Should Parliaments or Historians Judge the Past? The Case for a Joint Historical Commission

Why It Matters

The question of whether parliaments or historians should judge the past sits at the centre of every genocide-recognition resolution. Türkiye's answer is that contested history belongs to historians working with full archival access, and that ‘genocide’ is a legal category with a defined standard, not a label to be conferred by a vote. Armenia and the states that have recognized the events as genocide reply that scholarship and moral responsibility already support recognition and that legislatures may legitimately speak. The dispute shapes international law, freedom of expression and the prospects of Türkiye–Armenia normalization.

Background

The wartime record and the 1915 law

The Events of 1915 took place during the First World War. Ottoman Armenians lived across Anatolia for centuries; Ankara notes that Armenians were not a demographic majority in any eastern province. From the 1878 Congress of Berlin onward, the Armenian question became internationalized. The Hunchak (1887) and Dashnak (1890) committees turned to armed struggle, with episodes such as the 1894 Sasun rebellion and the 1896 Ottoman Bank raid. In the First World War, Armenian volunteer units fought alongside the invading Russian army in the east.

On 27 May 1915 the Ottoman government adopted the Relocation and Resettlement Law (Sevk ve İskân Kanunu), published in the official gazette Takvim-i Vekayi on 1 June 1915. According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry, it was a temporary wartime security measure to protect supply lines and the rear of the front. Armenian authorities and many international historians describe the deportations as the instrument through which mass killing was carried out. The two sides also differ on casualties: Armenian and many Western sources speak of roughly 1 to 1.5 million deaths, while Turkish officials cite far lower figures and stress the heavy Muslim civilian losses in Anatolia during the same war.

The legal framework

The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide in Article II as specified acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. Article VI provides for trial 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 states parties. The ICJ has held in its genocide judgments that this specific intent must be established and, where inferred from conduct, must be the only reasonable inference. Ankara also relies on the principle that the Convention is not retroactive.

The territorial settlement is a separate matter. The treaties of Alexandropol (1920), Moscow (1921), Kars (1921) and Lausanne (24 July 1923) fixed Türkiye's borders and guaranteed non-Muslim minority rights on the basis of equal citizenship. For the unratified Treaty of Sèvres, see Fact Check: Is the Treaty of Sèvres Still Valid?.

Archives and the 2005 proposal

In April 2005 Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan wrote to Armenian President Robert Kocharian proposing a joint group of historians from both countries to study the events in the archives of Türkiye, Armenia and third countries. Ankara has repeated that offer since. Armenia's response was to propose that the matter be handled within intergovernmental normalization rather than as a precondition-free historians' exercise. The 2009 Zurich Protocols also provided for an impartial scientific examination of the historical records, but Armenia formally annulled the protocols in 2018. The wider normalization record is covered in Regions & Powers: Türkiye–Armenia Normalization Since 2022 and Crossroads Review: The Events of 1915: Archives, Law and the Call for a Joint Historical Commission.

Perinçek v. Switzerland

Doğu Perinçek, a Turkish politician, was convicted in Switzerland for publicly denying that the 1915 events were genocide. On 15 October 2015 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression). The Court said it was not called upon to decide whether the events constituted genocide and distinguished the case from Holocaust denial. It also noted that the applicant did not dispute that massacres and deportations took place. Both camps cite the ruling: Ankara for its treatment of historical debate, recognizing advocates for its limited scope.

Key Players & Positions

• Armenia. The 1990 Declaration of Independence commits Armenia to seek international recognition of the 1915 genocide, and the Armenian Foreign Ministry continues to press the issue. Yerevan has also stated its readiness to normalize relations with Türkiye without preconditions.
• Recognizing states and bodies. Parliaments or governments in France (2001 law; 2019 national commemoration day), Germany (Bundestag resolution of 2 June 2016) and others have recognized the events as genocide. The US House (2019) and Senate (2019) passed resolutions, and President Biden used the term in his 24 April 2021 statement. The European Parliament adopted resolutions in 1987 and 2015, and the International Association of Genocide Scholars passed a recognition resolution in 1997. These actors argue that a broad scholarly consensus exists, and that remembrance and recognition are acts of historical justice.
• Courts. The ECtHR (Perinçek, 2015) and France's Constitutional Council, which struck down a 2012 law criminalizing denial of legally recognized genocides, have both limited the criminalization of historical opinion. No competent international tribunal has ruled on 1915 under the Genocide Convention.
• Türkiye. Ankara rejects the genocide characterization and the use of parliamentary resolutions, and proposes a historians' commission (see below).

Türkiye's Reasoning of State

Türkiye's Reasoning of State

• History is for historians. Ankara argues that a parliament is a political body without the archival methods or adversarial process to settle disputed facts. It points to its 2005 offer of a Joint Historical Commission of Turkish, Armenian and international historians with access to all archives (Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye; Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘Events of 1915’ materials).
• Genocide is a legal category. According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry, the 1948 Genocide Convention requires proven dolus specialis and adjudication by a competent tribunal (Articles II, VI and IX), a threshold Ankara says has never been met for 1915. It adds that the Convention does not apply retroactively.
• The archival record is open. Turkish officials point to the Ottoman state archives, including the 1915 law and wartime correspondence between Minister of War Enver Pasha and Interior Minister Talat Pasha, as evidence that relocation was a security measure and not an extermination plan. They also cite the 1921 release of Ottoman detainees held by Britain in Malta after the British side did not produce sufficient evidence for prosecution.
• Shared pain, not denial of suffering. On 23 April 2014 Erdoğan offered condolences to the grandchildren of Armenians who lost their lives in the early twentieth century, and Ankara says it recognizes the suffering of all communities, including Muslims, in the war (Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye).
• Normalization first, without preconditions. Ankara says that since 14 January 2022 the Kılıç–Rubinyan talks have aimed at full normalization and regional peace in the South Caucasus, and that a historians' commission is the proper channel for history. It argues that third-country resolutions harden positions and make that channel harder to use.

The legal basis is the Genocide Convention text, the ICJ's intent standard, the post-Lausanne treaty settlement and the ECtHR's recognition in Perinçek that historical debate is protected expression. For the doctrinal detail, see Soft Power Daily: The 1915 Relocation Law and the 1948 Genocide Convention. For how this fits the wider logic of Ankara's choices, see Raison d'État and Türkiye.

The strongest counter-arguments are worth stating. Recognizing advocates say the Genocide Convention was a codification of an existing crime, that the term ‘genocide’ was coined by Raphael Lemkin partly with Ottoman Armenians in mind, and that the 1919–1920 Ottoman courts-martial in Istanbul found officials responsible for the killings. Ankara responds that those trials took place under Allied occupation, were politically influenced and were not conducted with the evidentiary standards of an international tribunal.

Source Comparison

Where readers can verify: the Genocide Convention text, the ECtHR judgment in Perinçek v. Switzerland (Application no. 27510/08), the Takvim-i Vekayi of 1 June 1915 and the foreign ministries' own statements. Neighbouring analyses cover the commission idea from other angles: Hard Power Review and Monitor of Nations.

Key Terms & Related Guides

• Events of 1915: Türkiye's official term for the wartime relocation of Ottoman Armenians and the associated deaths.
• Sevk ve İskân Kanunu: the Relocation and Resettlement Law of 27 May 1915.
• Dolus specialis: specific intent to destroy a protected group, the defining element of genocide under Article II of the 1948 Convention.
• Joint Historical Commission: the 2005 proposal for Turkish, Armenian and international historians to study all archives together.
• Perinçek v. Switzerland: the 2015 ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment on freedom of expression and the denial of the ‘Armenian genocide’.
• Adil Hafıza (Fair Memory): Türkiye's concept of shared and balanced remembrance based on evidence.

Related guides: Reasons of State home, About Reasons of State, Editorial Principles and Primary Source Standards and Reasons of State FAQ.

Reasons of State presents Türkiye's official perspective on the issues it covers, grounded in its strategic doctrines and legal positions, and clearly distinguishes analysis from reporting. Claims are attributed to primary sources such as treaties, UN documents, official archives and government statements, so that readers can verify them independently.