It is good that the narrative remains around peace, not conflict. Yet, there are some confusing moments. Armenia's Constitution (through the preamble to the Declaration of Independence) has a reference to "the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia." There is international experience in reforming Constitutions with a similar precedent. For example, as it was mentioned many times, Ireland held a referendum to settle the issue with the UK in 1998. It is worth noting that in the case of Ireland, the obligation to hold a referendum was clearly spelled out in the peace agreement, and the country held it within a month after signing the agreement itself. There is no such clause in the draft peace treaty because the Armenian side categorically resisted such a clause.

The attempt to point to Azerbaijan's Constitution does not stand merit. The Azerbaijan Constitution or any other document such as the Declaration of Independence does not have any reference to Armenian territory. The reference to the first republic of 1918-1920 has no territorial claims either. Similarly, the Georgian Declaration also has reference to the first republic of 1918-1920. During that time, Georgia had control over what is today's Lori region of Armenia. Official Armenian authorities have never expressed concern about that.

In the Armenian-Azerbaijani case, the cause of the modern conflict (1987-2023) is indeed Karabakh.  Moreover, the Armenian Constitution/Declaration clause on 'NK' has practical application. Robert Kocharian was elected as a second president (1998) while the Constitutional Court regarded his residence in Karabakh as residence in Armenia. There are plenty of other documents. Such a referendum might be unpopular in Armenia, just like it was unpopular in Macedonia, but Skopje conducted it and people voted positive to resolve the problem.  As for the Minsk Group (MG), Pashinyan and his entourage like to mention the need for consensus in the OSCE for its official dissolution. But if one remembers, not only Armenia, but also France, and then the Biden administration in the United States, opposed the dissolution of the OSCE MG quite recently, in December 2024, at the OSCE Ministerial in Malta. Therefore, it is quite possible that tomorrow, if the question of liquidating this group arises again, the Armenian allies will simply block the decision again, citing the lack of consensus.  This is a typical political game.  Therefore, the MG should be officially dissolved for the sake of the peace treaty. I already said in an interview with the Azerbaijani media that all this is being done with an eye to the future. The Armenian leadership wants to leave certain mechanisms and institutions so that there will be a slight possibility of returning to this problem in 10–20 years. As long as the Minsk Group exists, even if it is de facto non-functional, it will be perceived as a structure dealing with the "ongoing conflict". The same is true for the Armenian Constitution: as long as it contains provisions that can be interpreted as territorial claims, this is a potential reason for further speculation, which might reignite the conflict in the future.