BOOK: Flavia LATTANZI & Emanuela PISTOIA (eds.), The Armenian Massacres of 1915–1916 a Hundred Years Later. Open Questions and Tentative Answers in International Law [Studies in the History of Law and Justice, ed. Georges MARTYN & Mortimer SELLERS, vol. 15] (Heidelberg: Springer, 2018), 332 p. ISBN 9783319781693, €118,99

Book abstract:

This peer-reviewed book features essays on the Armenian massacres of 1915-1916. It aims to cast light upon the various questions of international law raised by the matter. The answers may help improve international relations in the region. In 1915-1916, roughly a million and a half Armenians were murdered in the territory of the Ottoman Empire, which had been home to them for centuries. Ever since, a dispute between Armenians and Turkey has been ongoing over the qualification of the massacres. The contributors to this volume examine the legal nature and consequences of this event. Their investigation strives to be completely neutral and technical. The essays also look at the broader issue of denial. For instance, in Turkey, public speech on the matter can still trigger criminal prosecution whereas in other European States denial of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity is criminalized. However, the European Court of Human Rights views criminal prosecution of denial of the Armenian massacres as unlawful. In addition, one essay considers a state’s obligation to remember by looking at lessons learnt from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Another contributor looks at a collective right to remember and some ideas to move forward towards a solution. Moreover, the book explores the way the Armenian massacres have affected the relationship between Turkey and the European Union.

Table of contents:

Introduction (Flavia Lattanzi & Emanuela Pistoia) 
Historical Introduction: World War I and the Dynamics of the Armenian Genocide (Marcello Flores)
Searching for a Legal Definition
The Armenian Massacres as the Murder of a Nation? (Flavia Lattanzi)
On the Applicability of the Genocide Convention to the Armenian Massacres (Chiara Cipoletti)
Is Customary Law on the Prohibition to States to Commit Acts of Genocide Applicable to the Armenian Massacres? (Alessandra Gianelli)
Which Possible Legal Consequences?
Metz Yeghern and the Origin of International Norms on the Punishment of Crimes (Antonio Marchesi)
Armenian Cultural Properties and Cultural Heritage: What Protection under International Law One Hundred Years Later? (Federica Mucci)
What Reparations for the Descendants of the Victims of “the Armenian Genocide”? (David Donat Cattin)
Denying the Armenian Massacres
The Armenian Massacres and the Price of Memory: Impossible to Forget, Forbidden to Remember (Agostina Latino)
Denying the Armenian Genocide in International and European Law (Monica Spatti)
Criminalizing the Denial of 1915–1916 Armenian Massacres and the European Court of Human Rights: Perinçek v Switzerland (Carmelo Domenico Leotta)
The Armenian Massacres and the European Union: Active Player or Festin de Pierre?
Is the Denial of the “Armenian Genocide” an Obstacle to Turkey’s Accession to the EU? (Pierluigi Simone)
The European Parliament as the Human Rights Gatekeeper of the Union? (Alessandro Rosanò)
The EU and the Turkish Recognition of the Armenian “Genocide” in the Broader Framework of the EU External Action: A Tale of Possibilities Yet to Be Explored (Emanuela Pistoia)

More information on Springerlink.

ARTICLE: Kahn on "Does it Matter How One Opposes Hate Speech Bans? A Critical Commentary on Liberté Pour L’Histoire's Opposition to French Memory Laws"

U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14-16 

Robert A. Kahn, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)

Abstract

This paper examines Liberté pour l'Histoire, a group of French historians who led the charge against that nation’s memory laws, in the process raising unique arguments not found elsewhere in the debate over hate speech law. Some of these arguments – such as a focus on how the constitutional structure of the Fifth Republic encouraged memory laws – advance our understanding of the connection between hate speech bans and political institutions. Other arguments, however, are more problematic. In particular, Liberté historians struggle to distinguish the Holocaust (which is illegal to deny) from the Armenian Genocide (which is not). The Liberté historians also quite hostile toward multiculturalism. While this reflects the French culture in which the historians operate, it is normatively quite unappealing. This is especially true given the existence of other, more inclusive European arguments against hate speech regulation, such as those of Danish cartoon publisher Flemming Rose and Maltese Judge Giovanni Bonello. There has to be a better, more inclusive way to oppose French memory laws.

full article here