Skip to main content

Compensation for the Armenian Genocide: A Study of Recognition and Reparations

  • Chapter
The Armenian Genocide Legacy

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in the History of Genocide ((PSHG))

Abstract

On 16 December 2005 the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 60/147 on the ‘Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law’ (‘Resolution 60/147’), affirming the importance of addressing the question of compensating victims of such violations in a systematic and comprehensive manner at national and international levels. Referring, inter alia, to various forms of reparation, namely restitution, compensation and satisfaction, Resolution 60/147 makes clear that the remedies to which victims are entitled should be envisioned along two broad spectra; first in acknowledging the wrongdoing caused and second in compensating the harm suffered.

Nolwenn Guibert (Legal Officer) and Sun Kim (Associate Legal Officer) are in the Chambers Legal Support Section of the ICTY. The views expressed in this chapter are those of the authors alone and do not reflect those of the ICTY or the UN. The views expressed in other chapters of this book do not necessarily reflect Ms Guibert’s and Ms Kim’s personal views.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Article 34(1) of the International Law Commission’s Articles on the International Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts states, ‘[f]ull reparation of the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act shall take the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction, either singly or in combination’. See A/Res/56/83, as discussed in I. Marboe (2014) ‘Compensation and Damages in International Law and their Relevance for the Valuation of Expropriated Armenian Property’, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 14 (2): 415–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. H. C. Theriault (2014a) ‘Legal Avenues for Armenian Genocide Reparations’, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 14 (2): 219–31, (220, referring in fn. 4 to Üngör and Polatel (2011), p. 165);

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. H. S. Karagueuzian and Y. Auron (2009) A Perfect Injustice: Genocide and Theft of Armenian Wealth ( New Jersey: Transaction Publishers ), p. 15, referring to

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. Kouymjian (1998) ‘Confiscation and Destruction: A Manifestation of the Genocide Process’, Armenian Forum, Vol. 1 (3): 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  5. H. C. Theriault (2014b) ‘Reparations for Genocide: Group Harm and the Limits of Liberal Individualism’, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 14(2): 441–69 (448).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. H. Theriault (2011) ‘Reparations as Essential Element of any Just Resolution of Genocide’, Armenian Weekly.

    Google Scholar 

  7. H. Morgenthau (2000) Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story ( Princeton: Gomidas Institute).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Karagueuzian and Auron (2009), pp. 89–94; M. Bobelian (2006) ‘Vartkes’s List’, Legal Affairs (March/April 2006): 7. This included a $3 million contribution to Armenian civic organisations: see New York Life, Press Release, January 18 2014, ‘Agreement is reached to settle Armenian insurance policies from 1915’.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. Galway Buys and G. Gorman (2012) ‘Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung and the Scope of the President’s Foreign Affairs Power to Preempt Words’, Northern Illinois University Law Review, Vol. 32 (2): 205–35.

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. L. Karamanian (2014) ‘Economic-Legal Perspective on the Armenian Genocide’, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 14 (2): 249–54, fn. 102, citing a copy of the complaint that can be found at http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/072810armeniasuit.pdf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2016 Nolwenn Guibert and Sun Kim

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Guibert, N., Kim, S. (2016). Compensation for the Armenian Genocide: A Study of Recognition and Reparations. In: Demirdjian, A. (eds) The Armenian Genocide Legacy. Palgrave Studies in the History of Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-56163-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-56163-3_7

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-57402-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-56163-3

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics