Publication: PERİNÇEK-İSVİÇRE DAVASI KARARI SONRASINDA ERMENİ SOYKIRIM İDDİALARI KONUSUNDA SİYASİ, HUKUKİ VE AKADEMİK ETKİLEŞİM
Abstract
Perinçek-İsviçre davası, her ne kadar İsviçrenin AİHSni ihlali iddiasıyla açılmış ise de bunun temelinde Ermeni soykırım iddiaları bulunmaktadır. AİHMnin ilk dairesinin İsviçrenin ifade özgürlüğünü ihlal ettiğine dair kararını büyük daire de onaylamıştır. Karar metninde açıkça belirtildiği üzere Ermeni soykırım iddialarının Holokost gibi kesinliği olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Tehcirin 100. Yıldönümüne tesadüf eden nihai karar, soykırımı savunan Ermeni çevreleri ve Ermenistanda bundan sonraki iddiaları sürdürebilme amacıyla başarı olarak nitelenmiştir. Bununla beraber bu kararla birlikte soykırım iddialarını sürdürmenin imkânsız olduğu da seslendirilmektedir. Gerek AİHM kararları gerekse bugüne kadar konuyla ilgili diğer ulusal ve uluslararası yargı kararları, soykırım iddiaları çerçevesindeki faaliyetleri engellemeyecektir. Ancak son kararla birlikte hukuk, siyaset ve bilimsel zeminlerdeki etkileşimi sonucu Türkiye açısından konuyla ilgili gerçeklerin savunulması daha kolay ve etkili olacaktır. Mahkemelerin kararlarının bağlayıcılığı, siyasetin bir dereceye kadar kurallarla sınırlı olması ve bilimsel faaliyetlerin gözlem, belge, sonuç ilişkilerini göz önüne alma zorunluluğu dikkate alındığında mesnetsiz iddiaların etki alanı daralacaktır.
The Armenian genocide allegations stand at the center of the Perinçek-Switzerland case despite the fact that it has been opened on the basis of the violation of the European Convention on Human Right by Switzerland. The decision explicitly states that the Armenian genocide is not a genocide such as Holocaust. The final judgement of the Grand Chamber which coincided with the 100 anniversary of 1915 Relocation, was described as a success against Turkey in Armenia and in some Armenian circles in order to sustain genocide allegations. On the other hand according to some Armenians, after this decision, it is impossible to sustain the existing Genocide allegations. However, ECHR decisions and other national and international judicial decisions on this subject so far seem not to end the propaganda on the Genocide claims. Nevertheless, together with this final decision, the basis of the interaction of law and politics with the results form scientific researches, it will be easier to defend the relevant facts in line with Turkey s arguments. The binding of the decisions of the courts, and of the political rules -to a certain degree-, together with the scientific studies obligation to take consideration the observation-evidence-consequence interaction, the efficiency of these baseless claims would diminish.
The Armenian genocide allegations stand at the center of the Perinçek-Switzerland case despite the fact that it has been opened on the basis of the violation of the European Convention on Human Right by Switzerland. The decision explicitly states that the Armenian genocide is not a genocide such as Holocaust. The final judgement of the Grand Chamber which coincided with the 100 anniversary of 1915 Relocation, was described as a success against Turkey in Armenia and in some Armenian circles in order to sustain genocide allegations. On the other hand according to some Armenians, after this decision, it is impossible to sustain the existing Genocide allegations. However, ECHR decisions and other national and international judicial decisions on this subject so far seem not to end the propaganda on the Genocide claims. Nevertheless, together with this final decision, the basis of the interaction of law and politics with the results form scientific researches, it will be easier to defend the relevant facts in line with Turkey s arguments. The binding of the decisions of the courts, and of the political rules -to a certain degree-, together with the scientific studies obligation to take consideration the observation-evidence-consequence interaction, the efficiency of these baseless claims would diminish.