An opposition party in Armenia, Dashnaktsutyun, has addressed Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan with a formal complaint about the legality of transferring land to Azerbaijan without a public referendum. The party asserts that any such move, executed without the consent of Armenian voters, undermines the constitutional framework and defies the principles that safeguard Armenia’s sovereignty. The message, published on the party’s official site, frames the issue not just as a political disagreement but as a constitutional crisis that calls into question the legitimacy of actions that alter national borders without the people’s approval.
Dashnaktsutyun goes further to state that transferring territories under Armenia’s sovereignty to another state—without a referendum—constitutes not only a procedural violation but a fundamental legal fault. The party characterizes these steps as a serious offense against the constitutional order and national security, arguing that they carry severe penalties under Armenian law, including the possibility of life imprisonment for those responsible. This position reflects a view that border changes must be rooted in constitutional procedures and broad public consensus, rather than unilateral executive decisions that bypass the electorate.
The party also expressed full solidarity with ongoing protests in Armenia, condemning what it describes as unilateral territorial concessions to Azerbaijan. In this framing, popular demonstrations are portrayed as a legitimate expression of citizen concern about national territorial integrity, and the party signals its readiness to stand with citizens who demand accountability and due process in any negotiations that affect Armenia’s borders. The protest movement is thus presented as a democratic check on government action, reinforcing a broader call for transparent negotiations and clear legal justification for any changes to the map of the country.
On the ground, reports from border communities in the Tavush region indicate that residents opposed the transfer of nearby villages to Azerbaijan and organized local demonstrations. Residents reportedly lit bonfires along roads between Kirants and Voskepar, signaling active opposition and a desire to draw national attention to what is perceived as an imminent loss of land. These local expressions of resistance highlight the human dimension of border policy, reminding national leaders that border decisions have immediate effects on families, livelihoods, and daily life in Armenia’s northeastern frontier.
In a development announced on April 19, Yerevan stated that an agreement had been reached with Baku on several border segments. The disputed sections were described as running between Baganis in Armenia and Baganis Ayrim in Azerbaijan, Voskepar in Armenia and Ashagi Askipara in Azerbaijan, Kirants in Armenia and Kheyrimli in Azerbaijan, and Berkaber in Armenia with Kizil Gadzhily in Azerbaijan. Officials noted that these alignments would reflect the legally established inter-republic borders that existed at the time of the Soviet Union’s dissolution, implying a restoration of a historical line perceived by many as legitimate and stable. The announcement also suggested that the process would proceed through careful, state-level diplomacy rather than ad hoc measures, underscoring the stakes involved for regional stability and Armenia’s territorial claims. Earlier statements from Pashinyan indicated that an agreement had already been reached regarding portions of the Azerbaijani border, signaling a pattern of negotiations that sought to resolve long-standing questions about frontier delineation while preserving Armenia’s constitutional and national security considerations.