Reddit reviews An Inconvenient Genocide: Who Now Remembers the Armenians?

Even though this recent work by Akcam is very interesting and might add weight to the current understanding of the subject, the title of the article and even the content might mislead the reader into thinking that intent is confirmed by this (or other similar) evidence and that without this or similar evidence intent cannot be established, and thus genocide cannot be proven. This is not true.

The intent part that is referred is found in the legal definition of genocide found in article II of the UN Convention for Punishment and Prevention of Genocide, which is important to understand that for all intents and purposes is a legal text.

Being a legal text it needs a legal interpretation and needs to be fulfilled in a legal context.

It is important to take into account that the very first time the legal concept of genocide as an international law has been put to practice, as in actual criminal trials, occurred very recently in the ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda International Criminal Tribunals, ICTY and ICTR respectively.

As with anything in the legal world interpretation and thus case laws are what give meaning to a legal text and show how a legal text might be interpreted, applied and what is needed to fulfill its requirements.

In regards to the intent part of the legal text, which some believe is the pivotal point in the Armenian Genocide case, and which I disagree, there is already a significant set of case laws which enable a modern legal understanding of it and which the text I quote below from the USHMM seems to sum it up adequately:

> Article II:

>“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy...”

>The definition of genocide requires that the perpetrator have a specific state of mind: the “intent to destroy” a group. The intent to destroy is distinct from a perpetrator’s particular motive for the crime, like counter-insurgency. In the absence of explicit evidence, intent can be inferred from facts and circumstances that take into account the general context of the crime, such as: preparation of other culpable acts systematically and exclusively directed against the same group; scale of atrocities committed; weapons employed; the extent of bodily injury; and/or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts.

>While legal decisions have not generally required proof of agreements or plans in order to convict on genocide, the criminal cases at the ICTY and ICTR have set a high standard for assessing the perpetrator’s state of mind: genocidal intent must be the only reasonable inference based on the facts and circumstances.

The highlighted parts are mine.

Looking into the case laws themselves is even more instructive. Here is the case law compilation from ICTR published in 2010 (intent is in pp 17-27):

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/ictr0110webwcover.pdf

The important thing to understand is that no direct evidence is required to establish and fulfill intent. In fact it is understood that direct evidence is not and will not be easy to obtain and thus it is established in case law that indirect evidence and circumstantial evidence is enough to fulfill intent.

In the minds of legal experts, such as William Schabas, taking into account the recent case laws and the widely accepted available evidence the Armenian case is a clear case of genocide.

A very recent book I recommend which deals with all this (and much more) is An Inconvenient Genocide by Geoffrey Robertson.