Armenian genocide reparations

Last updated

The issue of Armenian genocide reparations derives from the Armenian genocide of 1915 committed by the Ottoman Empire. Such reparations might be of financial, estate or territorial nature, and could cover individual or collective claims as well as those by Armenia. [1] The majority of scholars of international law agree that Turkey is the successor state or continuation of the Ottoman Empire. [2] In addition, the Republic of Turkey continued the Ottoman Empire's internationally wrongful acts against Armenians, such as confiscation of Armenian properties and massacres. [3] Former Secretary of the UN Human Rights Committee, Professor Alfred de Zayas, Geneva School of Diplomacy, [4] stated that "[b]ecause of the continuing character of the crime of genocide in factual and legal terms, the remedy of restitution has not been foreclosed by the passage of time". [5]

Contents

Historical background

The aftermath of the Armenian genocide

The Ottoman representative, Mehmed Hadi Pasha, signs the Treaty of Sevres. Sevres signing.jpg
The Ottoman representative, Mehmed Hâdî Pasha, signs the Treaty of Sèvres.

Apart from the one to one and a half million deaths, Armenians lost all their wealth and property and received neither compensation nor reparations. [6] Businesses and farms were lost, and all schools, churches, hospitals, orphanages, monasteries, and graveyards became Turkish state property. [6] In January 1916, the Ottoman Minister of Commerce and Agriculture issued a decree ordering all financial institutions operating within the empire's borders to turn over Armenian assets to the government. [7] It is recorded that as much as 6 million Turkish gold pounds were seized along with real property, cash, bank deposits, and jewelry. [7] The assets were then funneled to European banks, including Deutsche and Dresdner banks. [7]

After the end of World War I, genocide survivors tried to return and reclaim their former homes and assets, but were driven out by the Turkish National Movement. [6]

Treaty of Sèvres

The punishment of the crime of the Armenian massacres, as well as the obligation to make restitution to the survivors were envisaged by the victorious Allies of World War I, and were included in the Peace Treaty of Sèvres, signed by the Ottoman Empire alike. The treaty contained not only a commitment to try Turkish officials for war crimes against the Allied Nationals, but also for crimes committed against subjects of the Ottoman Empire of different ethnic origin, in particular the Armenians, concluded in the texts as crime against humanity. [5] Furthermore, the so-called "Just Ruling of Woodrow Wilson (the US President at that time)" by the Treaty of Sèvres recognized an Armenian state much larger than the current Republic of Armenia by determining its Western borders in the Armenian Highlands and Asia Minor. While it was never ratified, there can be found individuals, historians, organisations, or politicians that share the thoughts of Henry C. Theriault (Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Massachusetts) specializing in social and political philosophy; he thinks:

...some of its elements retain the force of law and the treaty itself is not superseded by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. In particular, the fixing of the proper borders of an Armenian state was undertaken pursuant to the treaty and determined by a binding arbitral award. Regardless of whether the treaty was ultimately ratified, the committee process determining the arbitral award was agreed to by the parties to the treaty and, according to international law, the resulting determination has legal force regardless of the ultimate fate of the treaty. This means that, under international law, the “Wilsonian boundaries” are the proper boundaries of the Armenian state that should exist in Asia Minor today. [1]

Treaties of Alexandropol and Kars

The Treaty of Sèvres was superseded by the Turkish–Armenian War of 1920. [8] [ better source needed ] The following Treaty of Alexandropol stipulated that Armenia renounce the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres and its associated promises of awarding land from the region of "Western Armenia" to the Republic of Armenia, and declared the Treaty of Sèvres to be null and void. [9] Because of the Soviet invasion of Armenia before the signing of the Treaty of Alexandropol, the Armenian parliament never had the chance to ratify it. The Treaty of Kars replaced the Treaty of Alexandropol in 1921; the newly formed Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic affirmed all of the terms of the previous Treaty of Alexandropol in the new treaty. The Treaty of Kars was ratified in Yerevan in fall 1922 by the unrecognized Soviet and Turkish governments. [10]

After World War II, Stalin attempted to annul the Treaty of Kars and regain the lands ceded to Turkey. The Soviet claims were backed by much of the international Armenian diaspora, as well as the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. [11] Armenian leaders attempted to gather British and American support for the reclamation of eastern Anatolia from Turkey, but Winston Churchill objected to the Soviet and Armenian territorial claims. Likewise, the United States State Department backed Turkey as well, saying, as it had since 1934, that its previous support for Wilsonian Armenia had since expired. [12] The Soviet Union dropped its claims against Turkey after Stalin's death in 1953. [13]

Reparation proposals

According to the former Foreign Minister of Armenia, Eduard Nalbandyan, Armenia has never issued a declaration regarding land claims since its independence. He also argues that there are legal ways for Armenians to reclaim their lost properties, with or without Turkish recognition of the Armenian genocide. [14] However, various reparations proposals do exist. The view of Rouben Paul Adalian, Director of the Armenian National Institute in Washington is that, although reparations have never been granted by Turkey, the increasing recognition of the Armenian genocide by the international community and hence its eventual recognition by Turkey can lay a solid basis for the start of the reparation process. [6]

Many Armenians demand a restoration of the Turkish-Armenian border as demarcated by former United States President Woodrow Wilson in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, and a hefty amount of cash reparations. [15] Some demand a land corridor between Armenia and the Black Sea in order to ensure the long-term viability of the Armenian state, while others only want the symbolic inclusion of Mount Ararat in Armenia and a formal apology by Turkey. [15] Ümit Kardaş, a retired Turkish military judge, proposes the unconditional opening of the Turkish-Armenian border, as well as an invitation by the Turkish state to all Armenians living in the diaspora to settle in their ancestral lands in Turkey. [16]

According to a study made by the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group (AGRSG), reparations should be made according to the detailed reparations estimate made as part of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, supplemented by additional calculations for elements not sufficiently covered by the conference's estimation of the material financial losses suffered by Armenians. [1] The report also discusses multiple options regarding land return, from a symbolic return of church and other cultural properties in Turkey to full return of lands as designated in the Treaty of Sèvres. The report includes the very innovative option of allowing Turkey to retain political sovereignty over the lands in question but demilitarizing them and allowing Armenians to join present inhabitants with full political protection and business and residency rights. [1]

The issues of "holding responsible"

In the sense of responsibility for the genocide the issue can be separated into 2 major concepts: personal and state.

The issue of personal responsibility and “punishment”

It is an accepted principle of law, that criminal cases may be brought against living people only. In this scope criminal proceedings of this kind are currently impossible as the perpetrators are already dead. In this regard the possibility of involvement by International Criminal Court (ICC) seems impossible not only because of that, but also that by its regulations it has no retroactive jurisdiction. [17]

This kind of proceeding already took place. The perpetrators were found guilty in the Turkish Courts-Martial of 1919–1920 in War Crimes and Crime against humanity, but the main culprits had been helped to escape and the process was halted because there was no international legal framework at that time. From the Malta exiles taken by the Allied forces headed by Britain that included more than 140 people in the aftermath of World War I, several suspected criminals were never tried. In 1921 some were returned in exchange for British POW. Right after that, most of the detainees were released after negotiations between Britain and the newly formed Ankara government of Atatürk. The trials were halted with the emergence of the Turkish National Movement and afterwards the new Kemalist government pardoned those who were serving their sentences in 1923.

The issue of "punishment" of the responsible state

In the modern International Law, however, the idea of criminal liability of states is affirmed. This way the Article 19 of the initial draft articles on state responsibility adopted by the International Law Commission (ILC) genocide was listed among the international crimes. Such an assertion opens the way for an international "punishment" of the state to which genocidal acts are attributed. This could be the case with Turkey if it is held responsible for the Armenian genocide. [17] Despite this in the general frames of this draft the mechanisms, the level of responsibility and other factors are quite vague which explains the final deletion of the word "crime" from the draft of ILC and makes mention of an unclear "serious breach of an obligation arising under a pre-emptory norm of general international law". [17]

According to some, there does not exist a proper mechanism to hold Turkey responsible for the damage caused to Armenians by the genocide. In this scope, according to Professor Richard Hovannisian, this kind of process is possible by the consent of the parties, and such an agreement or treaty between Armenia and Turkey does not exist. Neither does the exchange of optional clauses of compulsory jurisdiction in accordance with the International Court of Justice (ICJ). And so there is no institution or court, except for the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR), Turkey could be brought before without its own consent. The latter is an international but not an interstate court. It is established to decide the individual claims against the states on issues of European convention on human rights, which is not helpful in the issue of reparations. Turkey has a current offer to establish an international committee of historians to research and make a decision on the events of 1915. [17]

Dealing with the reparations

Grounds in international law

The United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law provide in part:

Reparation may be claimed individually and where appropriate collectively, by the direct victims of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, the immediate family, dependants or other persons or groups of persons closely connected with the direct victims. [18]

While current members of Turkish society cannot be blamed morally for the destruction of Armenians, the present-day Turkish Republic, as the successor state to the Ottoman Empire and as beneficiary of the wealth and land expropriations brought forth through the genocide, is responsible for reparations. [1] Professor de Zayas states the following:

The lands, buildings, bank accounts and other property of the Armenian communities in Turkey were systematically confiscated. Should there be no restitution for this act of mass theft, accompanying, as it did, the ultimate crime of genocide?

Pr. de Zayas states that the restitution of confiscated Armenian property remains a continuing State responsibility also because of Turkey's current human rights obligations under international treaty law, particularly the corpus of international human rights law. [5]

Particularly important are Principles 9 and 12 that state that civil claims relating to reparations for gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law shall not be subject to statutes of limitations (article 9), and that restitution shall be provided to re-establish the situation that existed prior to the violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. The restitution requires, inter alia - return to one's place of residence and restoration of property. [18] [19]

For reparations of gross violations of human rights, two other general principles are relevant: the principle of ex injuria non oritur jus (translation: from a wrong no right arises), meaning that no State should be allowed to profit from its own violations of law, and the principle of "unjust enrichment". It is a general principle of law that the criminal cannot keep the fruits of the crime. [20] [21]

Despite the recent large experience and advance in dealing with similar issues, there are ascertains that the existing legal background provides insufficient mechanisms for the resolution of the subject issue unless mutually agreed on one. There is little doubt that Turkey will join any discussion concerning its responsibility towards the victims . [22] This can also be supplemented with facts that Armenia was nonexistent as an independent state at the time of the genocide and that the victims were mainly the subjects of the Ottoman Empire itself. [17]

Armenian organizations demanding reparations

Armenian Apostolic Church

Armenian political parties

Defunct paramilitary organizations

Other organizations

Recent developments

Lawsuits

Against financial institutions

California-based lawyers Brian S. Kabateck of Kabateck LLP, Vartkes Yeghiayan, Mark J. Geragos, and William Shernoff filed a series of lawsuits against American and European financial institutions in order to recover Armenian assets and insurance compensations.

  • In July 2004, after California Legislature passed the Armenian Genocide Insurance Act, descendants of Armenian genocide victims settled a case for about 2400 life insurance policies from New York Life written on Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. [40] Some of the life insurance policies were written as early as 1875, but were not paid after the Genocide. Around 1916–1918, the Turkish government attempted to recover for the people it had killed with the argument that there are no identifiable heirs to the policy holders, but did not succeed. [40] [41] The settlement provided 20 million dollars, of which 11 million was for heirs of the Genocide victims. [40]
  • In 2005, the French insurance company AXA was also accused of not paying compensations to the descendants of those who perished during the Armenian genocide. After a class-action lawsuit, it agreed to pay 17 million dollars to descendants and Armenian philanthropic groups. [42] In March 2010, the company provided life insurance premiums to 1,000 families of descendants of Armenians killed in 1915. [43]
  • In 2006, descendants of the Armenian genocide filed a class action lawsuit against Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank which seeks the recovery of millions of dollars of money and property withheld by the two German banks after the Armenian genocide. [7] The lawsuit asserts that the banks profited from the 1915 atrocities in order to conceal and prevent the recovery of assets belonging to Armenian families. [7] The banks' cooperation has been limited. [7]

Against the Getty museum

On June 1, 2010, the Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America has sued the J. Paul Getty Museum to demand the return of seven pages ripped from a sacred Armenian Bible dating back to 1256 as well as damages of 35 million dollars. [44] According to the Western Prelacy, the seven pages were ripped from the Armenian Church's Zeyt'un Gospels during the genocide. [45] The Zeyt'un Gospels were illustrated by Toros Roslin, and the rest of the sacred book is located at the Matenadaran in Yerevan, Armenia. [46] According to the Getty, the museum legally acquired the pages, which is known as the Canon Tables, in 1994 from an anonymous private collector "after a thorough review of their provenance." [46] Michael Bazyler, a Chapman University law professor and member of the plaintiff's legal team, believes this is the first case filed in the United States for the return of cultural or religious objects taken around the time of World War I. [46]

Against the Turkish government and two banks

On July 29, 2010, Armenian-American lawyers filed a federal lawsuit against the Turkish government, the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey and Ziraat Bankası, seeking compensation for the descendants of Armenians whose property was allegedly seized during the Armenian genocide. The plaintiffs are Garbis Davouyan of Los Angeles and Hrayr Turabian of Queens. The suit - the first directed against the government of the Republic of Turkey - alleges breach of statutory trust, unjust enrichment, human rights violations and violations of international law. [47] It seeks compensation for land, buildings and businesses allegedly seized from Armenians along with bank deposits and property, including priceless religious and other artifacts, some of which are now kept in museums in the Republic of Turkey. The lawsuit claims more than a million Armenians were killed in forced marches, concentration camps and massacres "perpetrated, assisted and condoned" by Turkish officials and armed forces. Lawyers for the plaintiffs think that records of the properties and profits still exist, and they are seeking an accounting that could reach billions of dollars. [47] The case was denied & dismissed in 2013. [48]

Ankara Conference

Starting April 24, 2010, a two-day conference entitled "The Armenian Issue: What is to be done and how?", organized by the Ankara Freedom of Thought Initiative, took place in Ankara and was held under tight security measures. [49] [50] For the first time in Turkey, subjects such as confiscated Armenian property, reparations, and the challenges of confronting the past and moving forward were discussed. [50] 200 people, mostly genocide recognition supporters attended the conference. [50] Some of those present were Turkish and Western intellectuals such as Sevan Nişanyan of the Istanbul-based Armenian newspaper Agos , Welsh writer-activist Eilan Williams, Worcester State University philosopher Henry Theriault, and author Temel Demirer. [49] As the conference quickly turned into a debate on Armenian genocide reparations, the latter three supported them, while Nişanyan did not. [49] [50]

Bill in the Armenian parliament

On April 26, 2010, a draft resolution submitted to the Armenian National Assembly by the ARF criminalizes the denial of the Armenian genocide and raises the reparations issue. Key parliamentary forces largely supported the bill. Larisa Alaversyan of the opposition Heritage Party says that the adoption of the bill would create further precedent for Armenia's application to an international court on the issue. The head of Prosperous Armenia’s parliamentary faction, Aram Safaryan, as well as Hovhannes Margaryan of the Rule of Law faction similarly supported the initiative. [51]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treaty of Lausanne</span> 1923 peace treaty between Turkey and Allies

The Treaty of Lausanne is a peace treaty negotiated during the Lausanne Conference of 1922–23 and signed in the Palais de Rumine in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923. The treaty officially resolved the conflict that had initially arisen between the Ottoman Empire and the Allied French Republic, British Empire, Kingdom of Italy, Empire of Japan, Kingdom of Greece, Kingdom of Serbia, and the Kingdom of Romania since the outset of World War I. The original text of the treaty is in English and French. It emerged as a second attempt at peace after the failed and unratified Treaty of Sèvres, which had sought to partition Ottoman territories. The earlier treaty, signed in 1920, was later rejected by the Turkish National Movement which actively opposed its terms. As a result of the Greco-Turkish War, İzmir was reclaimed, and the Armistice of Mudanya was signed in October 1922. This armistice provided for the exchange of Greek-Turkish populations and allowed unrestricted civilian, non-military passage through the Turkish Straits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Armenian genocide</span> 1915–1917 mass murder in the Ottoman Empire

The Armenian genocide was the systematic destruction of the Armenian people and identity in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Spearheaded by the ruling Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), it was implemented primarily through the mass murder of around one million Armenians during death marches to the Syrian Desert and the forced Islamization of others, primarily women and children.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia</span> Armenian militant organization that operated from 1975 to the early 1990s

Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) was a militant organization active between 1975 and the 1990s whose stated goal was "to compel the Turkish Government to acknowledge publicly its responsibility for the Armenian genocide in 1915, pay reparations, and cede territory for an Armenian homeland." ASALA itself and other sources described it as a guerilla and armed organization. Some sources, including the United States Department of State, as well as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan listed it as a terrorist organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treaty of Sèvres</span> 1920 treaty between Ottomans and Allies, not implemented

The Treaty of Sèvres was a 1920 treaty signed between the Allies of World War I and the Ottoman Empire. The treaty ceded large parts of Ottoman territory to France, the United Kingdom, Greece and Italy, as well as creating large occupation zones within the Ottoman Empire. It was one of a series of treaties that the Central Powers signed with the Allied Powers after their defeat in World War I. Hostilities had already ended with the Armistice of Mudros.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Turkish War of Independence</span> Interwar conflict in Turkey, 1919–1923

The Turkish War of Independence was a series of military campaigns and a revolution waged by the Turkish National Movement, after parts of the Ottoman Empire were occupied and partitioned following its defeat in World War I. The conflict was between the Turkish Nationalists against Allied and separatist forces over the application of Wilsonian principles, especially national self-determination, in post-World War I Anatolia and Eastern Thrace. The revolution concluded the collapse of the Ottoman Empire; the Ottoman monarchy and the Islamic caliphate were abolished, and the Republic of Turkey was declared in Anatolia and Eastern Thrace. This resulted in a transfer of vested sovereignty from the sultan-caliph to the nation, setting the stage for Republican Turkey's period of nationalist revolutionary reform.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Republic of Armenia</span> 1918–1920 former country in Western Asia

The First Republic of Armenia, officially known at the time of its existence as the Republic of Armenia, was an independent Armenian state that existed from May 1918 to 2 December 1920 in the Armenian-populated territories of the former Russian Empire known as Eastern or Russian Armenia. The republic was established in May 1918, with its capital in the city of Yerevan, after the dissolution of the short-lived Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic. It was the first Armenian state since the Middle Ages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Western Armenia</span> Armenian historical region in Turkey

Western Armenia is a term to refer to the western parts of the Armenian highlands located within Turkey that comprise the historical homeland of the Armenians. Western Armenia, also referred to as Byzantine Armenia, emerged following the division of Greater Armenia between the Byzantine Empire and Sassanid Persia in AD 387. Since the Armenian genocide, the Armenian diaspora as well as Armenians indigenous to modern Turkey have sought political representation in Western Armenia or reunification with the Republic of Armenia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Turkish–Armenian War</span> Conflict during the Turkish War of Independence

The Turkish–Armenian War, known in Turkey as the Eastern Front of the Turkish War of Independence, was a conflict between the First Republic of Armenia and the Turkish National Movement following the collapse of the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920. After the provisional government of Ahmet Tevfik Pasha failed to win support for ratification of the treaty, remnants of the Ottoman Army's XV Corps under the command of Kâzım Karabekir attacked Armenian forces controlling the area surrounding Kars, eventually recapturing most of the territory in the South Caucasus that had been part of the Ottoman Empire prior to the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) and was subsequently ceded by Soviet Russia as part of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greek genocide</span> 1913–1922 genocide of Greek Christians in the Ottoman Empire

The Greek genocide, which included the Pontic genocide, was the systematic killing of the Christian Ottoman Greek population of Anatolia which was carried out mainly during World War I and its aftermath (1914–1922) on the basis of their religion and ethnicity. It was perpetrated by the government of the Ottoman Empire led by the Three Pashas and by the Government of the Grand National Assembly led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, against the indigenous Greek population of the Empire. The genocide included massacres, forced deportations involving death marches through the Syrian Desert, expulsions, summary executions, and the destruction of Eastern Orthodox cultural, historical, and religious monuments. Several hundred thousand Ottoman Greeks died during this period. Most of the refugees and survivors fled to Greece. Some, especially those in Eastern provinces, took refuge in the neighbouring Russian Empire.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wilsonian Armenia</span> 1920 proposed boundaries of Armenia

Wilsonian Armenia was the unimplemented boundary configuration of the First Republic of Armenia in the Treaty of Sèvres, as drawn by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's Department of State. The Treaty of Sèvres was a peace treaty that had been drafted and signed between the Western Allied Powers and the defeated government of the Ottoman Empire in August 1920, but it was never ratified and was subsequently superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne. The proposed boundaries of Wilsonian Armenia incorporated portions of the Ottoman vilayets of Erzurum, Bitlis, Van, and Trabzon, which had Armenian populations of varying sizes. The inclusion of portions of Trabzon Vilayet was intended to provide the First Republic of Armenia with an outlet to the Black Sea at the port of Trabzon. A proposed Republic of Pontus was discussed at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, but the Greek government of Eleftherios Venizelos feared the precarious position of such a state, so a portion of it was instead included in the proposed state of Wilsonian Armenia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Occupation of Western Armenia</span> By the Russian Empire during World War I

The occupation of Western Armenia by the Russian Empire during World War I began in 1915 and was formally ended by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. It was sometimes referred to as the Republic of Van by Armenians. Aram Manukian of Armenian Revolutionary Federation was the de facto head until July 1915. It was briefly referred to as "Free Vaspurakan". After a setback beginning in August 1915, it was re-established in June 1916. The region was allocated to Russia by the Allies in April 1916 under the Sazonov–Paléologue Agreement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Armenian genocide denial</span> Fringe theory that the Armenian genocide did not occur

Armenian genocide denial is the claim that the Ottoman Empire and its ruling party, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), did not commit genocide against its Armenian citizens during World War I—a crime documented in a large body of evidence and affirmed by the vast majority of scholars. The perpetrators denied the genocide as they carried it out, claiming that Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were resettled for military reasons, not exterminated. In the genocide's aftermath, incriminating documents were systematically destroyed, and denial has been the policy of every government of the Republic of Turkey, as of 2023, and later adopted by the Republic of Azerbaijan, as of 1991.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Partition of the Ottoman Empire</span> Division of Ottoman territory after World War I

The partition of the Ottoman Empire was a geopolitical event that occurred after World War I and the occupation of Constantinople by British, French, and Italian troops in November 1918. The partitioning was planned in several agreements made by the Allied Powers early in the course of World War I, notably the Sykes–Picot Agreement, after the Ottoman Empire had joined Germany to form the Ottoman–German Alliance. The huge conglomeration of territories and peoples that formerly comprised the Ottoman Empire was divided into several new states. The Ottoman Empire had been the leading Islamic state in geopolitical, cultural and ideological terms. The partitioning of the Ottoman Empire after the war led to the domination of the Middle East by Western powers such as Britain and France, and saw the creation of the modern Arab world and the Republic of Turkey. Resistance to the influence of these powers came from the Turkish National Movement but did not become widespread in the other post-Ottoman states until the period of rapid decolonization after World War II.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of Armenian national movement</span>

The following is the Timeline of Armenian national movement which is the collection of activities during the Armenian national movement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Armenia</span> Armenian irredentist concept

United Armenia, also known as Greater Armenia or Great Armenia, is an Armenian ethno-nationalist irredentist concept referring to areas within the traditional Armenian homeland—the Armenian Highland—which are currently or have historically been mostly populated by Armenians. The idea of what Armenians see as unification of their historical lands was prevalent throughout the 20th century and has been advocated by individuals, various organizations and institutions, including the nationalist parties Armenian Revolutionary Federation and Heritage, the ASALA and others.

After World War I, the effort to prosecute Ottoman war criminals was taken up by the Paris Peace Conference (1919) and ultimately included in the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) with the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman government organized a series of courts martial in 1919–1920 to prosecute war criminals, but these failed on account of political pressure. The main effort by the Allied administration that occupied Constantinople fell short of establishing an international tribunal in Malta to try the so-called Malta exiles, Ottoman war criminals held as POWs by the British forces in Malta. In the end, no tribunals were held in Malta.

Impunity is the ability to act with exemption from punishments, losses, or other negative consequences. In the international law of human rights, impunity is failure to bring perpetrators of human rights violations to justice and, as such, itself constitutes a denial of the victims' right to justice and redress. Impunity is especially common in countries which lack the tradition of rule of law, or suffer from pervasive corruption, or contain entrenched systems of patronage, or where the judiciary is weak or members of the security forces are protected by special jurisdictions or immunities. Impunity is sometimes considered a form of denialism of historical crimes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Confiscation of Armenian properties in Turkey</span> Seizure of properties belonging to the Armenian community by the Ottoman and Turkish governments

The confiscation of Armenian properties by the Ottoman and Turkish governments involved seizure of the assets, properties and land of the country's Armenian community. Starting with the Hamidian massacres and peaking during the Armenian genocide, the confiscation of the Armenian property lasted continuously until 1974. Much of the confiscations during the Armenian genocide were made after the Armenians were deported into the Syrian Desert with the government declaring their goods and assets left behind as "abandoned". Virtually all properties owned by Armenians living in their ancestral homeland in Western Armenia were confiscated and later distributed among the local Muslim population.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Secession in Turkey</span>

Secession in Turkey is a phenomenon caused by the desire of a number of minorities living in Turkey to secede and form independent national states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">May 1915 Triple Entente declaration</span> Declaration condemning the Armenian Genocide

On 24 May 1915, on the initiative of Russia, the Triple Entente—Russia, France, and the United Kingdom—issued a declaration condemning the ongoing Armenian genocide carried out in the Ottoman Empire and threatening to hold the perpetrators accountable. This was the first use of the phrase "crimes against humanity" in international diplomacy, which later became a category of international criminal law after World War II.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Theriault, Henry (May 6, 2010). "The Global Reparations Movement and Meaningful Resolution of the Armenian Genocide". Armenian Weekly. Archived from the original on 10 May 2010. Retrieved May 11, 2010.
  2. ↑ Latino, Agostina (2018). "The Armenian Massacres and the Price of Memory: Impossible to Forget, Forbidden to Remember". The Armenian Massacres of 1915–1916 a Hundred Years Later: Open Questions and Tentative Answers in International Law. Springer International Publishing. pp. 195–236. ISBN   978-3-319-78169-3. That Turkey represents the Ottoman Empire's successor State is a shared opinion by the greater part of international law scholars: ex plurimis see Dumberry (2013), according to whom "Turkey has the same legal identity as the Ottoman Empire and [...] accordingly it should be held responsible for all internationally wrongful acts committed by the Empire against the Armenian population before, during and after the War", in specie p. 165.
  3. ↑ Avedian, V. (2012). "State Identity, Continuity, and Responsibility: The Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide". European Journal of International Law. 23 (3): 797–820. doi: 10.1093/ejil/chs056 . Even if one were to question the continuity of state identity between the Empire and the Republic, the actions of the insurrectional Nationalist movement, which became the new state, establish a clear link to the predecessor, at least when the internationally wrongful acts pertaining to the massacres, deportations, and confiscations were considered. The Republic not only refrained from halting the CUP era massacres, the persecution of the Christian minorities, and the unlawful confiscation of their assets and properties, but it continued the same internationally wrongful acts, even expanding the massacres beyond its own borders into the Caucasus and the territories of the independent Republic of Armenia. The Republic of Turkey was competent to prosecute the war criminals for crimes committed on its own territory, but refrained from so doing. The new leadership protected individuals accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity and unlawful enrichment, later exonerating them and rewarding them with new positions within the Republic.
  4. ↑ Geneva School of Diplomacy Archived June 4, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  5. 1 2 3 De Zayas, Alfred (December 2007). "The Genocide against the Armenians 1915–1923 and the relevance of the 1948 Genocide Convention". Alfred de Zayas. Archived from the original on 4 May 2010. Retrieved May 11, 2010.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Totten, Samuel; Parsons, William S. (2009). A Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts. New York: Routledge. p. 58. ISBN   978-0-203-89043-1.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Armenian Genocide Descendants File Class Action against Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank Announces Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP". Business Wire. May 6, 2010. Retrieved May 24, 2010.
  8. ↑ Dr. Andrew Andersen, Ph.D., Atlas of Conflicts: Turkish-Armenian War
  9. ↑ Levon Chorbajian (1 January 1994). The Caucasian Knot: The History & Geopolitics of Nagorno-Karabagh. Zed Books. p. 132. ISBN   978-1-85649-288-1.
  10. ↑ "English translation of the Treaty of Kars". Archived from the original on 2001-01-27. Retrieved 2014-02-19.
  11. ↑ Richard G. Hovannisian The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times: Foreign dominion to statehood: the fifteenth century to the twentieth century. Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. p. 417
  12. ↑ Suny, Ronald Grigor (1993). Looking Toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History . Indiana University Press. pp.  169, 175–76. ISBN   9780253207739.
  13. ↑ Ro'i, Yaacov (1974). From Encroachment to Involvement: A Documentary Study of Soviet Policy in the Middle East, 1945–1973. Transaction Publisher. pp. 106–07.
  14. ↑ "Le ministre arménien Edouard Nalbandian explicite la position de l'Arménie" (in French). 2010-06-15. Archived from the original on 2011-07-20. Retrieved 2010-06-14.
  15. 1 2 "Frequently Asked Questions - Land Reparations for the Turkish Genocide of Armenians". Archived from the original on 2011-07-04. Retrieved 2010-05-24.
  16. ↑ Kardaş, Ümit. "Do We Have to Defend the Actions of CUP?". Keghart.com. Archived from the original on 2010-05-07. Retrieved 2010-05-27.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 Hovannisian, Richard (2003). The Armenian Genocide and International Law. pp. 146–53. ISBN   9781412827676 . Retrieved June 19, 2010.
  18. 1 2 "Question of the Human Rights of All Persons Subjected to Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment". Archived from the original on 2013-05-23.
  19. ↑ Commission on Human Rights, fifty-third session, Doc. E/CN.4/1997/104. Compare with the first report by Professor Theo van Boven C/CH.4/Sub.2/1993/8 of 2 July 1993, section IX, and the second report C/CN.4/Sub.2/1996/7 of 24 May 1996
  20. ↑ J.W. Wade, “Acquisition of Property by willfully killing another – A Statutory Solution “ (1936), 49 Harvard Law Review, pp. 715
  21. ↑ W.M. McGovern, “Homicide and Succession to Property” (1969) 68 Michigan Law Review, p. 65
  22. ↑ An Ugly Truth , U.S. News & World Report ; Oct 29, 2007
  23. ↑ Khatchatourian, Ara (May 6, 2015). "Karekin II Calls Sis Catholicosate Lawsuit a 'Positive' Step". Asbarez. Archived from the original on May 9, 2015. Retrieved 2015-05-18.
  24. ↑ "Cilician See files lawsuit to reclaim Sis Catholicosate from Turkey on April 28". Armenian Genocide Centennial. Archived from the original on 2015-11-19. Retrieved 2015-05-18.
  25. ↑ Gladstone, Rick (2015-04-23). "Armenian Groups Are Increasingly Focused on Reparations for Genocide". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2015-05-18.
  26. ↑ "Karekin II Says Etchmiadzin May File Lawsuits for Return of Churches". Asbarez. May 12, 2015. Archived from the original on May 15, 2015. Retrieved 2015-05-18.
  27. ↑ "U.S. Embassy releases study on Armenian-Americans". Archived from the original on 2007-10-11. Retrieved 2006-12-27.
  28. ↑ "ARF history". Archived from the original on 2006-01-06. Retrieved 2006-01-29.
  29. ↑ "Goals of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation". Archived from the original on 2 February 2007. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
  30. ↑ "Social Democrat Hunchakian Party". Archived from the original on 6 June 2010. Retrieved 2010-05-17.
  31. ↑ "Armenian Democratic Liberal Party - Ramgavar Azadagan - The Genocide" . Retrieved 2010-05-18.
  32. ↑ "1982. 2001. The Encyclopedia of World History". Archived from the original on 2008-06-24. Retrieved 2010-05-19.
  33. ↑ Roy, Olivier. Turkey Today: A European Nation? p. 170.
  34. ↑ U.S. Department of State. "Appendix B". Patterns of Global Terrorism Report - 1996  .
  35. ↑ Pitman, Paul M. Turkey: A Country Study. Washington D.C.: The Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, 283, 354-355 OCLC   17841957
  36. ↑ Starving Armenians: America and the Armenian Genocide, 1915–1930 and After – p. 166 by Merrill D. Peterson
  37. ↑ Geopolitical and Economic Changes in the Balkan Countries - Page 75 by Nicholas V. Gianaris
  38. ↑ TKB Group profile - JCAG Archived September 22, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  39. ↑ "Armenian Genocide Reparations Discussed at the World Forum on Human Rights". Asbarez. 18 December 2013. Retrieved 18 February 2014.
  40. 1 2 3 Brophy, Alfred L. (2006). Reparations: Pro & Con. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 119–120. ISBN   0-19-530408-X.
  41. ↑ Morgenthau, Henry. Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, Chapter XXV
  42. ↑ "Axa Insurance Company will pay $17 Million to Heirs of Armenian Genocide Victims". Panarmenian.net. October 13, 2005. Retrieved May 17, 2010.
  43. ↑ "French Insurance Compensates Descendents of Armenian Genocide Victims". EurasiaNet.org. March 10, 2010. Retrieved May 17, 2010.
  44. ↑ "Church Sues Getty Over Pages of 1256 Bible". Courthouse News Service. June 2, 2010. Archived from the original on 5 June 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  45. ↑ "Armenian church sues Getty over ancient Bible pages". Los Angeles Times. June 3, 2010. Archived from the original on 5 June 2010. Retrieved June 3, 2010.
  46. 1 2 3 "Armenian church sues Getty museum over Bible pages". The Associated Press. June 3, 2010. Retrieved June 3, 2010.
  47. 1 2 "Armenian-Americans sue for century-old losses". Associated Press. July 29, 2010. Archived from the original on 2 August 2010. Retrieved July 29, 2010.
  48. ↑ "Davoyan v. Republic Turkey, 116 F. Supp. 3d 1084 | Casetext Search + Citator".
  49. 1 2 3 Matossian, Lou Ann (May 1, 2010). "In Turkey 'People Are Rebelling' Against Armenia Genocide Denial". Eurasia Review. Archived from the original on 4 May 2010. Retrieved May 13, 2010.
  50. 1 2 3 4 Mouradian, Khatchig (April 28, 2010). "Ankara Conference Looks Beyond Genocide, Debates Reparations". Asbarez. Archived from the original on 1 May 2010. Retrieved May 13, 2010.
  51. ↑ "ARF Submits Bill to Parliament on Genocide Reparations". Archived from the original on 29 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-05-17.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.