The Armenian Genocide: The Beginning of It All?
https://doi.org/10.71609/iheid-b9e2-6q80The scholar-lawyer-activist who coined the term “genocide”, Raphael Lemkin, was born in 1900 into a Jewish family in Bezwodne, then part of the Russian Empire, today in Belarus; he would die in 1959, in New York City. The violence of World War I and of the 1920 Polish-Soviet War deeply shaped Lemkin. Driven by a keen sense of justice, he studied law in the Polish city of Lviv (Lwow), and then specialised in international criminal law codification. It would be “only” in World War II, as a refugee in 1940–41 in Sweden, where he gathered material for his Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, and from 1941 in the United States, that he developed “genocide” as a legal term.
Lemkin’s dedication to the question of genocide began long before World War II, however. It took concrete shape first in a report to the 1933 Fifth International Conference for the Unification of Penal Law, where he proposed to define “vandalism” and “barbarity”, the latter as the “premeditated destruction of racial, religious, or social collectivities”. And already in the early 1920s, Lemkin was deeply touched by Armenians such as Soghomon Tehlirian who assassinated ex-Ottoman officials involved in the Armenian Genocide — in this case, Talaat Pasha, in 1921 in Berlin. What is now known as the Armenian Genocide — which in fact was wider, for the Ottoman state targeted also some other Christian denominations, including Assyrians and in some regions Greek Orthodox — was crucial in shaping Lemkin’s interest and thinking about genocide. In a draft of his autobiography, housed in the New York Public Library, he writes: “I was shocked” reading that “some 150 Turkish war criminals were arrested [but] … then released [following World War I]. … A nation was killed and the guilty persons were set free.” And he was deeply affected by Tehlirian’s trial in Berlin. “The court in Berlin acquitted Tehlirian”, his autobiography draft reads. “It decided that he had acted under psychological compulsion. Tehlirian, who upheld the moral order of mankind, was classified as a so-called insane defendant who was incapable of discerning the moral nature of his act. Tehlirian had acted as the self-appointed legal officer for the conscience of mankind. But can a man appoint himself to mete out justice?” He should not, Lemkin thought — which would drive his work on genocide.
Lemkin did not see the Armenian Genocide as History’s first, however. In fact, he gathered material on, and traced genocide back to, Antiquity, a view echoed e.g. in historian Norman Naimark’s Genocide: A World History. Moreover, especially crucial for genocide debates today, there is an ongoing (though presently in the US increasingly difficult) public discussion about colonial authorities and/or colonising settlers committing genocides and about present-day consequences. Cases abound. They include, to just mention three, native Americans especially in the 1800s, treated e.g. in US historian Jeffrey Ostler’s Surviving Genocide; Algerians especially in the first decades after France’s 1830 occupation, a nuanced analysis of which is historian William Gallois’ “Genocide in Nineteenth-century Algeria”; and the German 1904 Herero and Nama Genocide (supported even by citizens of foes of Germany such as Britain out of “racial” solidarity). The German case is particularly relevant for two reasons. In 2021, Germany and Namibia signed a genocide agreement that, however, is controversial especially in Namibia, whose communities were not consulted. (Also, to sidestep future legal problems, Germany framed the development funds it promised as a “gesture of reconciliation”; the agreement has not [yet] been ratified.) And there has been a vivid debate, first academic, soon public, about links between colonial genocides and the Holocaust; think of historian Jürgen Zimmerer, whose English works include From Windhoek to Auschwitz?
This said, the Armenian Genocide was central to Lemkin’s thinking.The Armenian Genocide was central to Lemkin’s thinking. Moreover, Armenians had an enormous stake in early post-World War II debates that would lead to the adoption, in 1948, of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It defined genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
The UN discussions were hotly debated in the Armenian press worldwide. And more important, Armenians directly urged the UN to pass that convention. As historian Khatchig Mouradian has noted in a contribution to a yet unpublished primary source collection, in 1959 Lemkin recounted to Boston’s Hairenik Weekly how “the Armenians of the entire world were specifically interested in the Genocide Convention. They filled the galleries of the drafting committee at the third General Assembly of the United Nations in Paris when the Genocide Convention was discussed. [And] an Armenian, Levon Keshishian, the well-known UN correspondent for Arab newspapers, helped considerably through his writings in obtaining the ratifications of many Near Eastern and North African countries.”
Armenians were not only relieved, though. Many also thought the UN definition fell short, and were incensed that, to quote another text Mouradian analysed, printed in 1950 in the Lebanese Armenian Aztag, “a second World War was necessary for the Western nations to feel on their skins what it means to devise a crime against the very existence of a nation, and to condemn it with the concept of ‘genocide’”.
Unbelievably, it is “much too little, too late” that is characterising the genocide that unfolded until recently in Gaza and that will continue to shape Gazans’ lives for generations — and this although it has been defined as such even by some Israeli genocide scholars such as Omer Bartov and by the Israeli NGOs B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights–Israel.
Electronic reference
Schayegh, Cyrus. “The Armenian Genocide: The Beginning of It All?” Global Challenges, no. 18, December 2025. URL: https://globalchallenges.ch/issue/18/the-armenian-genocide-the-beginning-of-it-all. DOI: https://doi.org/10.71609/iheid-b9e2-6q80.Dossier produced by the Geneva Graduate Institute’s Research Office.
BOX | Genocides: UN Recognition and Historical Consensus
- The Holocaust (Shoah) (1941–1945), recognised via UN General Assembly Resolution 96 (I) in 1946, which led to the 1948 Genocide Convention
- Genocide against the Tutsi (Rwanda, 1994), recognised by UN Security Council Resolutions 955 and 978 (1994); International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) established
- Srebrenica Genocide (Bosnia, 1995), recognised by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (2007 ruling)
- Herero and Nama Genocide (German Southwest Africa, 1904–1908), recognised by Germany (2021)
- Assyrian and Pontic Greek Genocides (1914–1923), recognised by some national parliaments
- Armenian Genocide (1915–1917), recognised by many national parliaments (France, Germany, Canada, etc.)
- Holodomor (Ukraine famine) (1932–1933), recognised by Ukraine and several countries
- Cambodian Genocide (1975–1979), recognised by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC)
- Anfal Campaign against Kurds (Iraq, 1988), recognised by several national courts
- Darfur Genocide (Sudan, 2003–present), prosecuted by the International Criminal Court; UN uses “crimes against humanity”
- Destruction of Indigenous Peoples of the Americas (16th–20th centuries), considered genocidal by many historians
- Cultural genocide of Indigenous Peoples (Canada, Australia, etc.), recognised as “cultural genocide” or “systemic assimilation”, not as genocide in the UN’s legal sense
- Massacre of the Aché People (Paraguay, 1960s–1970s), documented by NGOs and historians
- Gaza / Occupied Palestinian Territories, UN experts describe acts as “genocidal”
- Rohingya in Myanmar, UN Independent Investigative Mechanism; case before the International Court of Justice
- Tigray (Ethiopia), joint UN–Ethiopian Human Rights Commission investigations
- Ukraine, UN Commission of Inquiry examining possible incitement to genocide
- Uyghurs in China (Xinjiang), ongoing UN human rights investigations
United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 96 (I), “The Crime of Genocide”, 11 December 1946, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/209873.
United Nations General Assembly, Resolution A/RES/60/7, “Holocaust Remembrance”, 21 November 2005, https://docs.un.org/a/res/60/7.
United Nations General Assembly, Resolution A/RES/78/282, “International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica”, 23 May 2024, https://docs.un.org/A/Res/78/282.
United Nations, “UN Resolutions Relevant to Genocide Prevention”, https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/SA-prevention-genocide/UN-resolutions.
United Nations, “UN General Assembly Adopts Resolution on Srebrenica Genocide, Designating International Day of Reflection, Commemoration”, press release, 23 May 2024, https://press.un.org/en/2024/ga12601.doc.htm.
BOX | Official Definition of the Genocide in the UN Genocide Convention
The concept of genocide was defined legally for the first time in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948. According to Article II of this convention, genocide means “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
To be noted: “measures to prevent births”, such as forced sterilisation, can therefore be legally considered an act constituting genocide — provided that the deliberate intention to destroy a targeted group can be proven. It is this dimension of genocidal intent that makes it difficult to legally recognise forced sterilisation as genocide, even if it technically meets the criteria defined by the Convention
United Nations, https://www.un.org/
PODCAST | Past, Present and Future of Genocide. Annyssa Bellal
Research Office, Geneva Graduate Institute
PODCAST | Logiques néocoloniales, responsabilité française et génocide rwandais. J.-F. Bayart
Research Office. Geneva Graduate Institute
BOX | Genocides: UN Recognition and Historial Consensus
Genocides officially recognised by the UN
- The Holocaust (Shoah)(1941–1945), recognised via UN General Assembly Resolution 96 (I) in 1946, which led to the 1948 Genocide Convention
- Genocide against the Tutsi(Rwanda, 1994), recognised by UN Security Council Resolutions 955 and 978 (1994); International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) established
- Srebrenica Genocide(Bosnia, 1995), recognised by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (2007 ruling)
Genocides recognised by other international or national bodies
- Herero and Nama Genocide (German Southwest Africa, 1904–1908), recognised by Germany (2021)
- Assyrian and Pontic Greek Genocides (1914–1923), recognised by some national parliaments
- Armenian Genocide (1915–1917), recognised by many national parliaments (France, Germany, Canada, etc.)
- Holodomor (Ukraine famine) (1932–1933), recognised by Ukraine and several countries
- Cambodian Genocide (1975–1979), recognised by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC)
- Anfal Campaign against Kurds (Iraq, 1988), recognised by several national courts
- Darfur Genocide(Sudan, 2003–present), prosecuted by the International Criminal Court; UN uses “crimes against humanity”
Genocides not officially recognised but widely documented by historians
- Destruction of Indigenous Peoples of the Americas (16th–20th centuries), considered genocidal by many historians
- Cultural genocide of Indigenous Peoples (Canada, Australia, etc.), recognised as “cultural genocide” or “systemic assimilation”, not as genocide in the UN’s legal sense
- Massacre of the Aché People (Paraguay, 1960s–1970s), documented by NGOs and historians
Currently under UN investigation (status pending)
- Gaza / Occupied Palestinian Territories, acts described by UN experts as “genocidal”
- Rohingya in Myanmar, UN Independent Investigative Mechanism; case before the International Court of Justice
- Tigray (Ethiopia), joint UN–Ethiopian Human Rights Commission investigations
- Ukraine, UN Commission of Inquiry examining possible incitement to genocide
- Uyghurs in China (Xinjiang), ongoing UN human rights investigations
Source: Marc Galvin, Wikipedia, ChapGPT, CoPilot, UN.
BOX | Complaint for Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are among the most serious international crimes, as defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), the Geneva Conventions (1949) and their Protocols, and the Rome Statute (1998), which established the International Criminal Court (ICC). They are considered non-prescriptible: complaints can be filed even decades later.
Where can complaints be filed?
– Before the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is the main international court
The ICC can try cases of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression. Cases can be referred to it in three ways: by a State Party to the Rome Statute (123 States today), by the ICC Prosecutor, who can take up a case on his own initiative after authorisation by the judges, or by the UN Security Council (even for non-member States, e.g. Darfur, Libya).
Can an individual file a complaint? Yes, but in the form of a communication to the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP). The ICC is not a direct complaint jurisdiction like a national court: an individual can submit a case, but only the Prosecutor decides whether to open an investigation.
There are significant limitations to the ICC. It only tries individuals, not states. It only has jurisdiction if the crime took place on the territory of a state party, if the perpetrator is a national of a state party, or if the Security Council refers the case. Finally, some geopolitically important States do not recognise the ICC (the United States, Russia, China, Israel, etc.).
– Before a national court
Many States now allow complaints for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, even if the crimes were committed abroad and by foreigners. This is known as universal jurisdiction. Examples of countries that regularly use it include France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Canada (partially) and Spain (more limited since 2014). The specific conditions vary from country to country, but generally require the presence of the suspect on the territory (often required), a complaint from victims or NGOs, and national prosecutors who open investigations themselves. This mechanism is increasingly active (trials of Syrian torturers, Rwandan soldiers, etc.).
– Before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
The ICJ does not judge individuals, but can be called upon in disputes between States, particularly for accusations of genocide (e.g. Gambia v. Myanmar; South Africa v. Israel), violations of the Geneva Conventions via State responsibility, and disputes over the interpretation of international treaties. It is important to note that private individuals cannot bring cases before the ICJ. Only states can do so.
The courts for Rwanda and Kosovo
Complaints cannot be brought before these courts. They are ad hoc international criminal tribunals with jurisdiction to try individuals responsible for serious crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes).
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was established in 1994 by the UN Security Council to try those responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and crimes against humanity committed in Rwanda.
The Special Tribunal for Kosovo (Kosovo Chambers) was established in 2015, based in The Hague, to try crimes committed by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) between 1998 and 2000.
There may be indirect interactions with the ICJ, for example when the ICJ examines the responsibility of a State for acts that also constitute crimes tried by a criminal tribunal (e.g. the Bosnia v. Serbia case on the Srebrenica genocide).
Source: Marc Galvin, Wikipedia, ChapGPT, CoPilot, UN.
BOX | The Obligation to Act in the Face of Genocide
The 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention imposes a legal obligation on all signatory states to prevent and punish genocide. This obligation is known as erga omnes, which means that it is owed to the entire international community and not only to the state where the crime is taking place. Thus, even a country not directly involved must intervene to the extent of its capabilities, in particular through diplomatic, economic, legal or humanitarian means. In concrete terms, this may take the form of economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, suspension of arms sales, humanitarian aid, cooperation with the courts, or speaking out at the UN.
This obligation applies to all States Parties (153 today), regardless of their geography or political interests. It does not depend on the filing of a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ): the complaint is simply one legal mechanism among others, but the obligation to act exists outside of any proceedings.
Finally, it is an obligation of means, not of results: powerful States must do more, while less influential States may limit themselves to actions proportionate to their capabilities.
NB. A State may only intervene militarily to stop genocide if it has authorisation from the Security Council or a recognised collective mandate. No State may invoke genocide to justify a military attack on its own. For example, Russia attempted to justify its invasion of Ukraine in 2022 by invoking the prevention of genocide, but the ICJ rejected this argument.
Source: Marc Galvin, Wikipedia, ChapGPT, CoPilot, UN.
BOX | Is the Holodomor Recognised as Genocide?
The legal status of the Holodomor as genocide remains a matter of international debate. According to the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention, genocide refers to acts committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.”
Scholars and the Ukrainian state argue that the famine fits this definition, citing Soviet policies that intentionally targeted the Ukrainian peasantry, culture, and political autonomy. Evidence includes:
- Forced grain requisitions far beyond subsistence levels
- Border closures preventing peasants from fleeing famine zones
- Suppression of Ukrainian language, institutions, and elites
- A disproportionate death toll among Ukrainians compared to other Soviet republics
As of 2025, more than 30 countries — including Canada, Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states, and recently Germany — officially recognise the Holodomor as a genocide. However, neither the United Nations nor the International Criminal Court has issued a binding legal ruling, and Russia maintains that the famine was a broader Soviet tragedy, not a targeted ethnic crime.
Source: Marc Galvin, Wikipedia, ChapGPT, CoPilot, UN.