Genocide Denial

This contribution covers 111 years of German media reportage on the persecutions, massacres and eventual genocide of the Ottoman Armenians (1915/6). The  subdivisions of this chapter follow the chronology  of events during the pre-war years (1889-1914), the World War I period, the Weimar Republic and the post-World War II period. A dual focus looks into the media perception of the ‘atrocities’ and at the German press censorship fostered by voluntary journalistic self-censorship. In quantitative terms, the most intense period of media coverage coincedes with the Hamidian massacres (1895/6), but even they were treated as a side-aspect of German oriental policies, without bearing any significance in themselves and never resulting in massive humanitarian intervention.
Since 1915, the overall silence observed on the ‘Armenian Question’ was only briefly inter-rupted in 1921 during the Berlin trial of Soġomon T’ehlerean, the Armenian assassinator of Mehmet Talat, the erstwhile Turkish Minister and Grand Vizier. It attracted international media attention and, more significantly, the interest of the two young Jewish jurists (Raphael Lemkin, Robert Kempner), who would subsequently fight to criminalize the act of genocide by enshrining its punishment and prevention into international law.
The re-remembrance of the Armenian genocide and the question of Germany’s share in it came in the late 1970s as a side-aspect of the media coverage of the second wave of Armenian militancy denouncing the ‘crime of silence’. However, against the background of an increasingly multi-ethnic German society including an articulate immigrant community from Turkey as well as Turkish media and diplomatic activities in Germany, the doctrine of the German Federal governments since the year 2000 has returned to the old 19th century recipe of non-involvement and neutrality, now circumscribed as ‘non-confrontational dealing with the past’. Only 101 years post-factum the German legislators ended their indifference under the impression of increased public and medial interest.

Empirically, the analysis of the current period is based on the newspaper archives that I co-founded for the non-government organization Centre for Armenian Information and Documentation (Berlin).

Twenty-five years after the end of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), the memory of the conflict still constitutes a contested arena in which ethnonational movements build narratives of belonging and to legitimize their political projects of nation-building. This article draws on 13 months of ethnographic fieldwork conducted in the municipality of Gradiška, a Bosnian town administratively located in Republika Srpska (RS), the Serb-aligned entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The article discusses the role that different strategies of denial carried out by RS institutions play in the relationship young adults have with the past and constructing their individual and collective identities.

A century after the Armenian Genocide and its ongoing denial by the Turkish state, there has emerged a notable and unprecedented interest in the Armenian past and present both in civil society discourse and scholarship in Turkey, accompanied by various reconciliation iniatives at the state and society levels. Observers have suggested that this increased engagement with Turkey's suppressed past is an outcome of its EU candidacy, the democratization reforms of the early 2000s, and the shockwave among liberal segments of Turkish society caused by the 2007 assassination of Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. I argue that this shortsighted analysis, which completely ignores the Kurdish movement's transformative challenge to Turkish denialism since the 1980s, echoes the key fallacy of present discussions of Turkey's engagement with its past: compartmentalization and disjunction of interlinked state crimes.

To download click here : http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:85287

"The 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide was also the year of the revision by the High Chamber of the Doğu Perinçek v. Switzerland judgment rendered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on December 17, 2013. We focus here on one of the arguments set forth by the ECHR in 2013, which disfavours the Swiss criminal jurisdictions in this case of genocide denial: the problematic argument of the absence of a ‘general consensus’ on the 1915 genocide. This contribution aims to shed light on the paradoxes and consequences of such an argument that calls, notably, for a historical perspective – and demands, in particular, that we look back on the history of international criminal law".
Sévane Garibian

This article discusses three different forms of genocide denial that have-broadly speaking-followed one another in post-genocide Rwanda since 1994. Genocide denial is considered a stage of genocide, and each of these three forms of genocide denial is outlined, drawing on the seminal study on denial of Stanley Cohen. The article suggests that collective denial such as genocide denial should be distinguished analytically from more everyday forms of denial of atrocities and suffering. Three types of genocide denial-literal, interpretative, and implicatory-are identified and related to particular phases in post-genocide Rwandan history. It is shown that denial of the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda has been intertwined with post-genocide debates around fundamental causes and triggers of genocide. The article concludes with some reflections on instruments used by the Rwandan government to combat genocide denial, reflecting on the polarization of public and scholarly opinion on Rwanda's recent past.

These Teaching documents consist of three files: an introductory lecture (File "Einführungsvortrag"), slides ("Vortragsfolien") and the information of a guided history walk on Berlin's Hardenbergstraße (Berlin-Charlottenburg) and the Ecumencial Memorial for Genocide Victims in the Ottoman Empire in the same district (file "Lernreise... Englisch).

Scholarship on states’ responses to international norms has focused on commitment, compliance, and noncompliance; paying insufficient attention to responses that fall outside these categories. Beyond simply complying with or violating a norm; states contest, resist, and respond to international norms in a range of ways. I identify rhetorical adaptation as a central form of resistance to international norms. Rather than simply rejecting a norm or charges of norm violation, such a strategy draws on a norm’s content to resist pressures for compliance or minimize perceptions of violation. Theorizing the relationship between norms’ content and states’ resistant rhetoric, I identify four types of rhetorical adaptation: norm disregard, norm avoidance, norm interpretation, and norm signaling. To probe the plausibility of these propositions, a case study of Turkey’s post-World War II narrative of the Armenian Genocide traces a sequence of rhetorical adaptations over the past six decades. Building on the case study, I then draw out generalizable insights into the uses and effects of rhetorical adaptation. Connecting theoretical concerns in political science with the interdisciplinary fields of genocide studies and memory studies, I delineate the ways in which actors instrumentally use norms and expand understandings of the forms and effects of so-called norm takers’ agency.

To download click here : http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:89064

"Talaat Pacha, principal responsable du génocide des Arméniens, meurt assassiné en 1921 à Berlin alors qu’il s’y cache, en exil, sous un faux nom. Son tueur, le survivant-vengeur Soghomon Tehlirian, cherche au travers de son propre procès une tribune dénonçant les actes du bourreau de son peuple – bourreau préalablement condamné à mort par contumace dans son pays, à Constantinople. Ce dernier repose désormais en plein cœur d’Istanbul, dans un mausolée construit à la mémoire du « héros de la patrie » sur la Colline du Monument de la Liberté, aux côtés de son ancien Ministre de la guerre, Enver Pacha. Cette contribution vise à mettre au jour le lien entre la fin du bourreau, le traitement de ses restes et la politique négationniste toujours à l’œuvre en Turquie".
Sévane Garibian

In July 2021, the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina Valentin Inzko used the last days of his term to criminalize genocide denial by decree. This move has sparked a prolonged political crisis which seems to be coming to a bizarre end that is nothing but a horse-trading at the expense of the freedom of expression. Boycotting the Ban of Genocide Denial Denial and trivialization of the genocide committed in Srebrenica in the summer of 1995 is still widespread in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The genocide was confirmed by the ICTY and the ICJ and its recognition is an important element of post-conflict rebuilding of the society and a precondition for a peaceful coexistence between the previously conflicted parties-Serbs and Bosniaks. In response to the High Representative's decree, however, the political parties of the Republika Srpska, one of the entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, have been boycotting the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Ronald Grigor Suny’s << “They Can Live in
the Desert but Nowhere Else”: A History of the Armenian
Genocide>> and Fatma Muge Goc¸ek’s <<Denial of Violence:
Ottoman Pasts, Turkish Presents, and Collective Violence
against the Armenians, 1789–2009>> join a host of books
published during the centennial observations of that
genocide. These two books, however, are also something
much more. Suny and Goc¸ek formed the collegial bond
at the center of a decade-long movement to bring high research
standards and a strong sense of professionalism to
the study of one of the most brutal moments of twentieth century
history.

Denials of known genocides are not only the work of bigots, such as antisemites and neo-nazis who deny the Holocaust or Turkish ideologues who deny the history of the Armenian Genocide, but are voiced by many people in all walks of life, and even by bona fide respectable academicians. It is important to understand the motivations and thinking and mind formulations through which such denials are constructed and promoted. The present paper focuses on a concept of 'innocent denial' where the denier really may not be consciously entirely aware of the facts and not necessarily aware of their personal interests in choosing to join with deniers of a known genocide. However, it is emphasized that one must be alert to deniers who pretend 'innocence.' Five "thinking defense mechanisms" or ways of constructing and justifying denials are analyzed in a comparative analysis of two examples of denials, by German professor Ernst Nolte who denies the Holocaust, and Jewish professor Bernard Lewis who denies the Armenian Genocide. Interpretations are also given of David Irving a denier who denies being a denier, and Noam Chomsky who stands adamantly for the free speech of deniers in their relationships to denials of the Holocaust, and two case histories of denial of the Armenian Genocide in Israel are presented.

To download click here : http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:56067

ENGLISH VERSION FOLLOWS
"L’année du centenaire du génocide des Arméniens est aussi celle du réexamen (en cours), par la Grande Chambre, du jugement du 17 décembre 2013 de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme (CEDH) dans l’affaire Doğu Perinçek c. Suisse. C’est l’un des arguments apportés par la CEDH en 2013, désavouant les juridictions pénales suisses dans cette affaire de négationnisme, qui retiendra ici notre attention : celui, problématique, de l’absence de « consensus général » sur le génocide de 1915. Cette contribution vise à mettre en lumière les paradoxes et conséquences d’un tel argumentaire qui appelle notamment une mise en perspective historique – en particulier, un retour sur l’histoire du droit pénal international".
Sévane Garibian

"The 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide is also the year of the (on going) revision by the Grand Chamber of the Doğu Perinçek v. Switzerland judgment rendered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on December 17, 2013. We will focus here on one of the arguments set forth by the ECHR in 2013, which disfavors the Swiss criminal jurisdictions in this case of genocide denial: the problematic argument of the absence of a « general consensus » on the 1915 genocide. This contribution aims to shed light on the paradoxes and consequences of such an argument that calls, notably, for a historical perspective – and demands, in particular, that we look back on the history of international criminal law".
Sévane Garibian

To download click here : http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:33763

ENGLISH VERSION FOLLOWS
Contrairement à ce que l’on a pu lire, le débat français sur les lois dites mémorielles n’est pas clos. Pour preuve, le nombre de commentaires suscités par le dernier épisode d’un feuilleton qui divise l’opinion depuis une décennie : la censure, par le Conseil constitutionnel, de la loi Boyer de 2011 visant à réprimer la contestation de l’existence des génocides reconnus par la loi, dans une décision très attendue du 28 février 2012 laquelle, au risque de décevoir, brouille les termes du débat. Celle-ci ne nous éclaire, en effet, ni sur la constitutionnalité de lois considérées comme non normatives (telles que la loi du 29 janvier 2001 reconnaissant le génocide des Arméniens) ; ni sur celle de la pénalisation du négationnisme en son principe (opérée à ce jour par la seule loi Gayssot). Plus que cela : l’analyse de la décision confuse du Conseil constitutionnel révèle un évitement de statuer sur ces deux points – évitement dont on questionnera le caractère stratégique –, renouvelant ainsi les interrogations, y compris sur la loi Gayssot que les Sages mettent paradoxalement en danger.
Sévane Garibian

Despite reports to the contrary, the debate in France over the so-called “memory” laws has yet to be resolved. The proof of this is to be found in the volume of comment generated by the latest episode in a soap opera that has been dividing opinion for more than a decade: the striking down of the 2011 Boyer law, which sought to sanction the denial of the existence of genocides recognized as such by the law, in an eagerly awaited ruling pronounced on 28 February 2012 which, at the risk of disappointing some parties, blurred the terms of the debate. For this ruling clarifies neither the constitutionality of laws considered as non-binding (such as the law of 29 January 2001 recognizing the Armenian genocide) nor that of the principle of sanctioning genocide denial (which is still only covered by the Gayssot law). And that is not all: an analysis of the Constitutional Council’s confused decision reveals an active avoidance of making a ruling on these two points – an  avoidance which looks suspiciously like being strategic in nature – thus bringing a whole range of issues into question, including the Gayssot law itself, which France’s lawgivers have, paradoxically, placed in jeopardy.
Sévane Garibian

Avrupalı kanun koyucular tarafından tasarlanan “soykırımı inkâr” suçları ülkemizde uzun süredir 1915 Sevk ve İskanı bağlamında tartışılmaktadır. Bu durum, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin (AİHM) Perinçek – İsviçre” davasına ilişkin kararlarından sonra daha da geçerli olmuş ve söz konusu kararlar, bir iç siyaset savı oluşturma maksadıyla bağlamından koparılmıştır. Neticede, Avrupa’daki yurttaşlarımızın tarihimizle ilgili bilgi ve görüşlerini ifade etme haklarını savunmak adına somut adımlar atılamamış ve Türkiye karşıtı tezlerle etkili bir şekilde mücadele edilememiştir.

Dolayısıyla; bu makalede Avrupa’da yürürlükte olan “soykırımı inkâr” suçlarına ilişkin mevzuat ve uygulamalar, insan hakları ve anayasa hukuku açısından mukayeseli bir şekilde mercek altına alınmaktadır. Bu çerçevede öncelikle “soykırımı inkâr” suçlarının “Holokost’un inkârı” ile özdeşleşen tarihi ele alınmakta ve Holokost’un Nazi rejiminden etkilenen ülkeler için önemine değinilmektedir. Sonrasında, başta ilgili Avrupa Birliği (AB) mevzuatı olmak üzere Avrupa’da “soykırımın inkârı”na ilişkin ceza normları incelenmekte ve konu Avrupa’daki anayasa mahkemelerinin içtihatları ışığında değerlendirilmektedir. Hukuki tahlilin son aşamasında, AİHM ve BM İnsan Hakları Komitesi’nin (BMİHK) “soykırımı inkâr” suçlarına yaklaşımı gerek içtihat, gerekse BMİHK Genel Yorumları kapsamında işlenmekte ve “nefret söylemi içermediği sürece tarihî olaylar üzerine yapılan hukuki değerlendirmeler cezalandırılamaz” tezi savunulmaktadır. Bu değerlendirmenin sonucunda da Türk diplomasisi ve Türk hukukçular için “soykırım inkârı suçları” ve “soykırım iddiaları” hakkında bir dizi öneride bulunulmaktadır.

In this article we examine how Armenian Genocide denialism is expressed and why it took place in urban areas and symbolic spaces during the Second Karabakh War. Denialism took the form of a 'battle' against Armenian heritage and Genocide-related memorials, from destruction to vandalism, from the heroization of old perpetrators of violence to direct violence against Turkish and diasporic Armenian communities. The denial of the Armenian Genocide penetrated the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Alongside Turkey, Azerbaijan also denies the Armenian Genocide and campaigns against its international recognition. The discussion will address the following questions: How was Turkish denialism symbolically reproduced in the Second Karabakh War narratives as an expression of a political strategy? How was denialism linked to the different urban settings and the transnational context? How was it transferred from the Syrian War to the Karabakh War in terms of symbols, actors and narratives?

To download click here : https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:10702

Faut-il craindre la reconnaissance d'un génocide par la loi ? On est tenté de le croire au regard des difficultés rencontrées à l'occasion des débats relatifs à la reconnaissance législative du génocide des Arméniens. Si la loi est définitivement adoptée le 29 janvier 2001, un retour sur la controverse juridique est riche d’enseignement car il permet d’appréhender ce qui est en jeu au delà même de ce cas d’espèce. Il est remarquable de constater une confusion entre deux types de questions, tout à fait différentes, soulevées alors. Il convient en effet de distinguer nettement le point de savoir si une telle reconnaissance est juridiquement possible ou si elle est juridiquement souhaitable. Autrement dit, il s'agit de déterminer si cette reconnaissance se heurte à des obstacles strictement juridiques et/ou à des obstacles de politique juridique. Si l'analyse des obstacles juridiques conduit à considérer qu'il est possible, au regard des règles constitutionnelles, d'adopter une loi reconnaissant un génocide, l'analyse des obstacles de politique juridique invite, quant à elle, à engager une discussion plus large au sein de laquelle il est nécessaire de dépasser les clivages ayant parfois lieu entre les historiens, les juristes, et les politiques.
Sévane Garibian et Stéphane Rapin

To download click here : https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:104681

The last decade witnessed the death of a number of notable war criminals, criminals against humanity, genocidaires, dictators or terrorists, amongst these Slobodan Milosevic, Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Osama Ben Laden and Muammar Gaddafi. Though the circumstance of each death may differ greatly, the questions each death raises are the same: when and how did these criminals die? What should one do with their remains? How does one apprehend their legacy, the memory of their persona and their crimes?
Despite being of a timely and crucial nature, these questions have prompted little attention in the field of legal and social sciences to date. While there is a renewed interest in the perpetrator’s discourse as a source of information, studies that refer to his fate once he is dead are rare. This work intends to fill this gap.
The interdisciplinary reflection undertaken here puts in dialogue the contributions of law, history and anthropology, focusing on three main themes: the death of the perpetrator, the post-mortem treatment of his body, and the question of patrimonialization, faced with the demands of justice and reparation. This volume intends to shed light on the issues surrounding the end of mass criminals – a death never banal, even when it is natural.
Sévane GARIBIAN

To download click here : http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:75211

ENGLISH VERSION FOLLOWS
« El Estado turco ha cometido el delito de genocidio contra el Pueblo Armenio, en el periodo comprendido entre los años 1915 y 1923 ». Esta declaración realizada por un juez federal argentino el primero de abril de 2011 en Buenos Aires, se encuentra en el núcleo de una sentencia definitiva que constituye una primicia mundial y conlleva la consagración jurídica – el (re)conocimiento- de los testigos olvidados de un crimen negado por Turquía. La sentencia se inscribe en un marco singular y único en su género: la práctica judicial sui generis de los juicios por la verdad, auténtica especificidad nacional creada en Argentina en los años noventa para revertir la política del olvido de la época en lo relativo a los crímenes de la dictadura militar. Una práctica cuya existencia misma es el producto directo de una situación inicial de borrado e impunidad, que incita a la creación de mecanismos judiciales alternativos de certificación del hecho criminal y de consagración de sus víctimas/testigos.
Sévane Garibian


“The Turkish state perpetrated the crime of genocide against the Armenian people between 1915 and 1923.” This statement, made in Buenos Aires on 1 April 2011 by an Argentinian Federal Judge, constitutes the core of a court decision that is the first of its kind in the world and that offers a legal consecration – (re)cognition – of the forgotten witnesses of a crime denied by Turkey. The sentence takes its place in an altogether singular framework: the sui generis judicial practice of juicio por la verdad (trial for the truth), a national procedure created in Argentina in the 1990s in response to the politics of forgetting then related to the crimes committed during the military dictatorship. This practice is the direct product of an initial situation of effacement and impunity which calls for the creation of alternative judicial mechanisms of validation of the criminal fact and consecration of its victims / witnesses.
Sévane Garibian

Abstract Denial is considered to be the eighth and the final stage of genocide. Facing this issue, many European Union countries have opted to incriminate genocide denial. Furthermore, with the aim of harmonising national legislations, Framework Decision No. 2008/913/JHA was adopted in 2008, obliging the Member States to incriminate “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes”. Genocide and other crimes denial is still present in Bosnia and Herzegovina, even though the rulings of the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, have shown that genocide was committed over Bosnian Muslims, in July 1995 in Srebrenica and its surrounding areas, as well as other numerous crimes against humanity and war crimes across entire Bosnia and Herzegovina. From 2007 there have been a number of attempts to incriminate genocide denial at the state level in Bosnia, but all of them were unsuccessful due to the opposition by representatives of Republika Srpska. Finally, in 2014, the genocide denial was incriminated in the Criminal Code of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an act of encouraging “national, racial and religious hatred, rift and intolerance”.

Sloboda izražavanja, riječima Evropskog suda za ljudska prava, predstavlja jedan od osnovnih temelja demokratskog društva, kao i osnovnih preduvjeta za njegov razvoj, ali i napredak svakog čovjeka. Kao takva, sloboda izražavanja je prepoznata i zaštićena kao ljudsko pravo Evropskom konvencijom za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda, Općom deklaracijom o ljudskim pravima, Međunarodnim paktom o građanskim i političkim pravima te Poveljom o temeljnim pravima Evropske unije, jednako kao što je svrstana u katalog ljudskih prava velikog broja ustava u svijetu, među kojima je i Ustav Bosne i Hercegovine. Paralelno, konzumiranjem slobode izražavanja moguće je povrijediti neko drugo jednako važno i garantovano ljudsko pravo, zbog čega i ova sloboda može biti ograničena. Najradikalniji oblik zloupotrebe slobode izražavanja predstavlja govor mržnje, koji kao takav, nije predmet pravne zaštite.
Poseban vid zloupotrebe slobode izražavanja, ali i teški oblik govora mržnje, predstavlja poricanje genocida, koje, još uvijek, nije međunarodno krivično djelo, iako je inkriminisano u nekim nacionalnim zakonodavstvima. U pravu Bosne i Hercegovine, negiranje genocida predstavlja krivično djelo samo u jednom njenom entitetu, što je posebno sporno, prevashodno zbog relativno svježe prošlosti počinjenog i presuđenog genocida na području Srebrenice, Doboja, i drugih mjesta u toj državi. Krivičnopravna zaštita, iako uglavnom najrigidniji, ne predstavlja i jedini odgovor države na govor mržnje, koji je, sudeći po svim izvještajima tijela koja se bave monitoringom ovog retrogradnog fenomena u Bosni i Hercegovini, vrlo čest u javnom diskursu.

ISRAEL W. CHARNY discusses denials of genocidal crimes as a serious human rights problem. Such denials make claims on the minds of people by coopting the historical record, rewriting it, and in effect "killing the truth" -which is also a symbolic echo of the original killings of the actual human victims. However, there are also any number of instances of denial which issue from people who are not bigots, including many who are predominantly innocent and naive, who adopt a revisionist position because it satisfies hidden needs for them of which they themselves may or may not be aware. Charny offers a psychological theory that explains the emotional satisfactions and rewards that are inherent in the adoption of denials of known genocides when these denials are not linked to any form of malevolent hatred, bigotry, or political power.

This is the syllabus for the new one-term module I have written for SOAS and just finished teaching this week, ending with Genocide and the Rohingya, Armenians, and other targeted groups. We rotate teaching this, but if I am teaching this again next year, I would appreciate recommendations from colleagues on academia.edu for additions to the readings. It is the most rewarding course I have taught in terms of what I, as the teacher, gained from preparing it. Its changed how I look at the impact history has and should have, reaffirmed the importance of inter-disciplinarity, made clearer just how much global inequalities contributing to violence is even more true today than in the colonial period, and revealed the responsibility of consumers in the hemispheric north in southern suffering.

This module seeks to understand the phenomena and impact of war and collective violence in the non-Western world-to understand how violence emerges from particular historical circumstances and how it produces different consequences in different periods and geographical, cultural, ethnic, and even religious contexts.

The paper examines the Grand Chamber Judgment of the ECtHR on the Perinçek v Switzerland case, first ever in which the Court deals with the
criminalization of the denial or gross minimisation of a genocide other than the Shoah. In contrast with its previous case law on Holocaust denial, the Court disentangles
the conflict between the criminal protection of the dignity of victims and the
freedom of expression of the applicant striking the balance in favour of the second. The paper analyses this jurisprudential landmark in light of a critique of the notion of 'militant democracy' in the fight against racism and xenophobia.