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)
Your donation helps Prison Fellowship International repair the harm caused by crime by emphasizing accountability, forgiveness, and making amends for prisoners and those affected by their actions. When victims, offenders, and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results are transformational.
Donate Now