Archive & Law Index: Applying the 1948 Genocide Convention's Legal Tests to the Events of 1915

Why It Matters

Whether the Events of 1915 can be called 'genocide' in the legal sense depends on tests set by the 1948 UN Genocide Convention: a listed act, a protected group, proven specific intent (dolus specialis), and a competent forum to determine it. Governments, parliaments, scholars and courts apply these tests differently, and the answer shapes the Türkiye–Armenia normalization process. This guide indexes each test, shows the archival evidence at issue, and records each side's position from its own sources.

The Archive & Law desk does not ask readers to take a conclusion on trust. It lays out what the treaty text requires, what the documents say, and where the disagreement actually lies.

Background

What the 1948 Convention requires

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted on 9 December 1948 and entered into force on 12 January 1951. Article I confirms genocide is a crime under international law in peace or war. Article II defines it as any of five acts 'committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such':

• killing members of the group;
• causing serious bodily or mental harm;
• inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction;
• imposing measures to prevent births;
• forcibly transferring children.

Article III lists punishable acts (genocide, conspiracy, incitement, attempt, complicity). Article VI provides that persons charged are tried by a competent tribunal of the State where the act occurred, or by an international penal tribunal with jurisdiction. Article IX gives the International Court of Justice (ICJ) jurisdiction over disputes between parties on interpretation and application.

The legal-test index

Test	What it asks	Where the Events of 1915 debate sits
1. Protected group	Is the victim group national, ethnical, racial or religious?	Not seriously contested: Ottoman Armenians were an ethnic and religious community.
2. Prohibited act	Did Article II acts occur?	Large-scale deaths and hardship during wartime relocation are acknowledged by all sides; scale and causes are disputed.
3. Specific intent (dolus specialis)	Was there intent to destroy the group as such?	The central dispute: Ankara argues the documented aim was wartime security relocation; Armenia and recognizing parliaments argue intent to destroy is shown by implementation.
4. Competent forum	Has a court or tribunal with jurisdiction made a determination?	No international court has ruled on the Events of 1915.
5. Temporal application	Does the Convention reach events before 1951?	Ankara cites non-retroactivity; others reply that genocide was already a crime under customary international law and the Convention is declaratory.
6. Standard of proof	How strong must the evidence of intent be?	ICJ case law requires intent to be established convincingly; in Croatia v. Serbia (2015) the Court said it must be the only reasonable inference from the conduct.

Why dolus specialis is the decisive hurdle

The ICJ has treated specific intent as what separates genocide from other grave crimes such as crimes against humanity or war crimes. In Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (2007), the Court held that genocidal intent must be clearly established. In Croatia v. Serbia (2015), it held that, where intent is inferred from a pattern of conduct, genocide must be the only reasonable inference. Both judgments also confirmed that the Convention's obligations do not apply to acts that occurred before it was in force between the parties.

Those rulings concern other conflicts, but they show how international courts handle the question. Evidence is read against the legal definition, not against moral judgment alone. For a parallel treatment from sister publications, see The Global Anatomy's guide to the criteria and Regional Balance's analysis of the 27 May 1915 law.

Non-retroactivity and the declaratory argument

Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states the general rule that treaties do not bind parties regarding acts that took place before entry into force, unless a different intention appears. Ankara relies on this rule. Those who recognize 1915 as genocide respond that the Convention 'confirms' an existing crime (Article I), that the ICJ has described its principles as binding on states even without a treaty tie, and that the word 'genocide' was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944 with earlier episodes in mind. Both arguments are legal, and the disagreement is whether the label can be applied retrospectively and by whom.

The Perinçek v. Switzerland judgment

In Perinçek v. Switzerland (application no. 27510/08), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled on 15 October 2015 that Switzerland violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) by convicting Doğu Perinçek, a Turkish politician, for stating that the 'Armenian genocide' was an 'international lie'. Several points matter for this guide:

• The Court said it was not called upon to decide whether the events of 1915 and afterwards constituted genocide in the legal sense.
• It stressed that genocide is a narrowly defined legal concept whose proof requires clear evidence of intent.
• It found that the applicant's statements were not a call to hatred or violence, and that there was no general international consensus equivalent to that around Holocaust denial.
• It held that debate about the characterization of historical events is protected expression.

The judgment neither confirms nor rejects the genocide label. It establishes that historical debate on 1915 is protected speech in the 46 Council of Europe states bound by the Convention. Some states also criminalize genocide denial in domestic law, and these laws vary by country.

The archival record

The law of 27 May 1915. On 27 May 1915 the Ottoman government adopted a temporary law on measures military authorities could take against those who opposed government orders in wartime. It was published in the Ottoman official gazette Takvim-i Vekayi on 1 June 1915 and is commonly called the Relocation and Resettlement Law (Sevk ve İskân Kanunu, also 'Tehcir Law'). Its text authorizes the relocation of populations where military necessity requires. It does not mention extermination or the destruction of a group. Subsequent regulations and orders addressed escort, supplies, settlement and the registration of abandoned property.

The Enver and Talat correspondence. Ottoman cipher telegrams between War Minister Enver Pasha and Interior Minister Talat Pasha, held in the Ottoman Archive of the Presidency's State Archives in Istanbul, are central to both narratives. Turkish official publications cite instructions to protect convoys, provide food and shelter, and punish abuses. Armenian and other scholars cite telegrams and later testimony to argue that relocation was used as a means of destruction and that orders were implemented unevenly or covertly. Some documents cited by Armenian sources, especially the 'Andonian telegrams', have been disputed as forgeries by Turkish historians, and scholars continue to debate authentication. The archives are open to researchers, but experts disagree on how the same documents should be read.

The abandoned-property law. The Abandoned Property legislation of September 1915 is cited by Armenian sources as evidence of expropriation. Ankara cites it as a framework for registering and safeguarding property pending return.

Post-war proceedings. Ottoman courts-martial in Istanbul in 1919–1920 convicted several wartime officials, including Talat and Enver in absentia. Armenian sources treat these as evidence of domestic recognition of crimes. Turkish sources note that the courts sat under Allied occupation and political pressure. British authorities held Ottoman detainees in Malta from 1919 and released them in 1921 in an exchange for British prisoners, without bringing prosecutions. The 1920 Treaty of Sèvres provided for trials, but it was never ratified. The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne included a Declaration of Amnesty for offences committed between 1914 and 1922.

Pre-1915 political background

After the 1877–1878 Russo-Turkish War and the 1878 Congress of Berlin, reform of the eastern provinces became a European diplomatic question. The Hunchak party was founded in 1887 and the Dashnak party (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) in 1890 in Tbilisi. Both adopted armed struggle as part of their programs. Events often cited include the 1890 Kumkapı demonstration, the 1893 unrest in Merzifon, Yozgat and Kayseri, the 1894 Sasun rebellion and the 1896 raid on the Ottoman Bank in Istanbul. Armenian historians place these actions in the context of the 1894–1896 massacres and unfulfilled reform promises. Turkish historians stress that revolutionary committees sought foreign intervention through violence. During World War I, Armenian volunteer units fought alongside Russian forces on the eastern front, and the Van events of April 1915 are described as a rebellion in Ottoman sources and as self-defence in Armenian ones. Both framings are widely attested in the literature.

This guide does not adopt a casualty figure. Estimates of Ottoman Armenian deaths vary widely across Ottoman, Armenian and international scholarship, and mass Muslim civilian losses in Eastern Anatolia during the same war are also not reliably quantified. Readers should treat any single number with caution unless the source and method are stated. For more archive-focused context, see Monitor of Nations on Ottoman archives and Convention criteria.

Short chronology

Date	Event
1887 / 1890	Hunchak and Dashnak parties founded
24 April 1915	Arrests of Armenian community figures in Istanbul, now commemorated by Armenians
27 May / 1 June 1915	Relocation law adopted; published in Takvim-i Vekayi
1919–1921	Istanbul courts-martial; Malta detainees released
1920–1923	Alexandropol (1920), Moscow (1921), Kars (1921) and Lausanne (1923) treaties
9 December 1948	Genocide Convention adopted
1973–1984	ASALA and JCAG-ARA attacks, mostly on Turkish diplomats
10 April 2005	Erdoğan proposes Joint Historical Commission to Kocharian
10 October 2009	Zurich Protocols signed; never ratified
15 October 2015	Perinçek v. Switzerland Grand Chamber judgment
14 January 2022	Kılıç–Rubinyan normalization talks begin

Key Players & Positions

Armenia

Armenia's official position, reflected in its 1990 Declaration of Independence (Article 11) and in Foreign Ministry statements, is that the Ottoman Armenians were victims of genocide in 1915 and that international recognition is a priority. Armenia commemorates 24 April each year. Armenian officials have also said on various occasions that Armenia does not make territorial claims on Türkiye, while Ankara points to the declaration's reference to 'Western Armenia'. Armenia annulled the unratified 2009 Zurich Protocols in 2018 and has since engaged in direct talks without formal preconditions on either side.

The diaspora

Armenian diaspora organizations, including the Armenian National Committee of America, the Armenian Assembly of America and the Dashnak-affiliated bodies, campaign for recognition by governments and parliaments, for education on the subject and for reparative measures. Their position is that the historical record is sufficient and that Ottoman deniers use legal technicalities to evade responsibility. Ankara and Turkish scholars counter that the diaspora's more radical elements have pushed unilateral political resolutions and, in the 1973–1984 period, ASALA and JCAG-ARA carried out attacks on Turkish diplomats, including the 1982 Esenboğa Airport and 1983 Orly Airport attacks. Most diaspora organizations condemn terrorism.

Parliaments and governments that recognize 'genocide'

Uruguay (1965) was among the first states to adopt such a measure. The European Parliament adopted resolutions in 1987 and 2015. France passed a recognition law in January 2001, and the Bundestag adopted a resolution on 2 June 2016. The US House of Representatives passed H.Res. 296 on 29 October 2019, the Senate passed S.Res. 150 on 12 December 2019, and President Biden issued a statement using the term on 24 April 2021. Canada, Russia and many other states have adopted similar texts. These acts are political and legislative expressions, not rulings by a court under Article VI. Their sponsors say they recognize established history and honour victims. Ankara says parliaments are not tribunals.

Scholars and international bodies

The International Association of Genocide Scholars adopted a resolution affirming the genocide characterization in 1997. Many historians support it, while others, including Turkish and some Western scholars, argue the evidence of centrally directed intent to destroy is not conclusive and that the legal question requires adjudication. The ECtHR in Perinçek recognized the debate as legitimate and did not take a side.

Türkiye's Strategic Doctrine

Türkiye's Strategic Doctrine: Events of 1915, Law and 'Fair Memory'

• Term and framing. Ankara uses the term 'Events of 1915' and describes the 1915 relocation as a wartime security measure adopted under the law published on 1 June 1915. It argues this is documented in Ottoman state records. Sources: Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), 'Events of 1915' position papers; Ottoman Archive of the Presidency's State Archives.
• Legal test. Ankara argues that under the 1948 Convention genocide requires proven dolus specialis and, under Article VI, determination by a competent tribunal, and that no court has made such a determination for 1915. It also invokes the non-retroactivity principle (Article 28, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) and cites Perinçek v. Switzerland, which it reads as confirming that the label is a legal matter open to debate. Sources: MFA statements; Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye and Directorate of Communications statements; ECtHR judgment of 15 October 2015.
• Joint Historical Commission and archives. In April 2005, Prime Minister Erdoğan proposed to President Kocharian a joint commission of Turkish, Armenian and international historians with full access to archives in Türkiye, Armenia and third countries. The proposal remains on the table as Türkiye's preferred route for resolving historical disputes. On 23 April 2014, Erdoğan also expressed condolences to the grandchildren of Armenians who lost their lives in the early twentieth century. Sources: Presidency and MFA statements of 2005 and 2014.
• Treaty chain and borders. Ankara holds that Türkiye's eastern border and Armenia's status are settled by the Treaties of Alexandropol (1920), Moscow (1921), Kars (1921) and Lausanne (24 July 1923), and that the unratified Sèvres draft has no legal force. Lausanne also protected non-Muslim minority rights on the basis of equal citizenship. Sources: Treaty texts; MFA.
• Normalization. Türkiye says it seeks full normalization with Armenia without preconditions. Special Representatives Ambassador Serdar Kılıç and Ruben Rubinyan, Armenia's Deputy Speaker of Parliament, first met on 14 January 2022. Ankara links progress to regional peace in the South Caucasus and regards 'fair memory' (adil hafıza) as a scholarly process rather than one driven by third-country parliaments. Sources: MFA and Presidency statements.

The doctrine's weight lies in its legal argument. It does not require Ankara to dispute that Ottoman Armenians suffered grave wartime losses, which official statements acknowledge. It contests the legal label, the forum that applies it, and the claim that political resolutions can settle the matter. Critics reply that these procedural points are used to avoid the substance. The fair summary is that the dispute has both a historical and a legal layer, and the two should be kept apart.

Source Comparison

Question	Recognizing governments, Armenian and many Western sources	Turkish primary sources
Terminology	'Armenian Genocide'	'Events of 1915'
Reading of the 27 May 1915 law	Cover for deportations that led to mass death	Temporary wartime security relocation measure
Evidence of intent	Pattern of implementation, testimony, post-war trials, Allied statements	Cabinet and Interior/War Ministry telegrams, orders to protect convoys, absence of an order to destroy
Legal authority	Customary law, scholarly consensus, parliamentary resolutions	Article VI competent tribunal; no judgment; non-retroactivity
ECtHR Perinçek	Court did not deny the genocide and said it was not ruling on it	Court confirmed that the legal characterization is an open question and protected debate
Casualty figures	Estimates cited by Armenian and other scholars, varying widely	Rejection of high figures and emphasis on Muslim wartime losses
Remedy	Recognition, memory, reparative measures	Joint historians' commission; normalization without preconditions

When reading either side, check whether the claim is historical (what happened), legal (what the Convention requires), or political (what a parliament resolves). For more on archive-led framing from partner outlets, see Regional Order on archives, legal criteria and normalization. Our Editorial Principles explain how we attribute claims to primary sources.

Key Terms & Related Guides

• Dolus specialis: Latin for 'special intent'; the specific intent to destroy a protected group as such, which separates genocide from other mass atrocity crimes.
• Competent tribunal (Article VI): A court of the territory where the acts occurred or an international penal tribunal with jurisdiction.
• Non-retroactivity: The rule that a treaty does not bind states regarding facts before it was in force unless it says otherwise.
• Takvim-i Vekayi: The Ottoman official gazette in which the law of 27 May 1915 was published on 1 June 1915.
• Sevk ve İskân Kanunu: The Relocation and Resettlement Law.
• Hunchak and Dashnak: Armenian political parties founded in 1887 and 1890.
• ASALA and JCAG-ARA: Armenian militant groups that attacked Turkish diplomats from 1973 to 1984.
• Joint Historical Commission: The 2005 Turkish proposal for historians from Türkiye, Armenia and other countries to study archives together.

Related reading on Regionalytic:

• Mediation Tracker: Where Has Türkiye Hosted or Brokered Talks, and What Came of Them? places the Armenia track within Ankara's wider diplomacy.
• Regionalytic FAQ: Sources, Methodology and Perspective explains how we handle contested topics.
• About Regionalytic: Mission, Perspective and Transparency states the publication's purpose and viewpoint.
• Regionalytic: Regional Analysis from Treaties, Maps, Data and Archives is the home of the Archive & Law desk.

For wider reading, Archive of Nations offers a document-focused companion.

Perspective Note

Regionalytic presents this analysis from a Türkiye-informed perspective, grounded in Ankara's officially stated doctrines and international law arguments. Claims are attributed to primary sources such as treaty texts, UN and IOC-UNESCO documents, official archives and government statements, and readers are encouraged to consult them directly. Published by the Regionalytic Editorial Team.