Compensation for the Armenian Genocide: A Study of Recognition and Reparations
On 16 December 2005 the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 60/147 on the ‘Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law’ (‘Resolution 60/147’), affirming the importance of addressing the question of compensating victims of such violations in a systematic and comprehensive manner at national and international levels. Referring, inter alia, to various forms of reparation, namely restitution, compensation and satisfaction, Resolution 60/147 makes clear that the remedies to which victims are entitled should be envisioned along two broad spectra; first in acknowledging the wrongdoing caused and second in compensating the harm suffered.
KeywordsForeign Affair Genocide Convention Grand Chamber Unjust Enrichment Ninth Circuit
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Article 34(1) of the International Law Commission’s Articles on the International Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts states, ‘[f]ull reparation of the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act shall take the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction, either singly or in combination’. See A/Res/56/83, as discussed in I. Marboe (2014) ‘Compensation and Damages in International Law and their Relevance for the Valuation of Expropriated Armenian Property’, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 14 (2): 415–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- H. S. Karagueuzian and Y. Auron (2009) A Perfect Injustice: Genocide and Theft of Armenian Wealth ( New Jersey: Transaction Publishers ), p. 15, referring toGoogle Scholar
- D. Kouymjian (1998) ‘Confiscation and Destruction: A Manifestation of the Genocide Process’, Armenian Forum, Vol. 1 (3): 1–12.Google Scholar
- 11.H. Theriault (2011) ‘Reparations as Essential Element of any Just Resolution of Genocide’, Armenian Weekly.Google Scholar
- 48.H. Morgenthau (2000) Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story ( Princeton: Gomidas Institute).Google Scholar
- 78.Karagueuzian and Auron (2009), pp. 89–94; M. Bobelian (2006) ‘Vartkes’s List’, Legal Affairs (March/April 2006): 7. This included a $3 million contribution to Armenian civic organisations: see New York Life, Press Release, January 18 2014, ‘Agreement is reached to settle Armenian insurance policies from 1915’.Google Scholar
- 87.C. Galway Buys and G. Gorman (2012) ‘Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung and the Scope of the President’s Foreign Affairs Power to Preempt Words’, Northern Illinois University Law Review, Vol. 32 (2): 205–35.Google Scholar