Azernews.Az

Elnur Enveroglu

Read more

At times, the world’s incomprehensible contradictions push a person into such deep and inescapable reflection that logical reasoning itself begins to falter. How is it that a politician from one country interferes in the internal affairs of entirely different states and considers this a legitimate entitlement, while no one is able to question or hold them accountable for their actions? Has the global legal order changed, or has international law simply collapsed into failure?

The end of 2025 and the beginning of 2026 will be remembered as an unusually surprising period. The war in Ukraine, sudden shifts in Caracas, and the tangled crisis in the Middle East all unfolded in rapid succession. In truth, this period should have gone down in history as a year of peace. Instead, as circumstances evolved, we witnessed entirely different scenes, alongside a renewed realisation of how ineffective international law has become in practice.

It is an undeniable and deeply regrettable fact that where justice is absent, laws are usually written by the unjust and by criminals. Much like Sicily’s Cosa Nostra in the twentieth century, where criminals once decided who lived, who died, who enjoyed freedom, and who had the authority to dictate rules, similar patterns appear to be emerging today. Each time we scan the news, we encounter the same analyses and reports. The world presents these lawless acts so casually that one is left momentarily frozen, questioning whether laws exist at all. In reality, laws do exist—but only on paper. Those who enforce them are the hegemons, the powerful, and no one else.

I will not deviate from common sense: every country has its own problems, and our responsibility is to focus on our own. But does everyone think this way? Take, for example, Edward J. Markey, the congressman representing Massachusetts in the US Congress. Is he truly focused on the issues facing his own state, or does he too suffer from an obsession with meddling in the affairs of other nations?

Just days ago, another step was taken towards strengthening peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Once again, it was Baku that made a gesture towards Yerevan, returning four prisoners convicted of war crimes to Armenia. In addition, Azerbaijan’s supply of oil and petroleum products to Armenia could itself constitute a separate discussion within the peace framework. However, if we are discussing war criminals currently detained in Baku, it would be best not to stray from the subject.

The year 2023 is often remembered as one of the most active periods in the history of the US Congress. That same year, Azerbaijan fully restored its sovereignty and fought aggression and terrorism single-handedly, while remaining within the boundaries of what today are often referred to as “laws that exist only on paper”. Edward Markey, along with many of his congressional colleagues, relentlessly targeted Azerbaijan throughout this period. Mr Markey became so fixated on the South Caucasus that he abandoned his own responsibilities, devoting his energy to devising ever new narratives to exonerate Armenian war criminals.

One cannot help but wonder how Mr Markey would react if politicians in the South Caucasus gathered to debate the problems of Massachusetts or the internal workings of the US Congress. The same political figures who once complicated an already stalled peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan are now attempting to obstruct a settlement that is finally moving towards resolution.

Ed Markey is widely known for his sensitivity to climate issues. Yet when he attended the COP29 climate summit in Baku alongside his colleague Frank Pallone, he failed not only to raise substantive climate concerns, but even to mention the countries that should have participated but chose not to attend. At a moment when he ought to have defended justice, Markey remained silent in the face of truth.

Defending the law is far more difficult than merely speaking about it. Markey seeks to place himself at the centre of an issue whose essence he does not fully understand, yet each time he engages with it, he strays far beyond any legitimate legal framework. The war criminals he now seeks to defend committed such grave crimes in Karabakh, now liberated from occupation, that neither the US Congress nor even the Hague Court would be capable of absolving them.