Abstract
The paper deals with the relationship between State responsibility for acts of genocide and the Armenian events of 1915. The author explores the question of the temporal applicability of the Genocide Convention of 1948, specifically concerning the issue of State responsibility for the commission of acts of genocide. As “Metz Yeghern” happened long time before the entry into force of the Genocide Convention, these treaty provisions could be applied only if they were found to be retroactive. Through an analysis of the text of the Convention, its preparatory works and the case law of the International Court of Justice, the author demonstrates that no exceptions can be established for the general rule of non-retroactivity of conventional rules; therefore, it is not possible to hold Turkey responsible for those events under the Genocide Convention.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Paris, 9 December 1948, in United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 78, p. 277.
- 2.
- 3.
International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment, 3 February 2015, ICJ Reports 2015.
- 4.
The issue is further complicated by the current problem of denial of genocide, recently addressed by the European Court of Human Rights in the case Perinçek c. Switzerland, Court (Grand Chamber), 15 October 2015, No. 27510/08; for an analysis of the case see Della Morte (2016) and Leotta, in this volume; for the position of the European Court of Human Rights on the genocide denial see Lobba (2015).
- 5.
The Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission was established in July 2001 by civil society representatives with the aim to improve the relationship between Armenia and Turkey.
- 6.
According to the International Centre for Transitional Justice, the Genocide Convention can not be applied retroactively and does not constitute a basis for establishing the responsibility of Turkey with regard to any events happened before the entry into force of the Convention. The opinion is available at http://www1.american.edu/cgp/TARC/ICTJ%20Memorandum%20Feb.%2003.pdf.
- 7.
See, for example, the analysis by Simon (1996).
- 8.
International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishmentof the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 43, paras. 173–179.
- 9.
Shabas (2000), p. 434.
- 10.
- 11.
Lemkin (1944).
- 12.
The resolution is available at http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/res/96(I).
- 13.
Article IX of the UN Genocide Convention. There are 15 reservations to this article by contracting States (The reservations are available at https://treaties.un.org.). These reservations have been highly controversial due to their debatable consistency with the object and the purpose of the treaty. The International Court of Justice in Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, 28 May 1951, ICJ Reports 1951, p. 24 made it clear that reservations to the Genocide Convention are not as such inadmissible, but it is “the compatibility of a reservation with the object and purpose of the Convention that must furnish the criterion for the attitude of a State in making the reservation on accession as well as for the appraisal by a State in objecting to the reservation.” The joint separate opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans, Elaraby, Owada and Simma to the Judgment of the International Court of Justice, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Judgment, 3 February 2006, ICJ Reports 2006, p. 6 demanded the International Court of Justice (which deemed the Rwanda’s reservation to Article IX compatible with the object and purpose of the Genocide Convention) to revisit its position on the compatibility of reservations to Article IX.
- 14.
International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, para. 166.
- 15.
Ibidem. On the legal obligation to prevent genocide and its interpretation in the Bosnia v. Serbia judgment of the International Court of Justice see Forlati (2011). The reasoning of the Court has been criticized by Gaeta (2007), p. 633 et seqq., who argued that the Court applied principles of treaty interpretation in order to infer from the treaty new obligations rather than to clarify its meaning. In her opinion, the obligation on States not to commit genocide does not descend from the treaty, but from customary international law. Spinedi (2002), p. 899 agrees with the Court's view on the paradoxical consequences of denying State responsibility for its own acts of genocide.
- 16.
International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, para. 174.
- 17.
As noted by Nollkaemper (2003) this responsibility can also be concurrent. The author includes genocide among the few acts which can lead both to individual responsibility and State responsibility and mentions as an example the concurrent responsibility for acts of genocide in the former Yugoslavia of Slobodan Milosevic.
- 18.
International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment, 3 February 2015, ICJ Reports 2015, para. 129.
- 19.
Ibidem, para. 170.
- 20.
As underlined by Mr. Fitzmaurice, during the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.95, p. 344: “his delegation had proposed that amendment in order that the convention might contain a direct reference to the type of genocide which was most likely to occur, i.e. genocide committed by a State or a Government. Since it was to be assumed that individuals acting on behalf of the State would not be punished by the courts of that State, it was essential to insert into the convention provisions to the effect that such acts would constitute a violation of the convention”.
- 21.
Position expressed by Belgium during the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.95, p. 345.
- 22.
Position expressed by the United Kingdom during the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.104, p. 444.
- 23.
Position expressed by the French representative during the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.95, p. 348; position expressed by the Philippine representative during the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.130, p. 433 and UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.104, p. 441–442. The debate on the criminal responsibility of States has brought forward the discussion of the ILC on the incorporation of the notion of “international crime” into the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.
- 24.
See Robinson (1960). State responsibility should not be considered criminal, as Professor Spinedi exhaustively explained with reference to Article 19 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: “This does not mean, however, that the Commission had the intention to attach to these acts forms of responsibility similar to those provided in the penal law of modern domestic legal system”, Spinedi (1989), p. 52. In the First Report on State Responsibility, by Mr James Crawford, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/490 and Add.1-7, paras. 52–54 French and Czech Republic representatives emphasized that: “the law of international responsibility is neither civil nor criminal, and that it is purely and simply international”.
- 25.
Summary records of meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.96, p. 355.
- 26.
Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, UN Doc. A/56/10, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2001, vol. II, Part Two.
- 27.
The Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two.
- 28.
Third Report on State responsibility, by Mr. Roberto Ago, Special Rapporteur, the internationally wrongful act of the State, source of international responsibility, UN Doc. A/CN.4/246 and Add.1-3 in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1971, vol. II (1), p. 210. The proposal to distinguish international crimes of States and delictes was dismissed and the Draft Articles on State Responsibility only refers to serious breaches of obligations provided by peremptory norms of international law.
- 29.
Sixth Report on State responsibility, by Mr. Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/461 and Add.1-3 & Add.2/Corr.1, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1994, vol. II(1), p. 19.
- 30.
Seventh Report on State responsibility, by Mr. Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/469 and Add.1-2, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1995, vol. II(1).
- 31.
International Court of Justice, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment, 5 February 1970, ICJ Reports 1970, p. 3, paras. 33–34.
- 32.
Ibidem.
- 33.
International Court of Justice, Case Concerning Armed Activities On the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application, Judgment, 3 February 2006, ICJ Reports 2006, para. 64. Milanovic (2006), p. 563.
- 34.
In the case of genocide, the seriousness of the breach is “substantive” and not “circumstantial”, due to the impossibility to distinguish individual circumstances essential to qualify the act as a serious breach of obligation under article 40 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility. See Palmisano (1994). See infra, par. 3.3.
- 35.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Vienna, 23 May 1969, in United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331.
- 36.
Kotzur (2014), p. 164 distinguishes between “true retroactivity” and “material retroactivity”: the first refers to the application of a rule to a situation already settled in the past, the second to cases where the rule is applied to the current effects of an event that happened before its entry into force.
- 37.
Rodas (1973).
- 38.
Kotzur (2014), p. 154.
- 39.
According to Kotzur (2008) legal stability is an aspect of the legal certainty, which itself constitutes an element of the rule of law.
- 40.
International Court of Justice, Ambatielos case (Greece v. United Kingdom), Judgment (preliminary objection), 1 July 1952, ICJ Reports 1952, p. 40.
- 41.
Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Greece and United Kingdom signed at London on 16 July 1926.
- 42.
The Greek Government used the “similar clauses theory” in order to justify its claim: “The theory is that where in the 1926 Treaty there are substantive provisions similar to substantive provisions of the 1886 Treaty, then under Article 29 of the 1926 Treaty this Court can adjudicate upon the validity of a claim based on an alleged breach of any of these similar provisions, even if the alleged breach took place wholly before the new treaty came into force”. The Court rejected this theory due to the absence of a special clause or special object requiring retroactive interpretation. This special object was instead recognised by the Permanent Court of International Justice, Mavrommatis Palestine Concession case, Judgment, 30 August 1924, in Serie A- No 2 (1924), p. 34, where it holds that the Protocol XII to the Treaty of Lausanne “was drawn up in order to fix the conditions governing the recognition and treatment by the contracting Parties of certain concessions granted by the Ottoman authorities before the conclusion of the Protocol. An essential characteristic therefore of Protocol XII is that its effects extend to legal situations dating from a time previous to its own existence. If provision were not made in the clauses of the Protocol for the protection of the rights recognized therein as against infringements before the coming into force of that instrument, the Protocol would be ineffective as regards the very period at which the rights in question are most in need of protection. The Court therefore considers that the Protocol guarantees the rights recognized in it against any violation, regardless of the date on which it may have taken place”.
- 43.
International Court of Justice, Ambatielos case (Greece v. United Kingdom), Judgment (preliminary objection), 1 July 1952, ICJ Reports 1952, p. 40.
- 44.
For instance, it has been pointed out that in the Sevres Treaty the intention of parties to give retroactive enforcement to it was made clear from the reference to the need to prosecute crimes committed during the war.
- 45.
Contrary to other treaties where the prohibition to apply their rules retroactively is clearly established.
- 46.
Article XIII of the Genocide Convention.
- 47.
Position expressed by the Czechoslovakian representative during the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR. 66, p. 30.
- 48.
Position expressed by the Philippine government during the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.95, p. 340.
- 49.
Position expressed by the Peruvian government during the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR. 110, p. 498.
- 50.
Position expressed by the Dominican Republic during the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.76, p. 126 and by the Philippines, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.71, p. 79.
- 51.
Position expressed by the United Kingdom during the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.76, p. 127.
- 52.
International Centre for Transitional Justice, The Applicability of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to Events Which Occurred During the Early Twentieth Century, February 2003, available at http://www.armenian-genocide.org/files/ICTJ_Memorandum.pdf.
- 53.
Article I of the Genocide Convention.
- 54.
Kelsen (1947).
- 55.
Crawford (2008), p. 5 recalls as, at its origin, “international law was entirely dependent on the consent - express or implied- of States”; Jennings QC and Watts (2008), p. 14 said that “‘common consent’ could be said to be the basis of international law as a legal system”, the authors refer to the express or tacit consent of States to the rules of international law; Brownlie (1973), p. 2; Aust (2005), p. 4; see also Permanent Court of International Justice, S. S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), Judgment, 7 September 1927, in Series A No. 10, p. 18.
- 56.
Does not conflict with these conclusions, the fact that some scholars deduce from the text of the Convention the existence of individual crime of genocide in general international law before the entry into force of the Convention. In fact, the same author confirms that the existence of genocide as a crime does not extend its effetcs to the additional obligations imposed on the parties by the Treaty. From this, they derive a limited retroactivity of the Convention, see Tams (2014). See also Schabas (2010), p. 41–42 who argued that, as shown by the experiences of the Treaties of Versailles, Sèvres and the Rome Statute, in these cases the exception becomes the rule, i.e. “the general rule for treaties dealing with international criminal liability for atrocity crimes actually seems to favor retrospective application”.
- 57.
International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment, 3 February 2015, ICJ Reports 2015, para. 94.
- 58.
Ibidem, para. 95.
- 59.
Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, New York, 26 November 1968, in United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 754, p. 73; Article 1 provides: “No statutory limitation shall apply to the following crimes, irrespective of the date of their commission […]”.
- 60.
European Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, Strasbourg, 25 January 1974, in European Treaty Series, No. 82; Article 2 provides: “1. The present Convention applies to offences committed after its entry into force in respect of the Contracting State concerned. 2. It applies also to offences committed before such entry into force in those cases where the statutory limitation period had not expired at that time”.
- 61.
International Court of Justice, Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, 20 July 2012, ICJ Reports 2012, p. 422 et seq.
- 62.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984, in United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1465 p. 85.
- 63.
For a critical anlysis of the judgment, see Akhavan (2015).
- 64.
Kotzur (2008), who interprets intertemporal law as an issue of temporal scope of application of law.
- 65.
Ibidem, who referred to the case of International Court of Justice, South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Second Phase, Judgment, 18 July 1966, ICJ Reports 1966, p. 6 as an example of cases where there has been a change in the intertemporal rule with the aim to protect human dignity.
- 66.
The Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1966, vol. II, p. 248, enumerated genocide, among other examples, as “one of the most obvious and best settled rules of jus cogens” in order to better explain the nature and aim of article 50. More than thirty years later, the ILC mentioned again the prohibition of genocide as an example of jus cogens in the commentary to article 40 of its Draft Articles on States’ Responsibility, which disciplines serious breach by a State of obligations arising under peremptory norms of general international law. As evident by the contest, this article, as well as the commentary, concerns State responsibility and not individual responsibility. With specific regard to the peremptory character of this norm, the Draft Articles, p. 112–113 stressed the support of a “number of decisions by national and international courts” and the commentary to Article 26 of the same Draft Articles refers to the prohibition of genocide as one of the few examples of jus cogens norm clearly accepted and recognized (Ivi, p. 85). Moreover, the jus cogens nature of the prohibition has been famously upheld by the International Court of Justice. In Congo v. Rwanda, Case Concerning Armed Activities On the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application, Judgment, 3 February 2006, ICJ Reports 2006, para. 64 the Court first underlined the erga omnes nature of principles enshrined by the Convention and then stressed – in an obiter dictum – the jus cogens character of the prohibition of genocide. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice in its Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion, 28 May 1951, ICJ Reports 1951, p. 23 already emphasized: “the universal character both of the condemnation of genocide and of the co-operation required 'in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge' (Preamble to the Convention)”. Although this is a common opinion among scholars (Wouters and Verhoeven 2005), the recognition of this nature by the International Court of Justice is especially relevant if one considers the caution shown by the Court in explicitly qualifying rules as norms of jus cogens; as underlined by Bianchi (2008), the International Court of justice refers in this case for the first time to the notion of jus cogens, precisely with regard to the prohibition of genocide. Finally, according to the ICJ State responsibility for genocide refers not only to the obligation to prevent and repress acts of genocide, but also to the obligation not to commit acts of genocide (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007) and it would be “paradoxical” to exclude the obligation not to commit acts of genocide from the content of the norm.
- 67.
Article 64 of Vienna Convention provides “If a new peremptory norm of general international law emerges, any existing treaty which is in conflict with that norm becomes void and terminates.”
- 68.
Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries, p. 261. The Commission reaffirmed this principle in the commentary to articles 50, 61 and 67: “in the view of the Commission, there is no question of the present article having retroactive effects.”
- 69.
Permanent Court of Arbitration, Island of Palmas case (United States v. Netherlands), 4 April 1928, in Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. II, p. 845.
- 70.
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries 2001, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two, p. 58.
- 71.
De Zayas (2010), p. 13. This argument was dismissed by the International Court of Justice in the case Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment, 3 February 2015, ICJ Reports 2015, para. 95.
- 72.
International Court of Justice, Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, 28 May 1951, ICJ Reports 1951, p. 23.
- 73.
Robinson (1960); Kuper (1984); Jescheck (2000). However, they refer to the crime of genocide and not to State responsibility for genocide. With regard to State responsibility De Zayas (2010), p. 39 specified that: “What the Genocide Convention added to the existing body of international law was an affirmative obligation on States parties to make provision for effective penalties for all acts punishable under the Convention (article V), a duty to prosecute (article VI) by a competent national tribunal or by an international criminal court to be established”.
- 74.
The same view was shared thereafter by the Institute de Droit International in its resolution The Intertemporal Problem in Public International Law, 1975, according to which “Unless otherwise indicated, the temporal sphere of application of any norm of public international law shall be determined in accordance with the general principle of law by which any fact, action or situation must be assessed in the light of the rules of law that are contemporaneous with it”.
- 75.
Lattanzi, in this book.
- 76.
Article XVI of the Treaty of San Stefano stated that: “the Sublime Porte engages to carry into effect, without further delay, the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by Armenians, and to guarantee their security from Kurds and Circassians”.
- 77.
In Article I of the Cyprus Convention the Ottoman Empire promised to “introduce necessary reforms, to be agreed upon later between the two Powers, into the government, and for the protection of the Christian and other subjects of the Porte in these territories”.
- 78.
Article LXI of the Berlin Treaty provided for the obligation upon the Ottoman Empire to “carry out, without further delay, the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their security against the Circassians and Kurds”.
- 79.
Article II of the Genocide Convention.
- 80.
Roscini (2014).
References
Akhavan P (2015) Balkanizing jurisdiction reflections on Article IX of the genocide convention in Croatia v. Serbia. Leiden J Int Law 28:893–897
Aust A (2005) Handbook of international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Aust A (2006) Vienna convention on the law of treaties (1969). Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1498
Bianchi A (2008) Human rights and the magic of Jus Cogens. Eur J Int Law 19:491–508
Bonafè B (2015) Responsabilità dello Stato e dell’individuo per crimine di genocidio: persistenti incertezze nella giurisprudenza della Corte internazionale di Giustizia. http://www.sidiblog.org. Accessed 3 May 2017
Brownlie I (1973) Principles of public international law. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Crawford J (2008) Brownlie’s principles of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Della Morte G (2016) Bilanciamentro tra libertà di espressione e tutela della dignità del popolo armeno nella sentenza Perinçek c. Svizzera della Corte europea dei diritti umani. Rivista di diritto internazionale 99:183–189
De Zayas AJD (2010) The genocide against the Armenians 1915–1923 and the relevance of the 1948 genocide convention. Haigazian University, Beirut
Dumberry P (2014) The consequences of Turkey being the ‘Continuing’ state of the Ottoman Empire in terms of international responsibility for internationally wrongful acts. Int Crim Law Rev 14:261–273
Forlati S (2011) The legal obligation to prevent genocide: Bosnia v. Serbia and beyond. Polish Yearbook Int Law 31:189–205
Gaeta P (2007) On what conditions can a state be held responsible for genocide? Eur J Int Law 18:631–648
Jescheck H (2000) Genocide. In: Bernhardt R (ed) Encyclopaedia of public international law, vol 4. North Holland Publishing Company, North Holland, pp 541–544
Jennings QC R, Watts A (2008) Oppenheim’s international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kelsen H (1947) Will the judgment in the Nuremberg trial constitute a precedent in international law? Int Law Q 2:153–171
Kotzur M (2008) Intertemporal law. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1433?prd=epil
Kotzur M (2014) The temporal dimension: non-retroactivity and its discontents. In: Tams CJ, Tzanakopoulos A, Zimmermann A (eds) Research handbook on the law of treaties. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 153–186
Kuper L (1984) International action against genocide. Minority Rights Group, London
Lattanzi F (1983) Garanzie dei diritti dell’uomo nel diritto internazionale generale. Giuffrè, Milano
Lemkin R (1944) Axis rule in occupied Europe laws of occupation, analysis of government, proposals for redress, laws of occupation, analysis of government, proposals for redress. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington
Lobba P (2015) Holocaust denial before the European Court of human rights: evolution of an exceptional regime. Eur J Int Law 26:237–253
Milanovic M (2006) State responsibility for genocide. Eur J Int Law 17:553–604
Nollkaemper A (2003) Concurrence between individual responsibility and state responsibility in international law. Int Comp Law Q 52:615–640
Paddeu F (2015) Ghosts of genocides past? State responsibility for genocide in the former Yugoslavia. Camb Law J 74:198–201
Palmisano G (1994) Les causes d’aggravation de la responsabilité des États et la distinction entre ‘crimes’ et ‘délits’ internationaux. Revue Générale de Droit International Public 98:629–674
Robertson G (2010) Was there an Armenian genocide? Univ St. Thomas J Law Public Policy 4:83–126
Robinson N (1960) The genocide convention. A commentary. Institute of Jewish Affairs, New York
Rodas JG (1973) The doctrine of non-retroactivity of international treaties. Revista da Faculdade de Direito 68:341–360
Roscini M (2014) Establishing state responsibility for historical injustices: the Armenian case. Int Crim Law Rev 14:291–316
Ronzitti N (1978) La disciplina dello jus cogens nella convenzione di Vienna sul diritto dei trattati. Comunicazioni e studi 15:241–299
Rosenne S (1970) The temporal application of the Vienna convention of the law of treaties. Cornell Int Law J 4:1–24
Schabas WA (2000) Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Schabas WA (2010) Retroactive application of the genocide convention. Univ St. Thomas J Law Public Policy 4:36–59
Simon TW (1996) Defining genocide. Wis Int Law J 15:243–256
Spinedi M (1989) International crimes of state: the legislative history. In: Weiler J, Cassese A, Spinedi M (eds) International crimes of state: a critical analysis of the ILC’s draft Article 19 on state responsibility. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 7–138
Spinedi M (2002) State responsibility v. individual responsibility for international crimes: Tertium non Datur? Eur J Int Law 13:895–899
Tams JC (2014) Article I. In: Tams C, Berster L, Schiffbauer B (eds) Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, commentary. Verlag C. H. Beck oHG, Munich, pp 33–79
Wouters J, Verhoeven S (2005) The prohibition of genocide as a norm of Ius Cogens and its implications for the enforcement of the law of genocide. Int Crim Law Rev 5:401–416
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cipolletti, C. (2018). On the Applicability of the Genocide Convention to the Armenian Massacres. In: Lattanzi, F., Pistoia, E. (eds) The Armenian Massacres of 1915–1916 a Hundred Years Later. Studies in the History of Law and Justice, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78169-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78169-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78168-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78169-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)