Freedom is rarely absolute. We only need to compare the rights we are afforded in this society with the restrictions placed on us to see that. Thomas Paine once said, ‘He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from repression’. Herein lies the problem of balancing freedoms. In our post-9/11 world, we witness this balance on a regular basis as we are forced to confront the question of just what civil liberties we are prepared to give up in order to live free from terrorism. In July I went to Nagorno Karabakh, an Armenian populated area about the size of Scotland within Azerbaijan’s borders and began to learn about the problems that arise when opposing notions of freedom collide on an international scale.

I went to Armenia and Karabakh with the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust. Whilst in Karabakh our group had the opportunity to meet the President and Foreign Affairs Minister, who explained some of their predicament to us. In 1922 Stalin separated the area of eastern Armenia (known as Nagorno Karabakh) from the mainland and transferred it to an area within Azerbaijan’s borders. The idea of his ‘divide and rule’ policy was to ensure that national and ethnic groups would need to depend on the central government in Moscow for protection. War broke out in 1992 following allegations of ethnic cleansing in the area from both sides. By the end of the war in 1994, Armenian forces were in control of Karabakh in addition to around twelve per cent of Azerbaijan’s territory. Since then the area has remained in a frozen ceasefire and Karabakh operates as a de facto nation state within Azerbaijan which, along with Turkey, continues to blockade Karabakh.

Most observers see this as a struggle for supremacy between two conflicting notions of freedom in international law. This is causing the continuation of hostilities in Karabakh but is also the key to finding its resolution. The right to self-determination, recognised in the UN Charter and other international conventions, must be balanced against respect for existing international borders and a nation’s sovereign power over all activities inside its territory.

Whilst in Yerevan, Armenia’s capital, we met Anthony Cantor, the British Ambassador to Armenia, and asked him why the international community does not recognise Karabakh. Cantor said that at some point all the ‘chopping and changing’ of borders has to stop for the sake of stability. Behind this idea is the principle known in international law as uti possidetis, which enables fledgling governments to develop without distraction. There is definitely a considerable degree of good in the stabilising purpose of this principle but it often ignores ethnic differences between the peoples living in one area.

Unfortunately, as Azerbaijan and Turkey continue their blockade, the humanitarian situation in Karabakh remains a very serious one. International organisations such as UNICEF generally require permission from sovereign governments to enter a territory and Karabakh is not internationally recognised. Its people thus continue to suffer and although Azerbaijan is the sovereign government, thousands of Azeri refugees remain displaced and unable to return to their homes.

The ICJ in Burkina Faso v Mali held that the principle of uti possidetis is a principle of general application, not limited to post-colonial powers. Still, while the Ambassador, who represents Britain’s position, has a point, the question remains: can the people of Karabakh and Azerbaijan ever truly work together, for each other, as one state? At present, Azerbaijan will not even negotiate with representatives from Karabakh, only with Armenians.

An alternative approach would be for Karabakh to unite with Armenia, as was historically the case. Archbishop Parkev Mardirosian, who advocates this view, told us that, ‘It is international opinion which is forcing us to become an independent republic’. However, despite the close links, this is rarely presented as a feasible solution possibly due to Armenia’s fear of Azerbaijan tightening its trade and energy embargo against them. Armenia prefers to support Karabakh’s aim for independence.

There is a third view. As Karabakh already operates as a de facto nation state, proponents including New England School of Law argue that, ‘Nagorno Karabakh has a right of self-determination, including the attendant right of independence, according to the criteria recognised under international law’ as outlined inter alia in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, this view is by no means widely held, and overall it would appear unjust to grant one side the freedom it has been fighting for over past decade if it means at the same time restricting the liberty of the other.

A solution needs to be found which respects the freedom of both sides. American political scientists Professors Laitin and Suny have argued that because the problem lies in the struggle for supremacy between the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination, any solution must practically ensure that one principle does not undermine the other. They call for Azerbaijan to retain official sovereignty over Karabakh whilst at the same time respecting the right to self-determination of the Karabakhi people by allowing them a form of self-government as well as representatives in the Azeri government with the power to veto any proposition which directly affects Karabakh.

Although this is a far cry from either side’s ideal, it appears to be the only solution. It respects both perspectives – displaced Azeri citizens could begin to return to their homes and Armenia could begin to build trade links with its neighbours and profit along with the rest of the Caucasus from the region’s oil wealth. However, so far the impasse has remained with similar proposals having been rejected out of hand by both sides. What is clear is that for the deadlock to be broken, concessions must be made on both sides and individual notions of freedom delicately balanced.