Is it correct to place the Declaration of Alma Ata at the basis of the determination of borders?

Delimitation and demarcation is perhaps the most complex and problematic area of interstate relations, about which only knowledgeable specialists in this field can express an opinion, give advice, and make assessments. Political scientist Garik Keryan writes about this on his Facebook page, noting that it requires fundamental geodetic knowledge and experience, working skills in the field of cartography, and the ability to master modern technical and space tools.

"Aware of these realities, for obvious reasons, I try not to comment on the intense internal political struggle that has unfolded over the RA-Azerbaijan borders in recent months. However, there is another important circumstance, this process is also political with regional and international significance. Having this circumstance in mind, I will try to present some observations from a political science aspect.

The Declaration of Alma Ata was signed in accordance with the act of self-collapse of the USSR in 1991 after the December 8 Belovezh Agreement on December 21. The purpose of this declaration was to announce the formation of the CIS as an international organization in place of the Soviet empire. Of course, the need to maintain the inviolability of borders and territorial integrity is also outlined, which of course refers to the borders of the union republics.

Naturally, the question arises, is it correct to put this document as the basis for determining the borders? The answer definitely cannot be. Definitely yes for the Baltic republics, in the conditions of peaceful and neighborly relations, turning the administrative borders into an interstate border cannot cause a problem at all. In republics with territorial disputes and quasi-military/conflict relations, the mechanical transformation of administrative borders into interstate borders may lead to new conflicts. It's not that the borders of the union republics were internal borders of the state, the energy, railway, automobile and water communication routes were of no importance if they appeared a few hundred meters away from each other.

The Armenia-Azerbaijani border could not cause such problems at that time, they were not independent states and were governed from one center. It is clear that the mechanical reproduction of former administrative borders can create a difficult vital situation for the border settlements of Armenia and lead to the emptying and desolation of these settlements. The following position would be more correct. "to adopt the territory and borders of the former union republics as a basis, but in the process of turning the former administrative borders into interstate ones, be guided by the priority of preserving the vitality of the border settlements."

As long as the process has just started, it is possible to reach such an agreement with the Azerbaijani side in other areas, it is not excluded that certain border changes will be acceptable for Azerbaijan as well. It would be very good if bilaterally they also refuse to restore the enclaves. Restoring that abnormality will cause new problems. It is necessary to be flexible and realistic, bare-bones statements about not giving millimeters/centimeters of land remind us of the infamous "not a penny" from which we still don't get out today.