Armenian Genocide is considered, often, as being the earliest major genocide that occurred in the last (20th) century. This incident also serves as an example of the cost of agreeing to impunity for these cruelties. The genocide in Armenia was symbolic in the longstanding history of worldwide criminal legal-structure development, particularly with regards to elaborating the genocide law. As discussed by Bloxham1, the Armenian genocide was on the mind of Lemkin, when he formulated his theory on genocide. This example is often mentioned as the kind of incident that participants in international justice guarantee will not occur again.
Historical Overview of Armenian Genocide
In the months between autumn 1914 and summer 1915, a succession of decisions were made by the Ottoman regime that resulted in slaughtering of Armenian Christians. The Armenian community, before war, was scattered all over the Ottoman Empire. While the majority of these individuals were members of the Armenian Apostolic church, Protestant and Catholic minorities were also present. There were distinct areas of Armenian population concentrations, although demographic majorities did not exist except at a local level, in historic Armenian areas. These included: Cilicia, on the Gulf of Alexandretta's north and north-west, on the coast of the Mediterranean, where Armenians made their homes from the early days of the Middle Ages; and Anatolia's eastern provinces, the wider territory surrounded by Cilicia, the Mediterranean, Persia, Syria, Mesopotamia, the Black Sea and the Caucasus, where Armenian communities go back over three millenniums. Together, Cicilia and Anatolia make up most of present-day Turkish territory[footnoteRef:2]. [2:
(Bloxham, 2005)]
Armenian Genocide in Relation to WW1
At the time of World War I, eastern Anatolia's Armenians were either slain in situ - this fate was met by many male youths and men - or deported to the south, to the present-day Syrian and Iraqi deserts. They suffered repeated, massive depredations along the way- kidnap, rape, mutilation, thirst, starvation, death from exposure, and outright killing- inflicted by Ottoman Gendarmes, local tribesmen, and Kurdish and Turkish irregulars. As well, a part of these massacres were participated in by the armies of the Ottomans. Surviving and kidnapped women and orphans, had to undergo forced conversion to Islam; this was a means to assimilate into the 'new Turkey'[footnoteRef:3]. [3:
(Bloxham, 2005)]
Deported Armenians belonging to western Anatolia and Cicilia did not experience the same degree of harassment while journeying southwards; they could pass rather unmolested into exile from home or to their fate in the desert. Thus, although differing to some degree based on local conditions, the very same general purpose was served by the above death marches- the obliteration of substantial collective existence of Armenians in Turkey. Many who reached the concentration centers in the deserts were killed in a succession of assaults in 1916. These events collectively make up the Armenian genocide. Roughly 1 million Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire died; two-thirds of individuals deported and half the pre-war populace[footnoteRef:4]. [4:
(Bloxham, 2005)]
The Ottoman government's judiciary addressed the criminality linked with the disastrous incidents and relocation of Ottoman Armenians, which took place in 1915-1916. Individuals or group members who assaulted Armenian convoys, as well as officials who abused their authority or neglected their responsibilities, and exploited the plight of the Armenians, were court-martialled and penalized. Over twenty Muslims were given death-sentences and executed as a result of these crimes in 1915[footnoteRef:5]. The Ottoman administration established three commissions, in the wake of Talat Pasha's report, to look into complaints by Armenians and condemnations of public servants. Thus, in March-April of 1916, 1,673 Muslim citizens were remanded to court martial; these included first and second lieutenants, captains, gendarme squad commanders, mayors and police superintendents. Some 67 of these individuals were given death-sentences; 524 were jailed; and 68 were meted out other punishments, such as exile, forced labor, and imprisonment in forts. The remaining individuals were not sentenced[footnoteRef:6]. The Armenian Revolutionary Foundation took the very same approach in beginning its mission for justice. [5:
(Tacar and Gauin, 2012)] [6:
(Tacar and Gauin, 2012)]
Between 1915 and 1923, 1.5 million people of Armenia were massacred or executed or perished due to disease, torture, or starvation. The term 'crime against humanity' was initially used to describe this carnage, labeled by many historians and scholars as genocide. During the First World War, the Ottoman monarch's official policy was slaying Armenians, as they believed Armenians to be in support of Imperial Russia, which was among their ancient foes. During the period, western Armenia was ruled by Ottomans, while the small eastern region was ruled by Russia[footnoteRef:7]. [7:
(Hovsepian, 2015)]
At the time, in...
Genocide The second most studied instance of genocide is the methodical killing of the Armenian population that lived in the Ottoman Empire during and following the First World War. However, there were also other ethnic groups that were targeted by the Ottoman Empire during the same period such as Greeks and Assyrians murdered in a broader context of killing non-Muslims (Dixon, 2010). There are some historians who consider those groups to
This is despite the politics, regarding the authority and scope of the court. Where, it is slowly proving to have an impact, in prosecuting those who commit acts of genocide. (Reynolds) Cleary, the various international laws are having an impact upon the way wars are being fought. Where, the act of genocide is becoming increasingly discouraged, because of the conventions that are in place and an effective mechanism to prosecute
France's financial interests were reliant upon Hutu victory. As a result, France did intervene, even after the UN pulled out of Rwanda. However, the French intervention was not aimed at helping Tutsis. The Hutu greeted the French like allies, and the French did nothing meaningful to prevent further massacres. The fact that France is considered a powerful country, especially in the setting of the UN, made the rest of
Former President Bill Clinton "stood by" while what Power calls "the fastest, most efficient killing spree of the twentieth century" ravaged families in Africa. In 1998, he would issue an apology for the inactivity (Power). Indeed, his refusal to call the genocide by the term that Lemkin designated for the violence just 50 years prior was met with international scorn. The Darfur crisis is another, more recent, exhibit of genocide.
In other words, until the amount of the dead is considered high enough to have an internal effect, there will be little or no aid to the endangered population. Summaries "Eyewitness Testimony" Raphael Lempkin was a man who escaped Nazism in 1939 and came to the U.S. After the war, he worked with the League of Nations to ensure that crimes against a group of people would be punished. He is credited
These were merely some of the first steps in the dehumanization of the Jewish people, and once Germans began to look at Jews as something less than themselves, they were able to permit genocide to occur. Of course, not all genocide occurs in the same way. In Rwanda, there was a long history of animosity between the Tutsi and the Hutu. The two groups were engaged in outright warfare against
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now