• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
01.04.2010

BOOK REVIEW

   

Eduard L. Danielyan

Eduard L. Danielyan, Sc.D. (in History)

Power and Justice in International Relations. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Global Challenges, Edited by Marie-Luisa Frick and Andreas Oberprantacher, University of Innsbruck, Austria, Ashgate, December 2009, 284 pages.

The book provides detailed analysis of current developments in international politics, focuses on conditions for social and ecological justice in international economics against the background of financial crisis from points of view of the concepts of justice and power in international relations.

The contributors of the book, reflecting the work of the internationally acclaimed Austrian philosopher Hans Köchler and touching on the problems of the place of international law, the meaning of economic justice and the importance of dialogue of civilizations, aimed tо highlight a better comprehension of the interrelation between power and justice in the light of current world tensions. Hans Köchler in the 1980s criticized legal positivism and promoted a theory that human rights are the basis of international law's validity. His reflections on political philosophy, democracy in inter-state relations, the role and philosophical foundations of civilizational dialogue, a comprehensive system of international criminal justice led him to the field of research of problems concerning world order, including the dialectic relationship between power and law [1-4], and law as a system of norms based on the equality of all nations [5, p. 19].

As is stated in the Forward “It is probably one of the most remarkable, if not paradoxical, effects of the global financial crises that questions of power and justice, which have become ever more pressing since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the military interventions following 9/11, nowadays, feature prominently within debates on international relations and regularly make the headlines of the world media” (6, p. xv).

The authors of the book's essays, in contrast to the Francis Fukuyama's historico-philosophical thesis of the “end of history» and of his praising of Western liberal democracy (as “the final form of human government”) [7, p.xi], take up such readings that recognize the importance and urgency of once again subjecting issues of power and justice to academic scrutiny on the basis of Foucault's dictum (that “the paramount concern» of any analysis of power should be “the point where power surmounts the rules of right which organize and delimit it and extends itself beyond them, invests itself in institutions, becomes embodied in techniques, and equips itself with instruments and eventually even violent means of material intervention”) [8, p. 34; 6, p. xv]. Another criticism, founded on the critical approach of H.Köchler (“the notion of a clash has been deliberately conjured to enable the centres of power in the West to preserve and perpetuate their hegemony” [9, p. 17-21]), is directed against the thesis of Samuel P.Huntington - “Clash of Civilizations” [10, p. 5].

It is necessary to take into consideration that the deep-rooted cultures and civilizations do not come into collision with each other, but enriching mutually, contribute to the treasury of the world culture [11]. It is possible to speak about competitiveness of cultures and civilizations due to diversities in cultural values, but cultures, owing to immanent creative potential, as basic ingredients of civilizations do not originally bear the elements of clash or destruction. Destructive forces are derived not from cultural factor, but, on the contrary, because of its lack. Those states which choose the way of aggression, conquest and colonization, extremely politicize ideological processes, violate and abuse and deform the field of culture; consequently the expansionist aggressive policy is accompanied by a violent exploitation and disablement of cultural spheres turning them into their opposite - means of oppression: “forced assimilation by prohibition of mother tongue, religion and cultural ways of expression and denial of the existence of whole peoples in the public life of a state” [12]. The destruction of the Armenian masterpieces of architecture in Western Armenia and Armenian Cilicia is not a result of the clash of civilizations, but is the continuation of the Armenian Genocide - the organized anti-Armenian aggressive Pan-Turkic policy, the crime committed by criminal Turkey against humanity and civilization [13]. Such misanthropic bloody and destructive criminal actions were the result of the Genocide (from the 1890s to the 1920s) committed by the uncivilized, nomadic, brutal Turkic savage and deformed state against the Armenian people and civilization in Western Armenia and Armenian Cilicia. In January 1917 the Allies wrote to President Wilson that one of their aims was "the turning out of Europe of the Ottoman Empire, as decidedly foreign to Western civilization" [14, ch.III].

The Turko-Oghuz-Tatar Musavatist criminals committed genocidal actions against Armenians in the Armenian populated part of Baku (1918) and in the Armenian region of Artsakh (in the city of Shushi, in 1920) and in some other parts of Eastern Armenia. Genocidal actions, deportations and destruction of the Armenian historic monuments were committed in Nakhijevan, Artsakh and Utik (the ancient regions of Great Armenia), which were annexed to Turkic-Oghuz-Tatar “Azerbaijani” SSR (by the unlawful resolutions of the central Soviet Bolshevik authorities in 1921), and in Sumgait (1988), Baku (1990), and were continued also in post-Soviet times1. Thanks to the Armenian heroic liberation forces the Armenians and Armenian monuments were saved in liberated parts of Artsakh – the Republic of Mountainous Karabakh [16, pp. 30-56; 17, pp. 57-72; cf. 18].

The book “Power and Justice in International Relations. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Global Challenges” is divided into four parts, each interdisciplinary in approach and scope, combining theoretical and methodological reflections, thus content and structure of the book, owing to the fact that the contributions in H. Köchler's honor come from colleagues from many countries of the world, are based not on one predominant worldview, but rather on a plurality of perspectives [6, p. xix].

Part 1 is focused on the unilateral use of force in international relations and its implication for international law following the events of 9/11. As an international lawyer Anthony Carty attempts to argue for the necessity of philosophical reflection about the foundations of Western thinking on international law and morality in accordance with Köchler's point of view. He notes that despite the fact that the last election campaign revealed a conviction that the United States enjoys and should continue to enjoy the leadership role in the world and thus has a special task to use its leadership to ensure a proper place for certain values in world society, such as democracy, the rule of law, etc., “instead, it has to be recognized that an international order, or constellation of power, is now emerging, which does not allow for leading it from a single source”. Attachment to ideals and concepts of international law and order in the context of collective security, according to Carty, does not exclude the possibility that the underlying motivation is adherence to one's own concept of national interest, thus “inability to perceive this is probably a main source of serious collisions between the United States, its allies, and the rest at the present time” [6, pp. 14-15]. The author considers “undisputed that in August 2008 Georgia launched an armed attack on South Ossetia to force its reintegration into Georgia” and that the declaration of independence of South Ossetia, the latter’s recognition by Russia and opposition by at least the US and UK, the approval of the Kosovo’s independence by the West and Russia’s opposition to this come out from the controversial character of international law in the question of the right of secession.

According to Carty, such fundamental disagreements of factual perception and normative standards as the United States-Russian dispute always plague international relations disputes and make their resolution through morally simplistic rhetoric about Coalitions of Democracies potentially as dangerous as any renewed wars of religion and ideology. Considering international law and relations tradition in the West as subjectivist the author writes: “This is philosophical, cultural problem, which goes back to the beginnings of modern Western culture in the 16th and 17th centuries” [6, p. 20]. Anthony Carty concludes: “The need still remains for an ontology of international society, which is not imprisoned by the inevitable unilateralism of Western subjectivism, but can reveal a vision of a larger whole of international reality, of which the West should have the maturity to accept that it is a significant but not dominant part” [6, p. 26].

Underlining the importance and significance of Köchler’s legal philosophy and views on universal jurisdiction, collective security and humanitarian intervention, as well as his attempts to complete the Kelsenian [19] project through integration of the International Criminal Court more firmly into the formal structure of the UN, Chin Leng Lim supposes that “the great philosophical questions about power and justice do not replace the discipline of international law as such… Focusing almost exclusively on the questions of power and justice is not always sufficient. It does not describe completely, and does not fully prescribe the world we might live”. At the same time Chin Leng Lim accepts that “individual and State responsibility are inextricably linked if we are truly to aspire to some semblance of global justice. Köchler's intellectual contribution has been to demonstrate that truth against the events of our time” [6, pp.47-48].

Jodok Troy considers the Catholic Church’s critical view of power and its pursuit of social justice which serve as “positive examples of how the relationship between power and justice in international relations might be assessed to meet global challenges in a sustainable manner” [6, p. 53]. Analyzing the questions of the resurgence of religion in international affairs and its challenges he is of the opinion that focusing on and acknowledging the Church’s vision of peace and social justice, its progressive role as a considerable force of liberation becomes evident. Following Weigel’s dictum that the most important question of the 21st century is “the question of the responsible use of human freedom” [20], Jodok Troy concludes: “The state of international affairs is becoming increasingly complex and tends to ever more be determined by religious and cultural issues and differences…” and “the Roman Catholic Church has the duty to transform public morals, not only according to sectarian dimensions, but with a view towards a higher degree of social justice in international relations. This becomes especially expedient in an age in which the escalation of global conflicts is not just possible, but more and more probable” [6, pp. 62-63].

In turn, discussing meta-arguments and specific arguments as “difference arguments” concerning the problem of international law and relations within the scope of definition that “the sovereignty and equality of states represent the basic constitutional doctrine of the law of nations”, Sienho Yee concludes his paper with questions for future exploration: “Given the historical accidental situation that international society is in at present, can we fashion a plausible “international difference principle” that would have a broad scope of application in evaluating the legitimacy of a different argument? Or shall we consider other possibilities such as formulating some index of legitimacy? ” [6, p. 82].

Part 2 focuses on conceptual disputes in modern international law, war crime tribunals and the concept of human security in international legal theory. Highlighting Kelsen’s theory on peace through law (“There are truths which are so self-evident that they must be proclaimed again and again in order not to be doomed to oblivion. Such a truth is: that war is mass murder, the greatest disgrace of our culture, and that to secure world peace is our foremost political task” thus peace is the goal, and international law the paramount instrument to implement it) [19, pp. vii-viii, 6, p. 88] Andreas Th. Müller addresses the question he had in mind when speaking of world peace and the organizational framework to maintain it and how this relates to one another. Then he examines two major strategies Kelsen proposes in order to guarantee the effective control by international law of the power relations within the international community, notably the establishment of compulsory jurisdiction for the peaceful settlement of international disputes as well as the recognition of international individual criminal responsibility for grave violations of international law. Considering Kelsen’s legacy in process of development Andreas Th. Müller concludes that whether we are closer to world peace today than in Kelsen’s time this goal remains the raison d’etre of international law [6, pp. 87-113].

Edward McWhinney analyzing the problem of post-bellum war crimes tribunals and contemporary international law observes that “some conclusions are clear enough from the larger historical record of the disparate ad hoc War Crimes Tribunals created, at the insistence of the Victor States at the conclusion of international armed conflicts, in order to try leaders, political and military, of their recently defeated enemies” [6, p. 128].

Lyal S. Sunga suggests the concept of human security to be added to international legal theory because it ought to be comprehended as the proper concern of existing international law and multilateral cooperation (6, pp. 131-144).

Andreas Th. Müller and Edward McWhinney consider Art. 227 and 228 of the Treaty of Versailles (June 28, 1919) on the questions of individual criminal responsibility and the creation of a special tribunal for the German Kaiser's trial [6, p. 100, 118].

In connection with this problem it is necessary to draw attention to all legal aspects concerning war crimes of that period and their post-bellum consequences. For instance, E. Greppi analyses Art. 227-229 of the Treaty of Versailles and International legal heritage after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials and concludes: «On the eve of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an important development of the concept of crimes against humanity led to the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Convention, which entered into force on 12 January 1951, clearly classifies genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, as a crime under international law» [21, No. 835, pp. 531-553].

The May 24, 1915 declaration by the Entente Powers (“...crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization”2) is the first international legal recognition and condemnation of the Armenian Genocide in the 20th century. “The 1919 Peace Conference's Commission on the Responsibilities of the Authors of War and on Enforcement of Penalties for Violations of the Laws and Customs of War was forced to acquiesce to Article 228, which provided only for the prosecution of German military personnel charged solely with war crimes. Notwithstanding, the Commission reiterated in its final report the two signal principles of the May 24, 1915 declaration 1. Liability to criminal prosecution "without distinction of rank, including Chiefs of State;". 2. It cited Turkey among the other Central Powers as having been guilty of offences against "...the laws of humanity"” [24, pp. 165-167, 170, n. 78, and p. 173, n. 88]. On June 23, 1919 the Supreme Council of the Paris Peace Conference adopted its official answer to the Turkish Delegation. According to that document, the Allies stated that massacre of the Christian Armenians was committed according to the order of the Turkish Government [25, p.647]. The May 24, 1915 declaration influenced mainly the framing of certain Articles of the Treaty of Sèvres ( August 10, 1920)3. As Bassiouni writes, "Thus, the parties to the Treaty of Sèvres intended to bring to justice those who committed 'crimes against humanity'...." [24, p. 174-5].

Raphael Lemkin’s fundamental studies concerning war crimes against humanity [27, p. 2, 12, 32]4 became the basis for the adoption of "The Convention of December 9, 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide". According to the Verdict of the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal (Paris, April 13-16, 1984): "The Armenian population did and do constitute a people whose fundamental rights, both individual and collective, should have been and shall be respected in accordance with international law; the extermination of the Armenian population groups through deportation and massacre constitutes a crime of genocide not subject to statutory limitations within the definition of the Convention of December 9, 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. With respect to the condemnation of this crime, the aforesaid Convention is declaratory of existing law in that it takes note of rules which were already in force at the time of the incriminated acts; the Young Turk government is guilty of this genocide, with regard to the acts perpetrated between 1915-1917; the Armenian Genocide is also an 'international crime' for which the Turkish state must assume responsibility, without using the pretext of any discontinuity in the existence of the state to elude that responsibility; this responsibility implies first and foremost the obligation to recognize officially the reality of this genocide and the consequent damages suffered by the Armenian people; the United Nations Organization and each of its members have the right to demand this recognition and to assist the Armenian people to that end” [29].

From the point of view of general methodological approaches to the development of the international criminal justice system, its defects have been explained by the conflict between justice and the power politics of states, according to an explanation : “The history and record of international criminal investigation and adjudication bodies, from the Treaty of Versailles to the Rome Statute, demonstrate the dominance of competing interests of politics or the influence of a changed geopolitical situation. The ad hoc tribunals and investigations have suffered from the competing interests of politics or the influence of a changed geopolitical situation” [30, p.9].

For the profound study of the development of international criminal law concerning power and justice in international relations in connection with Germany’s case after WWI it would be just to include in the reviewed book relevant documents of that period, especially about the Armenian Genocide committed by Turkey – the German's ally. This problem from the point of view of international criminal law has been profoundly studied by the specialists of different countries on the basis of archive and other documentary sources [31].

Part 3 deals with the issues of knowledge production and the epistemic violence of the international security system in Africa, human rights and the challenges of intercultural dialogue in the 21st century, overcoming cover-sciences in Latin American social sciences and humanities, economic modeling, economic policy paradigms and financial crises with regard to main discussions in international relations, such as nation-building, human rights, creative dialogue with non-Western conceptions, etc (6, pp. 149-201).

Part 4 focuses on the necessity and conditions for global social and ecological justice in international economics and the question of power from the point of view of their manifold but obscured relationship (6, pp. 205-215). Another aspect of this part constitutes a critical analysis of the global financial crisis with research perspective to find “holistic approach”, “permitting to reduce the financial demands by bringing them into line with the capacity of the real economy to produce surplus value and profit on capital, while taking the ecological and social restraints into account” (6, p.236). Francis Bacon's dictum that nature can be overcome only by obeying her is taken as an ideological background of the idea of ecological justice. Thus, as a necessary and possible way out is considered an energy revolution together with a broader change that takes power from the big capital. The problem of cooperation for the provision of global public goods is discussed from the aspects of fairness in international relations (6, pp. 249-264).

As a concluding remark it is possible to assert that the questions of justice and power have engrossed philosophers, historians and politicians since ancient times. Within the frames of each époque answers have been sought - from Plato’s theory of ideal forms to modern ideas [31] of historicism and cultural-civilizational relativism. At present the importance of these and related concepts is emphasized by consideration for the need for new philosophical approaches to moral values of human conduct and the rules and principles governing them which emerge from the areas of human rights and environment, geopolitical balancing and international politics, as well as the problems of epistemic violence, opportunities and vulnerability of international criminal justice.

References

  1. Köchler H., Phenomenological Realism. Selected Essays. Frankfurt a. M./Bern, 1986.
  2. Köchler H., Democracy and the International Rule of Law. Propositions for an Alternative World Order. Selected Papers Published on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations. Vienna/New York, 1995.
  3. Köchler H., World Order: Vision and Reality. Collected Papers, Studies in International Relations, Vol. XXXI. New Delhi, 2009.
  4. Köchler H., Global Justice or Global Revenge? The ICC and the Politicization of International Criminal Justice in International Criminal Law and Human Rights, New Delhi, 2010).
  5. Köchler H.,The Changing Nature of Power and the Erosion of Democracy in the Era of Technology: Challenges to the Philosophy of Law in the 21st Century, in: News and Views, No. 13 (November 2006). Yerevan (Armenia)/Athens (Greece)/Berkeley (USA): International Academy for Philosophy, 2006.
  6. Power and Justice in International Relations. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Global Challenges. Edited by M.-L. Frick and A. Oberprantacher, Austria, Ashgate, 2009.
  7. Fukuyama F., The End of History and the Last Man, New York, 1993.
  8. Foucault M., «Two Lectures», in M.Kelly, Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate, Cambridge, 1994.
  9. Köchler H., “The Clash of Civilizations Revisited”, in H.Köchler and G.Grabher, “Civilizations – Conflict or Dialogue?”, Vienna, 1999.
  10. Huntington S., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, 1996.
  11. Danielyan E.L. The Historical Significance of Armenian Writing, Original and ,Translated Literature as an Aspect of the Dialogue of Civilizations - A paper read at the World Public Forum “Dialogue of Civilizations”, Rhodes Forum, VII Annual Session, October 8-12, 2009, Greece.
  12. International Day of the World’s Indigenous People, 9 August, http://www.acpp.org/sevents/0809.html; UN General Assembley A/RES/49/214 94th plenary meeting 23 December 1994, 49/214. International Decade of the World's Indigenous People, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/49/a49r214.htm
  13. Barsegov Yu., “The Armenian Genocide–Crime against Humanity: On the Legitimacy of the term and juridical qualification”, Yerevan, 1990.
  14. Hacobian A.P., Armenia and the War. With a Preface by the Rt, Hon. Viscount Bryce, L., NY., Toronto, 1917.
  15. Julfa. The Annihilation of the Armenian Cemetery by Nakhijevan’s Azerbaijani Authorities, Beirut, 2006.
  16. Danielyan E.L., The Historical Background of the Philosophical Perception of the World Civilizational Developments. - International Academy for Philosophy, “News and Views”, N 8, 2005.
  17. Danielyan E.L., Civilization’s Theory in Geopolitical Conceptions. – “XXI century”, N 1, 2009.
  18. “Journey to Artsakh (2003) by Abba Seraphim and Father Simon Smyth”, http://www.britishorthodox.org/artsakh.php
  19. Kelsen H., Peace through Law, Chapel Hill, 1944; Law of the UN, London, 1951.
  20. Weigel G., Roman Catholocism in the Age of John Paul II, in P.L. Berger, “The Desecularization of the World: A global Overview”, Washington, 1999.
  21. Edoardo Greppi, The Evolution of Individual Criminal Responsibility under International Law. -International Review of the Red Cross, 1999.
  22. Beylerian Arthur, Les grandes puissances, l'empire ottoman et les Arméniens dans les archives françaises (1914-1918): recueil de documents, Paris 1983, p. XLIII & document N#41; PRO, FO 371/2488/51010, 28 May 1915; History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Development of the Laws of War. London, 1948.
  23. Shabas W.A., Genocide in International Law, Cambridge, 2000.
  24. M.Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law, Boston,1992, http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/fr/genocide/dadrian/book/book8.html
  25. Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939. Ed.by E.L.Woodward, R.Butler. 1st Series. Lnd., HMSO, 1952, vol.4.
  26. The Treaties of Peace 1919-1923, vol. II, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York, 1924.
  27. Raphael Lemkin. Totally Unofficial. The Autobiography [unpublished], see Yahreas H. The World’s Most Horrible Crime//Colliers. 1951. Vol. 127.
  28. Harut Sassounian, Lemkin Discusses Armenian Genocide. http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Lemkin_Discusses_Armenian_Genocide_In_Newly-Found_1949_CBS_Interview).
  29. Excerpted from A Crime of Silence, The Armenian Genocide – Permanent People's Tribunal, p. 209, London, 1985. http://www.groong.org/the_permanent_peoples_tribunal_in_paris.html
  30. Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, War Crimes and Realpolitik: International Justice from World War I to the 21st Century, Boudler, 2004, http://www.rienner.com/uploads/47da985f5271e.pdf
  31. Kunz J., The United Nations Convention on Genocide//American Journal of International Law. Vol. 43. № 4, 1949; Louis H.I., Taking Lives. Genocide and State Power. 3d ed., New Brunswick, 1979; Kempner R.M., Vor 60 Jahren vor einem deutschen Schwurgericht: Der Volkermord an den Armenian. - Recht und Politik. 1980. № 3; Melson R.F., Revolution and Genocide. On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. Chicago, 1984; Verhoeven J., The Armenian People and International Law//A Crime of Silence. The Armenian Genocide. The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal. London, 1985; The Armenian Genocide. Documentation. Vol. 1. Munich, 1987; Staub E., The Roots of Evil. The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. Cambridge, 1989; Falk R., Foreword to the Collected Essays by Dadrian V.N. «The Armenian Genocide in Official Turkish Records». - the «Journal of Political and Military Sociology», 22, 1, Summer 1994; The Ottoman Empire: A Troubled Legacy. Views, Comments and Judgements by Noted Experts Worldwide. Compiled by Dadrian V.N., Williamsburg, 1997; Dadrian Vahakn N., "The Historical and Legal Interconnections Between the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust: From Impunity to Retributive Justice, - «Yale Journal of International Law» 23, no. 2, 1998; Yair Auron, «It was Genocide», Jerusalem, March 3, 2002. Massis Weekly. Vol. 22. № 9, (1059). March 14, 2002, etc.
  32. William S. Hatcher, Love, Power, and Justice: The Dynamics of Authentic Morality, Wilmette, 1998; Frederick G.Whelan. Justice. Classical and Christian – Political Theory, vol. 10, N3, August, 1982.

1At the beginning of the 21st century the remaining groups of tens of thousands (demolished during previous decades) of the Armenian cross-stones (khachkars) were annihilated in the Armenian Cemetery of Jugha (Julfa) in the south of Nakhijevan by the sanctions of the criminal Azerbaijani authorities [15].

2" ...En présence de ces nouveaux crimes de la Turquie contre l'humanité et la civilisation, les gouvernements alliés font savoir publiquement à la Sublime Porte qu'ils tiendront personnellement responsables desdits crimes tous les membres du gouvernement ottoman ainsi que ceux de ses agents qui se trouveraient impliqués dans de pareils massacres" [22; 23, p. 16].

3“… Art. 88 Turkey, in accordance with the action already taken by the Allied Powers, hereby recognizes Armenia as a free and independent State. Art. 89. Turkey and Armenia as well as the other High Contracting Parties agree to submit to the arbitration of the President of the United States of America the question of the frontier to be fixed between Turkey and Armenia in the vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis, and to accept his decision thereupon, as well as any stipulations he may prescribe as to access for Armenia to the sea, and as to the demilitarization of any portion of Turkish territory adjacent to the said frontier… Art. 142. … terrorist regime which has existed in Turkey since November 1, 1914… Art. 226. The Turkish Government recognises the right of the Allied Powers to bring before military tribunals persons accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war. Such persons shall, if found guilty, be sentenced to punishments laid down by law... Art. 230. The Turkish Government undertakes to hand over to the Allied Powers the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on August 1, 1914.The Allied Powers reserve to themselves the right to designate the tribunal which shall try the persons so accused, and the Turkish Government undertakes to recognise such tribunal. In the event of the League of Nations having created in sufficient time a tribunal competent to deal with the said massacres, the Allied Powers reserve to themselves the right to bring the accused persons mentioned above before such tribunal, and the Turkish Government undertakes equally to recognise such tribunal…[26].

4A CBS program (1949) includes a rare TV interview with R. Lemkin on the UN Convention and the Armenian Genocide. R. Lemkin explains to the moderator how his interest in genocide began, and notes particularly: “I became interested in genocide because it happened to the Armenians; and after[wards] the Armenians got a very rough deal at the Versailles Conference…” [28].


Return