Compensation for the Armenian Genocide: A Study of Recognition and Reparations

  • Nolwenn Guibert
  • Sun Kim
Part of the Palgrave Studies in the History of Genocide book series (PSHG)


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.


Foreign Affair Genocide Convention Grand Chamber Unjust Enrichment Ninth Circuit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. 5.
    H. C. Theriault (2014a) ‘Legal Avenues for Armenian Genocide Reparations’, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 14 (2): 219–31, (220, referring in fn. 4 to Üngör and Polatel (2011), p. 165);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. D. Kouymjian (1998) ‘Confiscation and Destruction: A Manifestation of the Genocide Process’, Armenian Forum, Vol. 1 (3): 1–12.Google Scholar
  5. 9.
    H. C. Theriault (2014b) ‘Reparations for Genocide: Group Harm and the Limits of Liberal Individualism’, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 14(2): 441–69 (448).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 11.
    H. Theriault (2011) ‘Reparations as Essential Element of any Just Resolution of Genocide’, Armenian Weekly.Google Scholar
  7. 48.
    H. Morgenthau (2000) Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story ( Princeton: Gomidas Institute).Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 102.
    S. L. Karamanian (2014) ‘Economic-Legal Perspective on the Armenian Genocide’, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 14 (2): 249–54, fn. 102, citing a copy of the complaint that can be found at Scholar

Copyright information

© Nolwenn Guibert and Sun Kim 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nolwenn Guibert
    • 1
  • Sun Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Chambers Legal Support SectionICTYNetherlands

Personalised recommendations