Law of Denial

  • Başak ErtürEmail author


Law’s claim of mastery over past political violence is frequently undermined by reversals of that relationship of mastery, so that the violence of the law, and especially its symbolic violence, becomes easily incorporated into longues durées of political violence, rather than mastering them, settling them, or providing closure. Doing justice to the past, therefore, requires a political and theoretical attunement to the ways in which law, in purportedly attempting to address past political violence, inscribes itself into contemporary contexts of violence. While this may be limited to an analysis of how law is an effect of and affects the political, theoretically this attunement can be further refined by means of a critique of dynamics that are internal to law itself and that have to do with how law understands its own historicity, as well as its relationship to history and historiography. This article aims to pursue such a critique, taking as its immediate focus the ECHR case of Perinçek v Switzerland, with occasional forays into debates around the criminalisation of Armenian genocide denialism in France. The Perinçek case concerned Switzerland’s criminalisation of the denial of the Armenian genocide, and concluded in 2015 after producing two judgments, first by the Second Chamber, and then by the Grand Chamber of the ECHR. However, although they both found for the applicant, the two benches had very different lines of reasoning, and notably different conceptions regarding the relationship between law and history. I proceed by tracing the shifting status of ‘history’ and ‘historians’ in these two judgments, and paying attention to the deferrals, disclaimers and ellipses that structure law’s relation to history. This close reading offers the opportunity for a critical reappraisal of the relationship between law, denial and violence: I propose that the symbolic violence of the law operative in memory laws is a product of that which remains unresolved in law’s understanding of historicity (including its own), its self-understanding vis-à-vis the task of historiography, and its inability to respond to historical violence without inscribing itself into a history of violence, a process regarding which it remains in denial.


Armenian genocide Denialism Memory laws Perinçek v Switzerland 



  1. Akçam, Taner. 2012. The Young Turks’ crime against humanity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aydın, Suavi. 1998. ‘Milli Demokratik Devrim’den ‘Ulusal Sol’a Türk solunda özgücü eğilim. Toplum ve Bilim 78: 59–91.Google Scholar
  3. Belavusau, Uladzislau, and Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias (eds.). 2017. Law and memory: Towards legal governance of history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Birikim. 1997. Geçmişin ‘Aydınlık’ından dersler. Birikim 98: 19–30.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, Wendy. 1995. States of injury: Power and freedom in late modernity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Charny, Israel W. 1991. The psychology of denial of known genocides. In Genocide: A critical bibliographic review, vol. 2, ed. Israel W. Charny, 3–37. London: Mansell.Google Scholar
  7. Christodoulidis, Emilios. 2001. Law’s immemorial. In Lethe’s law: Justice, law, and ethics in reconciliation, ed. Emilios Christodoulidis and Scott Veitch, 207–227. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, Stanley. 2001. States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dadrian, Vahakn N., and Taner Akçam. 2011. Judgment at Istanbul: The Armenian Genocide trials. New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  10. Derrida, Jacques. 2000. Performative powerlessness: A response to Simon Critchley. Constellations 7 (4): 466–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Derrida, Jacques. 2002. Declarations of independence. In Negotiations: Interventions and interviews, 19712001, trans. Tom Keenan and Tom Pepper, 46–54. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Earl, Hilary. 2013. Prosecuting genocide before the Genocide Convention: Raphael Lemkin and the Nuremberg Trials, 1945–1949. Journal of Genocide Research 15 (3): 317–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eğrikar, Özge. 2010. ‘Milli Menfaat’ten AİHM’ye Gidiyor’, Hürriyet, 20 January. Accessed 29 November 2018.
  14. El-Enany, Nadine, and Sarah Keenan. 2015. ‘I am Charlie and I guard the master’s house’. Critical Legal Thinking, 13 January 2015. Accessed 25 July 2018.
  15. Ertür, Başak. 2016. The conspiracy archive: Turkey’s ‘deep state’ on trial. In Law, violence, memory: Uncovering the counter-archive, ed. Stewart Motha and Honni van Rijswijk, 177–194. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fraser, David. 2011. Law’s Holocaust denial: State, memory, legality. In Genocide denials and the law, ed. Ludovic Hennebel and Thomas Hochmann, 3–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fronza, Emanuela. 2018. Memory and Punishment: Historical denialism, free speech and the limits of criminal law. The Hague: Asser Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Göçek, Fatma Müge. 2015. Denial of violence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hart, H.L.A. 1983. Essays in jurisprudence and philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hart, H.L.A., and David Sugarman. 2005. Hart interviewed: H.L.A. Hart in conversation with David Sugarman. Journal of Law and Society 32 (2): 267–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hennebel, Ludovic, and Thomas Hochmann (eds.). 2011. Genocide denials and the law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hovannisian, Richard G. 1984. Genocide and denial: The Armenian case. In Toward the understanding and prevention of genocide: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide, ed. Israel W. Charny, 84. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hovannisian, Richard G. 1998. Denial of the Armenian Genocide in comparison with Holocaust denial. In Remembrance and denial: The case of the Armenian Genocide, ed. R. Hovannisian, 201–236. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hürriyet. 2016. ‘Ermeni Patriği: Fransızlar diyaloğu sabote ettiler’, 13 October. Accessed 8 July 2018.
  25. Kahn, Robert A. 2017. Banning genocide denial—Should geography matter? In Law and memory: Towards the legal governance of history, ed. Uladzislau Belavusau and Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias, 329–347. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lobba, Paolo. 2015. Holocaust denial before the European Court of Human Rights: Evolution of an exceptional regime. European Journal of International Law 26 (1): 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Löytömäki, Stiina. 2014. Law and the politics of memory: Confronting the past. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lyotard, Jean-François. 1988. The differend: Phrases in dispute, trans. Georges van Den Abbeeele. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  29. Mamdani, Mahmood. 2006. The political uses of free speech. Outlook, 14 February 2006. Accessed 25 July 2018.
  30. Mehlman, Jeffrey. 1992. Foreword. In Assassins of memory: Essays on the denial of the Holocaust, ed. Pierre Vidal-Naquet, ix–xxi. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Milliyet. 2006. ‘Fransa’da “soykırım yapılmadı” derim’. 9 October.–soykirim–yapilmadi–derim/siyaset/haberdetayarsiv/09.10.2006/173613/default.htm. Accessed 25 July 2018.
  32. Nichanian, Marc. 1999. The truth of the facts. In Remembrance and denial: The case of the Armenian Genocide, ed. Richard G. Hovannisian, 249–270. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nichanian, Marc. 2009. The historiographic perversion. Trans. Gil Anijdar. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Polat, Necati. 2014. Resistance to regime change in the Middle East. Interventions 16 (5): 634–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sands, Philippe. 2016. East-West Street: On the origins of genocide and crimes against humanity. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  36. Vidal-Naquet, Pierre. 1992. Assassins of memory: Essays on the denial of the Holocaust. Trans. Jeffrey Mehlman. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2006. European universalism: The rhetoric of power. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  38. Zileli, Gün. 2015. 41 yıl önceki TİİKP ve bugünkü VP. 14 May 2015 Accessed 25 July 2018.

Legal Sources

  1. Constitutional Council (France) Decision no. 2012-647 DC of 28 February 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Constitutional Council (France) Decision no. 2015-512 QPC of 8 January 2016.Google Scholar
  3. Constitutional Council (France) Decision no. 2016-745 DC of 26 January 2017.Google Scholar
  4. Chauvy v France. 2004. European Court of Human Rights. Application no. 64915/01. Judgment 29 June 2004.Google Scholar
  5. Dink v Turkey. 2010. European Court of Human Rights. Application no. 2668/07. Judgment 14 September 2010.Google Scholar
  6. Ergenekon Case (Turkey) Detailed Judgment. 2014. Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court. Case no: 2009/191. Judgment no: 2013/95.Google Scholar
  7. Fatallayev v Azerbaijan. 2010. European Court of Human Rights. Application no. 40984/07. Judgment 22 April 2010.Google Scholar
  8. Lewis Case (France) High Court of Paris. 21 June 1995: Juris-Data no. 044058.Google Scholar
  9. Lehideux and Isorni v France. 1998. European Court of Human Rights. Application no. 24662/94. Judgment 23 August 1998.Google Scholar
  10. Pech, Laurent. 2011. The Law of Holocaust Denial in Europe. In Genocide denials and the law, ed. Ludovic Hennebel, and Thomas Hochmann, 185–234. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Perinçek v Switzerland. 2013. European Court of Human Rights. Application no. 27510/08. Chamber Judgment 17 December 2013.Google Scholar
  12. Perinçek v Switzerland. 2015. European Court of Human Rights. Application no. 27510/08. Webcast of Grand Chamber Hearing. 28 January 2015. Accessed 25 July 2018.
  13. Perinçek v Switzerland. 2015 [GC]. European Court of Human Rights. Application no. 27510/08. Grand Chamber Judgment 15 October 2015.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawBirkbeck, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations