Armenia's Constitutional Court has ruled that protocols signed with Turkey on normalizing relations and establishing diplomatic ties between the two neighbors are constitutional, a move seen as a real test showing the Armenia government's determination to move forward with the protocols.

The court issued its ruling on Tuesday, ending a dispute over whether the protocols equate to betraying Armenian statehood, as the opposition had claimed. Most of the opposition parties in Armenia based their claims on the assumption that the protocols are a “big compromise” with Turkey, which has yet to recognize the so-called Armenian “genocide.”

The ruling means the protocols can now move on to the Armenian Parliament for ratification. According to Armenian law, every international treaty the Armenian government signs must follow the same process. Ratification of the protocols, however, comes with a prerequisite: Turkey must ratify them first.

The protocols, designed to end decades of hostility between the two countries, were a real challenge to both nations. Turkey devoted a great deal of effort to assure a close ally, the oil and gas-rich Azerbaijan, that it will protect its interests throughout the process. Turkey imports gas and oil from Azerbaijan at prices considerably lower than the global average. Armenia, in contrast, was supported by its historic ally Russia and faced growing opposition from both the worldwide Armenian diaspora and local groups.

Armenian Constitutional Court President Gagik Harutyunyan announced that the protocols “conform to the constitution of Armenia” amid protests from those present in the courtroom and those waiting outside. The opposition described the court decision as a “betrayal.”

Speaking to Today’s Zaman, Richard Giragosian, director of the Yerevan-based Armenian Center for National and International Studies, said the Armenian Constitutional Court’s decision comes as no surprise. Noting that the protocols were widely expected to be approved by the court, he said the timing of the next stage of Armenian action on the protocols depends on Turkey. “The status of the protocols has now clearly been delayed and is now hostage to domestic Turkish politics. The fact that the fate of the protocols now depends on the course of domestic politics within Turkey also means that no one -- not the Americans, not the EU, not Russia nor even Armenia -- can influence the outcome,” Giragosian said.

Stressing the importance of the court’s ruling, the director of Yerevan’s leading think tank said the decision was a political hurdle and a test for the Armenian government, adding that it clearly showed that authorities in Yerevan are just as committed to the protocols as before. To support his argument, Giragosian said Armenian authorities could have, had they wanted to, used the court ruling as a graceful way to back out of the protocols.

Evaluating the consequences of the ruling to Today’s Zaman, Laurence Broers, the Caucasus projects manager of the London-based Conciliation Resources, said the ruling “was a development to be expected,” pointing to the determination of President Serzh Sargsyan to take his Turkey policy forward and the general subordination of the judiciary to the executive in Armenia. While noting that the opposition’s arguments, with the expectation of continued isolation, do not offer a viable or desirable alternative, Broers described the situation as one where “a weak president is pushing through an internationally popular policy that is quite divisive at home. In this context I would expect those institutions more or less under presidential influence [the ruling party, the judiciary and governmental media] to support the policy.”

Emphasizing the ruling’s significance as a signal of the continued determination of the Sargsyan administration to take the policy forward, Broers said people in Armenia are aware that the alternative -- continued regional isolation, contested and unenforceable claims to territory and the continued politics of mutual suspicion and alienation with Turkey -- is not appealing.

While ruling out any “political message to the world” that the decision may convey, Giragosian said it does demonstrate the contrast between the two sides, as Armenia stands quite ready and willing to fulfill the protocols while Turkey now seems to be stalling. In contrast, speaking about the message sent to the world by the court’s decision, Broers said the political message to the Western world is that the Sargsyan administration has not lost its determination to take this forward. “So one message of this ruling is that this is Armenia’s issue [and not that of the Armenian diaspora]. Armenian state structures will push it through. With regard to the diaspora, one certainly hopes that one day a structure for addressing their claims will be created -- but this can only happen in a context of transformed Turkish-Armenian relations,” Broers concluded.

Noting that the ruling will not weaken the arguments of the opposition, Broers said only continued, visible and constructive engagement between the Turkish and Armenian governments and convincing arguments about the benefits of Turkish-Armenian rapprochement can weaken the opposition. Voicing a similar opinion, Giragosian said the decision “will most likely bolster efforts by the opposition Armenian Revolutionary Federation [ARF, Dashnaktsutiun] to introduce a new legislative initiative that would essentially prohibit Turkish and other foreign companies from purchasing land in Armenia’s border regions.”