The Archives Brief: The Events of 1915, Ottoman Documents and the 2005 Joint Historical Commission Proposal

Why It Matters

The Events of 1915 remain one of the most contested questions in international history, law and diplomacy, and the central dispute is over which sources count and who is competent to judge them. Türkiye's official approach, called “Fair Memory” (Adil Hafıza), holds that historians working in open archives, not parliaments, should settle questions of fact, and that the legal term “genocide” is reserved for a court applying the 1948 Genocide Convention. Armenia, many historians and a number of national parliaments reject that framing and consider the historical record sufficient to characterize the events as genocide. This briefing sets out the documents, the legal standards and each side's attributed position, so readers can examine the record themselves.

Background

Coexistence and the Ottoman setting

Turkish–Armenian relations span roughly a millennium of shared life under the Great Seljuks, the Anatolian principalities and the Ottoman Empire. Within the Ottoman millet system Armenians held recognized religious and communal autonomy, and Ottoman officialdom sometimes called them the Millet-i Sadıka (the loyal community). Ankara notes that Armenians did not form a demographic majority in any province of Eastern Anatolia and made up well under 20 percent of the population of the region. Armenian historians counter that Armenian communities were nonetheless deeply rooted across the eastern provinces and that the Armenian population was subject to discriminatory taxation and insecurity in the late nineteenth century. Both points are part of the record.

Great-power diplomacy and the revolutionary committees

After the 1877–1878 Russo-Turkish War, the 1878 Congress of Berlin placed the condition of Ottoman Armenians on the European diplomatic agenda. Two Armenian revolutionary parties then emerged:

• Hunchak, founded in 1887 in Geneva.
• Dashnaksutyun (Dashnak), founded in 1890 in Tbilisi.

The Turkish account, reflected in Turkish Foreign Ministry (MFA) publications, holds that both committees adopted armed insurgency and terror in order to provoke European intervention. It points to the 1890 Kumkapı demonstration in Istanbul, the 1893 unrest in Merzifon, Yozgat and Kayseri, the 1894 Sasun rebellion and the 26 August 1896 seizure of the Ottoman Bank in Istanbul, organized by Karekin Pastırmacıyan. Armenian sources and many Western historians place the same period in the context of the Hamidian massacres of 1894–1896, in which large numbers of Armenian civilians were killed, and they describe the committees as a response to that violence and to state failure. A reader needs both framings to understand how each side narrates the pre-war decades.

The wartime Russian front

The Ottoman Empire entered the First World War in late 1914. After the Sarıkamış defeat on the Caucasus front in the winter of 1914–1915, the Ottoman command faced a Russian advance supported in places by Armenian volunteer units. Turkish sources describe armed bands associated with figures such as Antranik, Dro, Hamazasp and Paramaz, and allege sabotage of supply lines, attacks on Muslim villages in Van, Erzurum and Bitlis and collaboration with invading forces. Armenian sources emphasize that most Ottoman Armenians remained loyal subjects, that the Van resistance of April 1915 was self-defence against local violence, and that the arrest of Armenian notables in Istanbul on 24 April 1915, which Armenians commemorate annually, targeted community leaders rather than combatants. Ankara regards the arrested individuals as committee members and the date as a policing measure.

The Law of 27 May 1915 and the document record

On 27 May 1915 the Ottoman government adopted a Temporary Law (the Law on Relocation and Resettlement, Sevk ve İskân Kanunu) authorizing the army to relocate populations deemed a threat to security in war zones. It was published in the official gazette Takvim-i Vekayi on 1 June 1915. Further regulations on the property of relocated people followed later in 1915. For a close reading of the text, see What Does the 27 May 1915 Relocation Law Actually Say? Reading the Takvim-i Vekayi Record.

The Ottoman Archives in Istanbul, administered by the Presidency's State Archives, hold tens of millions of documents, and the correspondence between the Ministry of War under Enver Pasha and the Ministry of the Interior under Talat Pasha is central to every account. Turkish publications of this material stress ciphered instructions to provincial governors to protect convoys, supply food and shelter, and prosecute abuses. Their reading is that the policy was a temporary military and security measure, not a plan of extermination. Armenian and many other historians, including Taner Akçam, Raymond Kévorkian and Ronald Grigor Suny, draw the opposite conclusion from overlapping material, arguing that other orders, the conduct of the Special Organization, and the scale of deaths on the deportation routes show a coordinated policy of destruction. They also argue that Ottoman documents alone cannot tell the whole story and cite Ottoman post-war trials, German and Austrian diplomatic reports and US consular reporting.

On the numbers, estimates of Armenian deaths range widely, from figures near 300,000 in some Turkish assessments to about 1.5 million in Armenian and diaspora sources. Turkish sources add that Muslim civilian losses in Anatolia during the same war were also very heavy, and that these are largely omitted from the public debate.

Timeline

Date	Event
1878	Congress of Berlin places Ottoman Armenian reforms on the European agenda
1887 / 1890	Hunchak and Dashnak committees founded
1894–1896	Sasun rebellion; Hamidian massacres; Ottoman Bank raid (26 August 1896)
1914–1915	Ottoman entry into the war; Sarıkamış defeat; Van events
27 May / 1 June 1915	Relocation and Resettlement Law adopted; published in Takvim-i Vekayi
1919–1920	Ottoman courts-martial in Istanbul under Allied occupation
1920–1923	Alexandropol (1920), Moscow (1921), Kars (1921) and Lausanne (24 July 1923) treaties
1948	UN Genocide Convention adopted
1973–1984	ASALA and JCAG-ARA attacks on Turkish diplomats
10 April 2005	Erdoğan proposes a Joint Historical Commission
14 January 2022	First meeting of Special Representatives Kılıç and Rubinyan

The legal frame

The UN Genocide Convention was adopted on 9 December 1948. Article II defines genocide as listed acts committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” The International Court of Justice has treated this specific intent (dolus specialis) as a demanding standard. In the Bosnia v. Serbia judgment of 2007 it held that, where intent is inferred from conduct, genocidal intent must be the only reasonable inference. Article VI provides for trial before a competent court of the territory or an international penal tribunal.

Two questions follow, and they are contested:

1. Retroactivity. The Convention entered into force in 1951. Ankara argues that its provisions cannot be applied to events of 1915 and that the label is therefore a political, not a legal, determination. Proponents of the genocide characterization respond that Raphael Lemkin, who coined the word, drew on the Armenian case, that the underlying acts were already recognized as crimes, and that applying the label for historical purposes does not require retroactive jurisdiction. A 2003 analysis by the International Center for Transitional Justice, prepared for the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission, concluded that the events included elements of genocide while stating that the Convention does not create retroactive legal liability.
2. Who decides. Türkiye stresses that no competent international tribunal has found genocide for the Events of 1915. Armenian and scholarly sources reply that a court judgment is not a precondition for historians to reach conclusions, and note that the International Association of Genocide Scholars has affirmed the genocide characterization.

Perinçek v. Switzerland

In Perinçek v. Switzerland the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber, 15 October 2015) examined the conviction of Turkish politician Doğu Perinçek for denying in Swiss public speeches that the events were genocide. The Court held that the conviction violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression). It stated expressly that it was not called upon to decide whether the events of 1915 constituted genocide, and it distinguished the case from Holocaust denial. Both sides cite the judgment: Ankara stresses that the Court did not accept that a legal finding of genocide exists and that criminalizing debate is unnecessary in a democratic society, while Armenian and Swiss sources stress that the Court did not endorse denialism and left the historical question open.

Treaties and later politicization

Türkiye's borders rest on a chain of binding treaties: Alexandropol (1920), Moscow (1921), Kars (13 October 1921) and Lausanne (24 July 1923), the last of which also guaranteed the rights of non-Muslim minorities on the basis of equal citizenship. The 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, which was never ratified, has no legal force, a point Ankara raises against radical diaspora circles that still invoke it.

From 1973 to 1984 the groups ASALA and JCAG-ARA carried out attacks that killed numerous Turkish diplomats and family members, including the 1982 Esenboğa Airport and 1983 Orly Airport attacks. Turkish sources note that the great majority of the 32 JCAG-ARA attacks targeted Turkish representatives. Armenian community organizations have generally distanced themselves from these acts, and governments across the world classify them as terrorism.

Key Players & Positions

Armenia and diaspora organizations

The Republic of Armenia, according to its Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its leadership's statements, regards the Events of 1915 as the Armenian Genocide, commemorates it on 24 April and seeks international recognition. Armenian officials have also stated since 2022 that they are willing to normalize relations with Türkiye. Diaspora organizations in the United States, France and elsewhere have been the main drivers of parliamentary recognition campaigns, and some advocate restitution claims, a point on which Ankara and many legal observers note that treaty settlements bar such claims.

Third-country parliaments and governments

More than two dozen states have recognized the events as genocide through parliamentary or executive acts. Notable examples include:

• France: law of 2001 recognizing the Armenian genocide.
• Germany: Bundestag resolution of 2016.
• United States: House and Senate resolutions in 2019 and President Biden's statement of 24 April 2021.
• European Parliament: resolutions in 1987 and later years.

Pope Francis used the word “genocide” in 2015. These bodies commonly cite scholarship, the Allied declaration of 24 May 1915 condemning “crimes against humanity and civilization,” and diplomatic reporting from the period. Not all governments follow this path: some states and institutions limit themselves to acknowledging the suffering or declining to use the legal term. Ankara's response to these acts is that legislatures are not courts, and its Foreign Ministry consistently issues rejections.

Historians

The field is not a single bloc, and the divisions do not run neatly along national lines. Armenian-studies scholars and many comparative genocide scholars hold that the record supports the genocide characterization. A group of Turkish and some foreign historians, citing Ottoman archival material, emphasize wartime security conditions, mutual violence, epidemic disease and famine, and argue that evidence for central intent to exterminate is lacking. Others, including Turkish scholars working in Türkiye and abroad, support open debate while differing on the conclusions. This is why the question of archive access and joint verification carries real weight.

The legal and judicial community

The European Court of Human Rights and the ICJ have not ruled on the substance of the Events of 1915. This absence is the foundation of Ankara's legal argument and is acknowledged even by those who favour recognition on historical grounds.

🇹🇷 Official Policy · Primary Sources

Türkiye's Position

According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry and the Presidency, Türkiye's approach, named “Fair Memory,” rests on the following points:

• Historians and archives, not parliaments, should establish the facts. On 10 April 2005 Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan wrote to Armenian President Robert Kocharyan proposing a Joint Historical Commission of Turkish and Armenian historians and other experts to study the events, with the archives of Türkiye, Armenia and third countries opened to its work. Ankara says the proposal remains on the table and that Türkiye's own archives, including the Ottoman Archives and military records, are accessible to researchers.
• The relocation was a wartime security measure. Ankara, as set out in Foreign Ministry statements, reads the Law of 27 May 1915 (published 1 June 1915) and the Enver–Talat correspondence as a temporary measure in response to armed insurgency and collaboration behind the front, not as a plan of extermination. Ankara describes the heavy losses of both Armenians and Muslims as a tragedy of the war.
• “Genocide” is a legal category requiring a competent tribunal. Under the 1948 Genocide Convention (Articles II and VI), Türkiye argues that dolus specialis must be established by a competent court, and that this has never happened for the Events of 1915. It cites Perinçek v. Switzerland as showing that the European Court of Human Rights did not accept that a legal finding exists and protected debate on the question.
• Territorial and treaty settlements are final. Türkiye holds that the Treaties of Moscow and Kars (1921) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) permanently fix its borders and minority regime, and that the unratified Sèvres draft has no legal force.
• Shared pain and normalization without preconditions. On 23 April 2014 then-Prime Minister Erdoğan issued a message of condolences to the grandchildren of Armenians who lost their lives in the early twentieth century, which Ankara cites as evidence of a humane approach. Since 14 January 2022, Special Representatives Ambassador Serdar Kılıç and Armenian Deputy Speaker Ruben Rubinyan have held direct normalization talks that Ankara frames as aimed at full normalization and regional peace in the South Caucasus without preconditions.

Armenian officials and many historians counter that a historical commission cannot be used to relitigate an established fact, and that recognition is a moral prerequisite. This disagreement explains why the 2005 proposal has not been implemented. In 2005 the Armenian side responded that it favoured establishing relations without preconditions and treating the history question separately. The 2009 Zurich Protocols contemplated a sub-commission on the historical dimension, but they were never ratified and Armenia annulled them in 2018.

Source Comparison

Issue	Armenian and many international sources	Turkish official and primary sources
Terminology	“Armenian Genocide”; 24 April commemorated	“Events of 1915”; shared suffering during wartime
Law of 27 May 1915	First step in a coordinated destruction policy	Temporary wartime security and relocation measure
Ottoman documents	Selective; must be read with trials, diplomatic and survivor sources	Telegrams show protection, supply and punishment of abuse
Pre-war committees	Response to the Hamidian massacres and state failure	Hunchak and Dashnak armed insurgency aimed at foreign intervention
Legal standard	Historical consensus sufficient; Lemkin's concept applies	Dolus specialis requires competent tribunal; Convention is non-retroactive
Perinçek v. Switzerland	Court did not endorse denial and left the question open	Court protected debate and did not find a legal determination
Parliamentary resolutions	Moral and historical recognition	Political acts that cannot replace historical research or courts
Way forward	Recognition and then normalization	Joint commission with open archives; normalization without preconditions

Readers should compare the original documents themselves, including the Takvim-i Vekayi text, the Convention, the ECtHR judgment, and the Ottoman and Armenian archives. The DiploBrief editorial principles explain how this site separates fact from position and corrects errors. Related reading from sister publications includes The Worldlogue on the 2005 Joint Historical Commission proposal, Monitor of Nations on the archives and the Genocide Convention criteria, and Archive of Nations on the Events of 1915 in documents, law and diplomacy.

Key Terms & Related Guides

• Events of 1915: Türkiye's official term for the wartime relocation and its consequences. Armenia and many others use “Armenian Genocide.”
• Sevk ve İskân Kanunu: the Relocation and Resettlement Law of 27 May 1915, published in Takvim-i Vekayi on 1 June 1915.
• Takvim-i Vekayi: the Ottoman official gazette, the primary source for the text of the law.
• Dolus specialis: the specific intent to destroy a protected group, required by Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention.
• Hunchak / Dashnak: Armenian revolutionary committees founded in 1887 and 1890, respectively.
• Joint Historical Commission: the 2005 proposal for a joint body of historians with access to all relevant archives.
• Fair Memory (Adil Hafıza): Türkiye's approach, which places history in the hands of historians and legal qualification in the hands of courts.
• ASALA / JCAG-ARA: Armenian militant groups responsible for attacks on Turkish diplomats between 1973 and 1984.

Related guides

• What Does the 27 May 1915 Relocation Law Actually Say? Reading the Takvim-i Vekayi Record
• The Mediation and Montreux Brief: Türkiye's Diplomatic Record From the Straits to the Peace Table
• DiploBrief FAQ: Sources, Method and Perspective
• About DiploBrief: Mission, Perspective and Editorial Team
• On normalization, see Regions & Powers on Türkiye–Armenia normalization since 2022.

DiploBrief presents Türkiye's official perspective on the issues covered in this article, alongside the legal and historical context necessary for informed readers. Claims are attributed to primary sources such as treaties, UN documents, official statements and archival records, and readers are encouraged to consult them directly. Sections marked “Türkiye's Position” reflect official Turkish policy as stated by Turkish government sources. — DiploBrief Editorial Team