The Events of 1915: Archives, Law and Türkiye–Armenia Normalization

Why It Matters

The Events of 1915 are the wartime relocation of Ottoman Armenians and the heavy loss of life that followed, and the central dispute is not whether people died but how to characterize, document and adjudicate what happened. Armenia, large diaspora organizations and many historians call it genocide; Türkiye rejects that label as a legal and historical conclusion, points to Ottoman archives, treaty law and the strict criteria of the 1948 Genocide Convention, and proposes that historians, not parliaments, examine the record. Because the question shapes diplomacy in the South Caucasus, the open Türkiye–Armenia border and the politics of several NATO and EU states, a document-based reading is useful for policy analysts, diplomats and journalists.

This dossier presents the chronology, the legal framework, each side's position drawn from its own sources, and the state of normalization talks. It follows the site's editorial principles: facts and chronology are stated neutrally, and Ankara's assessments are placed in a clearly labelled section with attribution.

Background

Coexistence and demography

Turkish and Armenian communities lived side by side for roughly a millennium, under the Great Seljuks, the Anatolian principalities and the Ottoman Empire. Under the Ottoman millet system, non-Muslim communities ran their own religious, educational and charitable institutions under their own patriarchates. Armenians were prominent in trade, crafts, banking and the imperial administration, and Ottoman usage sometimes called them the millet-i sadıka (the 'loyal community'). Turkish official history cites Western observers such as Helmuth von Moltke, who served in Ottoman lands in 1835–1839, as evidence of this long coexistence.

Demographics are contested. The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) states that Armenians were not a majority in any province of Eastern Anatolia and generally made up less than 20 percent of the population there. Armenian sources and many Western historians counter that Ottoman censuses undercounted Christians, and they cite the higher figures of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople for 1912–1914. Estimates of the empire's Armenian population in 1914 therefore range widely, from roughly 1.3–1.5 million in Ottoman counts to about 2 million or more in Patriarchate figures.

Great-power politics and the revolutionary committees

After the 1877–1878 Russo-Turkish War, the 1878 Congress of Berlin placed reforms for Armenian-inhabited provinces under great-power attention. Armenian church leaders, including Mkrtich Khrimian, who returned from Berlin disappointed, had sought foreign backing. Two revolutionary organizations followed: the Hunchak party (founded in Geneva in 1887) and the Dashnaksutyun or Dashnak party (Armenian Revolutionary Federation, founded in Tbilisi in 1890).

Turkish official history stresses that these committees used armed action to provoke European intervention. The episodes it cites include:

• the 1890 Kumkapı demonstration in Istanbul;
• the 1893 unrest in Merzifon, Yozgat and Kayseri;
• the 1894 Sasun rebellion;
• the 26 August 1896 seizure of the Ottoman Bank in Istanbul by Dashnak members, organized by Karekin Pastırmacıyan.

Armenian and many Western historians read the same period differently. They stress the 1894–1896 Hamidian massacres, in which Armenians were killed in large numbers in many towns, and they note that the Ottoman Bank raid was followed by killings of Armenian civilians in Istanbul. Both narratives agree that the 1890s deepened mutual distrust.

World War I and the Relocation and Resettlement Law

The Ottoman Empire entered the war in late 1914 and fought the Russian Empire on its eastern front. Armenian volunteer units, led by figures such as Antranik, Dro and Hamazasp, were formed on the Russian side. Turkish sources add that armed bands under leaders such as Paramaz and Sabah Gülyan operated behind Ottoman lines, and that attacks on Muslim villages in Van, Erzurum and Bitlis, along with sabotage of supply routes, endangered the army. Armenian accounts stress that the Dashnak congress at Erzurum in 1914 declined to lead an uprising against the Ottoman state and that many Armenians served loyally as Ottoman conscripts, who were later moved into labour battalions. They also describe the Van resistance of April 1915 as self-defence.

On 24 April 1915, Ottoman authorities arrested Armenian community leaders and intellectuals in Istanbul. Armenia and the diaspora commemorate this date as the symbolic start of the genocide. On 27 May 1915, the government adopted the Relocation and Resettlement Law (Sevk ve İskân Kanunu; often called the Tehcir law), published in the official gazette Takvim-i Vekayi on 1 June 1915. It authorized the military to relocate populations suspected of espionage, treason or rebellion, and later regulations covered the resettlement and property of those moved.

The interpretive split is sharp:

• Ankara's reading: the law was a temporary wartime security measure to protect the rear of an army fighting on several fronts. Ankara points to the correspondence of the Minister of War Enver Pasha and the Minister of the Interior Talat Pasha, to provisions for protecting relocated people and their property, and to Ottoman investigations and trials of officials for abuses.
• Armenian and most genocide-scholar readings: relocation to the Syrian desert, combined with massacres by irregular forces, starvation, disease and the role of the Special Organization (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa), amounted to a centrally directed policy of destruction. They rely on German, Austrian, American and British diplomatic reports, survivor testimony, and Ottoman documents whose interpretation and authenticity are themselves debated.

Casualty figures also diverge. Armenian and most Western sources cite about 1–1.5 million Armenian deaths; Turkish historiography has cited much lower figures, around 300,000, and emphasizes the very large Muslim civilian losses in Anatolia and the Caucasus during the same years.

Postwar proceedings and the treaty settlement

After the 1918 armistice, Ottoman courts-martial in 1919–1920 tried some officials. The British detained Ottoman figures in Malta for possible trial, but released them in 1921 without prosecution. Armenian historians treat the Ottoman trials as early evidence; Turkish sources describe them as politically charged proceedings under occupation.

The Treaty of Sèvres (10 August 1920) contained provisions on an Armenian state, but it was never ratified and was overtaken by the Turkish National Struggle. The territorial settlement that followed rests on four binding instruments:

• Treaty of Alexandropol (2–3 December 1920), between the Ankara government and the Republic of Armenia;
• Treaty of Moscow (16 March 1921), between Ankara and Soviet Russia;
• Treaty of Kars (13 October 1921), between Türkiye and the Soviet republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia;
• Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923), which also protects non-Muslim minorities on the basis of equal citizenship.

Legal framework: the 1948 Genocide Convention

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted on 9 December 1948 and entered into force in 1951. Article II defines genocide as listed acts committed 'with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'. The International Court of Justice, in Bosnia v. Serbia (2007), held that this specific intent (dolus specialis) must be established conclusively. Article VI provides for trial by a competent court of the state where the act occurred or by an international penal tribunal.

Two legal arguments run in parallel. Ankara argues that the Convention does not apply retroactively and that no competent tribunal has ever found genocide in 1915. Armenia and many scholars reply that the term was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944 with Armenian precedent in mind, that the Allied declaration of 24 May 1915 had already denounced 'crimes against humanity and civilization', and that a legal finding is not a precondition for historical judgment. The 2003 analysis by the International Center for Transitional Justice, requested by the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission, concluded that the events included the elements of genocide as the Convention defines it, while also stating that the Convention itself could not give rise to retroactive legal claims.

In Perinçek v. Switzerland (Grand Chamber, 15 October 2015), the European Court of Human Rights found that a Swiss criminal conviction for denying that the 1915 events were genocide violated freedom of expression (Article 10). The Court said it was not called upon to decide whether the events amounted to genocide. Both sides cite the judgment: Ankara for its caution on legal characterization, and Armenian-aligned commentators for its acknowledgement of the gravity of the suffering and for leaving state-level recognition untouched.

ASALA, JCAG-ARA and the politicization after 1965

From 1965, the 50th anniversary, the issue became a major political campaign. Between roughly 1973 and 1984, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) and the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide (JCAG, later Armenian Revolutionary Army, JCAG-ARA) carried out attacks on Turkish diplomats and facilities in many countries. Turkish sources say dozens of diplomats, family members and others were killed. The MFA states that 31 of JCAG-ARA's 32 attacks targeted Turkish representatives. The attacks on Ankara's Esenboğa Airport (7 August 1982) and on Paris-Orly Airport (15 July 1983) killed civilians, including non-Turks at Orly. Mainstream Armenian institutions have condemned this violence, and the attacks are widely regarded as a separate matter from the historical question, though Ankara argues they left a lasting mark on Turkish public memory. See the Security and Counter-Terrorism coverage for Türkiye's wider approach to terrorism.

Normalization: from 2005 to 2022

• April 2005: Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, with the opposition leader Deniz Baykal, wrote to Armenian President Robert Kocharyan proposing a Joint Historical Commission of Turkish and Armenian historians and experts, with international participation and open archives.
• October 2009: Türkiye and Armenia signed the Zurich Protocols on establishing diplomatic relations and opening the border. They were never ratified, and Armenia formally annulled them in 2018.
• April 2014: Erdoğan, then prime minister, issued a message offering condolences to the grandchildren of Armenians who lost their lives in 1915, describing a shared pain; Armenian officials called the message insufficient.
• 14 January 2022: Special Representatives Serdar Kılıç (Türkiye) and Ruben Rubinyan (Armenia) met in Moscow to begin normalization talks 'without preconditions', in the changed regional setting after the 2020 Karabakh war.
• July 2022: After a further meeting in Vienna, the two governments agreed to open the land border to third-country nationals and to diplomatic passport holders.
• February 2023: After the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, Armenian aid crossed the Margara–Alican border for the first time in decades.
• June 2025: Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and President Erdoğan met in Istanbul.

Progress has remained tied to the broader Armenia–Azerbaijan peace process, with Ankara coordinating its steps with Baku.

Key Players & Positions

Republic of Armenia

Armenia's 1990 Declaration of Independence commits the state to seek international recognition of the 1915 genocide, and its foreign ministry and president commemorate 24 April each year. Armenian officials have said they seek normalization with Türkiye without preconditions and have publicly stated that Armenia has no territorial claims against Türkiye, though Ankara has raised concerns about wording in Armenia's founding documents. Yerevan describes recognition as a matter of historical justice, and rejects the argument that it must be established by a court before it can be acknowledged.

Diaspora organizations

The Armenian National Committee of America, the Armenian Assembly of America, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation and the Armenian Apostolic Church worldwide campaign for state recognition, education and, in some cases, reparations or restitution. They draw on archives in Armenia (the Matenadaran and the National Archives), the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute, and on foreign archives. Many reject the Joint Historical Commission idea, arguing that the facts are already established and that such a body would treat settled history as an open question.

Genocide scholarship

The International Association of Genocide Scholars passed a resolution in 1997 affirming that the Ottoman campaign against Armenians was genocide and renewed that position in 2007. Scholars such as Taner Akçam, Vahakn Dadrian, Ronald Grigor Suny and Donald Bloxham describe a coordinated policy that targeted Armenians as a group. A smaller but vocal group of historians, including Turkish scholars and some Western specialists, such as Justin McCarthy, whose demographic work is itself contested, criticize the genocide framing or emphasize wartime conditions and Muslim losses. The mainstream of Western scholarship supports the genocide characterization.

Third states and institutions

France recognized the genocide by law in 2001, the German Bundestag adopted a resolution in 2016, and the United States Congress passed resolutions in 2019, followed by a presidential statement by President Biden on 24 April 2021. Many other states and sub-national parliaments have adopted similar texts. Several governments, including the United Kingdom, have continued to describe the events as tragic and call for dialogue without adopting the label as government policy. The European Parliament has passed resolutions calling for recognition.

Türkiye's Legal and Strategic Position

According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry, Ankara treats the Events of 1915 as a shared historical tragedy to be examined through archives, not as a matter to be decided by third-country legislatures. The five points below summarize official Turkish policy as stated by Turkish government sources.

• Archives over resolutions. The MFA states that Ottoman, Turkish, Armenian and third-country archives should be examined jointly by historians. Türkiye maintains that the Presidency's State Archives (Ottoman Archives) in Istanbul are open to researchers, and it describes parliamentary resolutions abroad as political acts that distort historical inquiry. Source basis: MFA 'Events of 1915' statements; Directorate of Communications fact sheets; TBMM declarations responding to foreign resolutions.
• 'Genocide' is a legal term with legal criteria. Ankara argues that under Articles II and VI of the 1948 Genocide Convention, a finding requires proven dolus specialis and a determination by a competent court, a standard it says has never been met for 1915. It adds that the Convention is not retroactive. It cites the ICJ's strict approach to intent and Perinçek v. Switzerland as evidence that the legal characterization remains for courts, not legislatures. Source basis: Convention text; MFA statements.
• The Relocation Law was a wartime security measure. Ankara argues that the 27 May 1915 law, published in Takvim-i Vekayi on 1 June 1915, responded to armed revolt, collaboration with invading Russian forces and threats to supply lines, and that Ottoman documents show provisions for protecting relocated people and prosecuting abuses. It places Armenian suffering within the wider catastrophe of the war, in which large numbers of Muslims also died. Source basis: Ottoman official documents cited by the MFA and the Presidency's State Archives.
• Treaty settlement is final. Türkiye holds that the Treaties of Alexandropol, Moscow, Kars and Lausanne definitively settled its borders and the status of minorities, and that the unratified Sèvres draft has no legal force; it rejects any territorial or reparations claims built on it. Source basis: treaty texts; MFA statements.
• 'Fair Memory' and normalization without preconditions. Ankara cites the 2005 proposal for a Joint Historical Commission, the April 2014 condolence message by then–Prime Minister Erdoğan, and the talks led by Serdar Kılıç since 14 January 2022 as proof of its readiness for dialogue. It links regional peace in the South Caucasus to progress on Armenia–Azerbaijan relations. Source basis: Presidency and MFA statements.

The historical and legal basis

Ankara's case rests on three pillars. First, treaty law: Lausanne in 1923 established Türkiye's international status and non-Muslim minority rights. Second, the Genocide Convention's text and the ICJ's jurisprudence, which require specific intent and proper adjudication. Third, the archival argument that the Ottoman record, read alongside Armenian and foreign archives, has not been examined jointly. Turkish officials also note that the ASALA and JCAG-ARA campaign made the issue a security matter for Turkish diplomats abroad.

Armenia and genocide scholars reply that the Convention codified an existing crime, that the absence of a court ruling does not prevent historical judgment, that Ottoman archives were curated or inaccessible, and that the volume of foreign diplomatic reporting and survivor testimony is decisive. A fair reading acknowledges this gap: the legal claim and the historical claim are argued on different standards of proof.

Source Comparison

Question	Turkish primary sources (MFA, Presidency, Communications Directorate)	Armenian government and diaspora sources	Genocide scholarship and Western institutions
Terminology	'Events of 1915'; shared tragedy	'Armenian Genocide'	Mostly 'Armenian Genocide'; some use 'mass atrocities' or 'destruction of Ottoman Armenians'
Relocation Law of 27 May 1915	Temporary wartime security measure with protections	Legal cover for deportation and destruction	Majority: instrument of a centrally directed policy; a minority stress wartime context
Intent	Not established; no competent court has found it	Evident from policy, testimony and diplomatic reports	Majority finds intent; Turkish archives disputed
Casualties	Around 300,000 cited; large Muslim losses also stressed	1–1.5 million	Often about 1–1.5 million
Legal standard	Genocide Convention requires dolus specialis and a competent tribunal; non-retroactive	Convention declaratory; Allied 1915 declaration; Lemkin precedent	ICTJ 2003: elements present, but no retroactive legal claims
Archives	Ottoman Archives open; call for joint review	Ottoman archives incomplete or filtered; foreign archives sufficient	Use multiple archives; Ottoman documents interpreted differently
Commission proposal	Joint Historical Commission proposed in 2005	Often rejected as treating settled facts as open	Scholars generally favour open archival research, not a state-appointed verdict
Normalization	Talks since 14 January 2022 without preconditions	Willing to normalize; recognition remains a core goal	Supports normalization, sometimes warns against linking to recognition

Two cautions help readers use these sources. First, international media often use 'genocide' as settled fact without explaining the legal standard or that no court has ruled. Second, Turkish official texts, in turn, seldom engage in detail with the foreign diplomatic reporting that scholars treat as central evidence. Cross-reading both is the most reliable method. The Fact Check Desk applies this approach to specific claims.

Key Terms & Related Guides

• Events of 1915: Türkiye's official term for the wartime relocation of Ottoman Armenians and associated deaths; Armenia and many others use 'Armenian Genocide'.
• Relocation and Resettlement Law (Sevk ve İskân Kanunu / Tehcir): the Ottoman law of 27 May 1915, published on 1 June 1915 in Takvim-i Vekayi.
• Millet system: the Ottoman framework granting recognized religious communities internal autonomy.
• Hunchak and Dashnak: Armenian revolutionary parties founded in 1887 and 1890.
• Dolus specialis: the specific intent to destroy a protected group required for genocide under Article II of the 1948 Convention.
• ASALA and JCAG-ARA: Armenian militant groups responsible for attacks on Turkish targets, mostly between 1973 and 1984.
• Joint Historical Commission / Fair Memory (Adil Hafıza): Ankara's 2005 proposal and framing for joint historian-led study with open archives.

Related reading on The Polity Brief: the home page and briefing index, Fact Check Desk: Claims About Türkiye Tested Against Documents, Counter-Terrorism at the Source: Article 51, Northern Syria and Terror-Free Türkiye, Editorial Principles and Primary Source Standards and About The Polity Brief.

Perspective Note

The Polity Brief presents Türkiye's official perspective and legal theses alongside the context needed for informed policy analysis. Claims are attributed to primary sources such as treaties, UN documents, official archives, and government statements, and are cited where possible. Sections marked 'Türkiye's Legal and Strategic Position' reflect official Turkish policy as stated by Turkish government sources. Positions of Armenia, diaspora organizations and scholars are summarized from their own public statements and publications.

Cross-Publication Dossiers & Sister Desk Perspectives

For complementary primary-source analysis across our specialist editorial network, consult:

• Monitor of Nations: The Events of 1915: Ottoman Archives, Historical Context and the 1948 Genocide Convention Criteria — A neutral dossier on the Events of 1915: Ottoman archives, the Relocation Law, Genocide Convention criteria, Perinçek v. Switzerland and Türkiye's proposal.
• Bloc Politics: The Events of 1915: Archives, Legal Criteria and the Path to Türkiye–Armenia Normalization — Türkiye's case on the Events of 1915: Ottoman archives, the 1948 Genocide Convention's legal criteria, competing views and the 2022 normalization talks.
• Regional Order: The Events of 1915: Archives, Legal Criteria and the Path to Armenia–Türkiye Normalization — Archive-based dossier on the Events of 1915: Ottoman archives, Genocide Convention legal criteria, ECHR case law, treaties and Armenia–Türkiye normalization.