Tag: Maxime Gauin

MAXIME GAUIN PULAT TACAR

Reply  to “State Identity, Continuity and Responsibility: The Ottoman Empire,

                          the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide”

                                                                          Pulat Tacar[1] and Maxime Gauin[2]

Degerli dostlarim, sevgili meslekdaslarim                    25.04.2012

European Journal of International Law  (EJIL) yaklasik bir yil once kendilerine yayimlanmak uzere  yollanan – İsvec’te mukim bir Ermeni tarafindan kaleme alindigini  yaptigimiz inceleme sonucunda ogrendigimiz-

        “State Identity, Continuity and Responsibility: The Ottoman Empire,

                          the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide”

bir  makale taslagini  karsi gorus  (cevap)  yazmam talebi ile   bana yolladi. Sagligim uzun sure bilgisayar onun de calismama olanak saglamamaktaydi. Bu talebi reddedersem, “Turklere yazdik cevap vermek istemediler ” gerekcesi ile -ulkemiz  hakkinda gercekten cok agir ve asilsiz suclamalar iceren- bu yaziyi  herhalde yayimlayacaklarini  dusunerek, Ankara’da doktorasini yapmakta olan  Fransiz Maxime Gauin’in yardimini rica ettim. Ekte sundugum cevabi  yazdik ve 24.04.2012 tarihinde  EJIL’e yolladik.

13 sahifelik bu yazimiz  35 sayfalik makaleye  cevap teskil ediyor.

EJIL  bu  cevabimizi yayimlar mi ? Bilmiyorum. Rahatsiz olacaklarini  ve Ermeni militanlarin serrinden korkacaklarini  sanirim.  En azindan  yayimlamazlar ise,  orijinal makaleyi de  yayimlamazlar  insallah

Ayrica, bilimsel dergilerde adet oldugu uzere, makaleye verilecek cevabimiza, orijinal makale yazarinin  verecegi  cevabi da  yayimlamak istediklerini bana bildiren EJIL’e , yazar, makale hakkindaki yorumumuza   cevap verirse, buna  verecegimiz  cevabi da  birlikte yayimlamalari gerektigini  hatırlattim.

Yazimizi bilgi ve degerlendirmenize  sunuyorum.  Yorumumuzu  okumak zahmetine katlanacak  arkadaslar, meslekdaslar  goruslerini  bildirirlerse  sevinirim.

Saygilariğmi sunarim. Dostlukla

Pulat Tacar

—————–

Reply  to “State Identity, Continuity and Responsibility: The Ottoman Empire,

                          the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide”

                                                                                              Pulat Tacar[1] and Maxime Gauin[2]

Introduction

We have been asked by the European Journal of International Law to write a reply to a manuscript titled “State Identity, Continuity and Responsibility: The Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide”. The said manuscript accuses Turkey of “practicing a denialist policy” with regard to “the act of genocide committed during 1915-1916,” demanding it “make itself responsible for its own internationally wrongful acts committed against Armenians and other Christian minorities,” and also accused it of “expanding the massacres beyond its borders into the Caucasus and the territories of the independent Republic of Armenia.” According to the same manuscript, there is a state succession and continuation of responsibility from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic, and the Republic must assume full responsibility for and should also repair the injury caused by the Ottoman Empire.

The Armenian question is especially sensitive, among other reasons because of the long accumulation of prejudices against Turks[3], Armenian terrorism of 1973-1991[4], the Armenian invasion and occupation of western Azerbaijan since 1992[5], or more recently the virulent anti-Turkish  stance of Anders Breivik in his manifesto[6] and the various campaigns or attacks by Armenian nationalists.[7] Instead of easing the tensions, the manuscript  fuels them through the provocative[8], defaming,[9] irredentist[10] remarks of its author who harbors in his writings the colors of a political pamphleteer.

On this sensitive issue our main objective is to restore much-needed understanding and fair as well as reconciliatory dialogue between the Armenian and Turkish people and all interested parties, including scholars.[11]

“The right to truth” encompasses all the aspects of the truth and all the pages of history; in short, “a just memory.” Thus, initiatives for dialogue between those who defend different views should be promoted. In this respect, the creation of joint commissions foreseen by the protocols between Armenia and Turkey will no doubt serve the cause of reconciliation, even if parties to the conflict insist on highlighting their views on the different aspects of “their truth.” We believe, like the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur, that history is not frozen or rigid forever; that assessments categorized as historical truth cannot be conclusive, and that the assertions related to historical knowledge develop. Consequently, research on history is continuous.

Paul Ricoeur,[12] who has received international recognition with his book titled Memory, History, Forgetting, criticized the concept of “collective memory” and pointed out that some ideologies have been formed under the auspices of this concept concerning the warning—reminded frequently by local and foreign scholars or politicians—on “completing the task of memory.” Paul Ricoeur emphasized that not the “task of memory” but a “study of memory” process should be developed in our minds. He further stated that discussions around “rightful memory” create a difficult picture vis-à-vis those who are forced somewhere to exceedingly remember their sorrows, and who may somewhere else equally face the position of those who tend to excessively forget that conviction and punishment are the task of judges. The citizen must resist “forgetting” and at the same time should possess a ‘just memory.’ The task of the historian is not to accuse or exculpate, but to understand; the ‘study of memory’ is open to improvement and its feature of défamiliarisation [13] outweighs the task of memory.”

As we address our comments to the European Journal for International Law, we intend to focus  mainly on the   international   law aspects of the  question.

I.  Why  Turkey does not qualify the tragic events of 1915-1916 as genocide?

1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

The main incrimination of the author is that Turkey denies recognizing the 1915-1916 Armenian genocide. Let us scrutinize if such an accusation is legally sustainable.

“The concept of the “Armenian genocide” is being used in a historical and political rather than in a legal perspective. It has become a catchword which reveals deep scars in the Armenian collective memory. Learned legal discussions on the issue of genocidal intent are of little or no relevance to the perception by the Armenians of one of the most defining moments of their history [14]”.

The term “genocide” is a legal term; it describes a crime specifically defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention and must be addressed accordingly. The existence of the crime of genocide can be legally determined only by the judges of a competent tribunal on the basis of the prescribed legal criteria and after a fair and impartial trial. The Genocide Convention does not allow for convictions on genocide by legislatures, scholars, pamphleteers, politicians or others. Some historians, sociologists, politicians and even political scientists who dealt with these issues tend to describe almost any incident which involves a significant number of dead[15] as genocide; they sometimes purposely mislead those who are not familiar with the law;  they created  an “Armenian taboo”  and now  they are prisoners of it.[16] Indeed,

“To term the events of 1915 as genocide is to detach genocide from its legal definition and to use it for political or moral purposes. Whether it is sound to keep hammering on a legal term based on non-legal considerations is doubtful… it adds to a wrong conceptualization of the legal system and eventually could lead to a devaluation of the norm itself…” [17]

But, Armenians and some of their supporters have deliberately set aside the legal aspects of the issue, because –they thought-  it would weaken their genocide claims. They have chosen to adopt a dogmatic political approach to underline the tragic nature of the incidents so that they can make genocide claims more easily acceptable by the public.[18]

Dolus specialis – special intent

The most important characteristic of the Genocide Convention is that for the crime of genocide to exist, acts must have been committed with the intent to destroy the protected groups as such. The mental or subjective element (mens rea) is a constituent of that crime. The concept of “general intent,” which is valid for ordinary crimes, is inadequate in the identification of acts of genocide.

Sociologically and psychologically, the intent “to destroy a group as such” emerges in the most intensive stage of racism. Racial hatred is quite different from the ordinary animosity laced with anger, which parties engaged in a substantial dispute may feel toward one another. Racial hatred is a deeply pathological feeling or complicated fanaticism. Anti-Semitism is an example in this context.[19]

According to the Genocide Convention, the intent to destroy a group must be in the form of “special intent,” dolus specialis, beyond any doubt. This crucial aspect of the crime of genocide has been underlined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in paragraph 187 of its verdict on Bosnia Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro[20]: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) examined the allegations by Bosnia and Herzegovina and conducted long and detailed investigations regarding the alleged atrocities, the findings of which are grouped according to the categories of prohibited acts described in Article II of the Genocide Convention. With regard to killing members of the protected group, the Court found that massive killings throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina were perpetrated during the conflict. However, with the exception of Srebrenica, the Court was not convinced that those killings were accompanied by the specific intent on the part of the perpetrators to destroy in whole or in part the group of Bosnian Muslims. So, if the “special intent” is not proven beyond any doubt, judicially an act cannot be qualified as genocide. The cases of civil war, rebellion, and mutual killings should not be confused with the crime of genocide.

A competent tribunal to judge the genocidal acts

Moreover, the existence of the crime of genocide must be decided by a competent tribunal. Article VI of the 1948 Genocide Convention on the subject reads as follows:

Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

The issue of a competent tribunal had been debated extensively by the International Preparatory Conference of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The question of determining a competent tribunal was resolved[21] after lengthy discussion and the above-mentioned text was approved. During the discussions, a proposal of “universal repression” was rejected[22]. Universal repression foresees the judging of the suspects by any tribunal of any state. Without a valid decision from a competent court, an act cannot legally be qualified as genocide.

The Turkish government and the overwhelming majority of Turks, as well as other governments [23] and  many scholars  or experts     reject qualifying the  tragic events of 1915    as genocide, because the sine qua non legal conditions incorporated in the 1948 Genocide Convention have not been fulfilled. These torts  may be  legally qualified  criminal acts foreseen  by the Ottoman Penal Code and / or mutual killings.[24]

On this occasion we would like to underline that, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey Mr. Ahmet Davutoğlu very clearly stated he was not insensitive to the sufferings of the Ottoman Armenians, but  was expecting the same understanding from the Armenian side with regard to the plight of the Muslim Ottomans which equally suffered during the same tragic events.[25] The Turkish government has more than once declared that it was ready to consider and eventually accept the conclusion of historians and legal experts who will meet to study the tragic events of 1915-1916; but Yerevan refused.[26] Regardless, Ankara has supported the Vienna platform since 2004, which in 2009 published a large compilation of documents.[27] Turkey fully opened its archives—unlike the Armenian Revolutionary Federation and the Armenian Patriarchate at Jerusalem—, and, according to Dr. Hilmar Kaiser, a supporter of the “Armenian genocide” label, there is no evidence for deliberate destruction of Ottoman documents.[28]

Other general principles of international criminal law on internationally wrongful acts

Thos who  refer to internationally  wrongful acts in the context of  1915 events, should also take into  consideration  the  following  principles of international law:

“Nulla crimen sine lege”[29] and “Nulla poena sine lege”[30]

The governing principles of criminal law are also valid for the crime of genocide: “Nulla crimen sine lege,” which means no crime shall exist without law, and “Nulla poena sine lege,” which means no person shall be punished without a law foreseeing such punishment.

Ne bis in idem

The principle “Ne bis in idem”[31] means that no person shall be tried with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the competent court.

The Turkish government and the great majority of Turks do not deny that Ottoman Armenians, together with Muslim and other Ottoman citizens, were the subject of a great tragedy[32] during the 1915-1916 events,  that they lost their lives, properties, families as well as their homes. During the relocation or the transfer of a population within the borders of Ottoman territory, a number of military personnel or civil servants and other members of the population committed crimes in spite of orders given by the Ottoman government to protect the lives and properties of the displaced Armenians.

The 1915-1916 trials by the Ottoman government for crimes against Ottoman Armenians

In this respect it should be underlined that the criminality associated with the tragic events and the relocation of the Ottoman Armenians during the years 1915-1916 was addressed by the Ottoman judiciary. Individuals or members of the groups who attacked the Armenian convoys and officials who exploited the Armenian plight, neglected their duties or abused their powers were court-martialed and punished.

In 1915, more than 20 Muslims were sentenced to death and executed for such charges.[33] Following a report of Talat Pasha, the Ottoman government created three commissions[34] to investigate the complaints of Armenians and the denunciations of civil servants. As a result, in March-April 1916, 1673 Muslims—including captains, lieutenants, first and second lieutenants, commanders of gendarme squads, police superintendents, and mayors—were sent to martial courts. 67 were sentenced to death, 524 were sentenced to jail, 68 received other punishments such as forced labor, imprisonment in forts, and exile. Since the author of the manuscript stresses the alleged “confiscation” of Armenian properties by the Ottoman State, it is not unimportant to notice that several people were sentenced to death for plunder, and that other death sentences were justified not only by murders, but also by robberies.[35]

The Malta Investigation

In 1919, the Ottoman government asked its Spanish, Dutch, Danish and Swedish counterparts to send impartial investigators of the Anatolian events of WWI. The demand went in vain because of British pressure.[36]

Furthermore, the occupying British forces brought 144 Ottoman officials to Malta to judge them in a tribunal for presumed war crimes and crimes against Armenians. The author misrepresents the case of those 144 Ottoman officials interned in Malta from 1919 to 1921. They were released after more than two years of unsuccessful investigation by a British prosecutor and his staff. The occupying powers had not found enough evidence in the British, U.S. and Armenian archives, or in the Ottoman documentation seized by the British army. The statement of the author that the archives had been destroyed does not reflect the truth. It is known that at that time the British government relied on an Armenian researcher Haig Khazarian in its hunt for incriminating evidence against Ottoman officials brought to Malta. The British also requested the U.S. government’s help for this purpose, but received the response that there was not enough evidence there. If even the slightest proof existed at the hands of British authorities—enough to inculpate the prisoners at Malta—the trials would surely have taken place against the Ottoman citizens which were sent to Malta to face trial.[37]

Malta’s prosecutor refused to use the material of the courts-martial of 1919-1920. Indeed, the trial of the ministers in 1919 was legally null and void, since it took place as a court-martial. According to the Ottoman Constitution, the ministers had to be judged only by the High Court for the crimes committed in the exercise of their responsibilities. As early as 1919, the right to appeal the sentences was suppressed. The courts-martial of 1919-1920 did not allow the right of cross-examination, which exists even at Guantanamo. In April 1920, Damat Ferit Pasha even banned the defendants from hiring a lawyer. After the final fall of Damat Ferit, the right to appeal and hire a lawyer was restored. All the surviving convicts of April-October 1920 appealed the decisions, and they were acquitted of all or most of the charges. These decisions took place when Istanbul was still occupied by the Entente.[38]

Malta’s prosecutor did not adopt the allegations against the Ottoman Special Organization (SO) unit. Actually, the Special Organization took no part in the forced Armenian displacements and massacres and no observer of WWI accused this unit of crimes against Armenians. Many years after WWI, Mr. Dadrian, followed by Mr. Akçam, seriously distorted their material and invented references to the SO which actually do not exist in the records. For instance, they reverted purely and simply the sense of the Memoirs of Arif Cemil Denker, a officer of SO during WWI, seriously distorted the Memoirs and the statements and another officer, Eşref Kuşçubaşı, and falsely alleged that the martial-courts of 1919-1920 found the Ottoman SO guilty for Armenian deportation and massacres. Mr. Dadrian and Mr. Akçam also neglected the relevant Ottoman military documents.[39]

The eastern front

According to the author:

Turkey did continue the same internationally wrongful acts, even expanding the massacres beyond its own borders into the Caucasus and the territories of the independent Republic of Armenia…

We assume that the author wants to refer to the 1920 Turco-Armenian war. Much is written about that tragic period. One of the correct evaluations about the stated period was made by the then-Prime Minister of Armenia Hovannes Kachaznuni. He wrote:

Despite these hypotheses there remains an irrefutable fact. That we had not done all that was necessary for us to have done to evade war. We ought to have used peaceful language with the Turks whether we succeeded or not, and we did not do it. […] With the carelessness of inexperienced and ignorant men we did not know what forces Turkey had mustered on our frontiers. When the skirmishes had started the Turks proposed that we meet and confer. We did not do so and defied them.[40]

We would strongly recommend that those who are interested be acquainted with the realities of that time to consult this book. This may help them refresh their memories. Furthermore, we should add that the Russian, United States, British and Turkish archives are full of documents which prove the atrocities committed by the Armenian forces in eastern Anatolia during that period. A fact which some leaders of the Armenians are proud of and do not deny.[41]

After the end of the Turco-Armenian War, the Kars Treaty was signed on October 13, 1921 by the delegates of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia and Turkey. The intervention of the then-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia Mr. Muravian, who attended the Kars Peace Treaty Conference on September 22, 1921, is also worth mentioning to reflect the Armenian position at that point. He said:

We have not come here with antagonistic feelings and we have no intentions of presenting here the controversial issues we have inherited from the former nationalist governments. We are only admirers of the brave struggle which the preserving people of Turkey engaged in. We carry a sincere wish, and we are absolutely convinced that a nation which defends its country will be victorious and the enemy will be defeated.[42]

Is The War of Independence a Myth Invented By Kemalists?

The author alleges that “The “War of Independence” is a myth invented by Kemalists; that it was not against the occupying Allies, but rather a campaign to clear Turkey from remaining “non-Turkish elements.” Even Taner Akçam does not assume such an absurd [43] stance. The author should ask himself the reason why France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Greece and other powers signed the Treaty of Lausanne which ended WWI and the War of Independence if this war had been a myth.

The Kemalist movement was by no means hostile to the non-Muslims and was supported, not only by most of the Turkish Jews[44], but also by a portion of Istanbul’s Armenians, like the Karabetian Society and the Deputy Director General of the Ottoman Bank (promoted Director general during WWI), Berç Keresteciyan (1870-1949), future deputy of the Turkish National Assembly from 1935 to 1946. [45]

Contrary to the author’s false allegations, the National Liberation Government even tried to keep the Christian population of Cilicia at the end of 1921—in vain, because of the Armenian nationalist propaganda.[46] Similarly, the exodus of most of the Christians of western Anatolia is chiefly due to the torched earth policy of the Greek army in 1922.[47]Most of the allegations of “massacre” against the National Liberation Movement were proven to be false.[48]

II. Pacta sunt servanda and lex specialis principles governing the liabilities and legal responsibilities of the Ottoman State and of the Republic of Turkey

After WWI and the War of Liberation, Turkey concluded international agreements to put an end to the wars and insurgencies disrupting the country and region’s peace since 1914. Some of these agreements contained amnesty clauses. The amnesties aimed to cover the humanitarian dimensions of the tragic past.

To ignore these agreements and the declarations is in contradiction to the jus specialis principle foreseen by Article 55 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and also the principle of pacta sunt servanda.

Let us briefly examine the Lausanne, Kars and Ankara treaties as well as the agreement between the United States and Turkey on all compensation demands.

The Treaty of Lausanne

The Treaty of Lausanne signed on July 24, 1923 included a Declaration of amnesty according to which Turkish nationals, and reciprocally nationals of the other signatory powers of the Treaty of Lausanne, who were arrested, prosecuted or sentenced prior to November 20, 1922, benefited from an amnesty.

In addition, the Treaty of Lausanne, in ending the war between Turkey and other powers, decreed that former Ottoman citizens, who resided in countries that were separated from Turkey by Article 31 of the Lausanne Treaty and who had automatically gained citizenship of that country by Article 30, would have the right within two years to choose Turkish citizenship. Through these decrees, all the Armenians who were on that day outside the borders of Turkey and who retained Turkish citizenship, and those Armenians who were in those countries separated from Turkey, obtained the right to return to Turkey if they so wished. Article 6 of the Amnesty Declaration attached to the Lausanne Treaty states regarding the same subject:

The Turkish Government which shares the desire for general peace with all the Powers, announces that it will not object to the measures implemented between 20 October 1918 and 20 November 1922, under the protection of the Allies, with the intention of bringing together again the families which were separated because of the war, and of returning possessions to their rightful owners.

It is apparent that this article concerned the individuals who were forced to emigrate, and who returned to their homes during the period of armistice and occupation. At that time, Turkey announced that these procedures, prepared under the control of the occupation powers, would be maintained without modification. According the U.S. archives[49], 644,900 Armenians returned and settled in Anatolia after the war and right before the Treaty of Sevres.^[50] By returning to Ottoman territories in 1918–1919, many Armenians regained some of their properties they had left behind during the 1915 transfer of population. For instance, the number of properties returned by April 30, 1919 was recorded as 241,000. This comprised approximately 98% of the immovable properties^[51]. Records also state that some problems and injustices took place during the application of the regulations^[52]. The possibility of judicially challenging these injustices continues to exist. Two recent decisions of the local courts in Adana and in Sarıyer (Istanbul) which returned properties to one Lebanese and one Turkish citizen of Armenian origin prove that those who possess appropriate documents may present their cases to a competent court, and if unsatisfied to bring the file to the European Court of Human Rights.

It has already been mentioned that Ottoman citizens who committed crimes during the transfer of population were punished in courts-martial held during 1915-1916 pursuant to the Ottoman Penal Code.

Article 65 of the Treaty of Lausanne stipulates that property of individuals who had foreign citizenship when the war started and whose possessions in Turkey had been confiscated would be returned to them. Article 95 gave a deadline for inquiries on this matter. Section VIII and paragraph six of the Lausanne Treaty on the Declaration of Amnesty declared the Turkish government’s intent to not contest the measures carried out under the auspices of the English and French during the period between 1918 and 1922 regarding Armenians scattered around outside Turkish borders returning and their properties being given back to them. According to this, Armenians wanting to return to Turkey would return. Arrangements were made concerning the measures for Armenians whose properties were returned to them; they would maintain their validity, a timeframe was determined for the Armenians to make their requests, and in order to resolve possible disagreements that could arise, a Special Civil Claims Tribunalwas created. Judges of various countries to stand by Turkish judges were also foreseen in these courts[53].

Liquidation of the Ottoman debts and other economic aspects

Finally, Articles 46-63 of the Lausanne Treaty were about the liquidation of the debts of the Ottoman State. The Republic of Turkey paid all the Ottoman debts.

According to Article 58 of the Treaty of Lausanne, the parties to the treaty reciprocally renounced all claims for the loss and damage suffered between August 1, 1914 and June 6, 1924 as a result of acts of war or measures of requisition, sequestration, disposal or confiscation.

Articles 65-72 also entailed economic clauses; in the section of properties, rights and interests, all legal interests and interests related to properties of those subjected to relocation were protected. Article 74 entailed special provisions related to insurance contracts and in relation, prescription. The following take into account those provisions.

Moscow and Kars Treaties

The Moscow Treaty of March 16, 1921 was signed between Turkey and Russia. Thereafter, the Treaty of Kars was concluded between Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia on October 13, 1921. The Treaty Kars signed before the Treaty of Lausanne settled the conflicts between Turkey and Armenia as well as the other Caucasian republics. This Treaty stated in Article 15 that “each of the Contracting Parties agrees to promulgate a complete amnesty to citizens of the other Party for crimes and offenses committed during the course of the war on the Caucasian front.”

The “murders and atrocities” were by no means limited to actions of Turks and other Muslims against Armenians. The investigation of Captain Emory H. Niles and Arthur E. Sutherland in eastern Anatolia during the year 1919 led them to conclude “First, that Armenians massacred Moslems with many refinements of cruelty, and second that Armenians are responsible for most of the destruction done to towns and villages” (our emphasis).^[54]

The Ankara Treaty with France

Some of the tragic events took place in territories occupied by France, where Armenian groups cooperating with France committed massacres against the Muslim population. The Ottoman Muslims retaliated. The Ankara Treaty signed on October 20, 1921 between France and Turkey had foreseen the parties promulgating a total amnesty for the crimes committed in that occupied territories. Article 5 of the Ankara agreement reads as follows: “Both sides will announce a general amnesty in the evacuated area, following the occupation of this area.”

Once again, the amnesty was far from concerning only Turks. French courts-martial sentenced many Armenians for banditry, robbery, rape and assassination against Turkish civilians, and more generally the large scale of atrocities and destruction—by arson in particular—is confirmed by many French, British and American sources, in addition to the Turkish ones.[55]

Those treaties constitute lex specialis in legal terms.[56] ^[57]

Claims Settlement Agreement with the United States

The Republic of Turkey, which settled the issue of Ottoman debts in accordance with the Treaty of Lausanne,also paid 899,840 U.S. dollars (dollars of 1930s) to the United States government for distribution to its citizens based on the Agreement of December 24, 1923 and Supplemental Agreements, concluded and implemented between the U.S. and Turkey[58]. The Supplemental Agreement of October 25, 1934 concluded by the two governments foresaw a settlement of the outstanding claims of the nationals of each country against the other; Article II of the agreement is as follows:

The two Governments agree that, by the payment of the aforesaid sum [$1,300,000], the Government of the Republic of Turkey will be released from liability with respect to all of the above-mentioned claims formulated against it and further agree that every claim embraced by the Agreement of December 24, 1923, shall be considered and treated as finally settled. [59]

The last U.S. report in 1937 finally estimated that the principal and interest amounts to $899,840 [60], It is remarkable that not a single claimant with an Armenian name was considered by the American civil servants to have made a credible case of seizure and/or destruction of property. [61]

Conclusion: Turkey did not renege on its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention.

The fact that Turkey does not recognize the 1915-1916 events as a crime of genocide does not violate the 1948 Convention. One should underline that if Armenia had seen the slightest proof with regard to the responsibility of Turkey on the matter, it would have attempted to bring the case before the ICJ many years ago.

It should be clear from the above that

a) the Turkish Republic paid all the Ottoman debts;

b) the tribunals of the Ottoman State judged those who infringed on Ottoman laws during the relocation of the Ottoman Armenians;

c) amnesty has been declared for all other suspects and/or criminals.

We believe that no one now has the right to make any kind of demand from Turkey regarding the events which took place before the signing of the  above mentioned  Moscow, Kars, Ankara, Lausanne Treaties[62]  and the Claim Settlement  Agreement with the United States.

Finally, we are in the opinion that those  who complain of an internationally wrongful act for which the Turkish Republic is responsible may be well advised to take their lamentations to the relevant international institutions  like the United Nations, the International Court of Justice [63],  the Council of Europe or any other similar establishment, instead of disseminating unfounded and misleading accusations.

^[1] Pulat Tacar has been Co-Chairperson of the Turkish National Commission for UNESCO (1995-2006); he was Ambassador of Turkey to UNESCO (1989-1995), Ambassador of Turkey to the European Communities (1984-1987) and to Jakarta (1981-1984). He is the author of  many books and articles.

[1] Maxime Gauin is a researcher at the International Strategic Research Organization (USAK, Ankara) and a Ph.D. candidate at the Middle East Technical University.

[1] Justin McCarthy, The Turk in America. The Creation of an Enduring Prejudice, (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2010).

[1] “ASALA: We All Believed In One Idea: Party,”  .com/2012/04/3348-asala-we-all-believed-in-one-idea.html ;Maxime Gauin “Remembering the Orly Attack,” Review of International Law and Politics, VII-27, September 2011; Michael M. Gunter, Pursuing the Just Cause of their People. A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, (Westport-New York-London: Greenwood Press, 1986); Michael M. Gunter, Armenian History and the Question of Genocide, (New York-London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011); Francis P. Hyland, Armenian Terrorism: the Past, the Present, the Prospects, (Boulder-San Francisco-Oxford: Westview Press, 1991); International Terrorism and the Drug Connection, (Ankara: Ankara University Press, 1984); Andrew Mango, Turkey and the War on Terror. For Forty Years We Fought Alone, (London-New York: Routledge, 2005), pp. 11-13; Bilâl N. Şimşir, Şehit Diplomatlarimiz (Our  fallen-martyr  diplomats) (1973-1994), (Ankara-Istanbul: Bilgi Yayınevi, 2000), two volumes.

[1]Antoine Constant, L’Azerbaïdjan, (Paris: Karthala, 2002), pp. 343-344 and passim.

[1] “Norwegian Hitman Was Obsessed With Turkey,” Today’s Zaman, July 25, 2011, news-251593-norwegian-hitman-was-obsessed-with-turkey.html

[1] For example: Bahar Senem Çevik-Ersaydı, “Dehumanization in Cartoons: A Case Study of the Image of the Turk in Asbarez Newspaper,” Review of Armenian Studies, n° 24, 2011, pp. 103-121: “Reviewing and shaping the already traumatized Diaspora identity with hostile feelings towards another group will most likely result in an unresolved trauma. […] The image of the Turk within Diaspora Armenians could be summarized as being worthless, inhuman, murderer, barbaric and savage” ;  Jugement du tribunal de grande instance de Lyon, 27 avril 2010 (Gauin c. Nissanian),  IMG/pdf/JugementTGILyon27042010.pdf

[1]  Like the recurrent comparison between the late Ottoman Empire and  the  Nazi Germany. On this point, see Türkkaya Ataöv, “The Jewish Holocaust and the Armenians,” in Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period, (Ankara: TBMM, 2001), pp. 315-344, altilar/tobi/e-library/TheArmenians/TheHolocaust.pdf ; and Yücel Güçlü, The Holocaust and the Armenian Case in Comparative Perspective, (Lanham-Boulder-New York-Toronto-Plymouth: University Press of America), 2012.

[1]  Page 18 of the manuscript: “The Stalinist cleaning allowed Kemal to effectively eliminate all potential political rivals and opponents.” This slander by the author is an unfortunate example which demonstrates the state of his mind. The whole world knows Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as one of the great leaders of the 20^th century. On the political nature of the Kemalist regime, see among others Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey. Third Edition, (New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 290; Maurice Duverger, Les Partis politiques, (Paris : Le Seuil, 1981), pp. 375-377 ; and Salâhi R. Sonyel, Atatürk, the Founder of Modern Turkey, (Ankara: TTK, 1989).

[1]  Page 17 of the manuscript: “the demand…of the reunification of West Armenia and the Republic of Armenia in the Caucasus” reflects the irredentist dream of the Armenian nationalist to create “Great Armenia.” Furthermore, page 20 of the manuscript: “Most of the total losses claimed were from Turkish Armenia.”  “Western Armenia” and/or “Turkish Armenia” exist only in the minds of irredentist militant Armenians.

[1]  For comparative analyzes, consult: Serdar Palabıyık, “A Literature between Scientificity and Subjectivity: A Comparative Analysis of the Books Written on the Armenian Issue,” Review of Armenian Studies, IV-11/12, 2007, http://www.eraren.org/index.php?Lisan=en&Page=DergiIcerik&IcerikNo=476 ; Hakan Yavuz, “Contours of Scholarship on Armenian-Turkish Relations,” Middle East Critique, XX-3, Fall 2011, pp. 231-251, 19436149.2011.619761

[1]  Paul Ricoeur, La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli, (Paris: Le Seuil, 2000).

[1]  Defamiliarization or ostranenie (остранение) is the artistic technique of forcing the audience to see common things in an unfamiliar or strange way, in order to enhance the perception of the familiar.

[1]Hans Wilhelm Longva, “The concept of genocide in international law, A wound not healed,”Conference on Turkish-Armenian relationship, University of Oslo, February 1st, 2010.

[1] William A. Shabas, Genocide in International Law, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 7; Guenter Lewy, “Can There Be Genocide Without the Intent to Committ Genocide?”, Journal of Genocide Research, IX-4, December 2007, pp. 661-674 (second edition in Essays on Genocide and Humanitarian Intervention, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2012).

[1]Ahmet İnsel and Michel Marian, Dialogue sur le tabou arménien, (Paris: Liana Levi, 2009).

[1]  Der Jan van der Linde, “The Armenian Genocide Question and Legal Responsibility,” Review of Armenian Studies, n° 24, 2011, pp. 123-151

[1] Gündüz Aktan “The Armenian problem and International Law,” in Türkkaya Ataöv (ed.), Armenians in the Late…, pp. 263-614, altilar/tobi/e-library/TheArmenians/InternationalLaw.pdf

[1]Aktan ibid p. 270

[1]Para 187 “Article II (of the Convention) requires a further mental element. It requires the establishment of the intent to destroy in whole or in part the protected group as such. It is not enough to establish, for instance in terms of paragraph. (a) That unlawful killings of members of the group have occurred. The additional intent must also be established and is defined very precisely. It is often referred to as the “specific intent” (dolus specialis). It is not enough that the members of the group are targeted because they belong to that group that is because the perpetrator has a discriminatory intent. Something more is required. The acts listed in Article II, must be done with the intent to destroy the group as such in whole or in part. The words “as such” emphasize that intent to destroy the protected group.

[1] See Travaux préparatoires Doc. E/794 page 294 and 97, the meeting of the Conference page 360 and following pages

^[1]  With regard to the “Power to Exercise Universal Repression” or “Universal Repression” (see: April 5, 1948. Doc. E/794. pp.29-33) The Committee rejected a proposal in this respect (Ibid, p.32).Those rejecting the principle of universal repression argued as follows: “ … universal repression is against the principles of traditional law; permitting the courts of one State to punish crimes committed in another state by foreigners will be against the sovereignty of the State; as genocide generally implied the responsibility of the State on the territory of which the crime was committed, the principle of universal repression would imply national courts to judge the acts of foreign governments. The result will be dangerous international tensions.”

[1] The British government on many occasions officially declared its position on the matter. On April 14, 1999 the Foreign Office spokesperson Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale said that “the British government has not recognized the events of 1915 as indications of genocide”; On February 7, 2001, acting on behalf of the British Government, Baroness Scotland of Asthal declared: “The government, in line with the previous British governments, have judged the evidence not to be sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorized as genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations on genocide….The interpretation of events in Eastern Anatolia in 1915-1916 is still the subject of genuine debate among historians.”The UK government did not accept qualifying as genocide the 1915 events. The Israeli government refused to accept the parallelism between the Holocaust and the tragic events of 1915. The Ambassador of Israel Rivka Kohen in Yerevan declared on February 7, 2002, during a press conference that “the 1915 events couldn’t be considered genocide because the main killings in these events were not planned and the Ottoman government had no intention to destroy a nation or a group of people as such. As a well-known fact many people from the Armenian and Muslim groups had lost their lives in these events. The Holocaust is unique. At this stage nothing should be compared with the Holocaust.” On April 10, 2001 the Nobel Prize-awarded Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Perez said that “the fate of Armenians in Anatolia was a tragedy, not genocide.” He added: “Armenian allegations are meaningless. We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegation. If we have to determine a position on the Armenian issue it should be done with great care not to distort the historical realities.”

[1]Justin McCarthy, Esat Arslan, Cemalettin Taşkıran and Ömer Turan, The Armenian Rebellion at Van, (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2006), p. 265: “The slaughter of Muslims that accompanied the Armenian revolt in Van Province inexorably led first to Kurdish reprisals on the Armenian, then  to a general and mutual massaccre of the people of the East. The Armenian revolt  began an intercommunal war, in which both sides, fearing their own survival, killed those who, given the chance,would have killed them.The result was unprecended horror. History records few examples of mortality as great as that suffered in Van Province.”

[1] “WWI Inflicted Pain to Everyone, Davutoğlu Says,” Hürriyet Daily News, December 30, 2011 .com/wwi-inflicted-pain-on-everyone-davutoglu-says.aspx?pageID=238&nID=10325&NewsCatID=338; “Turkey ‘Ready to Share Pain’ With Armenians,” Hürriyet Daily News, March 1, 2012, .com/turkey-ready-to-share-pain-with-armenians.aspx?pageID=238&nID=14993&NewsCatID=338

[1] For example: Anatolian News Agency, April 11, 2005; “Yerevan Rejects Turkish PM Erdogan’s Dialogue Letter,” The Journal of Turkish Weekly, April 14, 2005, news/8050/yerevan-rejects-turkish-pm-erdogan-s-dialogue-letter.html ; Interview of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to Charlie Rose, September 27, 2007; “Turkey’s Proposal Clears Last-Minute Snag in Zurich,” Today’s Zaman, October 12, 2009, news-189623-100-turkeys-proposal-clears-last-minute-snag-in-zurich.html ; Michael M. Gunter, Armenian History and…, pp. 125-129.

[1] İnanç Atılgan and Garabet Moumdjian (ed.), Archival Documents of the Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform, Klagenfurt-Vienna-Ljubjana-Sarajevo: Wieser Verlag, 2009.

[1] “We should be really careful about not mixing information. Anything about the CUP archives is sheer speculation. We don’t have any indication that they have been destroyed.” Hilmar Kaiser, interview to Aztag, September 22, 2005. See also “Historian Challenges Politically Motivated  1915 Arguments,” Today’s Zaman, newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&link=170297 ; Yücel Güçlü, “Will Untapped Ottoman Archives Reshape the Armenian Debate?”, The Middle East Quarterly, XVI-2, Spring 2009, pp. 25-42, ottoman-archives-reshape-armenian-debate

[1]Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 22.

[1] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 23.

[1] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 20.

[1] Shimon Perez: Statement in April 2001: “What happened to the Armenians was a tragedy, but not genocide.”

[1] Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, p. 111.

[1] Yusuf Halaçoğlu, Facts on the Relocation of Armenians. 1914-1918, (Ankara: TTK, 2002), pp. 84-86; Hikmet Özdemir and Yusuf Sarınay (ed.), Turkish-Armenian Conflict Documents, (Ankara: TBMM, 2007), p. 294.

[1] Yusuf Halaçoğlu, The Story of 1915. What Happened to the Ottoman Armenians?, (Ankara: TTK, 2008), pp. 82-87; Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, p. 112; Yusuf Sarınay, “The Relocation (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915-1916,” Middle East Critique, XX-3, Fall 2011, pp. 308-314.

[1] Yusuf Halaçoğu, Facts on the…, p. 99 and annexes XX-XXI.

[1]Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, pp. 122-128; Bilâl N. Şimşir, “The Deportees of Malta and the Armenian Question,” in Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (1912-1926), (İstanbul: Tasvir Press, 1984), pp. 26-41; Bilâl N. Şimşir, Malta Sürgünleri, (Ankara-Istanbul: Bilgi Yayınevi, 2009); Salâhi R. Sonyel, “Armenian Deportations: A Re-Appraisal in the Light of New Documents,” Belleten, January 1972, pp. 58-60; Salâhi R. Sonyel, The Displacement of Armenians: Documents, (Ankara: TTK/Baylan Matbaası), 1978.

[1] Ferudun Ata, İşgal İstanbul’unda Tehcir Yargılamaları, (Ankara: TTK, 2005); Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, pp. 79-82; Erman Şahin, “A Scrutiny of Akçam’s Version of History and the Armenian Genocide,” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, XXVIII-2, August 2008, p. 307, files/news/pdf/Erman-Sahin-Review-Article.pdf

[1] Ferudun Ata, İşgal İstanbul’unda Tehcir…, pp. 193, 199, 201 and 204; Edward J. Erickson, “Armenian Massacres: New Records Undercut Old Blame,” The Middle East Quarterly, XIII-3, Summer 2006, pp. 67-75, armenian-massacres-new-records-undercut-old-blame ; Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, pp. 82-88 and 221; Erman Şahin, “A Scrutiny of…”, pp. 310-312; Erman Şahin, “Review Essay: The Armenian Question,” Middle East Policy, XVII-1, Spring 2010, pp. 151, 153 and 162, n. 48, http://www.turkishcanadians.com/wp-content/uploads/armenian_question.pdf ; Stanford J. Shaw, The Ottoman Empire in World War I, (Ankara: TTK, tome I, 2006), pp. 373-409; Arslan Terzioğlu, “The Armenian Deportation in Line With National and Foreign Sources of Information,” in Selçuk Erez and Mehmet Saray (ed.), Uluslarası Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri Sempozyumu, (Istanbul: Istanbul University Publications, 2001), pp. 321-358.

[1] The Armenian Revolutionary Federation Has Nothing to Do Anymore, (New York: Armenian Information Service, 1955), pp. 9-10, http://ia600602.us.archive.org/14/items/armenianrevolution00katc/armenianrevolution00katc.pdf

[1] Ermeniler Tarafından Yapılan Katliam Belgeleri/Documents on Massacre Perpetrated by Armenians, Ankara, two volumes, 2001; Kara Schemsi, Turcs et Arméniens devant l’histoire, (Geneva: Imprimerie nationale, 1919), http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/turcs_et_armeniens.pdf See also n. 37.

[1] Kâmuran Gürün, The Armenian File, (İstanbul: İş Bankası, 2007), p. 339 (1^st English edition, Nicosia, 1985).

[1] For a comprehensive study of this war: Stanford Jay Shaw, From Empire to Republic: The Turkish War of National Liberation, 1918-1923. A Documentary Study, (Ankara: TTK, 2000), five volumes.

[1] Salâhi R. Sonyel, Minorities and the Destruction of the Ottoman Empire, (Ankara: TTK, 1993), pp. 439-441.

[1] Mim Kemal Öke, The Armenian Question, (Ankara: TTK, 2001), pp. 196-202 and 210-216; Mim Kemal Öke, “The Response of the Turkish Armenians to the ‘Armenian Question’ (1919-1926),” in Armenians in the Ottoman…, pp. 71-88; Stanford J. Shaw, From Empire…, volume III-1, p. 1050. See also Rapport hebdomadaire, 23-29 mars 1920, 15-21 juin 1920, Service historique de la défense nationale (SHDN), 4 H 58, dossier 1.

[1] Télégramme du général Gouraud au ministère des Affaires étrangères, 24 octobre 1921 ; télégramme du ministère au Haut-Commissaire à Beyrouth, 3 novembre ; télégrammes du général Pellé au ministère, 5, 15 et 23 novembre 1921 ; lettre du ministère à Franklin-Bouillon, 12 novembre 1921, Archives du ministère des Affaires étrangères (AMAE), P 17785 ; Commandement supérieur, Levant — Journal des marches et des opérations, 1921, pp. 456-469, SHDN, 4H 47, dossier 1 ; Bulletin périodique n° 39, 5 décembre 1921-5 janvier 1922, SHDN, 4 H 49, dossier 1 ; Bulletin de renseignements n° 279, 17-21 novembre 1921, 4 H 61, dossier 3; Yücel Güçlü, Armenians and the Allies in Cilicia (1914-1923), (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2010), pp. 140-156 and 210-216.

[1] Rapport du père Ludovic Marseille, septembre 1922 ;Télégramme du colonel Mougin au général Pellé, 8 septembre 1922 ; télégramme du général Pellé au ministère des Affaires étrangères, 8 septembre 1922 ; télégramme de Raymond Poincaré à Athènes, Londres, Rome, Washington, 9 septembre 1922 ; télégramme de l’ambassadeur de France à Londres au ministère des Affaires étrangères, 12 septembre 1922, AMAE, P 1380.

[1] American investigations: Yücel Güçlü, Armenians and the Allies…, pp. 124-127; Heath Lowry, “American Observers in Anatolia circa 1920: The Bristol Papers,” in Armenians in the…, pp. 42-58; French investigations: Rapport du commandant Labonne, 7 décembre 1919 ; le chef de bataillon Labonne, en mission à Afioun-Karahissar, à Monsieur le général Commandant en chef des armées alliées [Franchet d’Esperey], 2e bureau, 1919, SHDN, 7 N 3210 ; S.R. Marine, Affaires arméniennes, 15 novembre 1920, AMAE, P 16674; British accounts : Salâhi R. Sonyel, “How Armenian Propaganda Nurtured a Gullible Christian World In Connection With the Deportation and ‘Massacres’,” Belleten, January 1977, pp. 167-168. See also Bulletin de renseignement n° 285, 11-13 décembre 1921, SHDN, 4 H 62, dossier 3; Général Pellé au ministère, 8 septembre 1922, Télégramme de l’ambassadeur français à Londres, 12 septembre 1922, AMAE, P 1360.

[1]NARA, T1192 R2.860J.01/395; verified by the Armenian Patriarch.

^[1]“Yusuf Halaçoğlu Cevap Veriyor,” Taraf (newspaper), 23 June 2008.

^[1]  Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives (BOA), UMVM 159/21, lef.3.

[1] “Tehcirden Dönenlerin Malları,” (Properties of Those Returning from the Relocation), Sosyal Tarih, September 1994, pp.45-48; Bülent Bakar, “Malların İadesi,” (“Returning of properties”) in Hikmet Özdemir (ed.), Türk-Ermeni İhtilafı Makaleler (“Papers on Turko-Armenian Conflict”), (Ankara: TBMM, 2007), pp. 327-339. See: enactment of 8.1.1920. Md. 33 bTakvim-i Vekayi 12 Kanunu Sani 1336 N° 3747 BOA .MV. 245/15 Düstur II Tertip.C.II. pp. 553-554.

[1] Prof. Dr. Nurşen Mazıcı, “Ermenilerin tazminat davası” (The Armenians’ Suit for Damages), Radikal, 13 August 2010.

^[1] Justin McCarthy, “The Report of Niles and Sutherland,” p. 1850. For other sources, see for example Maxime Gauin’s “The Convergent Analysis of Russian, British, French and American Officials Regarding the Armenian Volunteers (1914-1922),” International Review of Turkish Studies, 1.4, Winter 2011-2012, pp. 18-34, http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2012/03/3341-convergent-analysis-of-russian.html ; Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile…; Stanford Jay Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, (New York-Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), volume II, 1978, pp. 322-323 and 325.

[1] Maxime Bergès, La Colonne de Marach et quelques autres récits de l’armée du Levant, (Paris: La Renaissance du Livre, 1924), pp. 56, 81-82, 89 and 142-143 ; Maxime Gauin, “The Convergent Analysis…,” pp. 34-41; Yücel Güçlü, Armenians and the Allies…; Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile…, pp. 202-208; Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, pp. 107-108; Stanford J. Shaw, “The Armenian Legion and its Destruction of the Armenian Community in Cilicia,” in Türkkaya Ataöv (ed.), The Armenians in the…, pp. 155-206, altilar/tobi/e-library/TheArmenians/ArmenianLegion.pdf

[1] Doç. Dr. Sadi Çaycı “Ermeni sorununun hukuksal boyutu” (The legal dimension of the Armenian question), http://www.eraren.org/bilgibankası/tr/index2_1_2.htm

[1] See for Lex Specialis Article 55 of the text of the draft articles on Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission at its 53rd session (2001) which foresees that the international responsibility of a State for the existence of an internationally wrongful act is governed by special rules of international law (lex specialis).

^[1] American-Turkish Claims Settlement Under the Agreement of December 24, 1923 and Supplemental Agreements between the United States and Turkey: On December 24, 1923 Opinion and report, prepared by Fred K. Nielsen, (Washington: GOP, 1937). Turkey and the United States of America concluded an agreement with regard to the settlement of claims of their citizens. A joint commission was created to examine the claims. 898 dossiers were laid before the Commission by the U.S. government. No claims of Turkish citizens against the U.S. were presented to the commission. The dossiers of the claims had to contain the documents establishing the nature, the origin and the justification of each claim. The claims had to be submitted by February 15, 1934. The U.S. government had the right to submit up to August 15, 1934 other documents in support of claims (Nielsen Report page 9) According to Mr. Nielsen, the author of the report, “These provisions are in harmony with international practice in relation to such matters. The following type of stipulations is found in numerous claims agreements: The high contracting parties engage to consider the result of the proceedings of the (claims settlement) commission as a full, perfect and final settlement of every claim upon either Government arising out of any transaction of a date prior to the exchange of the ratifications of the present convention; and further engage that every such claim, whether or not the same may have been presented to the notice of, made, preferred or laid before the said commission.” Nielsen report, p.15; our emphasis).

[1]Selâhaddin Kardeş, Tehcir ve Emval-I Metrûke mevzuatı (Relocation and Legislation on Abandoned Property) Maliye Bakanlığı Strateji Geliştirma Başkanlığı Ankara 2008 (Publication of the Ministry of Finance, Ankara 2008).

[1] Fred Kenelm Nielsen, American-Turkish Claims…, pp. 780-782. See also Kemal Çiçek, “The 1934-1935 Turkish-American Compensation Agreement and Its Implication for Today,” Review of Armenian Studies, n° 23, 2011, pp. 93-146.

[1] Fred Kenelm Nielsen, American-Turkish Claims Settlement…

[1] Kamuran Gürün, The Armenian File, pp. 360-379.

[1] Pulat Tacar, “An Invitation to Truth, Transparency and Accountability: Toward ‘Responsible Dialogue on the Armenian Issue,” Review of Armenian Studies, n° 22, 2010, pp. 135-170.

---

^[1]Pulat Tacar has been Co-Chairperson of the Turkish National Commission for UNESCO (1995-2006); he was Ambassador of Turkey to UNESCO (1989-1995), Ambassador of Turkey to the European Communities (1984-1987) and to Jakarta (1981-1984). He is the author of  many books and articles.

[2] Maxime Gauin is a researcher at the International Strategic Research Organization (USAK, Ankara) and a Ph.D. candidate at the Middle East Technical University.

[3] Justin McCarthy, The Turk in America. The Creation of an Enduring Prejudice, (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2010).

[4] “ASALA: We All Believed In One Idea: Party,”  .com/2012/04/3348-asala-we-all-believed-in-one-idea.html ;Maxime Gauin “Remembering the Orly Attack,” Review of International Law and Politics, VII-27, September 2011; Michael M. Gunter, Pursuing the Just Cause of their People. A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, (Westport-New York-London: Greenwood Press, 1986); Michael M. Gunter, Armenian History and the Question of Genocide, (New York-London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011); Francis P. Hyland, Armenian Terrorism: the Past, the Present, the Prospects, (Boulder-San Francisco-Oxford: Westview Press, 1991); International Terrorism and the Drug Connection, (Ankara: Ankara University Press, 1984); Andrew Mango, Turkey and the War on Terror. For Forty Years We Fought Alone, (London-New York: Routledge, 2005), pp. 11-13; Bilâl N. Şimşir, Şehit Diplomatlarimiz (Our  fallen-martyr  diplomats) (1973-1994), (Ankara-Istanbul: Bilgi Yayınevi, 2000), two volumes.

[5]Antoine Constant, L’Azerbaïdjan, (Paris: Karthala, 2002), pp. 343-344 and passim.

[6] “Norwegian Hitman Was Obsessed With Turkey,” Today’s Zaman, July 25, 2011, news-251593-norwegian-hitman-was-obsessed-with-turkey.html

[7] For example: Bahar Senem Çevik-Ersaydı, “Dehumanization in Cartoons: A Case Study of the Image of the Turk in Asbarez Newspaper,” Review of Armenian Studies, n° 24, 2011, pp. 103-121: “Reviewing and shaping the already traumatized Diaspora identity with hostile feelings towards another group will most likely result in an unresolved trauma. […] The image of the Turk within Diaspora Armenians could be summarized as being worthless, inhuman, murderer, barbaric and savage” ;  Jugement du tribunal de grande instance de Lyon, 27 avril 2010 (Gauin c. Nissanian),  IMG/pdf/JugementTGILyon27042010.pdf

[8]  Like the recurrent comparison between the late Ottoman Empire and  the  Nazi Germany. On this point, see Türkkaya Ataöv, “The Jewish Holocaust and the Armenians,” in Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period, (Ankara: TBMM, 2001), pp. 315-344, altilar/tobi/e-library/TheArmenians/TheHolocaust.pdf ; and Yücel Güçlü, The Holocaust and the Armenian Case in Comparative Perspective, (Lanham-Boulder-New York-Toronto-Plymouth: University Press of America), 2012.

[9]  Page 18 of the manuscript: “The Stalinist cleaning allowed Kemal to effectively eliminate all potential political rivals and opponents.” This slander by the author is an unfortunate example which demonstrates the state of his mind. The whole world knows Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as one of the great leaders of the 20^th century. On the political nature of the Kemalist regime, see among others Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey. Third Edition, (New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 290; Maurice Duverger, Les Partis politiques, (Paris : Le Seuil, 1981), pp. 375-377 ; and Salâhi R. Sonyel, Atatürk, the Founder of Modern Turkey, (Ankara: TTK, 1989).

[10]  Page 17 of the manuscript: “the demand…of the reunification of West Armenia and the Republic of Armenia in the Caucasus” reflects the irredentist dream of the Armenian nationalist to create “Great Armenia.” Furthermore, page 20 of the manuscript: “Most of the total losses claimed were from Turkish Armenia.”  “Western Armenia” and/or “Turkish Armenia” exist only in the minds of irredentist militant Armenians.

[11]  For comparative analyzes, consult: Serdar Palabıyık, “A Literature between Scientificity and Subjectivity: A Comparative Analysis of the Books Written on the Armenian Issue,” Review of Armenian Studies, IV-11/12, 2007, http://www.eraren.org/index.php?Lisan=en&Page=DergiIcerik&IcerikNo=476 ; Hakan Yavuz, “Contours of Scholarship on Armenian-Turkish Relations,” Middle East Critique, XX-3, Fall 2011, pp. 231-251, 19436149.2011.619761

[12]  Paul Ricoeur, La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli, (Paris: Le Seuil, 2000).

[13]  Defamiliarization or ostranenie (остранение) is the artistic technique of forcing the audience to see common things in an unfamiliar or strange way, in order to enhance the perception of the familiar.

[14]Hans Wilhelm Longva, “The concept of genocide in international law, A wound not healed,”Conference on Turkish-Armenian relationship, University of Oslo, February 1st, 2010.

[15] William A. Shabas, Genocide in International Law, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 7; Guenter Lewy, “Can There Be Genocide Without the Intent to Committ Genocide?”, Journal of Genocide Research, IX-4, December 2007, pp. 661-674 (second edition in Essays on Genocide and Humanitarian Intervention, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2012).

[16]Ahmet İnsel and Michel Marian, Dialogue sur le tabou arménien, (Paris: Liana Levi, 2009).

[17]  Der Jan van der Linde, “The Armenian Genocide Question and Legal Responsibility,” Review of Armenian Studies, n° 24, 2011, pp. 123-151

[18] Gündüz Aktan “The Armenian problem and International Law,” in Türkkaya Ataöv (ed.), Armenians in the Late…, pp. 263-614, altilar/tobi/e-library/TheArmenians/InternationalLaw.pdf

[19]Aktan ibid p. 270

[20]Para 187 “Article II (of the Convention) requires a further mental element. It requires the establishment of the intent to destroy in whole or in part the protected group as such. It is not enough to establish, for instance in terms of paragraph. (a) That unlawful killings of members of the group have occurred. The additional intent must also be established and is defined very precisely. It is often referred to as the “specific intent” (dolus specialis). It is not enough that the members of the group are targeted because they belong to that group that is because the perpetrator has a discriminatory intent. Something more is required. The acts listed in Article II, must be done with the intent to destroy the group as such in whole or in part. The words “as such” emphasize that intent to destroy the protected group.

[21] See Travaux préparatoires Doc. E/794 page 294 and 97, the meeting of the Conference page 360 and following pages

^[22]  With regard to the “Power to Exercise Universal Repression” or “Universal Repression” (see: April 5, 1948. Doc. E/794. pp.29-33) The Committee rejected a proposal in this respect (Ibid, p.32).Those rejecting the principle of universal repression argued as follows: “ … universal repression is against the principles of traditional law; permitting the courts of one State to punish crimes committed in another state by foreigners will be against the sovereignty of the State; as genocide generally implied the responsibility of the State on the territory of which the crime was committed, the principle of universal repression would imply national courts to judge the acts of foreign governments. The result will be dangerous international tensions.”

[23] The British government on many occasions officially declared its position on the matter. On April 14, 1999 the Foreign Office spokesperson Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale said that “the British government has not recognized the events of 1915 as indications of genocide”; On February 7, 2001, acting on behalf of the British Government, Baroness Scotland of Asthal declared: “The government, in line with the previous British governments, have judged the evidence not to be sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorized as genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations on genocide….The interpretation of events in Eastern Anatolia in 1915-1916 is still the subject of genuine debate among historians.”The UK government did not accept qualifying as genocide the 1915 events. The Israeli government refused to accept the parallelism between the Holocaust and the tragic events of 1915. The Ambassador of Israel Rivka Kohen in Yerevan declared on February 7, 2002, during a press conference that “the 1915 events couldn’t be considered genocide because the main killings in these events were not planned and the Ottoman government had no intention to destroy a nation or a group of people as such. As a well-known fact many people from the Armenian and Muslim groups had lost their lives in these events. The Holocaust is unique. At this stage nothing should be compared with the Holocaust.” On April 10, 2001 the Nobel Prize-awarded Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Perez said that “the fate of Armenians in Anatolia was a tragedy, not genocide.” He added: “Armenian allegations are meaningless. We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegation. If we have to determine a position on the Armenian issue it should be done with great care not to distort the historical realities.”

[24]Justin McCarthy, Esat Arslan, Cemalettin Taşkıran and Ömer Turan, The Armenian Rebellion at Van, (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2006), p. 265: “The slaughter of Muslims that accompanied the Armenian revolt in Van Province inexorably led first to Kurdish reprisals on the Armenian, then  to a general and mutual massaccre of the people of the East. The Armenian revolt  began an intercommunal war, in which both sides, fearing their own survival, killed those who, given the chance,would have killed them.The result was unprecended horror. History records few examples of mortality as great as that suffered in Van Province.”

[25] “WWI Inflicted Pain to Everyone, Davutoğlu Says,” Hürriyet Daily News, December 30, 2011 .com/wwi-inflicted-pain-on-everyone-davutoglu-says.aspx?pageID=238&nID=10325&NewsCatID=338; “Turkey ‘Ready to Share Pain’ With Armenians,” Hürriyet Daily News, March 1, 2012, .com/turkey-ready-to-share-pain-with-armenians.aspx?pageID=238&nID=14993&NewsCatID=338

[26] For example: Anatolian News Agency, April 11, 2005; “Yerevan Rejects Turkish PM Erdogan’s Dialogue Letter,” The Journal of Turkish Weekly, April 14, 2005, news/8050/yerevan-rejects-turkish-pm-erdogan-s-dialogue-letter.html ; Interview of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to Charlie Rose, September 27, 2007; “Turkey’s Proposal Clears Last-Minute Snag in Zurich,” Today’s Zaman, October 12, 2009, news-189623-100-turkeys-proposal-clears-last-minute-snag-in-zurich.html ; Michael M. Gunter, Armenian History and…, pp. 125-129.

[27] İnanç Atılgan and Garabet Moumdjian (ed.), Archival Documents of the Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform, Klagenfurt-Vienna-Ljubjana-Sarajevo: Wieser Verlag, 2009.

[28] “We should be really careful about not mixing information. Anything about the CUP archives is sheer speculation. We don’t have any indication that they have been destroyed.” Hilmar Kaiser, interview to Aztag, September 22, 2005. See also “Historian Challenges Politically Motivated  1915 Arguments,” Today’s Zaman, newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&link=170297 ; Yücel Güçlü, “Will Untapped Ottoman Archives Reshape the Armenian Debate?”, The Middle East Quarterly, XVI-2, Spring 2009, pp. 25-42, ottoman-archives-reshape-armenian-debate

[29]Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 22.

[30] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 23.

[31] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 20.

[32] Shimon Perez: Statement in April 2001: “What happened to the Armenians was a tragedy, but not genocide.”

[33] Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, p. 111.

[34] Yusuf Halaçoğlu, Facts on the Relocation of Armenians. 1914-1918, (Ankara: TTK, 2002), pp. 84-86; Hikmet Özdemir and Yusuf Sarınay (ed.), Turkish-Armenian Conflict Documents, (Ankara: TBMM, 2007), p. 294.

[35] Yusuf Halaçoğlu, The Story of 1915. What Happened to the Ottoman Armenians?, (Ankara: TTK, 2008), pp. 82-87; Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, p. 112; Yusuf Sarınay, “The Relocation (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915-1916,” Middle East Critique, XX-3, Fall 2011, pp. 308-314.

[36] Yusuf Halaçoğu, Facts on the…, p. 99 and annexes XX-XXI.

[37]Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, pp. 122-128; Bilâl N. Şimşir, “The Deportees of Malta and the Armenian Question,” in Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (1912-1926), (İstanbul: Tasvir Press, 1984), pp. 26-41; Bilâl N. Şimşir, Malta Sürgünleri, (Ankara-Istanbul: Bilgi Yayınevi, 2009); Salâhi R. Sonyel, “Armenian Deportations: A Re-Appraisal in the Light of New Documents,” Belleten, January 1972, pp. 58-60; Salâhi R. Sonyel, The Displacement of Armenians: Documents, (Ankara: TTK/Baylan Matbaası), 1978.

[38] Ferudun Ata, İşgal İstanbul’unda Tehcir Yargılamaları, (Ankara: TTK, 2005); Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, pp. 79-82; Erman Şahin, “A Scrutiny of Akçam’s Version of History and the Armenian Genocide,” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, XXVIII-2, August 2008, p. 307, files/news/pdf/Erman-Sahin-Review-Article.pdf

[39] Ferudun Ata, İşgal İstanbul’unda Tehcir…, pp. 193, 199, 201 and 204; Edward J. Erickson, “Armenian Massacres: New Records Undercut Old Blame,” The Middle East Quarterly, XIII-3, Summer 2006, pp. 67-75, armenian-massacres-new-records-undercut-old-blame ; Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, pp. 82-88 and 221; Erman Şahin, “A Scrutiny of…”, pp. 310-312; Erman Şahin, “Review Essay: The Armenian Question,” Middle East Policy, XVII-1, Spring 2010, pp. 151, 153 and 162, n. 48, http://www.turkishcanadians.com/wp-content/uploads/armenian_question.pdf ; Stanford J. Shaw, The Ottoman Empire in World War I, (Ankara: TTK, tome I, 2006), pp. 373-409; Arslan Terzioğlu, “The Armenian Deportation in Line With National and Foreign Sources of Information,” in Selçuk Erez and Mehmet Saray (ed.), Uluslarası Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri Sempozyumu, (Istanbul: Istanbul University Publications, 2001), pp. 321-358.

[40] The Armenian Revolutionary Federation Has Nothing to Do Anymore, (New York: Armenian Information Service, 1955), pp. 9-10, http://ia600602.us.archive.org/14/items/armenianrevolution00katc/armenianrevolution00katc.pdf

[41] Ermeniler Tarafından Yapılan Katliam Belgeleri/Documents on Massacre Perpetrated by Armenians, Ankara, two volumes, 2001; Kara Schemsi, Turcs et Arméniens devant l’histoire, (Geneva: Imprimerie nationale, 1919), http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/turcs_et_armeniens.pdf See also n. 37.

[42] Kâmuran Gürün, The Armenian File, (İstanbul: İş Bankası, 2007), p. 339 (1^st English edition, Nicosia, 1985).

[43] For a comprehensive study of this war: Stanford Jay Shaw, From Empire to Republic: The Turkish War of National Liberation, 1918-1923. A Documentary Study, (Ankara: TTK, 2000), five volumes.

[44] Salâhi R. Sonyel, Minorities and the Destruction of the Ottoman Empire, (Ankara: TTK, 1993), pp. 439-441.

[45] Mim Kemal Öke, The Armenian Question, (Ankara: TTK, 2001), pp. 196-202 and 210-216; Mim Kemal Öke, “The Response of the Turkish Armenians to the ‘Armenian Question’ (1919-1926),” in Armenians in the Ottoman…, pp. 71-88; Stanford J. Shaw, From Empire…, volume III-1, p. 1050. See also Rapport hebdomadaire, 23-29 mars 1920, 15-21 juin 1920, Service historique de la défense nationale (SHDN), 4 H 58, dossier 1.

[46] Télégramme du général Gouraud au ministère des Affaires étrangères, 24 octobre 1921 ; télégramme du ministère au Haut-Commissaire à Beyrouth, 3 novembre ; télégrammes du général Pellé au ministère, 5, 15 et 23 novembre 1921 ; lettre du ministère à Franklin-Bouillon, 12 novembre 1921, Archives du ministère des Affaires étrangères (AMAE), P 17785 ; Commandement supérieur, Levant — Journal des marches et des opérations, 1921, pp. 456-469, SHDN, 4H 47, dossier 1 ; Bulletin périodique n° 39, 5 décembre 1921-5 janvier 1922, SHDN, 4 H 49, dossier 1 ; Bulletin de renseignements n° 279, 17-21 novembre 1921, 4 H 61, dossier 3; Yücel Güçlü, Armenians and the Allies in Cilicia (1914-1923), (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2010), pp. 140-156 and 210-216.

[47] Rapport du père Ludovic Marseille, septembre 1922 ;Télégramme du colonel Mougin au général Pellé, 8 septembre 1922 ; télégramme du général Pellé au ministère des Affaires étrangères, 8 septembre 1922 ; télégramme de Raymond Poincaré à Athènes, Londres, Rome, Washington, 9 septembre 1922 ; télégramme de l’ambassadeur de France à Londres au ministère des Affaires étrangères, 12 septembre 1922, AMAE, P 1380.

[48] American investigations: Yücel Güçlü, Armenians and the Allies…, pp. 124-127; Heath Lowry, “American Observers in Anatolia circa 1920: The Bristol Papers,” in Armenians in the…, pp. 42-58; French investigations: Rapport du commandant Labonne, 7 décembre 1919 ; le chef de bataillon Labonne, en mission à Afioun-Karahissar, à Monsieur le général Commandant en chef des armées alliées [Franchet d’Esperey], 2e bureau, 1919, SHDN, 7 N 3210 ; S.R. Marine, Affaires arméniennes, 15 novembre 1920, AMAE, P 16674; British accounts : Salâhi R. Sonyel, “How Armenian Propaganda Nurtured a Gullible Christian World In Connection With the Deportation and ‘Massacres’,” Belleten, January 1977, pp. 167-168. See also Bulletin de renseignement n° 285, 11-13 décembre 1921, SHDN, 4 H 62, dossier 3; Général Pellé au ministère, 8 septembre 1922, Télégramme de l’ambassadeur français à Londres, 12 septembre 1922, AMAE, P 1360.

[49]NARA, T1192 R2.860J.01/395; verified by the Armenian Patriarch.

^[50]“Yusuf Halaçoğlu Cevap Veriyor,” Taraf (newspaper), 23 June 2008.

^[51]  Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives (BOA), UMVM 159/21, lef.3.

[52] “Tehcirden Dönenlerin Malları,” (Properties of Those Returning from the Relocation), Sosyal Tarih, September 1994, pp.45-48; Bülent Bakar, “Malların İadesi,” (“Returning of properties”) in Hikmet Özdemir (ed.), Türk-Ermeni İhtilafı Makaleler (“Papers on Turko-Armenian Conflict”), (Ankara: TBMM, 2007), pp. 327-339. See: enactment of 8.1.1920. Md. 33 bTakvim-i Vekayi 12 Kanunu Sani 1336 N° 3747 BOA .MV. 245/15 Düstur II Tertip.C.II. pp. 553-554.

[53] Prof. Dr. Nurşen Mazıcı, “Ermenilerin tazminat davası” (The Armenians’ Suit for Damages), Radikal, 13 August 2010.

^[54]Justin McCarthy, “The Report of Niles and Sutherland,” p. 1850. For other sources, see for example Maxime Gauin’s “The Convergent Analysis of Russian, British, French and American Officials Regarding the Armenian Volunteers (1914-1922),” International Review of Turkish Studies, 1.4, Winter 2011-2012, pp. 18-34, http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2012/03/3341-convergent-analysis-of-russian.html ; Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile…; Stanford Jay Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, (New York-Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), volume II, 1978, pp. 322-323 and 325.

[55] Maxime Bergès, La Colonne de Marach et quelques autres récits de l’armée du Levant, (Paris: La Renaissance du Livre, 1924), pp. 56, 81-82, 89 and 142-143 ; Maxime Gauin, “The Convergent Analysis…,” pp. 34-41; Yücel Güçlü, Armenians and the Allies…; Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile…, pp. 202-208; Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, pp. 107-108; Stanford J. Shaw, “The Armenian Legion and its Destruction of the Armenian Community in Cilicia,” in Türkkaya Ataöv (ed.), The Armenians in the…, pp. 155-206, altilar/tobi/e-library/TheArmenians/ArmenianLegion.pdf

[56] Doç. Dr. Sadi Çaycı “Ermeni sorununun hukuksal boyutu” (The legal dimension of the Armenian question), http://www.eraren.org/bilgibankası/tr/index2_1_2.htm

[57] See for Lex Specialis Article 55 of the text of the draft articles on Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission at its 53rd session (2001) which foresees that the international responsibility of a State for the existence of an internationally wrongful act is governed by special rules of international law (lex specialis).

^[58] American-Turkish Claims Settlement Under the Agreement of December 24, 1923 and Supplemental Agreements between the United States and Turkey: On December 24, 1923 Opinion and report, prepared by Fred K. Nielsen, (Washington: GOP, 1937). Turkey and the United States of America concluded an agreement with regard to the settlement of claims of their citizens. A joint commission was created to examine the claims. 898 dossiers were laid before the Commission by the U.S. government. No claims of Turkish citizens against the U.S. were presented to the commission. The dossiers of the claims had to contain the documents establishing the nature, the origin and the justification of each claim. The claims had to be submitted by February 15, 1934. The U.S. government had the right to submit up to August 15, 1934 other documents in support of claims (Nielsen Report page 9) According to Mr. Nielsen, the author of the report, “These provisions are in harmony with international practice in relation to such matters. The following type of stipulations is found in numerous claims agreements: The high contracting parties engage to consider the result of the proceedings of the (claims settlement) commission as a full, perfect and final settlement of every claim upon either Government arising out of any transaction of a date prior to the exchange of the ratifications of the present convention; and further engage that every such claim, whether or not the same may have been presented to the notice of, made, preferred or laid before the said commission.” Nielsen report, p.15; our emphasis).

[59]Selâhaddin Kardeş, Tehcir ve Emval-I Metrûke mevzuatı (Relocation and Legislation on Abandoned Property) Maliye Bakanlığı Strateji Geliştirma Başkanlığı Ankara 2008 (Publication of the Ministry of Finance, Ankara 2008).

[60] Fred Kenelm Nielsen, American-Turkish Claims…, pp. 780-782. See also Kemal Çiçek, “The 1934-1935 Turkish-American Compensation Agreement and Its Implication for Today,” Review of Armenian Studies, n° 23, 2011, pp. 93-146.

[61] Fred Kenelm Nielsen, American-Turkish Claims Settlement…

[62] Kamuran Gürün, The Armenian File, pp. 360-379.

[63]Pulat Tacar, “An Invitation to Truth, Transparency and Accountability: Toward ‘Responsible Dialogue on the Armenian Issue,” Review of Armenian Studies, n° 22, 2010, pp. 135-170.