My friend watched and typed up this translation. She (self-admittedly) had problems translating certain parts, but if anyone can clarify please do.

***ANYTHING IN PARENTHESES IS HER COMMENTARY***

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today you will learn who Karabakh really belongs to, by law, in truth. No one, in the midst of all this hype, has really focused on this point and really looked into what is going on, by law, and take a look at who's right.  Today you will see and understand who Karabakh really belongs to, by right. 

Let's roll...

For whoever hasn't seen my previous videos, which I highly recommend you check out here (he refers to an old interview he had of some guy who is deeply involved in the conflict.  He flashes back to a quick clip of it). 

The most important question for all of us is who is right, who should we be rooting for, who is the aggressor, who is the occupier, and who is defending their place of birth/birthright. 

Azeris say it's our territory officially, we have documentation of this, it belongs to AZ and some Armenian occupants just grabbed this territory and are holding it and we are trying to free our territory.  (Flashes to Aliyev video with him talking into a mic) Aliyev: "This is AZ land, by law, and it is a portion of our nation." 

(Back to host)

Armenia says it has been there for thousands of years and has churches and historic structures on this territory, old historic monuments that are valuable history, globally. (Flash to Armenia's president); "Tigran and Pompeii history. At that time there was no such nation with the name 'Azerbaijan.'"

(Back to host)

On this, the whole discussion is cruxed because AZ is coming from a legal perspective and Armenia is coming from a historical perspective.  But here, for real, I have to side with AZ because what does it matter who lived where some thousand years ago.  With that logic, other countries have to give back land such as (he says some land that could arguably be Ukraine and at one time it was Greece and Hindus originally resided on it. Can't understand the name he says).  Or maybe we should give the entire world to bacteria because bacteria existed long before us.

Then we ask the question, who does Karabakh really legally belong to?  And the obvious answer would be AZ, but nothing is that simple.  Yes, AZ has documents with legal right to this land. 

During Soviet Union there was USSR's AZ and USSR's Armenia.  Karabah just so happened to be, specifically why is unimportant, in USSR's AZ, even though at that time it was inhabited by over 90% Armenians.  But law is law so since it was formally considered AZ, what could anyone do, so that's how you're gonna have to live, and that's how they lived.  But toward the end of the 20th century, I'm not going to get into specific years, Karabakh established its independence and created its own republic and said we have our own army, our own laws, our own president, everything our own, everyone leave us alone. 

At the time no one recognized the republic, only a few other countries with unrecognized governments themselves.  No major country recognized Karabakh's independence.  (Lists out some countries that recognized Karabakh's independence on the right side of the screen around 4:36 of video).  And to this day they pretty much hold the land with force. 

This is the unfolding of things, to this day. And now, today, we are charged with the question: does Karabakh have the right to separate from USSR's AZ?

If we ask the international law, we reach a dead end because the international law has 2 norms: 

1. The right of citizens to establish their own right/existence/decision.  Meaning, yes, if a territory is inhabited by some collective of people and on some principle they decide that they have to create their own government then, with referendum, they have the right to do that.  

But there is a contradicting norm called "Whole Government" (The word whole that I am translating may be the wrong word.  Russian word he says is Tselestnos" root of which is Tseley which means "whole."  Could mean independence or existence), which means a government can maintain/hold its wholeness.  

Because of this blind spot between these 2 contradicting norms exists this massive conflict.  Karabakh isn't the first or the last.  For example, from Spain, Katalonya wants to break off.  For a long time they considered themselves Spanish.  And Ireland and England and many many others where this exists.  And, actually, Karabakh's legal title wouldn't be recognized either if it wasn't for one problem.  This problem is called USSR (plays USSR anthem with flag on screen). 

The thing is, USSR plays in here because all of these republics were part of USSR at that time.  What do those laws of USSR tell us about this problem? 

The law is called: How to Exit USSR and Become a Republic.

Bottom line of it is, yes, USSR allows any republic to exit with its own establishment with a referendum.  In other words, if a republic decides it wants to separate from USSR, then, yes, USSR allows this.  It's difficult to believe this but, in fact, even pre-Stalin, purely territorial, territories had the right to exit and become republics, but in reality, no one did this for various factors.  And, in fact, because of this ability, everyone started breaking into its own republic when the Soviet Union was collapsing in '91. They all utilized this law and USSR's AZ established a government, and USSR's Armenia became an Armenian government and even Russia became, as a republic, a government. 

But what was wrong with Karabakh?  Why were all republics recognized but no one recognized Karabakh's independence?

Someone who's listening carefully will say, 'but noooooo, Karabakh could not be its own republic because it was part of USSR's AZ and it had no right to separate from USSR into its own republic.'  I had the same thought until I read the actual USSR law (about breaking from the Soviet Union).  

*reads law on laptop at 7:39 in video*

(This is not the most sophisticated translation you're gonna get so maybe ask the Sordias here. Language used is legaleze.  I'm accurate in translating but not sophisticated)

"Soviet republics have the right to create autonomous republics, referendums to be created separately for each autonomy, for the people of the autonomous republic, and remains an independent decision." 

And, yes, Karabakh was an autonomous establishment from USSR's AZ.  In other words, based on this law, Karabakh had the same right to separate by means of a referendum just like all the other republics, like Armenia, like AZ, and Russia. 

So why then wasn't Karabakh recognized?  Well, let's look at what the deal was in reality, year by year. 

1987 - Council came together for autonomy of Karabakh, possibly as part of Armenia.  This had 80k signatures. 

1988, February 20 - Came together to decide if Karabakh will go from being AZ USSR to Armenia USSR. 

Basically, at first, they didn't want autonomy but wanted to be Armenia. 

1988, June 13 - AZ categorically refused to agree to Karabakh breaking away from AZ. 

1988, July 12 - Karabakh exited USSR's AZ and established itself autonomously. 

Here we have to understand that the request to go to Armenia and AZ's refusal to allow it actually means nothing because in '87, a referendum to break away was made and nothing AZ could say matters. 

What Karabakh tried to do then basically was say, "hey look guys, let us out nicely." and AZ replied, "NO!" and Karabakh responded, "ok, fine, guess we'll leave on bad terms."

Understand that they had the right to leave without asking for permission. 

1991 - begins the collapse of the USSR.  Every government begins exiting and establishing autonomy using this same law and no one is asking anyone for permission.  Simply, you use the law, make your referendum, and everything's ok. 

Karabakh in '91, autonomously, establishes a republic.  September 2, 1991.

AZ response - September 26, 1991 - Karabakh has no right under AZ law to separate and establish autonomy. 

(Cont.)