International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies

Levon Ashpahyan, Իմ կյանքի մասին [About My Life], Memoirs of Survivors of the Armenian Genocide 6. Editor, author of the preface and references Narine S. Hakobyan. Yerevan: AGMI, 2022, 248 pages

Narine S. Hakobyan — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

N/A

Hovhannes Der-Pilibbossian, Արաբկիրցի վերապրողի յուշեր [Memoir of a Survivor from Arabkir], Memoirs of Survivors of the Armenian Genocide, 12. Editor, author of preface and references Hayastan Martirosyan. Yerevan: AGMI, 2023, 192 pages

Hayastan Martirosyan — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

N/A

Networks of Denial and Justification: South Asian Responses to the Armenian Genocide

Nagothu Naresh Kumar — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

The second decade of the 20th century saw two pivotal events from the Middle East and South Asia: the Armenian Genocide and the Khilafat movement. Both events were influential in setting into motion a cascade of events whose repercussions are still felt acutely to this day. Simultaneous interest in these two pivotal moments has generated considerable scholarship over the last few decades. However, the prospect that these two events could be interlinked in underlying ways is a proposition that has not yet found any traction. Using a range of sources, this article attempts an initial foray into a critically understudied area: the denial and justification of the Armenian Genocide that was integral to the Khilafat movement in South Asia. Arguably one of the most potent examples of denial perpetuated by a non-perpetrator, the South Asian version of this narrative was cobbled together through a convergence of interests between the Muslim and Hindu elite in the region. Unraveling this vast network of denialism and justification warrants attention to underlying motivations and power configurations across a kaleidoscope of identities and geography—which this article seeks to uncover.

Echoes of Loss: Examining Gendered Violence and Legacy in the Armenian Genocide

Ozlem Karakus — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

This article explores the intergenerational transmission of memories among descendants of Armenian Genocide survivors, focusing on perspectives from both males and females. Using an oral history methodology in three provinces– Erznka (modern-day Erzincan), Malatya, and Dersim – the study investigates how narratives of the genocide have been passed down and changed within families. The research emphasizes the gender-specific tactics of the genocide, where Armenian men were often targeted for extermination, while women and children endured forced marches, sexual violence, abductions and forced marriages. By connecting with descendants who carry the post-memory of these events, the study reveals the deep and lasting impact of these atrocities on the Armenian community. Their stories unveil the intricate layers of trauma and resilience that define the Armenian experience and contribute to a broader understanding of genocide and its enduring effects on future generations.

Legal and Political Aspects of the De-Armenization of Nagorno-Karabakh: Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide, Forced Displacement or Voluntary Exodus?

Sossi Tatikyan — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

From September 2020 to September 2023, Azerbaijan applied a combination of hard and soft tactics, military and hybrid methods to depopulate Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) of its indigenous Armenian population.
Different terms are used by various official, policy and academic circles to describe the de-Armenization of Nagorno-Karabakh. The choice of term often depends on their stance, beliefs, interests and expertise. These terms include “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing”, “forced displacement”, “displacement”, “exodus”, “voluntary exodus”, “migration”, among others. Some also use terms that mock or deny the genocide and ethnic cleansing.
This article explores the most accurate terms to describe the de-Armenization of Nagorno-Karabakh. It does this by comparing various perspectives and examining the compliance of the used terms with those implied in international law and relations, as well as their political applicability. The article also revisits the methods and scenarios employed by Azerbaijan, which resulted in the depopulation of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. The combined analysis of those aspects and overwhelming evidence shows that the de-Armenization of Nagorno-Karabakh is ethnic cleansing. Legally, it also corresponds to most of the genocide criteria; however, it may be a difficult claim politically and compared with other ongoing conflicts.

“Sieves of Responsibility” — Connecting Failures of Genocide Prevention and Geopolitical Interests to Atrocity in Nagorno-Karabakh

David Hackett — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

This article aims to contribute to both a legal and practical understanding of how international law dedicated to both genocide prevention and the cessation of genocidal atrocity failed during the 8-month long blockade of the Lachin Corridor—and the ensuing invasion and seizure of Nagorno-Karabakh over a 24-hour period by the Azerbaijani armed forces on 17 September 2024. The invasion led to the forced displacement of nearly the entire territory’s ethnically indigenous Artsakhtsi-Armenian population, amounting to a de facto deportation while escaping the threat of atrocity crimes. Through a discussion of (A) the events that preceded and led to the invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh itself, (B) an analysis of international law on genocide prevention through institutional mechanisms (i.e. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948) and military intervention (i.e. Responsibility to Protect/R2P doctrine), (C) the difficulties of engaging with these mechanisms at a general level, (D) the international community’s response to the seizure of Nagorno-Karabakh, and (E) the geopolitical conditions surrounding the South Caucasus and Nagorno-Karabakh crisis, this article aims to identify the failures of both legal mechanisms intended to prevent the cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh and external actors (i.e. Russian peacekeeping forces legally stationed in the territory) to intervene and respond to the invasion in geopolitically turbulent conditions characterized by intersecting state interests.