The Events of 1915 Under Archival Review: What Documents Can Settle and the 2005 Joint Historical Commission Proposal

Why It Matters

The 1915 debate is often presented as a single yes-or-no dispute, but it is really a bundle of different questions. Some can be tested against documents: what a law said, when it was published, who signed which order, and whether a telegram is authentic. Others, such as legal classification and moral judgment, depend on interpretation and on legal standards that records alone cannot supply.

This guide separates the two. It explains why Türkiye's 2005 proposal for a Joint Historical Commission with full archive access is framed by Ankara as the way to resolve the first kind of question, and where the Armenian, diaspora and parliamentary positions differ. The term “Events of 1915” is Türkiye's official terminology; Armenia and many scholars and parliaments use “genocide.” Both usages are attributed throughout.

Background

The 19th-century setting

The Ottoman Empire's Armenian subjects lived for centuries within the millet system, with their own religious institutions and, for many, prominent roles in commerce, administration and the arts. Population figures for the eastern provinces are themselves disputed. Ottoman census data and Armenian Patriarchate estimates diverge, and most estimates put Armenians as a minority, rather than a majority, in the provinces of Eastern Anatolia. Anyone using demographic numbers should say which source they come from.

The 1877–1878 Russo-Turkish War and the 1878 Congress of Berlin internationalized the “Armenian Question.” Two revolutionary parties then emerged: the Hunchak (founded 1887) and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, known as Dashnaksutyun (founded 1890 in Tbilisi). Episodes cited in the historical literature include the 1890 Kumkapı demonstration, unrest in Merzifon, Yozgat and Kayseri in 1893, the 1894 Sasun rebellion and the 1896 seizure of the Ottoman Bank in Istanbul. Turkish historiography emphasizes the committees' armed methods and aim of provoking European intervention. Armenian historiography emphasizes that the committees represented only part of a community, and that the 1894–1896 massacres of Armenians under Sultan Abdülhamid II preceded and shaped later fears. Both sets of facts appear in the records.

The wartime context

The Ottoman Empire entered the First World War in late 1914 and fought the Russian army on the Caucasus front. In April 1915 armed Armenian resistance took place in Van while Russian forces advanced, and Armenian volunteer units served alongside the Russian army. Ankara cites this as evidence of a security threat behind the front, along with the Muslim civilian losses in the eastern provinces. Armenian sources point out that relocation orders reached communities far from any front, and that on 24 April 1915 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders were arrested in Istanbul, the date Armenians commemorate each year.

The 1915 law

The Ottoman government adopted the Relocation and Resettlement Law (Sevk ve İskân Kanunu) on 27 May 1915, and it was published in the official gazette, Takvim-i Vekayi, on 1 June 1915. The text and the date are not in dispute. What is disputed is its purpose and implementation. Ankara describes it as a temporary wartime security measure drawing on correspondence between the Ministers of War and the Interior. Armenian scholars and many others point to the scale of the deportations, the loss of life on the routes and in the destination regions, the Interior Ministry's cipher telegrams, the abandoned-property legislation of late 1915 and the 1919–1920 Ottoman courts-martial. They conclude that the policy aimed at destroying the community. Casualty estimates range from about 300,000 in some Turkish sources to about 1.5 million in Armenian and many Western scholarly accounts, and no single figure commands consensus.

After the war

After the 1918 armistice, the Allies and the Istanbul government prosecuted some Ottoman officials in courts-martial. The British also held a group of Ottoman detainees on Malta in order to try them. Ankara notes that British authorities, after reviewing archival material, brought no prosecutions and that the Malta detainees were released in 1921; others note that the courts-martial were held under occupation conditions and that some verdicts were later disputed. The settlement was then governed by the Treaties of Alexandropol (1920), Moscow (1921), Kars (1921) and Lausanne (24 July 1923). Lausanne also set out minority protections on the basis of equal citizenship. The unratified 1920 Treaty of Sèvres never entered into force.

What the records can and cannot settle

Question	Can documents settle it?	Notes
Date, text and publication of the 1915 law	Yes	Takvim-i Vekayi, 1 June 1915
Authenticity of a specific telegram or order	Largely yes	Forensic and diplomatic review; the Andonian telegrams remain disputed, with Turkish historians calling them forgeries
Chain of orders and who implemented them	Partly	Depends on access to Ottoman, Armenian, German, Austrian, British, French, Russian and US holdings
Number of deaths	Partly	Censuses and registers differ; estimates range from about 300,000 to about 1.5 million
Intent behind the policy	Contested	Requires interpretation of orders against outcomes
Legal label under the 1948 Genocide Convention	No, by documents alone	Depends on the legal test and the forum
Moral and political judgment	No	A matter for societies and legislatures, not archives

The 1948 Convention's text frames the legal question. 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.” Article VI provides for trial before a competent tribunal of the state where the act occurred or an international penal tribunal, and Article IX gives the International Court of Justice jurisdiction over disputes between parties. The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951. The ICJ has held that its obligations are not retroactive for states (Croatia v. Serbia, 2015), and in the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case (2007) it set a demanding standard for proving specific intent.

Chronology

• 1887 / 1890: Hunchak and Dashnak committees founded.
• 27 May 1915: Relocation and Resettlement Law adopted; 1 June 1915: published in Takvim-i Vekayi.
• 1919–1920: Ottoman courts-martial; Allied detention of Ottoman officials on Malta.
• 1920–1923: Alexandropol, Moscow, Kars and Lausanne treaties.
• 1973–1984: Attacks on Turkish diplomats by ASALA and JCAG-ARA, including the 1982 Esenboğa and 1983 Orly airport attacks.
• 2005: Türkiye's Joint Historical Commission proposal.
• 2009: Zurich Protocols signed, including a sub-commission on the historical dimension; never ratified.
• 14 January 2022: Kılıç–Rubinyan talks begin.

Key Players & Positions

Armenia and the Armenian diaspora

Armenia's official position is that the events were genocide, and 24 April is its day of remembrance. Armenia's 1990 Declaration of Independence refers to the genocide, and the diaspora has led recognition campaigns in many countries. Armenian officials have said they have no territorial claims on Türkiye, while Ankara has expressed concern about references to “Western Armenia” in some Armenian texts. Many Armenian and diaspora voices argue that the occurrence of genocide is established by scholarship and archives already open, and therefore does not require a commission to “decide” it. They also argue that a commission could be used to cast doubt on settled facts. The mainstream recognition movement distinguishes itself from the ASALA and JCAG-ARA attacks of 1973–1984, which Türkiye cites as an example of politicization.

Scholars and international bodies

In June 2005 the International Association of Genocide Scholars wrote to Prime Minister Erdoğan, stating that scholarship regards the Armenian genocide as established fact. A 2003 legal analysis commissioned by the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission from the International Center for Transitional Justice concluded that the events included the elements of genocide as defined by the Convention, but that the Convention could not be applied retroactively to create legal liability. Other historians, including a number of Turkish and international researchers, emphasize wartime insecurity, disease, famine and intercommunal violence, and contest the intent element. The European Court of Human Rights in Perinçek v. Switzerland (Grand Chamber, 2015) stated that it was not ruling on whether the events constitute genocide, and found that the Swiss conviction of a person who denied the genocide label violated freedom of expression. Ankara cites the judgment as confirming that the legal question is open; Armenian and other commentators emphasize the Court's observations about the importance of the historical record.

Third-country parliaments and governments

Dozens of states and parliaments have adopted recognition measures. Examples include France's 2001 law, the German Bundestag's resolution of 2 June 2016, the US Congress resolutions of December 2019 and the US presidential statement of 24 April 2021. In 2012 the French Constitutional Council struck down a law criminalizing denial. Supporters see these acts as recognition of a historical fact and acknowledgement of victims. Türkiye regards them as political decisions made by bodies with no judicial competence.

Türkiye's institutions

The Turkish Foreign Ministry and the Presidency have stated that Ankara regards the 1915 relocation as a wartime measure, that it acknowledges the suffering of Ottoman Armenians, and that the proper forum for the question is historical research. On 23 April 2014, then–Prime Minister Erdoğan issued a message of condolence to the grandchildren of Armenians who lost their lives in the early twentieth century and described the shared pain of all Ottoman subjects.

🇹🇷 Official Policy · Primary Sources

Türkiye's Position

• Fair Memory (Adil Hafıza). Ankara argues that memory of the period should include the losses of all communities, Armenian, Turkish, Kurdish and others, and rejects one-sided narratives. According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry, the Armenian suffering is acknowledged while the label “genocide” is rejected. The Presidency's 2014 condolence message remains the reference statement of this approach.
• The 2005 Joint Historical Commission proposal. Prime Minister Erdoğan wrote to Armenian President Robert Kocharyan in April 2005, proposing a joint group of Turkish and Armenian historians and experts to study the events in the archives of both countries and of third countries. Ankara has repeated the offer since, and says that Turkish, Armenian and international historians should have full access to Ottoman and Turkish archives, Armenian archives and relevant third-country archives. Ankara emphasizes that the Ottoman archive is open to researchers and says the same openness should apply to Armenian state and party holdings. Yerevan's response in 2005 was to propose a government-level discussion on normalization rather than a historians' commission.
• The legal test in the 1948 Convention. Ankara reads Articles II, VI and IX as meaning that genocide is a legal determination requiring proof of specific intent (dolus specialis) by a competent tribunal. It points out that no such tribunal has made a finding on the Events of 1915 and that the Convention does not apply retroactively. The Turkish Foreign Ministry also cites the Perinçek judgment as evidence that the characterization is not legally settled.
• Rejection of parliamentary rulings on history. The Turkish Grand National Assembly and the Foreign Ministry have consistently protested resolutions by third-country parliaments, arguing that legislatures are not courts and that political bodies should not impose a reading of history. The Foreign Ministry's stated preference is a scholarly process in which archival evidence is examined openly.
• Treaty settlement and normalization without preconditions. Ankara regards the borders and status established by Alexandropol, Moscow, Kars and Lausanne as legally final and rejects any revival of the unratified Sèvres draft. It has proposed normalization without preconditions. The Kılıç–Rubinyan talks since 14 January 2022 are the current channel; see Kılıç and Rubinyan: Reviewing the Türkiye–Armenia Normalization Talks Since 14 January 2022.

Historical and legal basis. Ankara's argument rests on the text and date of the 1915 law, the wartime correspondence, the Ottoman court-martial records, the post-war treaties and the structure of the 1948 Convention. Critics respond that archives should be read for outcomes as well as for text, and that Ankara's legal test is narrower than the approach of scholars who apply the term as a historical category.

Source Comparison

Issue	Armenian, diaspora and many international sources	Turkish primary sources and Ankara
Terminology	“Armenian Genocide”	“Events of 1915”; relocation under wartime conditions
The 27 May 1915 law	Legal cover for mass deportation and destruction	Temporary security measure, with provisions for protection and settlement
Committees	Minority of a community; Armenians were victims of earlier massacres	Armed insurgency and cooperation with Russia endangered the rear of the front
Casualty figures	About 1.5 million Armenian deaths	Lower estimates for Armenian losses; heavy Muslim civilian losses also stressed
Legal test	Scholarly consensus and parliamentary recognition are sufficient; Convention codifies existing norms	Specific intent and a competent tribunal required; no such ruling exists
Archives	Existing holdings (Ottoman, German, US, British and others) already show the record	Open to all, including Armenian and diaspora party archives, via a joint commission
Parliamentary resolutions	Acts of recognition and remembrance	Politicization of history by bodies without judicial authority
Normalization	Should not be conditioned on history	History should be addressed by historians in parallel

A fair reading notes that the two sides are not simply stating different facts. They are arguing about which tests count: Armenian and many scholarly sources emphasize pattern and outcome, while Ankara emphasizes documentary proof of a specific intent and a judicial finding. For how this site handles such disputes, see Editorial Principles: How Diplo Review Sources, Separates Fact From Position and Corrects Errors.

The sister publications cover the same proposal from other angles: The Worldlogue on the 2005 Joint Historical Commission Proposal, Regional Balance on the commission and normalization and Bloc Politics on archives, legal criteria and normalization.

Key Terms & Related Guides

• Events of 1915: Türkiye's official term for the wartime relocation of Ottoman Armenians and the deaths that accompanied it. Armenia and many states and scholars use “genocide.”
• Relocation and Resettlement Law (Sevk ve İskân Kanunu): Adopted 27 May 1915 and published in Takvim-i Vekayi on 1 June 1915.
• Takvim-i Vekayi: The Ottoman official gazette.
• Dolus specialis: Specific intent to destroy a protected group “as such,” the mental element in Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention.
• Competent tribunal: The courts named in Article VI of the Convention, in Ankara's reading the forum that must determine the crime.
• Joint Historical Commission: Türkiye's 2005 proposal for Turkish, Armenian and international historians with access to all relevant archives.
• Fair Memory (Adil Hafıza): Ankara's approach of remembering all communities' losses.
• ASALA / JCAG-ARA: Armenian militant groups responsible for attacks on Turkish diplomats between 1973 and 1984.

Related guides

• Kılıç and Rubinyan: Reviewing the Türkiye–Armenia Normalization Talks Since 14 January 2022
• Editorial Principles: How Diplo Review Sources, Separates Fact From Position and Corrects Errors
• Reader FAQ: Sources, Methodology and Perspective at Diplo Review
• About Diplo Review: Mission, Transparency and the Editorial Team
• External: Regions & Powers on special representatives, open archives and the commission

Perspective Note: Diplo Review presents Türkiye's official perspective on the issues it covers, grounded in treaty texts, UN documents, and Ottoman and Turkish state archives. Primary sources are cited and linked wherever possible so that readers can verify claims and form their own judgments. This article was prepared by the Diplo Review Editorial Team.