SCHOLARS CALL FOR REEXAMINATION OF ECHR JUDGMENT ON GENOCIDE DENIAL CASE
By Contributor // February 16, 2014
Highlight ‘Historical and Conceptual Inaccuracies’ in Court Decision
BOSTON, Mass. (A.W.)-Concerned genocide scholars issued an open
letter highlighting “historical and conceptual inaccuracies” in the
European Court’s decision on Dogu Perincek v. Switzerland, and called
on the government of Switzerland to request a reexamination of the
Court’s judgment.
Below is the full text of the letter, released on Feb. 14.
***
An Open Letter to: Madame la Conseillère federale Simonetta Sommaruga
Cheffe du Departement federal de justice et police (DFJP) Palais
federal ouest CH-3003 Berne
After having read the European Court’s decision on Dogu Perincek v.
Switzerland (ECHR. 370, 230, 17 December, 2013) we, as concerned
genocide scholars, believe it imperative to respond to historical
and conceptual inaccuracies that are articulated in the decision,
and we believe those inaccuracies have serious ethical and social
significance.
We do not take issue with the notion of freedom of expression,
something that scholars agree is most often an essential part of open,
democratic society. We are, however, concerned about elements of the
Court’s reasoning that are at odds with the facts about the historical
record on the Armenian genocide of 1915 and at odds with an ethical
understanding of denialism.
The decision asserts that: 1) “genocide as a precisely defined legal
concept was not easy to prove”; 2) “the Court doubted that there could
be a general consensus as to the events such as those at issue, given
that the historical research was by definition open to discussion
and a matter of debate, without necessarily giving rise to a final
conclusion or to the assertion of objective and absolute truths”;
the court uses the phrase “heated debate” in referring to the current
political context surrounding the Armenian genocide.
First, it is the overwhelming conclusion of scholars who study genocide
(hundreds of independent scholars, who have no affiliations with
governments, and whose work spans many countries and nationalities
and the course of decades) that the Ottoman mass killings of Armenians
conforms to all the aspects of Article 2 of the U.N. CPPC definition
of genocide.
In 1997, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS),
the major body of scholars who study genocide, passed a resolution
unanimously recognizing the Ottoman massacres of Armenians as
genocide. The International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
prepared an analysis for the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission
(TARC) in 2003, stating that “the Events [of 1915] include all of
the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the Convention
(UNCPPCG).
In 2000, 100 leading Holocaust scholars signed a petition in The
New York Times affirming the events of 1915 were genocide and urging
worldwide recognition. An Open Letter from the IAGS to Turkish Prime
Minister Erdogan, in June, 2005, enjoined the Turkish government
to own up to “the unambiguous historical record on the Armenian
genocide.” The only three histories of genocide in the 20th century
that genocide-studies theorists (such as William Schabas) agree on
are the cases of the Armenians in Turkey, in 1915; the Jews in Europe,
in 1940-45; and the Tutsis in Rwanda, in 1994. The destruction of the
Armenians was central to Raphael Lemkin’s creation of the concept
of genocide as a crime in international law, and it was Lemkin who
coined and first used the term Armenian Genocide in 1944.
The idea put forth by the Court that crimes of genocide may only
apply to the events in Rwanda and at Srebrenica because they were
tried at the ICC is incomplete. Crimes of genocide have been assessed
as historical events by scholars for decades now, and both the crimes
committed against the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915 and those
committed against the Jews of Europe by the Nazis in the 1940s were
deemed genocide by Lemkin. As legal scholars have noted, crimes of
genocide can be tried retroactively, and William Schabas has pointed
out that in the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, in 1961, the word genocide
was used retroactively to designate crimes committed against the Jews.
Further, under Article 10, “the Court clearly distinguished the
present case from those concerning the negation of the crimes of the
Holocaust. . . . because the acts that they had called into question
had been found by an international court to be clearly established.”
We would note that the perpetrators of the Holocaust were prosecuted at
the Nuremberg Trials (1945-46), not for the crime of genocide, but for
“crimes against humanity,” even though Raphael Lemkin had previously
created the term “genocide.” The Armenian case, contrary to the Court’s
assertion, does have a clear legal basis for its authenticity. First,
“crimes against humanity” was the very phrase coined by France,
the United Kingdom, and Russia in their 1915 joint declaration in
response to the massacres of the Armenians by the Ottoman Turkish
government. After WWI, the Ottoman government convened military
tribunals (1919-20) to try 200 high-level members of the military and
government for premeditated mass murder of the Armenian population. The
ICTJ decision of 2006 also affirms such a legal basis.
The Court also decided, on the basis of Article 17 (prohibition of
abuse of rights), that “The rejection of the legal characterization as
‘genocide’ of the 1915 events was not such as to incite hatred against
the Armenian people.” Yet the ECtHR states (para 19) that “the negation
of the Holocaust is today the principal motor of anti-Semitism.” We
would note similarly that the denialism of the Armenian genocide in
Turkey resulted in the assassination of Armenian Turkish journalist
Hrant Dink, and has resulted in violence to others in Turkey.
In referring to the Armenian genocide as “an international lie,” Mr.
Perencik reveals a level of extremism that belies all sense
of judgment. We believe that the Court makes a misstep when it
privileges Turkey’s denialism (a country with one of the worst records
on intellectual freedom and human rights over the past decades) as a
“heated debate.” As the IAGS has written in an Open Letter on denialism
and the Armenian genocide (October, 2006), “scholars who deny the
facts of genocide in the face of the overwhelming scholarly evidence
are not engaging in historical debate, but have another agenda. In
the case of the Armenian Genocide, the agenda is to absolve Turkey
of responsibility for the planned extermination of the Armenians–an
agenda consistent with every Turkish ruling party since the time of
the Genocide in 1915. Scholars who dispute that what happened to the
Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 constitutes genocide blatantly
ignore the overwhelming historical and scholarly evidence.”
As noted genocide scholar Deborah Lipstadt has written: “Denial of
genocide whether that of the Turks against the Armenians, or the Nazis
against the Jews is not an act of historical reinterpretation . . . .
The deniers aim at convincing innocent third parties that there is
another side of the story . . . when there is no other side.” We
believe that the Court’s decision and reasoning contributes to
denialism and this has a corrosive impact on efforts for truth and
reconciliation, and ethics.
We believe it important that the government of Switzerland request
a reexamination of the Court’s judgment in this case.
Sincerely,
Taner Akcam, Kaloosdian/Mugar Professor, Center for Holocaust and
Genocide Studies, Clark University
Margaret Lavinia Anderson; Professor of the Graduate School (Current);
Professor of History emerita; University of California – Berkley
Joyce Apsel, Master Teacher of Humanities, New York University;
Past President, International Association of Genocide Scholars
Yair Auron, head, Department of Sociology, Political Science and
Communication, The Open University of Israel
Peter Balakian, Donald M. and Constance H. Rebar Professor of the
Humanities, Colgate University
Annette Becker, Professor of History, University of Paris, Ouest
Nanterre La Defense; senior member, Institut Universitaire de France
Matthias Bjornlund, archival historian; Danish Institute for Study
Abroad (DIS), Copenhagen
Donald Bloxham, Professor of Modern History, University of Edinburgh
Hamit Bozarslan, Director, EHESS, Paris
Cathy Caruth, Frank H. T. Rhodes Professor of Humane Letters,
Cornell University
Frank Chalk, Professor of History; Director, Montreal Institute for
Genocide and Human Rights Studies
Israel Charny, Past President International Association of Genocide
Scholars; Director, Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem
Deborah Dwork, Rose Professor of History; Director of the Strassler
Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Clark University
Helen Fein, Independent Scholar; former executive director of Institute
for the Study of Genocide (New York)
Marcelo Flores, Professor of Comparative History; director, The
European Master in Human Rights and Genocide Studies, University
of Siena
Donna-Lee Frieze, Prins Senior Fellow, Center For Jewish History,
New York City; Visiting Fellow, Alfred Deakin Research Institute,
Deakin University, Melbourne.
Wolfgang Gust, Independent Scholar, Director armenocide.com.de Hamburg
Herbert Hirsch, Professor of Political Science, Virginia Commonwealth
University; co-editor, Genocide Studies International
Marianne Hirsch, William Peterfield Trent Professor of English and
Comparative Literature at Professor in the Institute for Research on
Women, Gender, and Sexuality; Columbia University
Tessa Hofmann, Prof. h.c. Dr. phil, Frie Universitat Berlin, Institute
for East European Studies
Richard Hovanissian, Professor Emeritus, Armenian and Near Eastern
History at the University of California, Los Angeles; Distinguished
Visiting Scholar at Chapman University and the University of
California, Irvine
Raymond Kevorkian, Historian, University of Paris-VIII-Saint Denis
Hans-Lukas Kieser, Professor of Modern History, University of Zurich
Mark Levene, Reader in Comparative History, University of Southampton,
UK
Robert Jay Lifton, MD; Distinguished Professor Emeritus, The City
University of New York
Deborah Lipstadt, Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish History and
Holocaust Studies, Emory University
Wendy Lower, John K. Roth Professor of History, Claremont McKenna
College
Robert Melson, Professor Emeritus, Purdue University; Past President,
International Association of Genocide Scholars
Donald E. Miller, Professor of Religion; Director, Center for Religion
and Civic Culture, University of Southern California
A. Dirk Moses, Professor of Global and Colonial History, European
University Institute, Florence and Senior Editor, Journal of Genocide
Research.
James R. Russell, Mashtots Professor of Armenian Studies, Harvard
University
Roger W. Smith, Professor Emeritus of Government, College of William
and Mary; Past President, International Association of Genocide
Scholars
Leo Spitzer, K.T. Vernon Professor of History Emeritus, Dartmouth
College
Gregory Stanton, Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention,
George Mason University; Past President, International Association
of Genocide Scholars
Yves Ternon, Historian of modern genocide, independent scholar, France
Henry C. Theriault, Professor of Philosophy, Worcester State
University; Co-Editor-in-Chief, Genocide Studies and Prevention
Eric D. Weitz, Dean of Humanities and Arts and Professor of History,
The City College of New York/Graduate Center
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2014/02/16/scholars-call-for-reexamination-of-echr-judgment-on-genocide-denial-case/
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2014/02/16/scholars-call-for-reexamination-of-echr-judgment-on-genocide-denial-case/