The poorness of Pierre Nora’s ”facts” against the law of criminalization of the Armenian Genocide’s denying
Summary
Armen Ts. Maruqyan
It is shown in the article that the arguments about the Jewish Shoah and unique nature of the “law of Geyso” of the eminent historian, founder and president of the organization “Freedom for history” Pierre Nora, who is involved in political manipulations against the acceptance of law of the criminalization of Armenian Genocide’s denying on January 23, 2012, are not able to stand against scientific criticism. If Nora is against “memorial laws”, then he must be also against “Law of Geyso”, in other case there is no difference between these two genocides.
As to the statement of Nora about the idea that the acceptance of “law of Geyso” was the moral duty of France, as that country had some role in the Jewish holocaust, then the policy of France after the I World War can prove that this country has the same moral duty also for the Armenian Genocide.
The point of view of Nora about the limitation of retroactive effect of laws only for Holocaust is directly contrary to the “United Nations’ Convention of November 26, 1968 about not to apply any the period of limitation over war crimes and crimes against humanity”. By this document the international law of not to apply the principle of time limitation for all cases without exception for the crimes, including the UN Convention on Genocide of 1948, was put into circulation.
To the misgivings of Nora to judge the past by the criteria of the present and to make the history of mankind become a history of genocides the author of the article indicated that, first, independently of the application of the definition of “genocide” the Armenian Genocide was qualified by the Entente powers, including France as a “crime against humanity”. Already in 1915 what happened with the Armenians was considered a crime, based on the Convention of Hague in 1899 about “laws and customs of war” and particularly, on the “spirit of the laws of humanity” of Martens’ reservation, that is, it was estimated to be a crime only based on the existing international legal norms.
In addition, in accordance with the United Nations Convention of 1948 about the “Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”, to qualify a massacre as a genocide it is necessary to prove that the intention of the organizers of this crime has been to completely or partially destroy the group as such. It is shown in the article that this provision is equally applicable to both the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust cases.