Pashinyan takes on Armenia’s Constitutional Court Battle for peace

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan recently addressed the ongoing discussion around the country’s new constitution — a key issue in Armenia’s domestic politics. 

“We have an agenda of adopting a new constitution, and I’ve previously said we’re aiming for 2027. We are now working on the draft of the new constitution. When it is ready, we will hold a referendum,” Pashinyan said, noting that the 2026 parliamentary elections will carry broader significance, framing them as a choice for the Armenian people “between peace and not peace.”

Pashinyan also stated that, if necessary, a decision will be made to amend the country’s Constitution, making it clear that this will happen regardless — even if obstacles arise from the Constitutional Court of the Republic.

“During the ratification process, if our Constitutional Court decides that the peace agreement which has been initialed now and would be subsequently signed, contradicts the Constitution, I myself would initiate constitutional changes. There is no need to think about this now,” Pashinyan said, effectively voicing the Armenian government's current stance on a peace agreement with Azerbaijan.

Pashinyan’s pointed remarks toward the Constitutional Court are far from unfounded. It’s worth recalling that the Court’s chairman, Arman Dilanian, previously stated in an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that Armenia’s Constitution allegedly contains no territorial claims — not only against Azerbaijan, but against any other country as well — calling Baku’s accusations “false.”

What’s significant here is that Dilanian’s remarks came almost immediately after Pashinyan stated that Armenia’s new Constitution should not include a reference to the Declaration of Independence, which contains territorial claims against Azerbaijan.

Overall, several conclusions can be drawn from the Armenian leader’s statements — the first being that official Yerevan is firmly committed to signing a peace agreement with Baku. This, in turn, signals Armenia’s willingness to meet one of Azerbaijan’s key demands: making the necessary amendments to the Armenian Constitution.

The second conclusion is as follows: Nikol Pashinyan made it clear that when it comes to the decision on amending the country’s Constitution, the final and sole authority will not be the Constitutional Court, but he himself.

Incidentally, the Armenian Prime Minister expressed a similar position back in May of this year during the Yerevan Dialogue international forum.

“According to Armenian law, the treaty must receive a ruling from the Constitutional Court. If the Court decides that the text does not comply with the Constitution—although I must say that, following its previous decision regarding the regulations of the [Armenia-Azerbaijan] border demarcation and delimitation commissions, such a ruling is unlikely—an unusual situation would arise. What would be Armenia’s position, and mine? I will initiate constitutional reforms, because the peace process and the treaty cannot be missed,” Pashinyan emphasised, also reminding that amending the Constitution is one of the two issues Azerbaijan links to the signing of a peace agreement.

At the time, he called this demand acceptable but emphasised the need to ensure “there is no intention on Baku’s part to shift the conflict onto Armenian territory.” Incidentally, the Armenian Prime Minister made similar remarks in Albania, where he was on a working visit to participate in the 6th Summit of the European Political Community, responding to questions from Azerbaijani journalists. On that occasion, Pashinyan expressed concerns that “there are certain circles in Azerbaijan aiming to close the chapter of the conflict on their own territory and export it onto Armenian soil.”

However, as we can see, there is not even a hint of such concerns in the prime minister’s recent statements, and this is one of the positive effects of the Washington agreements reached on August 8, 2025.

We believe that all of Nikol Pashinyan’s optimistic statements are aimed at capturing the attention of Baku, Washington, and the international community. At the same time, and probably most importantly, they send a message to the opponents of peace with Azerbaijan — namely the opposition, the church, and the Karabakh clan — that peace with Azerbaijan is the only path forward for Armenia’s future.