Azeri villages were entirely scourged by Armenian chastisers from the terrorist organization “Dashnaktsutun”, where 400 000 Azeris were slain.

After establishing of Soviet authority in Southern Caucasus Bolsheviks commenced establishing of “national peace” in the region. As a result of this policy Armenia received Lori “neutral zone” – 318 sq. km. of historical territory of Georgia. Azerbaijan lost almost 12 thousand sq. km. of its territory. The territory of Soviet Armenia was resultantly appreciably increased.

The same Armenian hands again in 1922 presented a new project according to which a large part of Javakheti or, alternatively, Akhalkalaki district should be joined to Borchalo district for creation of uniform Armenian administrative unit. According to the words of I. Javakhishvili: “It is is clear that this plan represented the first stage of a skillfuly invented project of separating these two districts from the configuration of Georgian USSR and affiliating of them to Armenia, which would necessarily be followed by the second one. And for this time, apparently, struggle for implementation of the former purposes was on, however by other means.” And in 1923 this attempt ended by the failure.

The same struggle proceeded in Azerbaijan where Dashnaks, having their hue changed, achieved definite successes. On July 7, 1923, Central Electoral Committee of Azerbaijan was forced to decide: “To form autonomous region from Armenian part of Karabakh plateau as a component of Azeri USSR, with its center in Khankendi.” By formation of autonomous region of Karabakh by Armenians, the base of affiliating of this area of Azerbaijan to Armenia was incorporated, it remained just to look forward to “favourable political weather” for problem solving.

Silent, creeping expansion of the limits of Armenia proceeded in subsequent years as well. So, in 1929, by the resolution of Transcaucasian Central Executive Committee, 657 sq. kms. of territories of Azeri USRR – village Gurdgulag, Goradiz of Sharuri area, Ogbin, Agkhach, Almaly, Itgiran, Sultanbey of Shakhbuz volost of Nakhchivan district, village Gorchevan of Ordubad district, and also the part of land of the village Kilid were passed to Armenia. And in 1930 settlements of Aldere, Lekhvaz, Astazur, Nyuved were as well given to Armenia and on this territory Megrin area was formed. Territorial claims of Armenia referring Nakhchivan proceed until now.

In 1936 Armenian Bolsheviks attempted to expand the limits of Soviet Armenia in northern direction too. Pursuant to antique Armenian arrangement, the first secretary of Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia A.Khanjyan appealed to L.P.Berya for passing Akhaltsikhe and Akhalkalaki areas to Armenia. On July 9, 1936, L.P.Beria thrust a bullet into the first secretary of Armenia in his cabinet – request thereby was rejected.

However, in subsequent years of Soviet authority Armenian ethnical space was appreciably expanded, new bases for future claims were created.