Alizada Leyla Cafar,
Master’s student of Baku State University Law Faculty, specialization in “Transnational Criminal Law”.
E-mail: [email protected]
Genocide is the intentional killing or destruction of members of a group with the aim of destroying them [1].
Many genocide events that took place during World War II were not described as “genocide”. The concept of the crime of genocide is a concept that emerged and was used in the international community almost in the second half of the 20th century. II. The actions taken by the Nazis in World War II were described by Winston Churchill as a “nameless crime” expressed. Acts of this nature were called genocide only after World War II. It became possible after World War II [2].
Genocide has existed from prehistoric times. Homer warned Agamemnon during the Trojan War, “We will kill them all, even the children in their mothers’ wombs.”
It is evident from his words that the people would be completely destroyed. However, when the hunting and gathering times were examined, no evidence that would support a genocide was discovered. Nonetheless, it has been noted that genocidal movements have increased, particularly after the world was split into settlers and displaced people. Particularly after the ownership disputes over agricultural products escalated to destructive heights, state-level power concentration and the steady advancement of military hardware created an environment conducive to mass killings and the proliferation of acts of mass destruction [3].
Jerusalem’s fall in 72 BC, the slaughter of people during Genghis Khan and Tamerlane’s wars, the Crusades, the Thirty Years’ War, and the fall of Carthage in B.C. Historical incidents like its burning and devastation in 146 B.C. demonstrated how some groups have attempted to be entirely or partially eradicated [4].
One of the significant historical occurrences related to our issue is the assertion that the Turks massacred the Armenian minority following World War I.
Regarding the deportation decision on May 24, 1915, Russian, British, and French officials jointly declared, “In the face of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied Governments informed the Sublime Porte that they would hold the members of the Ottoman Government and the officers who participated in the massacre personally responsible.” “They will declare it publicly.” The US Secretary of State Robert Lansing, on the other hand, is reported to have said that Turkey “has more or less rights” with regard to the deportation of Armenians “if it is in the military action zone.”
All historical records make it abundantly evident that the country’s circumstances and historical circumstances pushed the Armenian people to migrate during World War I, and that the action taken had no other goal than to facilitate the migration of minorities. Protocol No. II of 1977 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which was later ratified, states in Article 17 that it is permissible to force the civilian population to move where doing so serves civilian security and military objectives. There won’t be a clear intention that would qualify as genocide if the population is forced to migrate, as is the case here. Consequently, it is evident that the current accusations leveled against the Republic of Turkey are wholly baseless. Furthermore, in contrast to these assertions, a report that looked into crimes against humanity committed against the Turks during the Balkan Wars in 1912 and 1913 stated the murders that took place and the crimes against humanity they were subjected to [5].