Deconstructing the Four-Pronged Strategy: A Critical Analysis of Armenian Claims on Recognition, Reparations, Restitution, and Territory

Abstract

Since the late twentieth century, Armenian advocacy networks — comprising the Republic of Armenia, the global diaspora, and a constellation of aligned lobbying organisations — have pursued a coordinated set of demands against the Republic of Türkiye that this article terms the four-pronged strategy: international recognition of the 1915 events as (so called) genocide, financial reparations, restitution of confiscated properties, and territorial revision grounded in the abortive Treaty of Sèvres (1920). This article undertakes a systematic critical analysis of each prong, evaluating its historical premises, legal foundations, and geopolitical implications from the standpoint of Ottoman archival evidence, established treaty law, and the jurisprudence of international tribunals. It argues that each prong rests on a distorted or factually contestable historical account of the 1915 Relocation and Resettlement (Sevk ve İskân) process, misapplies the specific-intent requirement of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and — critically — operates without any binding mechanism in contemporary international law. The recognition prong is juridically sterile despite its political breadth; the reparations prong is foreclosed by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923); the restitution prong ignores the Ottoman government's own wartime prosecutions of officials who harmed Armenians; and the territorial prong is void in light of the comprehensive international legal settlement achieved at Lausanne. The article further contends that the four-pronged strategy functions primarily as a political instrument serving the domestic agendas of diaspora organisations and Armenian state actors rather than as a genuine programme of legal remedy. The article concludes that the strategy's factual and legal infirmities are fundamental and irremediable without a radical revision of its historical premises.

Keywords

• Four-pronged strategy
• 1915 Relocation and Resettlement
• genocide allegation
• Lausanne Treaty
• Armenian diaspora lobbying
• Turkish-Armenian relations

Dört Ayaklı Stratejinin Anatomisi: Ermeni İddialarının Tanıma, Tazminat, İade ve Toprak Boyutlarına Eleştirel Bir Analiz

Abstract

Yirminci yüzyılın sonlarından itibaren Ermeni savunuculuk ağları — Ermenistan Cumhuriyeti, küresel diaspora ve bu yapılarla uyum içindeki çeşitli lobi kuruluşlarından oluşan geniş bir konsorsiyum — Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'ne ve uluslararası topluma yönelik koordineli bir talepler bütünü izlemektedir. Bu makale söz konusu bütünü "Dört Ayaklı Strateji" olarak kavramsallaştırmakta; (I) 1915 olaylarının soykırım olarak uluslararası düzeyde tanınması, (II) mali tazminat, (III) müsadere edilen mülklerin iadesi ve (IV) yürürlüğe girmemiş Sevr Antlaşması'na (1920) dayandırılan toprak revizyonu talebi şeklinde dört bileşene ayırmaktadır. Makale, her bir ayağı Osmanlı arşiv kanıtları, yerleşik antlaşmalar hukuku ve uluslararası mahkemelerin içtihadı çerçevesinde tarihsel öncülleri, hukuki temelleri ve jeopolitik yansımaları bakımından sistematik biçimde eleştirmektedir. Her bir ayağın, 1915 Sevk ve İskân sürecinin çarpıtılmış ya da olgusal açıdan tartışmalı bir yorumuna yaslandığı; 1948 tarihli Soykırımın Önlenmesi ve Cezalandırılması Sözleşmesi'nde (SÖSÖ) aranan özel kast (dolus specialis) unsurunu yanlış uyguladığı ve — her şeyden önemlisi — çağdaş uluslararası hukukta herhangi bir bağlayıcı mekanizmadan yoksun kaldığı savunulmaktadır. Tanıma ayağı, siyasi genişliğine karşın hukuken kısır kalmaktadır; tazminat ayağı Lozan Antlaşması (1923) ile önlenmiş bulunmaktadır; iade ayağı Osmanlı hükümetinin kendi savaş döneminde Ermenilere zarar veren yetkililere yönelik yürüttüğü kovuşturmaları görmezden gelmektedir; toprak ayağı ise Lozan'la sağlanan kapsamlı uluslararası hukuki düzenleme karşısında geçerliliğini yitirmiş durumdadır. Makale ayrıca Dört Ayaklı Stratejinin, gerçek bir hukuki çözüm programından ziyade ağırlıklı olarak diaspora örgütleri ile Ermeni devlet aktörlerinin iç siyasi gündemlerine hizmet eden siyasi bir araç işlevi gördüğünü öne sürmekte; sonuç olarak stratejinin olgusal ve hukuki zaafiyetlerinin, tarihsel öncüllerin köklü biçimde revize edilmeksizin giderilemeyecek ölçüde temel ve kalıcı nitelik taşıdığını ileri sürmektedir.

Keywords

• Dört Ayaklı Strateji
• 1915 Sevk ve İskânı
• soykırım iddiası
• Lozan Antlaşması; Ermeni diasporası lobiciliği
• Türk-Ermeni ilişkileri

References

1. AVİM (Center for Eurasian Studies). '1915: Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire or a Tragic Page in the History of the Two Nations?' AVİM Blog. Ankara: AVİM, 2018.
2. AVİM (Center for Eurasian Studies). '24 April 1915: What Happened?' AVİM Analysis. Ankara: AVİM, accessed 2024.
3. AVİM (Center for Eurasian Studies). 'Are Armenian Claims Subject to Abuse?' AVİM Commentary. Ankara: AVİM, 2019.
4. 4)AVİM (Center for Eurasian Studies). 'A Review of the 1915 Van Revolt — Before and After, Arguments and Distortions.' AVİM Commentary. Ankara: AVİM, accessed 2024.
5. 5)AVİM (Center for Eurasian Studies). 'Biased Coverage of the Ottoman Empire in WWI and the 1915 Events.' AVİM Commentary. Ankara: AVİM, accessed 2024.
6. AVİM (Center for Eurasian Studies). 'Statistical Information Regarding Ottoman Armenians and Foreign Resources.' AVİM Analysis. Ankara: AVİM, accessed 2024.
7. AVİM (Center for Eurasian Studies). 'The Events of 1915 and the Word Deportation.' AVİM Analysis. Ankara: AVİM, accessed 2024.
8. Akçam, Taner. The Young Turks' Crime against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.

9. Bağcı, Hüseyin, and Teoman Ertuğrul Tulun, eds. The Lausanne Legacy: A Century of Peace and Pathways to Tomorrow. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi, 2024.
10. Baghdassarian, Anoush. 'The Legal Significance of U.S. Recognition of the Armenian Genocide: Implications for Strategic Litigation.' Harvard International Law Journal, May 2022.
11. Baku Dialogues. 'Armenia-Türkiye Relations: Attempts at Normalization.' Baku Dialogues Journal, April 18, 2023.
12. Bénard, Yves. 'Divergences turco-arméniennes!' Paris, 2017.
13. Bénard, Yves. 'Divergencias turco-armenia.' 2018.
14. Brookings Institution. 'Armenia and Turkey: From Normalization to Reconciliation.' Washington D.C.: Brookings, 2015.
15. Cannon, Brendon J. Legislating Reality and Politicizing History: Contextualizing Armenian Claims of Genocide. Offenbach am Main: Manzara Verlag, 2016. ISBN 9783939795674.
16. Cannon, Brendon J. Konstruiert, Instrumentalisiert, Politisiert: Geschichte im Fadenkreuz der armenischen Lobby. Translated by Heide Fruth-Sachs and Valeska Henze. Langen: Manzara Verlag, 2018. ISBN 9783939795919
17. Conseil constitutionnel. Décision n° 2012-647 DC du 28 février 2012. Paris, 2012.
18. Conseil constitutionnel. Décision n° 2016-745 DC du 26 janvier 2017. Paris, 2017.
19. Dündar, Fuat. Crime of Numbers: The Role of Statistics in the Armenian Question (1878–1918). New Brunswick: Transaction, 2010.
20. Çora, Ali Nazmi. Armenian Genocide, A Big Lie: Damn Lies and Facts About So-Called “Armenian Genocide.” Ankara: Sonçağ Yayınları, 2021. 316 pp. ISBN 9786257333481.
21. Elekdağ, Şükrü M. “An Assessment of Armenian Claims from the Perspective of International Law.” In War and Collapse: World War I and the Ottoman State, edited by M. Hakan Yavuz and Feroz Ahmad, 941–971. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2016.
22. Elbir, Hazel Çağan. “April 24 and the Ignored First World War.” AVİM Analysis, no. 2024/6, April 30, 2024
23. Erickson, Edward J. “The Armenian Relocations and Ottoman National Security: Military Necessity or Excuse for Genocide?” Middle East Critique 20, no. 3 (2011): 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2011.619765.
24. Erickson, Edward J. Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
25. European Court of Human Rights. Perinçek v. Switzerland. Application No. 27510/08. Grand Chamber Judgment, 15 October 2015.
26. Fittante, Daniel. 'Memory Fusion, Diplomatic Agency, and Armenian Genocide Recognition in the Czech Republic.' International Political Sociology 18, no. 2 (2024): olae003.
27. Gauin, Maxime. “Sources on 1915 Incidents Need to Be Academically Researched.” Daily Sabah, June 23, 2017. Reproduced as AVİM Blog, no. 2017/30.
28. Güçlü, Yücel. Review of Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency, by Edward J. Erickson. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 34, no. 2 (2014): 199–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2014.912859.
29. Gunn, Christopher. “Getting Away with Murder: Soghomon Tehlirian, ASALA, and the Justice Commandos, 1921–1984.” In War and Collapse: World War I and the Ottoman State, edited by M. Hakan Yavuz and Feroz Ahmad, 896–917. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2016.
30. Gunter, Michael M. Armenian History and the Question of Genocide. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
31. Halaçoğlu, Yusuf. Facts on the Relocation of Armenians (1914–1918). Ankara: Turkish Historical Society, 2002.
32. International Law Commission. 'Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.' UN Document A/Res/56/83. New York: United Nations, 2001.
33. Kalfayan, Raffi Philippe. “The Armenians and Claims for Reparations: Their Sovereignty Challenged?” Repair Future, July 11, 2017.
34. Karpel, Dalia. 'There Was No Genocide: Interview with Professor Bernard Lewis.' Haaretz (weekend edition), 23 January 1998.
35. Kévorkian, Raymond. The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History. London: I.B. Tauris, 2011.
36. Lausanne, Treaty of. July 24, 1923.
37. Lewis, Bernard. 'Judgment in Paris.' In Bernard Lewis, Notes on a Century: Reflections of a Middle East Historian. New York: Viking, 2012. Pp. 328–340.
38. Lewy, Guenter. The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005.
39. Lewy, Guenter. Essays on Genocide and Humanitarian Intervention—Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2012.
40. Lewy, Guenter. Outlawing Genocide Denial: The Dilemmas of Official Historical Truth. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2014.
41. McCarthy, Justin. Muslims and Minorities: The Population of Ottoman Anatolia and the End of the Empire. New York: New York University Press, 1983.
42. McCarthy, Justin. Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821–1922. Princeton: Darwin Press, 1995.
43. McCarthy, Justin. 'Presentation at the Turkish Grand National Assembly on the Reality of the Armenian Issue.' Ankara, March 24, 2005.
44. McCarthy, Justin. “Cilicia: A Missed Opportunity in World War I.” In War and Collapse: World War I and the Ottoman State, edited by M. Hakan Yavuz and Feroz Ahmad, 800–815. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2016.
45. Currie, Erin, and Emil S. Aslan. “America's Turkish Lobby against Armenian Genocide Recognition.” Iran and the Caucasus 27, nos. 4–5 (2023): 527–543. https://doi.org/10.1163/1573384X-02704018.
46. Phillips, David L. Diplomatic History: The Turkey–Armenia Protocols. New York: Institute for the Study of Human Rights, Columbia University, 2012.
47. Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Armenia. Zurich, 10 October 2009.
48. Sarınay, Yusuf. “The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915–16.” Middle East Critique 20, no. 3 (2011): 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2011.619768
49. Sèvres, Treaty of. August 10, 1920.
50. Shaw, Stanford J., and Ezel Kural Shaw. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
51. Sonyel, Salahi R. The Displacement of Armenians: Documents. Ankara: Turkish Historical Society (TTK), 1978.
52. Souleimanov, Emil Aslan. “Turkey, Armenia, and the Politics of Genocide Recognition.” Institute of International Relations Prague, June 19, 2015
53. Suny, Ronald Grigor. 'They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else': A History of the Armenian Genocide. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015.
54. Tulun, Teoman Ertuğrul. “Peace Treaty of Lausanne and the End to Armenian Aspirations.” AVİM Analysis, no. 2016/4, July 22, 2016. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3700101.
55. Tulun, Teoman Ertuğrul. 'The Pontus Narrative and Hate Speech.' Ankara: AVİM, May 2017.
56. Tulun, Mehmet Oğuzhan, and Teoman Ertuğrul Tulun. 'Turkey's Interests and Constructive Eurasianism.' AVİM Commentary, May 5, 2022.
57. Türkiye. Decree-Law No. 651, Art. 17 (adding Provisional Article 11 to Law No. 5737). Resmî Gazete No. 28038, 27 August 2011.
58. Türkiye. Vakıflar Kanunu [Law on Foundations], Law No. 5737. Resmî Gazete No. 26800, 27 February 2008.
59. United Nations General Assembly. 'Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.' Resolution 60/147. December 16, 2005.
60. Walsh, Pat. The Armenian Insurrection and the Great War: A Cautionary Tale of Betrayal. Langen: Manzara Verlag, 2017. ISBN 9783939795742.
61. Yavuz, M. Hakan, and Feroz Ahmad, eds. War and Collapse: World War I and the Ottoman State. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2016.