Ganti rugi Genosida Armenia

Pertanyaan tentang pemberian kompensasi atas genosida Armenia pada 1915 yang dilakukan oleh Kesultanan Utsmaniyah memunculkan diskusi tentang berbagai bentuk ganti rugi, yang dapat mencakup aspek keuangan, properti, atau teritorial. Ganti rugi ini dapat berkaitan dengan klaim individu, tuntutan kolektif, atau klaim yang dibuat oleh Armenia.^[1] Mayoritas ahli hukum internasional sepakat bahwa Turki merupakan negara penerus atau kelanjutan Kesultanan Utsmaniyah.^[2] Selain itu, Republik Turki melanjutkan beberapa tindakan yang salah terhadap orang-orang Armenia, seperti merampas harta benda dan turut serta dalam pembantaian.^[3] Menurut Profesor Alfred de Zayas, mantan Sekretaris Komite Hak Asasi Manusia PBB dari Sekolah Diplomasi Jenewa,^[4] sifat genosida yang masih berlangsung, baik dari segi fakta maupun aspek hukum, berarti bahwa opsi restitusi tetap ada, dan berlalunya waktu tidak menghalanginya.^[5]

1. ^ Theriault, Henry (May 6, 2010). "The Global Reparations Movement and Meaningful Resolution of the Armenian Genocide". Armenian Weekly. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 10 May 2010. Diakses tanggal May 11, 2010.  Parameter |url-status= yang tidak diketahui akan diabaikan (bantuan)
2. ^ Latino, Agostina (2018). "The Armenian Massacres and the Price of Memory: Impossible to Forget, Forbidden to Remember". The Armenian Massacres of 1915–1916 a Hundred Years Later: Open Questions and Tentative Answers in International Law (dalam bahasa Inggris). Springer International Publishing. hlm. 195–236. ISBN 978-3-319-78169-3. That Turkey represents the Ottoman Empire’s successor State is a shared opinion by the greater part of international law scholars: ex plurimis see Dumberry (2013), according to whom “Turkey has the same legal identity as the Ottoman Empire and [...] accordingly it should be held responsible for all internationally wrongful acts committed by the Empire against the Armenian population before, during and after the War”, in specie p. 165. 
3. ^ Avedian, V. (2012). "State Identity, Continuity, and Responsibility: The Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide". European Journal of International Law. 23 (3): 797–820. doi:10.1093/ejil/chs056. Even if one were to question the continuity of state identity between the Empire and the Republic, the actions of the insurrectional Nationalist movement, which became the new state, establish a clear link to the predecessor, at least when the internationally wrongful acts pertaining to the massacres, deportations, and confiscations were considered. The Republic not only refrained from halting the CUP era massacres, the persecution of the Christian minorities, and the unlawful confiscation of their assets and properties, but it continued the same internationally wrongful acts, even expanding the massacres beyond its own borders into the Caucasus and the territories of the independent Republic of Armenia. The Republic of Turkey was competent to prosecute the war criminals for crimes committed on its own territory, but refrained from so doing. The new leadership protected individuals accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity and unlawful enrichment, later exonerating them and rewarding them with new positions within the Republic. 
4. ^ Geneva School of Diplomacy Error in webarchive template: Check |url= value. Empty.
5. ^ De Zayas, Alfred (December 2007). "The Genocide against the Armenians 1915–1923 and the relevance of the 1948 Genocide Convention". Alfred de Zayas. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 4 May 2010. Diakses tanggal May 11, 2010.  Parameter |url-status= yang tidak diketahui akan diabaikan (bantuan)