Opposition "Armenia" Faction of the National Assembly (NA) of Armenia will not participate in the vote on the draft law on the start of the country’s European Union (EU) membership process. This was announced by faction leader Seyran Ohanyan during his speech at the NA Wednesday.

Also, Ohanyan presented the "Armenia" faction's point of view on this bill, which we present below.

Legal part

  1. This cannot be considered a law, since any law must establish at least one code of conduct, while this bill does not provide for a code of conduct.
  2. The resolution of the issue of EU membership requires a referendum, the exclusive right of initiative of which belongs to the government in accordance with Article 205 of the Constitution. The procedures are prescribed by the RA Law “On International Treaties” as well as the Constitutional Law “On the NA Regulations.” After recognizing the obligations assumed by the signed agreement on membership in accordance with the RA Constitution, the matter is put to a referendum by a decision of the NA. The Constitution does not provide for any other mechanism for membership, including even a law on the start of the membership process. In an extreme case, this initiative can be considered an NA statement or message, which, according to the Constitution and the NA Regulations Law, is the NA’s political position on any matter and which, however, does not have a normative nature subject to mandatory execution. Meanwhile, the Constitution provides for a completely different procedure for initiating a statement or message, under which this draft civil initiative is not legitimate.
  3. In addition, the NA cannot discuss a bill with such content, not only because it does not correspond to the concept of “law,” but also because the Government does not actually have the role (exclusive authority) envisaged by the Constitution in this entire process. Moreover, if the NA rejects this initiative, it cannot have further development, since a bill cannot be put to a referendum by which the exclusive right to submit a proposal for a solution to the matter under consideration belongs to the Government. If the government of Armenia had applied to the EU for membership, negotiations had been launched, and an international agreement on membership had been signed as a result, only after that the matter, as envisaged by the Constitution, should be put to a referendum.

In essence, in political terms

  1. The currently proposed agenda for the RA’s membership in the EU does not, as such, comply with the relevant membership procedures established by the EU. Thus, there is no such procedural application from the Republic of Armenia, and the European Council, the institution with the exclusive mandate to launch negotiations on the matter of candidate status on the European side, has not expressed any political position in that regard.
  2. Such practices can only hinder the development of relations between Armenia and the European Union, diverting the process from the natural development path set out in the RA-EU Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement signed in 2017 and the roadmaps for its implementation.
  3. The Republic of Armenia is currently far from meeting the requirements of the Copenhagen criteria required for even candidate status for membership in the European Union. In the situation where it is obvious that the RA cannot become an EU member in the foreseeable future, and moreover, the outlines of a new world order after the current crisis in international relations are still not discernible, abrupt geopolitical realignments by Armenia are fraught with the risk of catastrophic consequences.
  4. RA-EU relations should have normal development, towards which there is a huge untapped potential, conditioned by the provisions of the RA-EU Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) signed in 2017. This agreement is a sufficient legal and political basis for the progressive development of RA-EU relations. It is best suited to both the legal and political rapprochement of Armenia with the EU, as well as the development of strategic and economic relations with Russia. This change in foreign policy architecture is currently fraught with serious dangers. That is, there is no greater opportunity for political rapprochement in terms of legal and contractual terms than CEPA, the work done on which to date is extremely insufficient, in particular in terms of strengthening the country of law, democratic systems, and fully guaranteeing human rights [in Armenia]. Even the political position of the European Parliament on matters related to the Republic of Armenia and Artsakh [(Nagorno-Karabakh)] is much more objective and pro-Armenian than that of the current authorities of Armenia.
  5. In addition, nothing prevents the current Armenian authorities from taking sufficient steps today to liberalize the Schengen zone visa for Armenia, or at least facilitate the visa issuance process.

Accordingly, taking into account the above-mentioned political and legal justifications, the “Armenia” Faction will not participate in the [NA] voting on this bill.