The Report was issued by the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group (AGRSG) in March 2015. Full text (162 pages) is here in PDF.

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. i
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1. AGRSG FORMATION AND MISSION………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
2. THE ARMENIAN CASE IN GLOBAL HISTORICAL CONTEXT…………………………………………………………3
3. TIMING OF FINAL REPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………4
4. REPORT OVERVIEW………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9
5. ASSYRIANS AND GREEKS………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
6. CHALLENGES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
7. POTENTIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS AND MISUSES OF THE REPORT…………………………………………. 12
8. IS REPAIR FEASIBLE? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
TERMINOLOGY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
PART 1: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
PART 2: THE HARMS INFLICTED THROUGH THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE……………………………………………20
PART 3: THE FIVE COMPONENTS OF REPARATIONS FOR GENOCIDE ……………………………………………….. 25
PART 4: REPARATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ARMENIAN CASE ……………………………………. 27
4.1 GENERAL LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROPERTY SEIZURE
WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE………………………………………………………………29
4.2 APPLICABILITY OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENOCIDE CONVENTION……………………………………….. 31
4.2.2 NON-PRESCRIPTION OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE …………………………………………………….34
4.2.3 UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION AND ‘THE PROTECTIVE PRINCIPLE’……………………………………43
4.3 THE DOCTRINE OF STATE SUCCESSION……………………………………………………………………………..44
4.4 THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION HAS NOT LAPSED DUE TO THE DEATHS OF POTENTIAL CLAIMANTS OR
TIME PASSAGE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….45
4.5 FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW TO DOMESTIC CASES………………………………………………………………49
PART 5: HISTORICAL OBLIGATIONS AND REPARATIONS……………………………………………………………….50
5.1 BACKGROUND ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 51
5.2 SÈVRES AND LAUSANNE ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 53
5.3 WILSON’S ARBITRATION ………………………………………………………………………………………………..56
5.3.1 THE PROCESS AND REPORT………………………………………………………………………………….. 57
5.3.2 VALIDITY OF THE ARBITRAL AWARD ……………………………………………………………………..59
5.3.3 FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ARBITRAL AWARD ……….62
5.3.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR LAND STATUS TODAY ……………………………………………………………….63
PART 6: ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE REPARATIONS QUESTION…………………………………………………..65
6.1 APPLICATION OF MAJOR ETHICAL THEORIES TO REPARATIONS ……………………………………………. 73
6.2 REFINING THE MORAL ARGUMENTS: RESPONDING TO CHALLENGES, OBJECTIONS, AND
ALTERNATIVES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….82
6.2.1 CHALLENGE: THE PASSAGE OF TIME……………………………………………………………………….82
6.2.2 CHALLENGE: RESTORATION OF THE PRE-GENOCIDE STATE OF AFFAIRS IS IMPOSSIBLE
AND UNDESIRABLE, AND CREATION OF THE STATE OF AFFAIRS HAD THE GENOCIDE NOT
OCCURRED IS IMPOSSIBLE …………………………………………………………………………………..86
6.2.3 CHALLENGE: A FULL AND ACCURATE ACCOUNTING OF WHAT IS DUE TO ARMENIANS
AND TO WHOM SPECIFICALLY IT IS DUE IS IMPOSSIBLE…………………………………………….88
6.2.4 OBJECTION: MATERIAL REPARATIONS WILL BE UNACCEPTABLY DISRUPTIVE, HARM
THE INNOCENT, AND BENEFIT THE UNDESERVING …………………………………………………….90
6.2.5 OBJECTION: THE NOTION OF PRE-GENOCIDE ‘ARMENIAN TERRITORY’ IS UNTENABLE ………94
6.2.6 ALTERNATIVE: RECOGNITION AND/OR APOLOGY ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE LEGACY OF
THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE …………………………………………………………………………………..95
6.2.7 ALTERNATIVE: GOVERNMENTAL OR CIVIL SOCIETY DIALOGUE WITH TURKISH PEOPLE
TOWARD RECONCILIATION IS A BETTER PATH TO ARMENIAN WELL-BEING THAN
REPARATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………98
6.2.8 ALTERNATIVE: DEMOCRATIZATION OF TURKEY, NOT REPARATIONS, WILL LEAD TO THE
OPTIMAL RESOLUTION OF THE LEGACY OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ……………………… 100
6.2.9 OBJECTION: GRANTING OR EVEN CALLING FOR REPARATIONS WILL PRODUCE
A COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BACKLASH ……………………………………………………………………. 101
6.2.10 OBJECTION: LAND REPARATIONS ARE AN UNACCEPTABLE EXISTENTIAL ASSAULT ON
TURKISH STATEHOOD AND IDENTITY……………………………………………………………………104
PART 7: THE REPARATION PROCESS AND THE PROCESS AS REPARATION……………………………………….107
7.1 LEGAL CASES AND POLITICAL NEGOTIATION AS PATHS TO REPAIR……………………………………….107
7.2 THE TRUTH COMMISSION APPROACH………………………………………………………………………………107
7.3 THE TURKISH TRANSITION…………………………………………………………………………………………… 108
7.4 THE TRUTH COMPONENT………………………………………………………………………………………………. 110
7.5 THE REPARATIVE COMPONENT………………………………………………………………………………………. 114
7.6 AGTRC STRUCTURE AND PROCESS ………………………………………………………………………………… 118
7.6.1 COMPOSITION…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 118
7.6.2 ORIGIN OF THE COMMISSION ………………………………………………………………………………. 119
7.6.3 FRAME OF REFERENCE ………………………………………………………………………………………..120
7.6.4 POWERS AND LIMITATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………120
7.6.5 SOURCE OF RESOURCES FOR REPARATIONS…………………………………………………………… 121
PART 8: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REPARATIONS PACKAGE………………………………122
8.1 PUNISHMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………122
8.2 RECOGNITION, APOLOGY, EDUCATION, AND COMMEMORATION …………………………………………..123
8.3 SUPPORT FOR ARMENIANS AND ARMENIA ……………………………………………………………………….124
8.4 REHABILITATION OF TURKEY…………………………………………………………………………………………124
8.5 RETURN OF PROPERTY AND COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY, DEATH, AND SUFFERING……………125
8.5.1 WHO SHOULD BEAR THE COSTS OF MATERIAL REPAIR? …………………………………………….125
8.5.2 HOW SHOULD MATERIAL REPARATIONS BE DISTRIBUTED?………………………………………..126
8.5.3 DETERMINING THE TERRITORY TO BE RETURNED AND ITS POST-REPARATIONS STATUS…127
8.5.4 CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION FOR UNAVAILABLE MOVABLE PROPERTY AND FOR DEATH
AND SUFFERING ………………………………………………………………………………………………..132
CLOSING REMARK………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..137
ABOUT THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE REPARATIONS STUDY GROUP………………………………………………….139