Kimden: şükrü Aya [[email protected]]
Sayın Karluk ve dostlar
Ufak bir yazı hazırlayarak, Bay Kahraman’ın bu hareketi ile, hem Millet Meclisinin, hem de ülkenin saygınlığını nasıl pespaye ettiğini, Halil Berktay’ıın yanına karşı görüşte kimseyi çağırmak cesaretini göstermediğini ve AKP nin bu konudai önceki faaliyetlerinin aksine davranışını ve bilgisizliğnin derecesini Arslan Bly beye i ufak bir çlışmayla letecegiö Umarım, Pazartesi günü “yazımı begeir ve aydalanırsa” bu konudaki bulgularımı kamu oyu ile paylaşır.
Tüm mercilerimizin ve ortada günah keçisi olarak bırakılan Dışişleri Bakanlığının, bu konudaki inanılmaz “ilgi kara deliği” ve mazeretlerin daha da traji komik olması, bizlerin içimizden ne denli kopuk, bilgisiz ve dolayısıyla yeteneksiz oldugunu kanıtlıyour. Bir de “şiddetle kınamışlar”… İyi ki “şiddetli kına yakmışlar”… Pompei yıkıldıktan sonra Hollandalılara söyleneblecek bir kaç “temiz laf ve belgeleri vardır”…Lakin bunları dğnyaya iletebilmek lazım, halbuki içerde bu konuya/KISITLI) sütun ayıran yalnız iki gazete vardır, TV kanalı hiç yoktur. Ve yandaş kanalları be Callaghan’ın videosunu, ne Serkan Koç’un çalışmalarıbi bilir ve yayayınlar hatta RTE nin bu konudaki yıllar evvelki utum ve sözlerini de bilmezler. CHp nin içindedirler, HDP onların, AKP de de Meclis Başkanını bile kafa kola almışlar. Bizi sizi ne okuyan ne anlayan ne takan ne de “dinleyecek ve ne boyutta aptal oldugumuzu idrak edebilecek samimiyette adam var”!
Hamiş: Görüşüm azaldıgından, yazılım hataları artmıştır ve denetlemiyorum. Hoş göresiniz…
Kimden: Sadık Rıdvan KARLUK [mailto:[email protected]]
Bugün TF’da yayınlanan yazım ektedir.
TBMM Başkanı bile konuya duyarsız kalıyorsa, bu iş bitmiş demektir.
TF Hocalı Soykırımını Kınamayan Halil Berktay
TBMM BaŞKANI İsmail Kahraman ve Halil Berktay
TF Fransa Cumhurbaşkanı Macron
Kimden: Sevil Kaplun [[email protected]]
Ferruh bey, artık biliyoruz, bu kaçıncı, Ermenilerin takdiği, görüşmeleri ve önergeleri, son dakikaya kadar gizli tutmak. Açıklandığı zaman artık yapacak birşey kalmamış oluyor. Devamlı Türkiye politikasını izliyor, tercihen hangi ülke ile aramız bozuk ise oranın Parlamentosuna yanaşıp kolaylıkla istediklerini elde ediyorlar. Evet bize yapılan « hukukun açıkça çiğnenmesi » ama ne var ki, kime şikayet edeceğiz ? Şimdi artik bunlar ülkelere Ermeni soykırımı tanıtmakla (ki oraya dogru gidiyoruz) nereye varmak istiyorlar onu düşünmeliyiz. Amaçlari Ankara’ya kadar dayanan, çesitli ülkekerde gittikçe çoğalan, Ermenistan haritasını gerçekleştirmek için bir ön aşama mi? yoksa yalnızca Türkiye’den intikam alma mi?
Bu Cumartesi günü Paris’deki Ermeniler, Afrin’e yapılan çıkarmaya karşı proteso yürüyüşü düzenliyorlar. Türkler de Ermenilerin Nagorno Karabakh istilası için yürüyüş organize edebilirlerdi ama nerede…
De : Ferruh Demirmen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sayın Perinçek’in, “Onay yok. Onaylatmayacağız” dediğinin açıklandığı 22 Şubat 2018 tarihinde Hollanda alt mecisi ne yazık ki “soykırım” tasarısını büyük bir çoğunlukla onayladı.
Hollanda hükümeti de Alman hükümeti gibi bir iki yüzlülük gösterek, “Biz taraftar değiliz; bizi bağlamaz” demekle sorumluluğu üzerinden attı.
Türkiye için bir tür “züğürt tesellesi;” asıl anlamda tarihi gerçeklerin ve hukukun açıkça çiğnenmesi.
Hollanda Mecisli’nin böyle bir karar alacağı olasılığı ilk kez 16 Şubat tarihinde basına yansıdı. Yani olay bir haftaya kalmadan “pişirildi.”
Sorulması gereken: Bizlerin neden daha önce haberimiz olmadı?
Hollanda parlamentosu üyelerine bir bilgilendirme/uyarı mektubu yazma fırsatı bile olmadı.
From: şükrü Aya [mailto:[email protected]]
Hollanda Parlamentosunun “alması muhtemel karar” hakkında tanıdık dostların gösterdiği endişe nedeniyle bazılarımız yazılı düşüncelerle fikir ve yardım üretmeye gayret etmektedir. Bu konuda “hukukçulardan yardım” hayaline karşı, yaklaşık on ay önce Barolar Birliği Başkanı Sayın Feyzioğlu’na yolladığım mektubu eklemiştim. Şunu sormaktaydım: “(bu konuyu önemsemeyen) SEKSEN Milyon kişiden biri mi, yoksa bu meseleyi önem veren sekiz-on kişiden biri mi OLMAK istersiniz? “Hiçbir tanıt vermeyenince” bu ufak hayal da söndü..
Sevgili dostum Doğu beyin bugünkü yazını, dünkü tartışmaya katkısı nedeniyle ekliyorum. Aslında, hayatının nice yıllarını “hukuk ve çürük hukukçular” nedeniyle feda etmiş olmasın rağmen, hala “kuvvetlinin yaptığı ve gücü olanın her zaman bükebileceği hukuka, sağlamağı belirsiz tek halata güvenini” şahsen benimsemiyorum. Mücadele hasımın gücünü görememek ve tek tuşla ringden kaçacağını sanmak büyük ihtiyatsızlıktır.
BÜYÜK YALAN kitabımdan bazı sayfaları bilgi için ekliyorum. Murat Topalyan’ın kim olduğunu, istediği vakit Beyaz Saray’a girip Clinton’la arasında bir sandalye mesafesinde oturduğunu ve bütün cinayetlerde anahtar kişi olduğunu bilmezseniz, ne Beka vadisinde eğitim gören teröristler için toplanan paradan, ne de Taşnaklara uymayan ve İstanbul’dan gelen piskopos Leon Tourian’ın 1933 Noel gecesinde kendi katedralinde bıçaklanarak cemaate gözdağı verildiğini de bilemezsiniz ve “Nobel işinin” onlar için çok kolay olduğunu göremezsiniz..
Taşnaklar at sineği gibi “para çıkabilecek yerlere yapışırlar” ve o kadar (Amerikalılar dâhil) hedeflerini sıkarlar ki, karşısındaki “yapayım da kurtulayım der”, ve her türlü pisliğe bulaşır. Washington Yahudi Holokost’u Müzesinin duvarında “Hitler’e atfedilen” bir rivayetle “…kim Ermenilere yapılanları hatırlıyor ki” yalanının Başkan Carter zamanında ABD’nin BM Delegesi Seth Mumciyan’ın müzeye bir milyon Dolar bağış sözü üzerine oraya konduğunu ve yalan olduğu sonra anlaşılmasına rağmen neden kaldırılamadığını ve Wall Streeet Journal’ın 25.1.2018 makalesinde hala kullanıldığını bilmezse, ve Devlet Mercilerimiz (AYDINLIK dahil) bu yalanın TEDAVÜL önemini hala anlamıyorsa (Bak
http://www.yenicaggazetesi.com.tr/abdden-yeni-bir-oyun-daha-46082yy.htm bu fani ne ypın?
Sevgili Doğu Bey “mücadelede ÖRGÜTLÜ olmanın önemini vurgulamakta”. Saymadım fakat Ermeni olayında, değil dışarıda, Türkiye içinde başta Almanların, Soros’çuların, TESEV benzeri ve çeşitli İnsan Hakları figüranlarının ve yabancıların destek verdiği belki de en az yirmi “PARASI ve BORAZANCISI BOL” dernek sayılabilir. Bütün bunlara karşı Türklerin (gayri resmi Talatpaşa dışında) hiçbir dernek veya Kurumu değil “destek vermek, OKUMAAK, ANLAMAK ve BARDAKLAR PEŞİ PEŞİNE KIRILMADAN önlem almayı düşünen Dernek veya uyarılarına kulak verilen kişiler” dahi yoktur. Bu nedenle, Doğu beyin ÖRGÜLÜ olmak “kesin mecburiyeti” tartışılamaz. Geçmişte, Resmi Gazete’de ilan edilen “Başbakan Yardımcısı başkanlığında, şuradan buradan unvanlarla kâğıt üzerinde kurulan sanırım iki-üç Devlet Komisyonu Kurulmuştu”, fakat bunlar toplanamadan sonradan kendilerini tasfiye ettiler. Bu ağır yükün, konu ile hiçbir teknik bilgi ve derinliği (rotasyon) olamayacak bir Bakanlığa angarya olarak yüklenmesi en başından beri hata olarak devam etmektedir. Diğer taraftan benim de çok takdir ettiğim ve sevdiğim Doğu beye hatırlatmam şudur: “sağlam, inkâr edilemez ve tercihan yabancı belgelere dayanmayan BİLGİ birikimini ve kullanma becerisi ile dışa iletilebilmesinin kanalları” gereklidir. Bunlar olmadan, bayrak göstermek ve yürümek, belgeye dayalı haklılığı değil, ancak reaksiyonu ifade eder.
Feto’ular “şeamet-cinayet-haraç ve akla gelmeyecek kötülüklerin şebekesi ile dünya rekorunu kırıncaya dek, Ermeni diasporasının ANCA-ASABLE – Taşnaklar organizasyonu bunun dünya şampiyonu idi. Vampir’in günümüzdeki sembolü “kan içen değil para ve doyulmaz güç içenidir”. Bu nedenle, “vampiri kurşunla öldürmek, bıçaklamak, boğmak, asmak yetmez”, mezarından çıkarıp kalbine demir değil odun kazık kakılmadıkça” bu vampir mezarda bile olsa gelmeye devam edecektir çünkü yaşamı “kan yerine paraya bağlıdır”.
Bu nedenlerle okumadıklari için anlamayanların ülkesinde,BUYUK YALAN kitabımdan Bölüm 1’i, size Murat Topalyan ve benzelerini ve tarihsel üç kagıtları kanıtlamak için ekte sunuyorum. Oraya göz atmadıkça ve ezbere konuştukça, “güç birliğinden önce, fikir birliğini” kurmak ihtimali çok zordur. Tek kürek ve kazma ile gene birşeyler deneyecegiz… balık bilmezse… hesabına ilave olur.
Herkese sevgi ve selamlar
2018-02-20 10:24 GMT+03:00 Sevil Kaplun <[email protected]>:
Sayin Hakan Yavuz,
Dediğiniz gibi Sayın Şükrü, Pulat Tacar beylerden, Orhan Paşa’dan ve diğer
değerli kişilerden aldığımız bilgilerle biz kendimiz birşeyler yapmalıyız.
Yazdıklarınızda haklısınız ama bu haliyle Türkiye’yi kendi başına bırakmayı
insanın içi el vermiyor. Zaten durum bozuk, bir de sinsi duman bizi dışardan
kemirirken, bizim gibi okumuş Türklerin ülkelerine sırtını çevirmesi
ülkemize ihanet etmek gibi birşey.
Hollanda ve Knesset milletvekillerinin adresleri bende, tekrarliyorum yazmak
isteyene hemen gönderirim.
De : M Hakan Yavuz [mailto:[email protected]]
Pulat beyin calismalari ve ozellikle Sukru beyin kitaplari son derece
onemli. Bu calismalarin bir “soylem” olusturabilmesi icin sistematik bir
sekilde akademiyeye tasinmasi lazim. Bunun icin hem tarihcilere hem de cok
iyi hukukculara ihtiyacimiz var. Ne yazikki hukuk alaninda, ozellikle de
hukuk fakultelerinde, kimse yok. Bu ulke adina cok aci bir durum. Gelismeyi
“betonlasma” olarak anlayan, egitimi ise “imam hatip” cercevesinde goren,
dispolitikayi ic politianin “mezesi” haline getiren bu kafa yapisindan hic
bir umudum yok. Turkiye’nin yurt disindaki imaji isimizi daha da
agirlastiracak. Selam ve saygilarimla, Hakan
M. Hakan Yavuz
University of Utah
Department of Political Science
Bldg. 73, RM 223
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Phone: (801) 864 6337
From: şükrü Aya [[email protected]]
1- Pulat Tacar beye teşekkür…Saglam arşiv ve kaynak…
2- Yeniçag’ı İnternetten bu gece Arslam Bulut’u okuyun. Benim
hatırlatmalarımı yazıyor… bu işin arkası için Hollanda’dan bize el
verecek dernek-adam lazım. Gördüğünüz gibi, elimiz kuvvetli hele buna the
BIG LIE part 2 ve Population’u eklersen, Hollanda’yı da dünyayayı da
sallar da…. Ankara’da deevlet dairelerinde kimsenin ne haberi olur ne de
3- Dışardaki tuğla duvarlara erişmek için, içimizdeki tezekten mmul
4- ADD’lerden de (sizin dışınızda) bir mum ışışığı göremiyorum… Her halde
kibrit bulamadıklarından bir türlü mumu ylamıyorlar… sohbet, kutlama,
mesaj ,ie idare ediyorlar.
2018-02-18 19:54 GMT+03:00 betula nelson
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Sayin Pulat Tacar Bey,
Bu cok kamsamli ve kuvvetli aciklama icin cok tesekkurler. Sukru Beyin
her zaman her firsatta kullanabilecek bir yazi. Hele su anda Hollanda
parlementosu bunu tartisirken herbirimizin onlara gonderebilecegimiz bir
Ben butun ADD lere ve digerlerine dagitiyorum vede Hollanda
Parlementerlerine iletmeyi planliyorum.
Sent from my iPhone
Sayın Buykelci Alev Kilic 17.02.2018
Mart 2017 de AVIM de yaptigim bir konusmanin ingilizce cevirisini
asagidak sunuyorum (Bu metni sunacagimi Hollanda parlamentosuna sunulan
karar tasarısı konusunda yazdiginm dunku öneri-mesajimda bildirmistim).
Gozlerim epey yoruldugu icin kimi harf ve redaksiyon hatalarini
atlamisimdir; zira her okuyusumda rastliyorum. AVIM ‘!deki arkadaslar
okuyarak gerekli duzeltmeleri yapabilirler. Daha sonra da uyugun gorurseniz
yayimlarsiniz. Bu metin Ermeni iddia ve taleplerinin sadece hukuksal
yanlarini ele almaktadır. İlgilenenlerin yararlanmasına veya
tartismalarina ve varsa itirazlarina sunulmaktadir
(Metni uzun bulanlardan pesinen ozur dilerim)
KEYS FOR A LEGAL ASSESSMENT OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RECOGNITION DEMANDS AND
This paper intends to assess the legal aspects of the ” Armenian
genocide “claims and the compensation and/or reparation demands
attached to it. The historical, moral and humanitarian aspects of the
Armenian claims are not covered by it.
1) The diaspora Armenians and the Armenian Republic accuse Turkey of
pursuing a ‘policy of denialism’ with regard ‘the act of genocide committed
during 1915-1916′, and demand that “Turkey assumes responsibility for the
internationally wrongful acts it has committed against Armenians and other
For the Armenians and their supporters ,”State succession prevails and
continuing responsibility has been inherited by the Turkish Republic from
the Ottoman State; consequently Turkey must assume full responsibility and
should compansate the injury caused by the Ottoman Empire during the
tragic events of 1915-1916 and following years”
2) Armenian financial compensation claims are listed in a document entitled
“Resolution with Justice Reparations of the Armenian Genocide-The Report of
the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group”. Their demands vary from USD
70.030.167.080 to 104.544.260.400.
The legal arguments for such claims have been laid out in several
publications; some of them have been presented to a Conference organized
by the Armenian Church in Antelias, Lebanon, from 23 to 25 February 2012.
The papers submitted there have been subsequently published by the
International Criminal Law Review in 2014
3) The arguments put forward by the Armenians and their supporters
are often confusing and muddled.
The proponents of Armenian reparation claims, use present- day legal
concepts and rules, and attempt to qualify events that have occurred more
than a century ago as genocide, without inquiring whether these concepts
and rules existed at the time; furthermore they fail to identify
and ignore the legal obligations which were binding on the Ottoman State
in 1915 .
The arguments presented by Armenia , the Armenian militants and their
supporters do not rely to the ( 09.12. 1948) Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (thereafter :Genocide
Convention) .They try to anker their demands but on non-binding soft-law
instruments or draft treaties such as:
-the Draft Treaty of Sevres ; (which has never been ratified, nor has it
entered into force )
– the Draft Declaration on Population Transfer and the Implantation of
Settlers” drawn up in 1997 by Mr. Al-Khasawneh, Special Rapporteur on Human
Rights and Population Transfer – a Sub-Commission of the Commission o Human
Rights . (This Draft Declaration is has never been adopted and as such
not binding for any State.)
– the “Basic Principles and Guidlines on the Right to Remedy and Reparation
for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and
Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law” .This is another
non-binding soft-law instrument . The “Guideline” in question does not
entail new and sanctionable international or domestic legal obligations.
– Draft Articles codifying the Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts These have been drafted by the
bInternatonal Law Commission (ILC) in August 2001 and adopted by the U.N.
General Assembly under Resolution 56/83. This Resolution brought the
document in question to the attention of Governments without prejudice to
their future adoption or other appropriate action; in other words this
resolution is not a binding legal instrument for State parties. Some
Armenian jurists continue to refer to this document as the legal basis
of their reparation claims .
4)The Turkish government and the great majority of Turks do not deny that
Ottoman Armenians as well as other Ottoman citizens were subjects of a
great tragedy, during 1915-1916
The criminality associated with the tragic events (called also Metz Jegern
by the Armenians) related to the forced transfer of some Ottoman
Armenians in 1915-1916 into the eastern provinces of the Ottoman State was
addressed by the Ottoman judiciary. Individuals or members of the groups who
attacked the displaced Armenians and/or officials who exploited the
Armenian plight and neglected their duties or abused their powers were
court-martialled and punished. In 1915, more than 20 Ottoman subjects have
been sentenced to death and executed for having committed such crimes. They
were judged according the Ottoman Penal Law in force at that time.
According a report by Talat Pasha, the Ottoman government created three
commissions to investigate the complaints of Armenians . As a result, in
March-April 1916, a total of 1673 muslim Ottoman citizens, – including
captains, first and second lieutenants, commanders of gendarmery squads,
police superintendents, and mayors – have been arrested and brought before
courts martial. Sixty-seven of them were sentenced to death, 524 Ottoman
citizens were sentenced to serve jail terms, and 68 received other
punishments such as forced-labour, imprisonment in forts and/or exile. It is
not unimportant to notice that several criminals have been sentenced to
death for committing plunder, and that other death sentences were justified
not only by murders, but also by robberies.The Armenians try to avoid all
mentions to those trials and condemnations.
The Armenians regard themselves as the only victims of the tragedy
which occured more than hundert years ago in Anatolia. They claim that the
Ottoman State pursued a policy of genocide against its Armenian population
.This argument is rejected by Turkey, because the Ottoman State had
no “special intent” to destoy the Ottoman Armenians “as such”; other
non Armenian Ottoman citizens also suffered as well; both Ottoman
Armenians and the Muslims are the victims of the great tragedy. The result
of the inter ethnic killings between the Armenian armed rebels and the
Ottoman Turks and the Kurds was an unprecedented horror. History records
few examples of mortality as great as that suffered in Van Province .
5. Why Turkey and the great majority of the Turks do not define the
tragic events of 1915-1916 as genocide?
Turkish government and overwhelming majority of Turks, as well as some
other governments  and many scholars or experts, reject the qualification
of the tragic events of 1915 as “genocide”, because the sine-qua-non legal
conditions laid down by the 1948 Genocide Convention do not exist.
Some Turkish experts share the opinion that the tragic events of 1915
may be labelled ‘criminal acts as cited in the Ottoman Penal Code’; others
qualify these events as “mutual inter-ethnic killings” .
The term ‘genocide’ is a legal term. “Genocide is a legal characterization
of an event. Genocide is not an event itself. It is an epithet.” 
6) What are the characteristics of genocide ?
a) The protected groups by the Convention are national,ethnical,racial or
religious groups .
Other groups , such political groups or cultural groups or sexual groups
are not protected by the Genocide Convention. Furthermore,”Victims of a
response to a rebellion are not qualified as victims of genocide, no matter
b) What are the guilty acts foreseen by the Genocide
Convention? (Actus reus)
a)Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group;c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions
of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
part; d) Imposing mesaures intented to prevent births within the group; e)
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Some militant Armenians and their supporters disregard the wordİng of the
Genocide Convention and include the seizure of property in the genocidal
acts; “Seizure of property” is not included among the guilty genocidal
acts listed by the Convention.
c) Dolus specialis – Special Intent
The most important characteristic of the Genocide Convention is that, for
the crime of genocide to exist, acts must have been committed with the
intent to destroy the protected groups as such.
The sole existence of a guilty act is not sufficient to qualify the
crime as “genocide”. ”
d)”Special intent” (dolus specialis) is the main defining criteria
established by the Convention.
The International Court of Justice (in its verdict on Croatia/ Serbia
case ) clearly underlined that the existence of one or more guilty acts
enumerated in Article II of the Convention are not sufficient to
qualify the events as “genocide” . The existence of special intent
(dolus specialis) would have to be proven. This is why the key words
“INTENT TO DESTROY AS SUCH” has been added to article II of the
7) The main disagreement between Turkey and Armenia on the issue of
The legal aspect of the genocide allegation is the main point of
disagreement and reason of confict between Turkey and Armenia
( as well as between overwhelming majority of Turks and the Armenians and
their supporters) . For the Armenians “Turkey’s refusal to recognize
and accept the reality of Armenian genocide” amounts to “denial of
historical truth”. For them,the only existence of one or more of the
acts listed in Article II of the Convenion equals genocide . What the
Armenians don’t want to acknowledge and accept, is that from a legal point
of view the existence of the actus reus is not enough to call an event
as genocide this aspect was clearly and definitely underlined by the
International Court of Justice by its Croatia-Serbia verdict.
Furthermore the Armenians do not want to acknowledge the mutual killings
between the Ottoman Armenian and Muslim population; as mentioned above, the
result of the inter ethnic killings was unprecedented horror. Also
“….the Armenian narrative do not dwell much on the experiences of the M
uslims of the Balkans and the Caucasus who likwewise underwent the same
proceses as did the Armenians and others in 1915″ For an event to be accepted as “historical truth”, this should be
certified by the decision of a competent court . Fore example “Holocaust”
is regarded and accepted by the judiciary as historical truth because of
the existence of Nürnberg verdicts..
8)Political use and abuse of the term of genocide
Some historians, sociologists, politicians, and even political scientists
who deal with these issues tend to describe almost any incident which
involves a significant number of dead,as genocide; they purposely mislead
those who are not familiar with the law.
Genocide Convention does not allow for convictions on the the grounds of
genocide by legislatures, scholars, pamphleteers, politicians, or others.
Qualifiying the events of 1915 as genocide equals to detach genocide
from its legal definition and to use it for political and/or moral purposes
Whether it is sound to keep hammering on a legal term based on non-legal
considerations is doubtful, and could lead to a devaluation of the norm
9) Legal evaluation of the Armenian genocide accusation
9A) Retroactivity of the Genocide Convention
Some Armenians and scholars argue that the Genocide Convention of 1948
can be applied retroactively to the “1915 Armenian genocide” because most
provisions of the Convention are declarative of pre-existing international
This is not a valid legal argument . Neither those provisions are
declarative of pre-existing international law, nor relevant State practice
and opinio juris support it.
The Convention does not apply retroactively. The Genocide Convention
entered into force on 12 January 1951 for Turkey and Turkey is only
bound with regard to events subsequent of 12.January 1951 9B) Statute of limitation
The Armenians and their supporters argue that the statute of limitation
does not apply to genocide and crimes against humanity.They claim that the
Turkish Republic is responsible and should pay compensations to the
Armenians. This argument is based on the Convention on the Non-Applicability
of Statutary Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. But the
said Convention deals with individual criminal responsability, not with
State responsability, and as such, is not applicable to reparation claims
against any State..
Actually, the principle of extinctive prescription is widely accepted as a
general principle of international law in the sense of Article 38 .1.c. of
the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
9 C) “Nulla poena sine lege” is one of the principles governing
international criminal law and means no person shall be convicted by the
Court may be punished without a law foreseeing such punishment . The
Armenians trend to ignore this principle .
9 D) Nullum crimen sine lege . Similarly, a person shall not be criminally
responsible ….. unless his or her conduct in constitutes, at the time it
takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court 
9E) “Duality of responsibility in international law” Militant Armenians
persistantly use arguments and examples of individual criminal
responsibility and try to apply them to the question of State
responsability, neglecting the duality of responsability in international
law. The question of individual responsibility is in principle distinct from
the question of State rseponsibility .
The Genocide Convention confirms individual criminal responsibility for an
international crime; the Convention does not create international
obligations of a State vis-a-vis its own citizens.  On this issue, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in
Bosnia-Herzegovina “genocide case” the following:
“The feature of the duality of international reponsibility is reflected in
Article 25 para. 4 of the Rome Statute for International Criminal Court:
No provision in this Statute relating to individual responsibility shall
affect the responsibility of States under international law.” 9E) “Ne bis in idem”
This principles means that no person shall be tried with respect to conduct
which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has already been
convicted or acquitted by a competent court.
9F) Crimes against humanity 
Some scholars recommended that the Armenians drop their accusation
of genocide and embrace the qualification of crimes against humanity
with regard to the tragic events of 1915-1916. because the proof of a
special intent is not required for the crimes against humanity.
The sine qua non exigence of dolus specialis (special intent) for the
crime of genocide and the impossibility to prove it after hundred years
(none of the suspects is alive) , brought the concept of “crimes against
humanity” to the agenda of some scholars and politicans who embrace the
Armenian cause.They argue that the concept of crimes against humanity was
tabled already in 1915 in a Joint Statement issued on 24 May 1915 by the
Ambassadors of France, the U.K. and Russia to the Ottoman Porte, is often
referred to as evidence in support of the claim of a violation of
international law giving rise to reparation claims. This statement
claims that ” in view of the crimes of Turkey against humanity and
civilization, the Allied governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte
that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of
the Ottoman Government and those of their agents who are implicated in
such massacres “.
This statement has no legal basis; it is politically motivated. The
concept of crimes against humanity did not exist in 1915 and had only
been codified by the “Rome Statute” wich entered into force on 1 July
2002 creating the International Criminal Court .
The International Criminal Court in its ruling for the Former Yugoslavia in
the Tadic Case held that “crimes against humanity were a new category of
crime created by the Nurnberg Charter.”
The Rome Statute is not retroactive. In 1915, the Ottoman State’s,
treatment of its citizens was considered an internal affair of the State
which was beyond the reach of international law .
9 G) The competent tribunal
The crime of genocide – as any other crime- can be legally determined only
by the judges of the competent tribunal on the basis of prescribed legal
criteria and after a fair and impartial trial
Article VI of the 1948 Genocide Convention with regard the competent
tribunal reads as follows:
“Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in
article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the
territory of which the act was committed or by such international penal
tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties
which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.”
The issue of a competent tribunal had been extensively debated by the
International Preparatory Conference of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The
question of determining the competent tribunal was resolved after lengthy
discussions, and the above- mentioned text was approved. During the
discussions, a proposal for ‘universal repression’ was rejected. Universal
repression allows the judging of the suspects by any tribunal of any State.
9 H) Customary prohibition of genocide
Militant Armenians and their supporters argue that- “the Genocide
Convention merely confirm existing international law” and “there is no valid
argument in international law that would allow the exclusion of Armenians
from the application of the Convention”
This argument has no legal basis.The Convention does not codify
pro-existing customary international law obligation of States In 1915, the
crime of genocide did not exist even as a concept .”Genocide” found its
juridical consecration only after 1948 .
At the time of the First World War individual criminal responsibility in
international law was unknown.
9 I ) Right to property
Some scholars defending Armenian genocide allegations claim that Armenians’
right to property has been violated by the Ottoman State through
expropriation measures , and this act per se is a genocidal crime.
This view is not shared by the judiciary: “It is widely accepted that
taking of property by a State from its own nationals does not violate
international law .
The European Court of Human Rights held with regard to acts of
expropriation taken place in 1940’s, that expropriations… were carried
out in respect of state’s own nationals and are therefore not governed by
international law .
Finally -as we mentioned above- loss of property or expropriation is not
cited as actus reus by the Article II of the Genocide Convention and
therefore can not be qualified as “genocide
Concerning right to property claims presented under International
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);the right to property is
not protected by the ICCPR. Allegations concerning a violation of the
right of property are not admissible ratione materiae under Article 3 of
the Optional Protocol of the ICCPR.
The confiscation or expropriation of property is considered an instantaneous
act without continuing effects. Court decisions that confirm past
confiscations based on laws adopted prior to the entry into force of the
Optional Protocol of the ICCPR do not in themselves constitute a continuing
violation of the Covenant
Similarly, the State’s failure to compensate the claimant for the
confiscation of his/her property after the entry into force of the Optional
Protocol of the ICCPR does not qualify as a continuing effect as such.
Articles 2(3) and 9 (5) of the ICCPR are accessory in nature and do not
provide for an independent free-standing right to a remedy or compensation.
If the events -constituting violations of the Covenant- had occured
before the entry into force of it, the request for compensation will be
considered inadmissible ratione temporis.
The confiscation of Armenian property during the beginning of XX century
is not subject to Human Rights Committe’s jurisdiction, neither ratione
materiae nor ratione temporis.
With regard to complaints presented to the European Court of Human Rights
(ECHR) with regard the right to protection of property,; this right is
covered by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. In general terms,
ECHR can receive communications and can order restitution. The ECHR can
also order compensation and other forms of just satisfaction instead of
But this right cannot be interpreted as imposing any general obligation on
the Contracting States to return or restore property which was transferred
to them before they ratified the Convention.
Turkey has no obligation under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to enact laws
providing for rehabilitation, restitution of confiscated property or
compensation for property lost by Ottoman citizens .
Considering that Ottoman Armenians and their legal successors have been
unable to exercise any owner’s right in respect of the properties in
question, not just for decades but for over a century and that the transfer
of Ottoman Armenian property is considered legally valid in Turkey, any
application claiming a violation of the right to the protection of
property in Article 1 No. to the ECHR will have to be dismissed as being
incompatible ratione materiae.
9 J) Claims and allegations of human rights violations as the basis for
reparation, restitution of property, compensation claims and/or demands for
Complaints and communications of human rights violations may comprise
the right to existence, the right to protection of life, health, liberty and
property, the right of practicing any religion, the right of immigration
and the like.
The Committees established under various United Nations human rights
treaties, lack jurisdiction ratione personae to consider any inter-State
communication brought by Armenia against Turkey. In 1915, as far as
international law is concerned, apart from morality, there was no
restriction whatsoever, upon a State to abstain from “abusing the rights”
of its own citizens . Because the individual was not recognized as a subject
of international law, it did not hold rights under international law that
could be violated. The international law of human rights developed only
after the Second World War. Both the substantive provisions of UN human rights treaties and the
provisions providing for the competence of the committee cannot be
applied retroactively .
9 K) Allegations of destruction of Armenian cultural property by the
Some Armenians and their supporters argue that Turkey has engaged in
continuation of the crime of genocide against the Armenians through
“deliberate destruction of Armenian propertıes in its territories, the
destruction of Armenian memory, negation of historical truth and
rehabilitation of murderers”. None of these acts meet the definition
of Genocide . The list of genocidal acts defined in Article II of the
Convention is an exhaustive one. Proposals to introduce the concept of
cultural genocide during the Preparatory Conferences of the Convention in
1948 have been voted down . In the Bosnian Genocide trial the
International Court of Justice concluded that the destruction of
historical, religious and cultural heritage cannot be considered to be a
9 L) Forced deportations
With regard to claims concerning forced deportations the Human Rights
Committee recently considered claims on the subject and other acts of
political repression in the 1940’s to be inadmissible ratione temporis. The
death and disappearance of a person during the events of 1915 is outside
the jurisdiction ratione temporis of Human Rights Committee of the U.N.
9 M) Responsibility of Turkey for wrongful acts perpetrated in the
Armenians and some of their followers request that draft Articles
codifying the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
should be applied with regard the Armenian claims should be applied and
Turkey should pay compensation to them.
The Draft Articles in question were drafted by Internatonal Law
Commission (ILC) in August 2001 and adopted by the U.N. General Assembly
under Resolution 56/83. This Resolution brought the draft articles to the
attention of Governments without prejudice to their future adoption or
other appropriate action; in other words this resolution is not a binding
legal instrument for state parties.
Some Armenian jurists continue to refer to this document as the legal
basis of their reparation claims . Mr. Vaghan Avedian – in an article
published by the European Journal of International Law, asserts that
there is a succession and continuation of responsibility from the Ottoman
Empire to the Turkish State and Turkish Republic must assume full
responsibility for and should repair the injury caused by the Ottoman
The legal situation is as follows:
After World War I and the War of Liberation, Turkey concluded international
agreements to put an end to the wars and insurgencies which had disrupted
peace in the country as well as in the region since 1914.
Some of these agreements contained amnesty clauses. The amnesties aimed at
covering the humanitarian dimensions of the tragic past .
On that matter Pacta sunt servanda and lex specialis principles are
governing the liabilities and legal responsibilities of the Republic of
Let us here briefly examine the Lausanne, Kars, and Ankara Treaties, as
well as the Agreement between the USA and Turkey on compensation demands
with regard the legal reponsibilities of Turkey;these international
agreements are qualified lex specialis foreseen in Article 55 of the
ILC Draft treaty which clearly recognizes that the reponsibility of a
State with regard the existence on an internationally recognized wrongfull
act (if any) is governed by special rules of international law (lex
specialis) if such special rules are provided for by bilateral or
multilateral treaties or other arrangments.
a) The Treaty of Lausanne
The Treaty of Lausanne, signed on 24 July 1923, includes a “declaration of
amnesty” covering all Turkish nationals, and reciprocally the nationals of
other signatory powers of the Treaty of Lausanne, who were arrested,
prosecuted, or sentenced prior to 20 November 1922 .
In addition, the Treaty of Lausanne, ending the state of war between Turkey
and other powers, decreed that former Ottoman citizens (including
Armenians) who resided in countries that were separated from Turkey by
Article 31 of the Treaty of Lausanne and who had gained citizenship of
those countries by means of Article 30, would have the right within two
years to choose Turkish citizenship. All the Armenians who were outside the
borders of Turkey as of 24 July 1923 and who chose to retain Turkish
citizenship obtained the right to return to Turkey if they so wished.
Article 6 of the Amnesty Declaration attached to the Lausanne Treaty states
“The Turkish Government which shares the desire for general peace with all
the Powers, announces that it will not object to the measures implemented
between 20 October 1918 and 20 November 1922, under the protection of the
Allies, with the intention of bringing together again the families which
were separated because of the war, and of returning possessions to their
It is apparent that this Article concerned the individuals who were forced
to immigrate and who returned to their homes during the period of armistice
and occupation. At that time, Turkey announced that the implementation of
the measures proclaimed under the occupation powers, would be maintained
without modification. According to US archives 644,900 Armenians returned
and settled in Anatolia after the war, even before the Treaty of Sevres was
signed. The Treaty of Sevres was not ratified and did not enter into force.
By returning to Ottoman territories in 1918-1919, many Armenians reacquired
some of the property that they had left behind during 1915 transfer of
population. For instance, the number of properties returned by 30 April 1919
was recorded as 241,000. This number included approximately 98 per cent of
the immobile property. Records also state that some problems and injustices
occurred during the application of the regulations. Challenging these act
is judicially possible. Two recent decisions of the local courts in Adana
and in Sarıyer (Istanbul) which returned properties to one Lebanese and one
Turkish citizen of Armenian origin prove that those who possess appropriate
documents may present their cases to a competent Turkish court, and if
unsatisfied (with the outcome) they may as well take the file to the
European Court of Human Rights.
Liquidation of Ottoman debts and other economic clauses of the Treaty of
Articles 46-63 of the Treaty of Lausanne regulate the liquidation of the
debts of the Ottoman State. The Republic of Turkey paid all the debts of the
According to Article 58 of the Treaty of Lausanne, the parties to the treaty
reciprocally renounced all claims for the loss and damage suffered between 1
August 1914 and 6 June 1924 as a result of acts of war or measures of
requisition, sequestration, disposal, or confiscation.
Articles 65-72 of the Treaty incorporate economic clauses which protect the
rights and legal interests of those Ottoman citiizens who were subjected to
relocation. Article 74 of the Treaty contains special provisions with regard
to insurance policies. The following take into account those provisions.
b) Treaties of Moscow and Kars
The Moscow Treaty of 16 March 1921 was signed between Turkey and Russia.
Thereafter, the Treaty of Kars was concluded between Turkey, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, and Georgia on 13 October 1921. The Treaty of Kars which was
signed before the Treaty of Lausanne, settled the conflict between Turkey
and Armenia, as well as other Caucasian Republics. That Treaty stated in
Article 15 that “each of the Contracting Parties agrees to promulgate
complete amnesty to citizens of the other Party for crimes and offenses
committed during the course of the war on the Caucasian front”.
The “murders and atrocities” that occurred were by no means limited to
actions of the Turks and other Muslims against Armenians. The investigation
by Captain Emory H. Niles and Arthur E. Sutherland in eastern Anatolia in
1919 led them to conclude ;’that Armenians massacred Moslems with many
refinements of cruelty, and that Armenians are responsible for most of the
destruction done to towns and villages’.
c) The Treaty of Ankara concluded with France
Some of the tragic events took place in Ottoman territories occupied by
France, where Armenian groups cooperating with France massacred the Muslim
population. The Ottoman Muslims retaliated. The Ankara Treaty signed on 20
October 1921 between France and Turkey had foreseen the parties promulgating
total amnesty for the crimes committed in those occupied territories.
Article 5 of the Ankara agreement reads as follows: ‘both sides will
announce a general amnesty in the evacuated area, following the occupation
of this area’.
Once again, the amnesty was far from covering only Turks. French courts
martial sentenced many Armenians for banditry, robbery, rape, and
assassinations against Turkish civilians, and more generally the large scale
of atrocities and destruction – by arson in particular – have been confirmed
by numerous French, British, and American sources, in addition to Turkish
Finally with regard to the international responsibilities of Turkey, the
above-mentioned treaties of Kars, Ankara, and Lausanne constitute lex
specialis in legal terms.
d) Settlement of Claims Agreement with the United States of America
Turkey settled also the issue of the Ottoman debts to citizens of the
USA and paid US$ 899,840 to the Government of the United States for
distribution to its citizens on the basis of the Agreement of 24 December
1923 and Supplemental Agreements, concluded and implemented between the USA
and Turkey. The Supplemental Agreement of 25 October 1934 concluded between
the two governments provided for the settlement of the outstanding claims of
the nationals of each country against the other.
Article II of the agreement is as follows:
“The two Governments agree of the Republic of Turkey will be released from
liability with respect that, by the payment of the aforesaid sum
[$1,300,000], the Government to all of the above-mentioned claims formulated
against it and further agree that every claim embraced by the Agreement of
December 24, 1923, shall be considered and treated as finally settled.”
 10) Can the Armenians bring the genocide accusation to the International
Court of Justice ?
Some politicians and experts hired by the Armenian Government or the
Armenian diaspora or the Armenian Church suggested to bring the genocide
accusation against the Armenians before the International Court of Justice
with the hope that ICJ may prosecute the application and award reparation
, compensation for material and non material injury.
On this issue it should be underlined ,
a)that only States may be parties in cases presented to the
International Court for Justice . (e.g. the Armenian Apostolic Church
cannot seek reparation through proceedings before the ICJ.)
b) the right to jurisdiction by the Court (ICJ) depends upon the mutual
consent of the parties.
It is unlikely that Turkey and Armenia will be able to conclude an
agreement to bring Armenian reparation claims before the ICJ.
11) Can Armenia use the possibilty offered by the Article IX of the
Genocide Convention ?
The Article IX of the Genocide Convention reads as follows:
“Disputes between Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation and
application of fulfillement of the present Convention, including those
relating to the responsability of a State for genocide or any other acts
enumerated in Artile III shall be submitted to the International Court of
Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute”
For decades the Republic of Armenia have had the opportunity to bring
such a claim before the ICJ; but it did not. Why? Because Armenian
authorities knew well that, if put forward such a claim will be
rejected by the Court. The Armenian Government is well aware that the
non-retroactivity clause codified in Article 28 of the Vienna Convention of
the Law of Treaties applies to the Genocide Convention of 1948.
Any claim concerning events in the territory of the former Ottoman State in
1915 and the following years will automatically raises the temporal scope
of the ICJ jurisdiction under the compromising provision of Article IX of
the Genocide Convention. This is called ratione temporis.
The Genocide Convention does not give rise to individual criminal or State
responsibility for events which occured during the early 20. century,
or at any time prior the date of entry into force of the Genocide
Futhermore, on its judgement of 3 February 2015 in the Croatian Genocide
case, the ICJ adressed at great lenght the question of its jurisdiction
ratione temporis under Article IX of the Genocide Convention. The Court
stated that Article IX was not a general provision for the settlement of
disputes; accordingly the temporal scope of Article IX is necessarily
linked to the temporal scope of the substantive provisions of the Genocide
Convention.The Court held that it is not only the obligations to prevent and
punish genocide but also the responsability of a State under the Convention
for the commission of acts of genocide is not retroactive. The ICJ stated :
“to hold otherwise would be to disregard the rule expressed in Article 28 of
the Vienna Convention or in its negotiating history.”
12) Can the Armenian reparation claims before the ICJ pursued through the
“advisory opinion” proceedings?
A request for such an advisory opinion could be made by the United
Nations Security Council or the General Assembly.
Under present circumstances it seems highly unlikely that a majority of 9
members of the Security Council will take the risk of opening “the
Pandora’s Box”, because such step would possibly trigger an unprecedented
avalanche of other political moves. (For example: the Soviet genocidal
acts in Estearn Europe; German actions in Luxemburg, Alsace-Lorraine or
Slovenia etc.etc.) The act of bringing the events of 1915 before the ICJ a century after he
tragic events, by way of an advisory opinion, would set a precedent for
other historical events. That is why it seems highly unlikely that Armenia
could master the necessary majority in the General Assembly for submitting
such request to the ICJ. That is the reason why until now, the Government
of Armenian did not take the risk of bringing the matter to the United
13) What are the chances of success of any Armenian reparation claims
before the International Court of Justice, the United Nations Treaty bodies
or the European Court of Human Rights?
-The chances of success of any Armenian reparation claims before the
International Court of Justice, the United Nations Treaty bodies or the
European Court of Human Rights are almost non existent under existing
international law .
There are insurmountable procedural obstacles for such claims. Even if those
obstacles could be surmounted, Turkey could not be held responsible for any
material or moral injury resulting from the events of 1915 and the following
years, as the conduct of the Ottoman State did not violate any obligations
under the rules of customary international law applicable at the time With regard cases that may be brought before United States (or other
nation al) courts, even if some lower level tribunals in the U.S.A assume
jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act over Armenian
property claims, such jurisdiction would not be in conformity with current
customary international law on Immunity of the State and expected to be
invalidated by the Higher US courts. (For the details see my previous
articles on the subject  and the recent article written by Aslan Yavuz
Şir  )
Any substantial ruling on such claims would be flawed because substantive
claims on the legality of an expropriation under international law would
have to be addressed not according to present day international law, but
according to international law in force at the time the expropriation had
occured. The international law did not in 1915 and even today
regulates the confiscation of property by States of their own citizens
14) Attempts to condemn persons rejecting the Armenian genocide
Recently we witnessed legal and juridical attempts to condemn persons
who publicly rejected the Armenian genocide allegations. The most known
is Dr. Doğu Perinçek/Switzerland case. The Swiss Courts condamned Dr.
Doğu Perinçek because he openly rejected the allegation of Armenian
genocide and called it an international lie. The ECHR Grand Chamber
annulated the decision of the Swiss Courts and condamned the Swiss
On this occasion , the European Union’s Framework Decision of 28 November
2008 on Combatting Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia
by means of Criminal Laws should also be mentioned. This Framework
Decision foresees to “condamn denying or grossly trivialising crimes of
genocide,crimes against humanity of war crimes”. The conditions attached
to such condamnation are that the denial must be publicly carried out
in a manner likeley to incite violence or hatred against the groups or a
member of the group defined by reference to race,colour,religion, descent
or national or ethnic origin. Other forms of denial or rejection are not
condemned and are protected as a freedom of opinion; for example ” to
call the Armenian genocide allegation an international lie” is covered
and protected by the European Human Rights Convention.
Equally, it must be added that to qualify the tragic events of 1915 “a
genocidal act” is also covered and protected under the same umbrella of
freedom of expression.
France tried to amend its legislation enabling French Courts to
condemn the deniers of Armenian genocide. The French Constitutional
Council annuled twice the laws in question enacted by the French
The Armenian genocide allegations will never be recognized by Turkey and
by the great majority of the Turks. Historical and socio-political reasons
must be added to legal justifications attached to this rejection.
On the other hand ,the Turkish Government and the NGO’s as well as the
Acedemia should try to better explain those reasons of their
rejection to their partners.
I don’t expect that Armenians and their supporters withdraw or retreat
from their genocide accusations; this became a taboo and a dogma for
Some other Governments , Senates , Parliaments or local Assemblies t embrace
the Armenian genocide accusation (and here I am referring to the
decision of the German Parliament or the position of the French
Governments , as well as the action of the Swiss Government on
Perinçek-Switzerland case ) although they must be well aware of the
legal arguments surrounding the legal aspects of the genocide crime. They
qualify their recognition as a political act. They may have different
political motives, influenced by either historical reasons or actual
interests – other then attached- to Armenian-Turkish conflict.
To their adress I want to quote the last sentence of an article
we have written together with Maxime Gauin and published by the European
Journal of International Law :
” …. We are of the opinion that those who complain of an internationally
wrongfull act for which the Turkish Republic is responsible may be well
advised to take their complaints to the relevant international institutions,
like the UN, the ICJ , the Council of Europe or any other similar
establishment, instead of making very questionable accusations”.
The above mentioned final decisions of the ECHR on Perincek-Switzerland
case and the verdict of the International Court of Justice on Serbia/
Croatia trial must be -no doubt- regarded as serious set backs for
the supporters of Armenians genocide allegations. Wit regard the
poltical aspects of the issue we are facing an intractable conflct” and this seems doomed to be a never-ending one.
 [“Resolution with Justice: Reparations for the Armenian Genocide. The
Report of the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group (March 2015);
Armenian Genocide Centenary Commemoration Committee AGCCC;UK, The Armenain
genocide: A Plea for Justice (April 1915); Alfred de Zayas, The Genocide
against the Armenians 1915-1923, and the relevance of the 1948 Genocide
“Responsible Dialogue on the Armenian Issue” : 222 Rev.Armenian Studies
(2010) 135  pROF. DR. Justin Mc.Carthy, “Van’da 1915 Ermeni İsyani”
 The British government on many occasions officially declared its
position on the matter. On 14 Apr. 1999 the Foreign Office spokesperson
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale said that ‘the British government has not
recognized the events of 1915 as indications of genocide’; on 7 Feb. 2001,
acting on behalf of the British government, Baroness Scotland of Asthal
declared: “The government, in line with the previous British governments,
have judged the evidence not to be sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us
that these events should be categorized as genocide as defined by the 1948
United Nations on genocide. … The interpretation of events in Eastern
Anatolia in 1915-1916 is still the subject of genuine debate among
historians.’ The UK government did not accept the 1915 events as qualifying
The Israeli government refused to accept the parallelism between the
Holocaust and the tragic events of 1915. The Ambassador of Israel, Rivka
Kohen, in Yerevan declared on 7 Feb. 2002, during a press conference that
‘the 1915 events couldn’t be considered genocide because the main killings
in these events were not planned and the Ottoman government had no intention
to destroy a nation or a group of people as such. As a well-known fact many
people from the Armenian and Muslim groups had lost their lives in these
events. The Holocaust is unique. At this stage nothing should be compared
with the Holocaust.’ On 10 Apr. 2001 the Nobel Prize-winning Israeli Foreign
Minister Shimon Perez said that ‘the fate of Armenians in Anatolia was a
tragedy, not genocide.’ He added, ‘Armenian allegations are meaningless. We
reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the
Armenian allegation. If we have to determine a position on the Armenian
issue it should be done with great care not to distort the historical
Parliament on 24 November 2014  Tal Buenos ibid.p.1  International Court of Justice. Judgment of February 3, 2015.  Nareg SEFERIAN ” The Clash of Turkish and Armenian Narratives.The
Imperative for a Comprehensive and Nuanced Public Memory” Istanbul Policy
Center- Sabancı University Publication MaY 2017 P.5  Alfred DE ZAYAS “The Genocide Against the Armenians 1915-1923 and the
Relevance of thge 1948 Genocide Convention” Booklet published bu
Haigazian University, .Beirut, February 2010; ISBN 13;978-9953-475-15-8
 Other Governments share the non- retroactivity of the Genocide
Convention.E.g. in response to the call for the United Kingdom to recognize
the events of 1915-1916 as genocide the British Government stated in 2006
that ….”it was not possible at the time of the events to label the
massacres as genocide within the term of the Convention .”  Article 23of the Rome Statute Nulla poena sine lege A person convicted
by the Court may be punished only in accordance with this Statute.  Article 22 of the Rome Statute: Nullum crimen sine lege 1. A person
shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in
question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the
jurisdiction of the Court. 2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly
construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the
definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated,
prosecuted or convicted. 3. This article shall not affect the
characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law
independently of this Statute
 Unpublished legal opinion by Professor.Dr. Stefan TALMON,. Director of
the Institute for Public International Law, University of Bonn, Germany ;
adviser of the Turkish Government during the Perinçek-Switzerland case in
ECHR..  Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) 1998 Article 25
Individual criminal responsibility 1. The Court shall have jurisdiction over
natural persons pursuant to this Statute. 2. A person who commits a crime
within the jurisdiction of the Court shall be individually responsible and
liable for punishment in accordance with this Statute. 3. In accordance with
this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for
punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or
through another person, regardless of whether that other person is
criminally responsible; (b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of
such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted; (c) For the purpose of
facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise
assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing
the means for its commission; 18 Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court (d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted
commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common
purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either: (i) Be
made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of
the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime
within the jurisdiction of the Court; or (ii) Be made in the knowledge of
the intention of the group to commit the crime; (e) In respect of the crime
of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide; (f)
Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its
execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur
because of circumstances independent of the person’s intentions. However, a
person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the
completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this
Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that person completely and
voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose. 4. No provision in this Statute
relating to individual criminal responsibility shall affect the
responsibility of States under international law.
 Rome Statute of the ICC Article 20 Ne bis in idem 1. Except as
provided in this Statute, no person shall be tried before the Court with
respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has
been convicted or acquitted by the Court. 2. No person shall be tried by
another court for a crime referred to in article 5 for which that person has
already been convicted or acquitted by the Court. 3. No person who has been
tried by another court for conduct also proscribed under article 6, 7 or 8
shall be tried by the Court with respect to the same conduct unless the
proceedings in the other court: (a) Were for the purpose of shielding the
person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the
jurisdiction of the Court; or (b) Otherwise were not conducted independently
or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by
international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the
circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned
to justice.  Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998 (Entered into
forv e 01.07.2002.) Article 7
 The differences between “genocide” and “crimes against humanity”.
a) The proof of special intent (dolus specialis ) is not required to
establish a crime against humanity;
b) the list of protected groups is enlarged to embrace political,
cultural . groups;
c) Actus reus (guilty acts) list of the crimes against humanity is
much longer .
For the establishment of a crime against humanity a “widespread or
systematic attack directed against any civilian population with knowledge
of the attack” is required.
The list of guilty acts with regard the crimes against humanity is as
a) Murder; b)Extermination; c)Enslavement; d)Deportation or forcible
transafer of population; e)Imprisonment or severe deprivation of physical
liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; f)Torture;
g)rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
h)persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political,
racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in
paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as
impermissible under internarional law, in connection with any act referred
to in this paragraph pr any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
i)enforced disappearance of persons; j)the crime of apartheid; k) Other
inhuman acts of a similar character intentional causing of great suffering
or serious injury to the mental or physical health.
 :According to Vakhan Avedian who has written an essay published
by the European Journ al of International Law : “The Republic of Turkey
continued practicing 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 …” One can assume that Avedian
wants to refer to the 1920 Turco-Armenian war. Much has been written about
that tragic period. One of the accurate evaluations of that period was made
by the then Prime Minister of Armenia, Hovannes Kachaznuni, who wrote:
“Despite these hypotheses there remains an irrefutable fact. That we had not
done all that was necessary for us to have done to evade war. We ought to
have used peaceful language with the Turks whether we succeeded or not, and
we did not do it. . With the carelessness of inexperienced and ignorant men
we did not know what forces Turkey had mustered on our frontiers. When the
skirmishes had started the Turks proposed that we meet and confer. We did
not do so and defied them.Those who are interested in the realities of that
time should read this essential testimony This may help refresh memories.
Furthermore, we should add that the Russian, US, British, and Turkish
archives are full of documents which prove the atrocities committed by
Armenian forces in eastern Anatolia during that period, a fact which some
Armenian leaders proudly speak about, and do not deny . After the end of
the Turco-Armenian War, the Treaty of Kars was signed on 13 October 1921 by
the delegates of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, and Turkey. The
intervention of the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, Mr
Muravian, who attended the Kars Peace Treaty Conference on 22 September
1921, is also worth mentioning to reflect Armenia’s official position . He
said: “We have not come here with antagonistic feelings and we have no
intentions of presenting here the controversial issues we have inherited
from the former nationalist governments. We are only admirers of the brave
struggle which the preserving people of Turkey engaged in. We carry a
sincere wish, and we are absolutely convinced that a nation which defends
its country will be victorious and the enemy will be defeated.”  The dossiers of the claims had to contain the documents establishing
the nature, origin and justification of each claim. The claims had to be
submitted by 15 Feb. 1934. The US government had the right to submit up to
15 Aug. 1934 other documents in support of claims According to a report of
Mr. Nielsen, Representative of the US Government ‘the provisions a of the
Agreement betwen Turkey and the US on the materre are in harmony with
international practice in relation to US and Tyrkey engaged to consider
the result of the proceedings of the (claims settlement) commission as a
full, perfect and final settlement of every claim upon either Government
arising out of any transaction of a date prior to the exchange of the
ratifications of the present convention; and further engage that every such
claim, whether or not the same may have been presented to the notice of,
made, preferred or laid before the said commission’:
The last US report in 1937 finally estimated that the principal and interest
amounted to US$ 899,840.56. It is remarkable that not a single claimant with
an Armenian name was considered by the American civil servants to have made
a credible case of seizure and/or destruction of property   When US President Harry S. Truman submitted the Genocide
Convetion to the Senate for advice and consent on 16 June 1949, he pointed
out that Article IX of the Convention, which speaks of the responsability of
a State for Genocide, shall not be understoud as meaning that the State
can be held liable for damages for injuries inflicted by it on its own
nationals .See: Nehemiah Robinson: The Genocide Convention.A Commentary
(1960) pp102-103  Anton Weiss-Wendt, ” Hostage of Poliitics: Raphael Lemkin on “Soviet
Genocide”Journal on Genocide Reaear ch (2005) 7 (4) December pp (551-55″9)
See also Tal Buenos : http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2014/09/3386-many
genocides-of raphael-lemkin.html; Tal Buenos, The Lemkin Hole in the Swiss
Case. Daily Sabah 02.August 2014:
se  Pulat Tacar: Ermenistan Birleşmiş Milletler Genel Kuruluna Başvursun ve
Uluslararası Adalet Divanınxa Türkiye Aleyhine Dava Açsın, Ermeni
Araştırmaları Dergşisi No.36 sh. 163-189  Professor Dr. Stefan Talmon, Unpublished Notes Pulat Tacar: Türkiye’ye’ye Karşı Hukuk Savaşı;Ermeni Asıllı ABD
Vatandaşlarının ABD Mahkemelerinde Açtıkları Davalar; Ermeni, Araştırmaları
Dergisi 10 Yıl Özel Sayısı No.37-38 2011
 Http://Avim.Tr.en.yazar(Aslan Yavuz Şir 24.02.2017  e.g. The Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian has said. on 05
February 2018 that” the Armenian genocide is irreversible…….It is
obvious that the century-long denialist policy has failed. ..However, Turkey
continues to stick to the stereotypes. Ankara does not shy away to distort
not just the historic facts but the current realities, including by
misrepresenting the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights,”  Pulat Tacar and Maxime Gauin, State Identity,Continuity,and
Responsibility: The Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian
Genocide.A reply to Vahagn Avedian , EJIL(2012) Vol.23 No 3
,821-835 Pulat Tacar,”An invitation to Truth,Transparency and Accountability:
Toward “Responsible Dialogue on the Armenian Issue” : 222 Rev.Armenian
Studies (2010) 135  On intractable conflicts see: Doc.Dr.Ebru ÇOBAN ÖZTÜRK, ” 1915
events,new issues and reconciliation within the framework of persistence of
conflict and the concept of intractable conflict1″ (in Turkish) ” Çatısma
Sürekliliği ve Çözülemeyen /İnatçı Çatısşa Kavramı Çerçevesinde 1915
Olayları,yeni Sorunlar ve Uzlaşma” Ermeni Araştırmaları,Nı. 58 /2017)
pp.27-50 ; BAR-TAL Daniel, Sociopsychological Foundations of Intractable
Conficts” American Behavioral Scientists, No.50, 2007