International Law and the Use of Force in relation to Armenia Genocide

Introduction

Genocide is usually described as the methodical execution of a specific individuals group who share some kind of cohesion whether in regard to nationality, Ethnic relation, political orientation or even culture[1]. In other words, genocide can best be described as the mass killing of individuals of a specific group. For most individuals today, the basic concepts of the occurrence of genocide are impossible to justify in terms of thoughts, or even discuss with others. Armenia Genocide has raised numerous controversies and intensifying debates in regard to how people feel that the international community should have acted and the occurrence of the event. As saddening as it is, it should be understood that genocide is a violent event that creates horrifying results. Genocides have been in existence for decades and still occur today and this does not imply that the mass killings that occurred in the past are to be forgotten as the horrific results that they create can never fade[2]. The Armenia genocide was characterized by a crowd of terrors that were activated the similar typical human prejudice that hurls similar evils and is still the major cause of controversial debates in the country and globally.

The Armenia Genocide can best be categorized as a terrible event that resulted in numerous damages to the Armenian populace in relation to its socio-economic stability and population loss. The genocide took place particularly amid 1915 up to 1918 which was conducted by the Ottoman or the Turkish Administration[3]. In the strategic killing Armenian population was the target and despite responses from countries globally, there was no operative action that intervened in the event. This is because as most countries attempted to persuade the Turkish administration to end the killing the Ottoman insisted that they would subject them to war crimes where most administration opted to withdraw. Based on the past experiences of genocide globally it is apparent that no Genocide is better than the other because they all eradicate peace and destroy every effort and development that is in existence[4].

The Armenian Genocide

It is ill-fated that structured killings of certain individuals groups have been in existence since the commencement of evolution as part of human experience. The Armenian 1915 genocide is not formally recognized as systematic mass killing such as Rwandan and Holocaust genocides mainly because despite its occurrence significant part of the international community fails to accept its occurrence. However, it is accounted as one of the most terrific mass executions in the international account. Amid the year 1915 up to 1918 the Turkish administration was mainly involved in the deporting, enslaving, oppressing and killing between 1.5 and 2 million people in Armenia with the objective of religiously and culturally cleaning Armenia as part of the Turkish land[5]. Prior to the occurrence of the genocide Armenians and Turkey people existed in coordination within the Ottoman Empire for decades. Throughout the period despite the fact that Armenians were not accounted as equals, they were completely accepted and held not aggressive battle. However, the condition began to change for several reasons such as nationality, ethnicity, and religion. Nationality was a fresh dominating factor globally which resulted to ethnic classifications being accounted as severely crucial and it created issues for the ruling empires such as Ottoman. In addition, the Turkish administration was terrified by Christian campaigns and it only becomes worse given that Armenia progressively became secluded as the sole primary Christian minority thus being the major target[6].

In general, genocides are associated with the intentional physical execution of certain individuals group or communities in a nation. The Armenian genocide, in this case, was not distinct because it involved the rigorous exclusion of the intrinsic Armenians from their owns by the Ottoman Realm throughout the period of the First World War which was attached with mass executions of the Armenian residents[7]. The killing is classified as a genocide because it was thoroughly organized by the Turkish administration and the eradication of natives was conducted without any compassion and this resulted in horrifying fatalities amongst the Armenians. The arrangement not only incorporated the vigorous exile of the populace but also oppression, killings, destruction, mass raping, and famishment. In the Ottoman Realm, Armenians were only comprised of minorities and based on their inferiority they would not reject the aggression and oppression because they had no winning aspects. Their inferiority and domination by the Turkish realm resulted in horrific deaths and losses amongst the populace an event that can never fade based on its destruction and marks.

The primary responsibility for the occurrence of such criminalities which is against humankind existence which not only incorporated killings but also oppression in Armenia is directed to the leaders of the Ottoman realm. In that, the groups which were widely referred to as young Turks were particularly objected at creating religious and ethnic uniformity. This did not occur without the delegation by the leaders who were responsible for interior security and harmony. These leaders utilized their closet coworkers within the administrations to command and manage the general genocide procedure. Secret groups had also been created during that period which was being referred to special groups because they were not acquiring authority from the main administration but they were carrying out orders that sought to create individuals advantages. These group’s primary objective was to physically eliminate Armenians by mass slaughter[8]. In this context, the members of the special organizations were forced to exercise criminal assignments from the administration even if they did not perceive it as essential[9]. In spite of the horrific damages against human existence that occurred in Armenia the primary commanders that were involved in the organization, command, and control of the genocide procedure walked out free from the nation and avoided any related penalties because they had been found guilty of performing and organizing several capital criminalities. The 1915 to 1918 genocide led to the loss of over 1.5 up to 2 million people[10]. Prior to the occurrence of the first world war, more than two million individuals as the Christian minorities were existing in Armenia but during the execution hundred thousands of these people were exiled, killed, oppressed and others subjected to aggressive torture and starvation which led to the victim's number being millions.

Armenia and Turkey’s History

The Armenians are largely characterized by Christian based ethnic groups that exist in the Eastern Anatolia which is the contemporary Middle Eastern Turkey for more than three thousand years. In the past, Armenians were in several times independent but they were also controlled by different empires in different periods which implies that has not acquired complete independence. Armenia was conquered by the Ottoman Empire back in the 15th century which was an Islamic Empire with the Turkish Origin[11]. In addition, the empire additionally conquered other surrounding communities making the region one of its dominant ruling land. Despite the fact that the Ottoman Empire was particularly authoritative when it came in the region, it authority decreased by the late 19th century which made it vulnerable to the powerful rulers. In the moment of its power decrease, Ottoman Empire tried to conquer any existing non-Islamic community as well as those that had not be conquered by Turkey[12]. Armenia which was comprised of religious minorities particularly Christians become one of the targets for the consistent coercion. Back in the late 19th century Armenians consistently pressed for democratic changes and civil privileges assertions but on the other hand, the Ottomans asserted on their ruling which was dictatorship based which led to the killing of hundred thousands of populace amid 1894 and 1896[13]. As terrifying as the event became this was just the commencement of a strategic execution.

International Community Response to Armenian Genocide

The commencement of Armenia genocide in 1915 led to the urgent attention calls to the international community by the natives for assistance[14]. However, the response was particularly negative given that there was no actual intervention that took place. Actually, the entire international community convicted the event and rather than accounting it as genocide they consider it as criminality against humanity. However, some of the leading nations such as Britain, Russia and America have condemned the operation by the Turkish administration which was not only horrific but aimed at benefiting the country unethically[15]. Turkish administration attempted to conquer the inferior communities in the search of political superiority but instead, they focused on the creation of religious and cultural unity despite the fact that they understood that their practices were only resulting in harm[16].

However, despite the acknowledgment by the international countries and the existing evidence of the horrific executions, there lacked any specific actions against the Ottoman realm by the global community[17]. There are no specific sanctions or segregation interventions that were applied for the case. More so, the Turkish administration was not required to provide any sort of compensation for the Armenians populace based on the severe social and territorial losses. Based on this it is obvious that the negative response by the global community is shameful given that based on the caused damages that occurred due to political and individuals desires the country deserves compensation. It is the shameful act that has consistently raised controversial discussions in the society[18]. Armenian genocide disaster cannot be denied based on the existing facts and the acquired losses cannot be reversed.

Armenian Genocide Causes

The most direct source of the Armenian genocide was the inhuman prejudice of the oppressive government. However, there are other forces that offer justification to the occurrence of the terrible event. To begin with, most of the Turkish persons disliked the Armenians on the ground that they were highly literate and richer. In addition, the Ottoman Realm was ready being ruled by the Young Turks organization since 1908 and its main objective was to focus on enemies eradications[19]. The reforms for the executions were mainly made because the Turkish power was decreasing and therefore, these organizations sought to regain the superior glory. In this context, they were striving to create cultural and religious uniformity which would, in turn, offer the administration more authority. It was unfortunate that most of the modifications were mainly seeking to eliminate of non-Muslims as well as those that did not belong to the Turkish segments. The organizations developed prejudice, doubt, and hatred in contrast to Armenians because they were not Muslims and they were not fully controlled by Turkey. The resentment continued to rise and based on their Christian unity the groups attributed them to the persisting issues in the nation opting to eliminate them. As the resentment and the political prejudice began to spread consistently among the populace people started on killing the Armenians without the assistance from the administration prior to the commencement of the formal genocide in 1915[20].

In addition, the First World War triggered the occurrence of the killings which had started in 1914[21]. The war eroded and placed the Ottoman Ream and all the central authorities in contradiction of Russia and its Allies. At this period the Armenian were squeezed amid the Ottoman and Russian realm which created fear among the Turkish rulers. In that based on they were worried that the Armenians would lean to the Russian given that they possessed similar religious background which is Christianity and work against the Islamic realm thus making the Russian stronger and decreasing the authority of Turkish administration even more[22]. For the special organizations from Turkey, Armenians were accounted as enemies in regard to their social, political, religious and ethnic practices and they were to be executed. In other words, the Armenians were a primary target because despite the fact that they were situated within the Ottoman Realm they retained their Christianity beliefs solemnly[23]. During the period Ottoman realms were comprised of Muslims and to them, Christians were perceived as the wrongdoers and they were therefore subjected to inequality and undeserved treatments. For instance, Christians unlike the Muslims were necessitated to make tax payments and possessed minimal political and lawful privileges. Regardless of the oppression the Christian groups continued to excel and did not respond to the injustices which triggered the Turkish patients[24]. Based on the anger that this occurrence created the rulers settled on solving the issue completely which meant to execute each one of them.

The dominating source of the Armenian genocide revolves around religious and political authority struggles. Despite the fact that the Armenians and most of the communities within the Turkish realm were characterized by religious distinctions they existed in harmony but Christians were required to apply more efforts in supporting the country based on religious prejudice[25]. As Christian, the oppression was okay and thus based on their commitment their country experienced consisting growth. The consistency was not perceived positively because it was assumed that they might gang with other Christian administration and work against Turkey something that they would not agree because the administration was already struggling to gain more authority. In preventing such a betrayal Turkish rulers understood that they were required to act to prevent the Christian Armenians from breaking loose. For them, they would only align with individuals of the same nationality, religion and ethnic uniformity while Armenians lacked religious cooperation as they choose to be Christians[26].

The horrific event is accounted as genocide for several motives. In that during the Genocide period in 1915 and 1918, there are several things that occurred which categorizes the event as genocide[27]. In that to begin with, the incidence was mainly fueled by political and religious prejudice. This led to the mass death of millions of persons from Armenia who were Christians and held differing political motives. In addition, hundred thousands of the native people were arrested without any probable reason and evacuated from Armenia by the Turkish administration[28]. More so most of the natives were chased from their land and were instructed to participate in death marches for long distances and an oppressive desert environment without providing them with food or even water. This was an utmost oppression that sought to offer the administration political authority at the expense of million people who had not done anything wrong because lawfully they were entitled to political and religious choices. Consistently, the marching populace was stripped naked which subjected them to shame and forced to operate under extensive sunlight until they became weak and died from the torture. Those that were exhausted and needed rest in order to cooperate were shot immediately to death.

The event can also be accounted as genocide because special organizations were created which were comprised of assassins and other criminals involved in aggressive battles. These groups were well organized as they murdered people using different strategies such as sinking, burning and crucifying them. More so the groups were involved in the mass kidnapping of children and transforming them to Muslims after which they would be donated to the Turkish residents without any form of consent. Women were gang-raped and forceful demanded to join the regime while others were subjected to slavery[29]. The Armenians homes and land were occupied by the Islam Turkish community and after the event, most of those that played part returned to Turkey in order to escape the associated penalties for the committed crimes because the government offered protection.

Facts about Armenian Genocide

The genocide claimed close to 60 percent of the Armenian populace who were killed in exclusion of those that had been exiled[30]. The Armenians were not only subjected to unequal and undeserving treatments but they were forced to participate in death marches without the presence of food or even water. It was not demeaning enough that they had to exist without water and food but they were also required to participate while naked and work consistently without complaining until they would no longer function but die. This process was mainly seeking to convert the entire populace to Turkish while forming political and religious uniformity to give the administration more authority. The Campaign resulted in most individuals being converted to Islam particularly children. By the time the killing ended fully in 1922 only about 385,000 Armenians people had remained under the Turkish realm[31].

The execution did not end completely in 1918 when the First World War ended because it sustained up to 1923 when the Ottoman Realm ended and it was substituted by Turkey’s Republic[32]. Those that survived were left to suffer without any economic operations, homeless, ailing and as emigrants as a state was not present prior. Similar to the globally acknowledged Jewish Genocide, the Armenian populace was not only subjected to killings but also oppression and starvation. Most of them died from the unfavorable environment that they existed in without food or even water. The wrong that the population had committed was being from a different religious and political alignment because they valued nationality contrary to the Turkish and that is why they strived to develop socially and economically. The massacre began at that moment when the Armenian prominent individuals such as expertise, academics, and authors were acquired, exiled and killed. The Ottoman Realm had created the notion that Armenians were their primary threat and thus authorities took the responsibility of taking the hostages who were later murdered to end their contributions[33]. There is still minimal though significant photographic coverage relating to the genocide given that the special organizations that were implementing the killings had strictly ruled against reporting and photography coverage. However, the news of the massacre was mainly distributed by the Armenians ambassadorial and ministers who struggled to inform other individuals from different global parts. The Genocide is currently memorialized on the 24th of April every year which helps to acknowledge that their members were not just subjected to killings but they were also oppressed[34]. Based on reports it is apparent that the victims were not only executed via the utilization of guns alone because they were also poisoned, sunk, and burned. More so, rape was consistently reported among the victims of such cases.

The above factual analysis of the event is adequate proof that Armenia deserves compensation given that the treatment was against humankind because it was cruel and undeserving. The natives were not only subjected to torture but most were forced to exit the country and the largest populace killed and their belongings snatched and destroyed[35]. In other words, the incidence left Armenians with nothing since all that they had built including peace was destroyed and the terrible conditions led to the death of many. The crime should be compensated because it was fueled by political propaganda which worked against the Armenians and the event violated humanity in general[36].

History is complete with instances of wars that were fuelled by different political empires against certain communities based on ethical, social, economic, religious or even political differences[37]. Basically, the conquered groups are converted as focuses of triumphant ceremonies controlled by the masters. This was a similar case that occurred in Armenia because based on their religious differences their rulers the Ottoman made them subjects of oppression and ultimate genocide. It is highly supposed that the Armenian populace in the realm was in the area was close to 2 million persons before the realm began to demonstrate signs of dissolution[38]. Armenians were accounted as Christian minorities given that the region was comprised of more Muslims based on the Turkish ruling. Despite the fact that Armenians contributed more in regard to financial support to the administration they were denied basic privileges such as government participation. More so as Christians they operated without any form of security but this did not hinder them from succeeding. Despite the criticism in regard to them being middle-class individuals, they were entrepreneurs and dealers who were economically stable and disliked by Turks because they were mainly laborers and average workers based on their low literacy rate.

By the late 19th century there were increasing cases of Armenians exist in within the marginal regions of the territory[39]. Simultaneously, the arrangement of execution and deployment was already in place. Actually, there are several killing cases that occurred prior to 1915[40]. The occurrence of the first war led to the Turkish joining Germans in the battle against Christian Russians professed as a threat.

Armenia Genocide In Relation to the International Law

Armenian genocide is associated with several international lawful issues regarding Armenian Genocide. Specifically, Armenian genocide is considered to be criminality under international regulations because Turkey was primarily responsible for all the crimes that took place because the event occurred under the administration's command[41]. Genocide is considered to be a serious criminality under the international law basically because it violates human privileges and subjects force in its execution. Under the international regulations, any form of killing and force application is unlawful since the objective of such events leads to organized damages in regard to a certain ethnic, political or religious group. Genocide is an event that eliminates an essential natural privilege of a specific individuals group particularly the privilege of life, ownership and religious or political choice[42]. The united nations Agreement that seeks to hinder and penalize criminals regarding genocide which took effect in 1951[43]. The killings and forceful exile of the Armenian community that was performed by the Ottoman realm in the early 20th century are in actual obedience with genocide crime classification and identification by the UN convention because all the offenses regarding genocide are present[44].

It is argued by some individuals that law rather than historically the killing does not qualify as a genocide. In that, they state that there lack concepts regarding genocide in the implementation procedure and the international community does not fully acknowledge the occurrence. This is based on the principle that the international convention does not mainly cover past genocides that occurred prior to the agreement. However, it is worth noting that the role of the international community is to provide adequate protection to humankind which makes the massacre of much significance. The international community headed by the super nations that emerged victorious in the first world war acknowledged that the massacre actually occurred and forced the exile of Armenians which was planned by the Ottoman realm is an international misconduct which is relevant to the international law of that specific period. In this context, this forms the lawful grounds for the Ottoman Realm accountability as well as Turkey for the committed crime. More so the Turkish administration acknowledges the crime’s evidence and it arbitrated by sentencing and killing those that organized the crimes after they were found guilty of the destruction that fell on the Armenian populace.

It is worth noting that the UN genocide convention does not create any fresh misconduct but offers a specific description of global misconduct contrary to humanity as provided by the international law[45]. The argument that the genocide is not an international misconduct against humanity based on the fact that it took place prior to the convention implementation raises controversies based on the destruction that occurred. On establishing the fact that the Armenian genocide is categorized as a misconduct against humanity is rightfully based on the international law which increases the issue regarding accountability of the Turkey administration as the inheritor of Ottoman realm[46]. This can, therefore, be classified as global lawful accountability and criminal obligation. In this context, the criminal obligation can best be described as the unfavorable legal outcomes for the international commandment subject in relation to the violation of the international regulations and accountability[47].

Turkey is the Inheritor of Ottoman realm in relation to the national sequence laws regarding the international humanitarian law. Also, Turkey is acknowledged as the Ottoman heir which makes it subject to international accountability for the occurrence of the Armenian genocide[48]. The accountability of the Armenian killings should, therefore, result to the redevelopment of a legal ground to govern the supposed crimes that incorporates restraining authority of an accountable state. Despite the fact that the international law does not contain theories regarding territorial obligation, the genocide has raised territorial arguments which are supported legally. The privileges held by Turkey at that period acknowledged all the regions that were constituted of Turks and this, therefore, means that the administration had the obligation of protecting the Armenians. By diagnosing that the Ottoman realm conducted crimes against humankind Turkey as the Heir of the realm that commanded the executions is required to undertake accountability and re-develop legal grounds that exists prior to the misconduct which will eventually compensate the undeserving genocide outcomes[49].

The international law holds that it is the obligation of every country to compensate any undesirable action in the quest of the compensations that are derived from such misconducts. The damages that are referred in the case are either physical or moral based that occurred from unethical actions[50]. An additional alternative is that Armenia and Turkey should engage in discussions that are aimed at setting grounds where the caused destructions can be repaired. This discussion based on the international law is supposed to account for the legal privileges and the motives of all parties. In this context, it is apparent that Armenia should be compensated to recover from the socio-economic loss that it acquired from the genocide. Such agreements can create lawful grounds regarding accountability because any crime against humankind is subjected to punishment. In this case, the most suitable solution that will seek to guard humanity will be to focus on reconciliation given that both countries have maintained undesirable associations[51]. Denying the facts and compensation of such horrific crimes is not just particularly in the contemporary society and might lead to the development of further misconducts that have already been proved in the past.

What the International Law and International Community Should Have Done

During the massacre, Armenia’s attempted to acquire for assistance from the international community without success because there was no state that was able to assist[52]. The entire international community was covered in a shadow as the organized and systematic killing continued. The killing continued for more than 2 years and the time frame would have allowed the international community to respond. The population loss that occurred remain unspecific although it is projected that more than 1.5 million persons were lost[53]. The international community particularly the authoritative nations such as Russia and the United Kingdom proposed to Turkey rulers to end the killings because they would be held accountable for the occurrence of crime against mankind. Turkey was only trying to acquire political strength through conquering some of those communities that were regarded as inferior. However, its focus was on creating religious and cultural uniformity and thus to them the Armenians who were growing stronger each day were viewed as a threat based on their religious stand that would have influenced them to collaborate with the Russians and this would have affected Turkey politically. However, the response of these nations was particularly weak because there was no active intervention that took place. Public concerns, particularly in America, were increasing daily with the public urging for interventions stating that the treatment was not justified. When the war ended, however, the Allied nations that had won the First World War pressured the government to penalize them because they were found of crime[54]. In addition, the countries focused on saving those that had been subjected to starvation.

The German, UK and American administrations facilitated the development of reports on the slaughters and this led to the publishing of several reliable interpretations. It is believed that because the most authoritative administrations were particularly involved in the World war this shadowed their capability to intervene because all of them were mainly focused on winning. On the other hand, regardless of the ethical disgrace by the international community, there were no acts of beneficial interventions that were applied against the empire either to consent its terrifying laws or even to free the Armenians from the execution. Further, there were no reasonable steps that were utilized to authorize the administration of Turkey that existed during the war to create compensation for the Armenian populace for the huge human and property fatalities.

The genocide never occurred without the knowledge of the global community. It is apparent that the First World War provided necessary protection to the event but reports regarding the killings and exiles reached the broader world. Despite the fact that the populace voiced their need for assistance in the trying period it is the weak response by the international community that raises controversial debates today. The efforts by the global leaders might have assisted in saving thousands of people despite the fact that most of them were homeless, ailing and left to depend on relief aids but more should have been done. For the international community global way should have been applied not only to pressure the administration to acknowledge the damage but also to penalize and compensate Armenians. In that, the Turkish government should have been made to review its policies regarding the issue in order to determine the damage that it caused and create compensation platforms. The United States, for instance, has on consistent basis acknowledged the fact that the event involved mass killing of individuals and the application of force which is against the international law[55]. However, turkey despite acknowledging the damages that occurred has not recognized the issue legally and sanctions should, therefore, be applied to ensure that it complies with the law and that the Armenians are compensated for the damages because the losses can never be reversed.

Based on the complexity of proving the unique intentions by the Ottoman Empire to execute and subject the Armenian populace to damages the 1915 genocide cannot be analyzed easily[56]. Over a hundred years back millions of the Armenian natives were subjected to organized and methodical killings. It is actually, reliable to assert that the Ottoman realm was accountable for killing the Armenians simply because they differed in regard to religion and political ideologies. Based on the 1948 genocide convention, genocide is described as the event where several actions are performed against an ethnic, spiritual, national or social group with the motive of destruction[57]. The Armenian genocide definitely comprises of such violations which were fueled by religious and cultural differences and thus the Ottoman realm felt the necessity of elimination them because they view them as a threat[58].

What Can Be Done Under The International Law?

Based on the U.N convention Genocide refers the application of force that is performed on a certain group of persons with the motive of destroying partially or completely which is fueled by social, religious or political differences[59]. For its defenders, they would argue that most of such events in the past were justified but it is against the international law which asserts that life is an essential thing in the world and should at all times be guarded. Turkey administration as the heir government should have assumed responsibility for the committed crimes against human existence by acknowledging that the act was immoral because it was only triggered by political greed[60]. In addition, the international community should have ensured that sanctions regarding the case were applied to change the ruling guidelines as well as to ensure that compensation was commenced. Apparently, life is priceless and once lost unlike properties can never be reversed a thing that the Turkish government fails to acknowledge[61]. On the fact that the incurred losses can never be repaid it would be essential to compensate Armenians in order to ensure that the dispute is settled and encourage further growth. Negotiations can also be applied to ensure that positive relationship amid the two neighbors is created which would support developments and inspire togetherness regardless of the past experiences[62].

Conclusion

The Armenian genocide is one of the horrific events that was faced in the past and led to the loss of hundreds of thousands persons and property. The event is classified as a genocide because it incorporated the use of force to exile and kill the Armenian natives. The killing was mainly fueled by cultural and religious differences because the Ottoman realm was dominated by Islamic religion and in order to regain its political authority in the global region, it required cultural and religious uniformity. The event occurred prior and post the First World War when Armenia became a major target because it has consistently retained its minority Christian beliefs thus being viewed as a threat. Based on the analysis above it is clear that Armenians were not only subjected to death but they were tortured and subjected to starvation. The Armenia Genocide can best be categorized as a terrible event that resulted in numerous damages to the Armenian populace in relation to its socio-economic stability and population loss[63]. The international community should have acted to protect the victims based on the international law to either place sanctions or ensure that they are fully compensated for the loss that was incurred[64]. The best option would have been to encourage negotiations which would have in turn improved the relationship amid the two countries and encourage socio-economic growth.

References

Bilali, Rezarta. "National narrative and social psychological influences in Turks’ denial of the mass killings of Armenians as genocide." Journal of Social Issues 69, no. 1 (2013): 16-33.

Bilewicz, Michał, and Johanna Ray Vollhardt. "Evil Transformations: Social-Psychological Processes Underlying Genocide and Mass Killing." Social psychology of social problems: The intergroup context (2012): 280.

Cronin, Bruce. 2007. "The Tension between Sovereignty and Intervention in the Prevention of Genocide." Human Rights Review 8, no. 4: 293-305. EBSCOhost.

Dugan, Laura, Julie Y. Huang, Gary LaFree, and Clark McCauley. "Sudden desistance from terrorism: the Armenian secret army for the liberation of Armenia and the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide." Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 1, no. 3 (2008): 231-249.

Ekmekcioglu, Lerna. "A climate for abduction, a climate for redemption: The politics of inclusion during and after the Armenian genocide." Comparative Studies in Society and History 55, no. 3 (2013): 522-553.

General International and U.S. Foreign Relations Law. (2011). American Journal of International Law, 105(2), 334-336.

Tachjian, Vahé. "Gender, nationalism, exclusion: the reintegration process of female survivors of the Armenian genocide." Nations and Nationalism 15, no. 1 (2009): 60-80.

Theriault, Henry C. 2014. "Legal Avenues for Armenian Genocide Reparations." International Criminal Law Review 14, no. 2: 219-231. EBSCOhost.

Tusan, Michelle. "The Armenian Genocide and Foreign Policy." Phi Kappa Phi Forum 94, no. 2 (Summer2014 2014): 13-15. EBSCOhost.

Zarakol, Ayşe. "Ontological (in) security and state denial of historical crimes: Turkey and Japan." International Relations 24, no. 1 (2010): 3-23.

 

[1] Bilali, Rezarta. "National narrative and social psychological influences in Turks’ denial of the mass killings of Armenians as genocide." Journal of Social Issues 69, no. 1 (2013): 16-33.

[2] Bilewicz, Michał, and Johanna Ray Vollhardt. "Evil Transformations: Social-Psychological Processes Underlying Genocide and Mass Killing." Social psychology of social problems: The intergroup context (2012): 280.

[3] Cronin, Bruce. 2007. "The Tension between Sovereignty and Intervention in the Prevention of Genocide." Human Rights Review 8, no. 4: 293-305.

[4] Cronin, Bruce. 2007. "The Tension between Sovereignty and Intervention in the Prevention of Genocide." Human Rights Review 8, no. 4: 293-305. 

[5] Cronin, Bruce. 2007. "The Tension between Sovereignty and Intervention in the Prevention of Genocide." Human Rights Review 8, no. 4: 293-305.

[6] Bilewicz, Michał, and Johanna Ray Vollhardt. "Evil Transformations: Social-Psychological Processes Underlying Genocide and Mass Killing." Social psychology of social problems: The intergroup context (2012): 280.

[7] Dugan, Laura, Julie Y. Huang, Gary LaFree, and Clark McCauley. "Sudden desistance from terrorism: the Armenian secret army for the liberation of Armenia and the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide." Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 1, no. 3 (2008): 231-249.

 

 

[8] Cronin, Bruce. 2007. "The Tension between Sovereignty and Intervention in the Prevention of Genocide." Human Rights Review 8, no. 4: 293-305.

[9] General International and U.S. Foreign Relations Law. (2011). American Journal of International Law, 105(2), 334-336.

[10] Dugan, Laura, Julie Y. Huang, Gary LaFree, and Clark McCauley. "Sudden desistance from terrorism: the Armenian secret army for the liberation of Armenia and the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide." Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 1, no. 3 (2008): 231-249.

[11] Ekmekcioglu, Lerna. "A climate for abduction, a climate for redemption: The politics of inclusion during and after the Armenian genocide." Comparative Studies in Society and History 55, no. 3 (2013): 522-553.

[12] General International and U.S. Foreign Relations Law. (2011). American Journal of International Law, 105(2), 334-336.

[13] Ekmekcioglu, Lerna. "A climate for abduction, a climate for redemption: The politics of inclusion during and after the Armenian genocide." Comparative Studies in Society and History 55, no. 3 (2013): 522-553.

[14] General International and U.S. Foreign Relations Law. (2011). American Journal of International Law, 105(2), 334-336.

[15] General International and U.S. Foreign Relations Law. (2011). American Journal of International Law, 105(2), 334-336.

[16] Tachjian, Vahé. "Gender, nationalism, exclusion: the reintegration process of female survivors of the Armenian genocide." Nations and Nationalism 15, no. 1 (2009): 60-80.

[17] Tachjian, Vahé. "Gender, nationalism, exclusion: the reintegration process of female survivors of the Armenian genocide." Nations and Nationalism 15, no. 1 (2009): 60-80.

[18] Theriault, Henry C. 2014. "Legal Avenues for Armenian Genocide Reparations." International Criminal Law Review 14, no. 2: 219-231.

[19] Tachjian, Vahé. "Gender, nationalism, exclusion: the reintegration process of female survivors of the Armenian genocide." Nations and Nationalism 15, no. 1 (2009): 60-80.

[20] Theriault, Henry C. 2014. "Legal Avenues for Armenian Genocide Reparations." International Criminal Law Review 14, no. 2: 219-231.

[21] Theriault, Henry C. 2014. "Legal Avenues for Armenian Genocide Reparations." International Criminal Law Review 14, no. 2: 219-231.

[22] Tusan, Michelle. "The Armenian Genocide and Foreign Policy." Phi Kappa Phi Forum 94, no. 2 (Summer2014 2014): 13-15.

[23] Tusan, Michelle. "The Armenian Genocide and Foreign Policy." Phi Kappa Phi Forum 94, no. 2 (Summer2014 2014): 13-15.

[24] Zarakol, Ayşe. "Ontological (in) security and state denial of historical crimes: Turkey and Japan." International Relations 24, no. 1 (2010): 3-23.

[25] Zarakol, Ayşe. "Ontological (in) security and state denial of historical crimes: Turkey and Japan." International Relations 24, no. 1 (2010): 3-23.

[26] Zarakol, Ayşe. "Ontological (in) security and state denial of historical crimes: Turkey and Japan." International Relations 24, no. 1 (2010): 3-23.

[27] Tusan, Michelle. "The Armenian Genocide and Foreign Policy." Phi Kappa Phi Forum 94, no. 2 (Summer2014 2014): 13-15.

[28] Bilali, Rezarta. "National narrative and social psychological influences in Turks’ denial of the mass killings of Armenians as genocide." Journal of Social Issues 69, no. 1 (2013): 16-33.

[29] Bilali, Rezarta. "National narrative and social psychological influences in Turks’ denial of the mass killings of Armenians as genocide." Journal of Social Issues 69, no. 1 (2013): 16-33.

[30] Bilali, Rezarta. "National narrative and social psychological influences in Turks’ denial of the mass killings of Armenians as genocide." Journal of Social Issues 69, no. 1 (2013): 16-33.

[31] Bilewicz, Michał, and Johanna Ray Vollhardt. "Evil Transformations: Social-Psychological Processes Underlying Genocide and Mass Killing." Social psychology of social problems: The intergroup context (2012): 280.

[32] Tusan, Michelle. "The Armenian Genocide and Foreign Policy." Phi Kappa Phi Forum 94, no. 2 (Summer2014 2014): 13-15.

[33] Bilewicz, Michał, and Johanna Ray Vollhardt. "Evil Transformations: Social-Psychological Processes Underlying Genocide and Mass Killing." Social psychology of social problems: The intergroup context (2012): 280.

[34] Zarakol, Ayşe. "Ontological (in) security and state denial of historical crimes: Turkey and Japan." International Relations 24, no. 1 (2010): 3-23.

[35] Cronin, Bruce. 2007. "The Tension between Sovereignty and Intervention in the Prevention of Genocide." Human Rights Review 8, no. 4: 293-305.

[36] Cronin, Bruce. 2007. "The Tension between Sovereignty and Intervention in the Prevention of Genocide." Human Rights Review 8, no. 4: 293-305.

[37] Bilali, Rezarta. "National narrative and social psychological influences in Turks’ denial of the mass killings of Armenians as genocide." Journal of Social Issues 69, no. 1 (2013): 16-33.

[38] Bilali, Rezarta. "National narrative and social psychological influences in Turks’ denial of the mass killings of Armenians as genocide." Journal of Social Issues 69, no. 1 (2013): 16-33.

[39] Tusan, Michelle. "The Armenian Genocide and Foreign Policy." Phi Kappa Phi Forum 94, no. 2 (Summer2014 2014): 13-15.

[40] Bilali, Rezarta. "National narrative and social psychological influences in Turks’ denial of the mass killings of Armenians as genocide." Journal of Social Issues 69, no. 1 (2013): 16-33.

[41] Dugan, Laura, Julie Y. Huang, Gary LaFree, and Clark McCauley. "Sudden desistance from terrorism: the Armenian secret army for the liberation of Armenia and the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide." Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 1, no. 3 (2008): 231-249.

[42] Dugan, Laura, Julie Y. Huang, Gary LaFree, and Clark McCauley. "Sudden desistance from terrorism: the Armenian secret army for the liberation of Armenia and the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide." Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 1, no. 3 (2008): 231-249.

[43] Dugan, Laura, Julie Y. Huang, Gary LaFree, and Clark McCauley. "Sudden desistance from terrorism: the Armenian secret army for the liberation of Armenia and the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide." Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 1, no. 3 (2008): 231-249.

[44] Cronin, Bruce. 2007. "The Tension between Sovereignty and Intervention in the Prevention of Genocide." Human Rights Review 8, no. 4: 293-305.

[45] Ekmekcioglu, Lerna. "A climate for abduction, a climate for redemption: The politics of inclusion during and after the Armenian genocide." Comparative Studies in Society and History 55, no. 3 (2013): 522-553.

[46] Ekmekcioglu, Lerna. "A climate for abduction, a climate for redemption: The politics of inclusion during and after the Armenian genocide." Comparative Studies in Society and History 55, no. 3 (2013): 522-553.

[47] Ekmekcioglu, Lerna. "A climate for abduction, a climate for redemption: The politics of inclusion during and after the Armenian genocide." Comparative Studies in Society and History 55, no. 3 (2013): 522-553.

[48] Cronin, Bruce. 2007. "The Tension between Sovereignty and Intervention in the Prevention of Genocide." Human Rights Review 8, no. 4: 293-305.

[49] Tachjian, Vahé. "Gender, nationalism, exclusion: the reintegration process of female survivors of the Armenian genocide." Nations and Nationalism 15, no. 1 (2009): 60-80.

[50] Zarakol, Ayşe. "Ontological (in) security and state denial of historical crimes: Turkey and Japan." International Relations 24, no. 1 (2010): 3-23.

[51] Theriault, Henry C. 2014. "Legal Avenues for Armenian Genocide Reparations." International Criminal Law Review 14, no. 2: 219-231.

[52] Tachjian, Vahé. "Gender, nationalism, exclusion: the reintegration process of female survivors of the Armenian genocide." Nations and Nationalism 15, no. 1 (2009): 60-80.

[53] Zarakol, Ayşe. "Ontological (in) security and state denial of historical crimes: Turkey and Japan." International Relations 24, no. 1 (2010): 3-23.

[54] Theriault, Henry C. 2014. "Legal Avenues for Armenian Genocide Reparations." International Criminal Law Review 14, no. 2: 219-231.

[55] Theriault, Henry C. 2014. "Legal Avenues for Armenian Genocide Reparations." International Criminal Law Review 14, no. 2: 219-231.

[56] Zarakol, Ayşe. "Ontological (in) security and state denial of historical crimes: Turkey and Japan." International Relations 24, no. 1 (2010): 3-23.

[57] Tusan, Michelle. "The Armenian Genocide and Foreign Policy." Phi Kappa Phi Forum 94, no. 2 (Summer2014 2014): 13-15.

[58] Cronin, Bruce. 2007. "The Tension between Sovereignty and Intervention in the Prevention of Genocide." Human Rights Review 8, no. 4: 293-305.

[59] Cronin, Bruce. 2007. "The Tension between Sovereignty and Intervention in the Prevention of Genocide." Human Rights Review 8, no. 4: 293-305.

[60] General International and U.S. Foreign Relations Law. (2011). American Journal of International Law, 105(2), 334-336.

[61] General International and U.S. Foreign Relations Law. (2011). American Journal of International Law, 105(2), 334-336.

[62] General International and U.S. Foreign Relations Law. (2011). American Journal of International Law, 105(2), 334-336.

[63] General International and U.S. Foreign Relations Law. (2011). American Journal of International Law, 105(2), 334-336.

[64] General International and U.S. Foreign Relations Law. (2011). American Journal of International Law, 105(2), 334-336.