Source: (2008) Connecticut Journal of International Law. 24:1- 37.

This Article will address the issue at the heart of the debate, specifically whether the "restorative justice" interests of the Armenians, namely an acknowledgment of Genocide, outweighs the political, diplomatic, and military risks its passage could entail. A comparison shall be made to the Allied response to the Armenian Genocide following World War I. The Allied response to the Armenian Genocide after World War I has been seen historically as an abysmal failure of international law, human rights and diplomacy and has been linked with the subsequent Jewish Holocaust of World War II11 After World War I, the Allies had much to lose if they pursued policies aimed at restorative justice for the Armenians. For example, the Allies faced the necessity of establishing an unprecedented international criminal tribunal, scouring Europe for suspects and even continuing a major war against the battle-ready Kemalist army in an effort to defend the newly partitioned Armenian state. 3 The nascent international legal instruments at the disposal of the Allies were, arguably, insufficient to perfect such sweeping reform. (excerpt)