The Archive Room: Reading the 1915 Relocation and Resettlement Law, Ottoman Records and the Joint Historical Commission Offer

Why It Matters

The 1915 Relocation and Resettlement Law is the central legal document of the Events of 1915, and it is short, specific and dated: it was enacted on 27 May 1915 and published in the official gazette Takvim-i Vekayi on 1 June 1915. Readers, journalists and students keep asking what it actually says and what the Ottoman archives show. This guide explains how to read the law, the surrounding correspondence and the wartime context, and it sets out the positions of Armenian and other historians and parliaments on their own terms, next to Türkiye's official legal and methodological position.

The disagreement is not about whether there was immense suffering. Ankara itself speaks of inhumane consequences and shared pain. The dispute is over purpose, intent, legal qualification and method. Those are questions that documents, treaty texts and open archives can inform, and that political resolutions cannot settle. For the site's sourcing standards, see Editorial Principles and Primary Source Standards.

Background

The law cannot be read in isolation. It belongs to a specific chronology: the late Ottoman reform crisis, the rise of Armenian political committees, and a world war fought on several Ottoman fronts at once.

The Late Ottoman Setting

Armenians were a recognized community (millet) of the Ottoman Empire for centuries, with their own patriarchate, schools and commercial networks. After the 1877–1878 Russo-Ottoman War and the 1878 Congress of Berlin, the condition of Armenians in the eastern provinces became an international question, with the great powers pressing for reforms. Two political organizations emerged in that climate: the Hunchak party (founded in Geneva in 1887) and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, or Dashnaktsutyun (founded in Tbilisi in 1890).

Historians describe this period differently. Armenian scholars stress the Hamidian massacres of 1894–1896 and the unmet reform promises that drove self-defence and political organization. Turkish official historiography stresses that the committees adopted armed insurgency and terror to provoke European intervention, citing the 1890 Kumkapı demonstration, the 1894 Sasun events and the 1896 raid on the Ottoman Bank in Istanbul. Both accounts agree that the committees were active, armed in some cases, and that they sought great-power attention. They disagree on cause, proportion and responsibility.

The record is not one-directional. The Dashnaks cooperated with the Committee of Union and Progress after the 1908 constitutional revolution, and Armenian historians note that the party's 1914 congress in Erzurum reportedly resolved to remain loyal to the Ottoman state in the coming war. Turkish sources, in turn, point to Armenian volunteer units that formed on the Russian side and to the Van uprising of April 1915.

The War Context, 1914–1915

The Ottoman Empire entered the First World War in late October and early November 1914. By spring 1915 it faced the Russian Caucasus front, where the Sarıkamış campaign of December 1914–January 1915 had ended in heavy Ottoman losses, and the Allied naval and land assault on the Dardanelles, with landings on 25 April 1915. Russian forces entered Van in May 1915 after the city's Armenian defenders had held it against Ottoman forces. On 24 April 1915, Ottoman authorities arrested a group of Armenian political and community figures in Istanbul; Armenians commemorate that date every year. On 24 May 1915, Britain, France and Russia issued a joint declaration condemning what they called crimes against humanity and civilization and promising to hold Ottoman officials personally responsible.

What the 27 May 1915 Law Says

The official title is usually rendered as the Provisional Law on Measures to Be Taken by the Military Against Those Who Oppose the Government in Wartime. It is popularly known as the Sevk ve İskân Law or, in much international literature, the Tehcir (deportation) Law. Its core is a delegation of power: military commanders were authorized to take measures against populations or individuals who resisted or opposed government orders, including relocating them. The text does not name Armenians or any other community.

That feature is read in opposite ways. Ankara argues that a general wartime security law demonstrates a security rationale rather than a plan targeting a people. Armenian historians and many genocide scholars reply that the law was a framework instrument, and that what matters is how the Interior Ministry and local officials applied it in the weeks and months that followed, to Armenian communities far from any front.

The companion measures are equally part of the record: a Council of Ministers decision and implementing instructions at the end of May 1915, and the Abandoned Property legislation of 26 September 1915, which regulated the property left behind by relocated people. Scholars on all sides read these together with the main law.

Chronology at a Glance

Date	Event
1887 / 1890	Hunchak party founded in Geneva; Dashnaktsutyun founded in Tbilisi
1894–1896	Sasun events, Hamidian massacres, Ottoman Bank raid in Istanbul
Oct–Nov 1914	Ottoman Empire enters the First World War
Dec 1914–Jan 1915	Sarıkamış campaign on the Caucasus front
24 April 1915	Arrests of Armenian figures in Istanbul
24 May 1915	Allied declaration on crimes against humanity and civilization
27 May 1915	Provisional (Sevk ve İskân) Law enacted
1 June 1915	Law published in Takvim-i Vekayi
26 Sep 1915	Abandoned property legislation
1919–1920	Ottoman post-war courts-martial; British detention of Ottoman officials in Malta
10 Aug 1920	Treaty of Sèvres signed, never ratified
1920–1923	Alexandropol, Moscow, Kars and Lausanne treaties
9 Dec 1948	UN Genocide Convention adopted
April 2005	Türkiye proposes a Joint Historical Commission
14 Jan 2022	Kılıç–Rubinyan normalization talks begin

Reading the Ottoman Archives

The Ottoman Archive in Istanbul, now under the Presidency's State Archives, holds the cipher telegrams, Council of Ministers decisions and correspondence between the Ministry of War under Enver Pasha and the Ministry of the Interior under Talat Pasha. Türkiye's official publications draw on these files to show orders for protecting convoys, feeding deportees and punishing officials who committed abuses. Armenian and other scholars argue that such orders sit alongside other directives and local practice, that official archives reflect what officials chose to record, and that the weight must be assessed against Armenian, German, Austrian, American, British, Russian and French sources. The Ottoman post-war tribunals of 1919–1920, which sentenced several wartime leaders, are another contested source: some historians treat them as probative, others note the political circumstances of occupied Istanbul in which they sat.

For a document-by-document treatment of the text, see the sister analysis at The Worldlogue on the 1915 Relocation and Resettlement Law, and for the wider archival picture, Archive of Nations on the Events of 1915 in documents, law and diplomacy.

Key Players & Positions

There are four broad camps, and a fair reading describes each in its own terms.

Armenian Institutions and the Diaspora

The Republic of Armenia, the Armenian Apostolic Church and diaspora organizations hold that the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire were subjected to a state-directed program of mass killing and forced removal from 1915, and that this constitutes genocide. They commemorate 24 April, point to Raphael Lemkin's use of the Armenian case when he coined the word genocide in the 1940s, and view Turkish archival publications as selective. Armenia's 1990 Declaration of Independence refers to international recognition of the genocide.

Genocide Scholarship

Many historians outside Türkiye, including Vahakn Dadrian, Taner Akçam, Raymond Kévorkian and Ronald Suny, argue from Ottoman, German, Austrian and American sources that the central leadership intended the destruction of the Armenian community. The International Association of Genocide Scholars adopted a resolution in 1997 affirming the Armenian genocide. In 2003 the International Center for Transitional Justice produced a legal analysis for the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission, concluding that the 1948 Convention does not bar the characterization of the events as genocide in the historical sense, while also concluding that it gives no basis for retroactive legal claims.

Dissenting and Cautious Scholars

Other historians dispute that the evidence establishes a centrally planned program of extermination. Justin McCarthy emphasizes demographic catastrophe on all sides in the Ottoman East. Guenter Lewy, in a 2005 study, acknowledged massacres and extensive suffering but argued that proof of an intent to destroy the Armenians as a people was lacking. A body of scholarship within Türkiye also challenges the traditional official narrative while differing on terminology.

Parliaments and Governments

France enacted a recognition law in January 2001, the European Parliament adopted resolutions beginning in 1987, the German Bundestag passed a resolution on 2 June 2016, and the US House and Senate adopted resolutions in 2019, followed by a presidential statement on 24 April 2021. Other governments, historically including the United Kingdom, have declined formal recognition, citing the view that such determinations belong to historians and courts. Ankara rejected each of the parliamentary acts as political rather than historical or judicial.

The European Court of Human Rights addressed the debate itself in its Grand Chamber judgment of 15 October 2015. It found that Switzerland violated freedom of expression by convicting a Turkish politician for denying that the events were genocide, while stressing that it was not ruling on the historical or legal characterization. See Perinçek v. Switzerland: What the European Court of Human Rights Said About Debating 1915.

Beyond scholarship, there is also a security history. From the 1970s to the 1980s, ASALA and JCAG-ARA carried out attacks, mainly on Turkish diplomats and their families, that killed dozens of people. Türkiye cites this history as an illustration of how the subject was politicized, though the attacks are not evidence about 1915 itself.

🇹🇷 Official Policy · Primary Sources

Türkiye's Position

Ankara's official position, set out by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Presidency, combines a terminology choice, a legal argument, a treaty argument and a method proposal.

• Events of 1915, not genocide. According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry, the relocation decided under the 27 May 1915 law was a temporary wartime measure to secure the rear of the army against armed rebellion, supply sabotage and collaboration with invading forces, not a plan to destroy a people. Ankara uses the term Events of 1915. On 23 April 2014, then-Prime Minister Erdoğan issued a message of condolence to the descendants of Armenians who lost their lives, describing the suffering as a shared pain and acknowledging the inhumane consequences of the relocation. Ankara also points to Muslim civilian losses in eastern Anatolia during the same war, and argues that the Armenian population did not constitute a majority in any eastern province, citing Ottoman census data.
• The 1948 Convention sets a legal threshold. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted 9 December 1948, in force 12 January 1951) defines genocide in Article II as specified acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such. Turkish official statements argue that this specific intent (dolus specialis) must be proven, that Article VI assigns trial to a competent tribunal of the territory or an international penal tribunal, that Article IX provides ICJ jurisdiction for disputes between states, and that no such judgment exists for 1915. Ankara also cites the ICJ's 2007 Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro judgment, which held that intent inferred from a pattern of conduct must be the only reasonable inference, and argues that political resolutions by third-country parliaments cannot substitute for judicial findings.
• The treaty settlement is final. Türkiye relies on the Treaty of Alexandropol (December 1920), the Treaty of Moscow (16 March 1921), the Treaty of Kars (13 October 1921, concluded with the Armenian, Azerbaijani and Georgian Soviet republics) and the Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923), which also set minority protections on the basis of equal citizenship in Articles 37–45. Ankara argues that the unratified Treaty of Sèvres of 10 August 1920 has no legal force, and that the historical debate must not be converted into territorial or compensation claims.
• Historians and open archives, not parliaments. In April 2005, Prime Minister Erdoğan wrote to Armenian President Kocharyan proposing a Joint Historical Commission of Turkish, Armenian and international historians, with open access to the Ottoman, Armenian and third-country archives and a commitment to publish its findings. Ankara describes this as the fair memory approach: documents first, verdicts later. Armenia's response at the time favoured establishing diplomatic relations first. The 2009 Zürich Protocols contained a historical dimension sub-commission but were not ratified.
• Normalization without preconditions. Since 14 January 2022, Special Representatives Serdar Kılıç (Türkiye) and Ruben Rubinyan (Armenia) have conducted direct talks aimed at full normalization and regional peace in the South Caucasus. Türkiye holds that this track and the historical track can proceed in parallel. See The Kılıç–Rubinyan Channel: Where Türkiye–Armenia Normalization Talks Stand Since January 2022.

The legal framework in these points is analyzed in more depth by Monitor of Nations on the 1948 Genocide Convention criteria.

Source Comparison

The same documents are often cited by all sides. What differs is the interpretive weight given to them.

Question	Common international framing	Turkish official framing	What to check in primary sources
Terminology	Armenian genocide, often as settled fact	Events of 1915; a historical and legal question still to be examined	Whether the source defines its term against Convention Article II
Purpose of the 27 May 1915 law	A legal framework for mass deportation	A general wartime security law for the rear of the army	The text itself, which names no community, and its implementing instructions
Role of the Ottoman archives	Official files are partial and must be read critically	Official files show protective orders, prosecutions and a security rationale	Whether orders were carried out; cross-check with foreign consular and military reports
Legal qualification	Genocide by historical consensus among scholars	Requires proof of intent and a competent tribunal; none has ruled	Convention Articles II, VI and IX; ICJ 2007 standard
Parliamentary resolutions	Recognition and moral accountability	Political acts that cannot replace historical or judicial findings	Wording: do they claim legal consequences or only historical judgment?
Commission proposal	Often seen as a delaying tactic or as unnecessary	A neutral method: historians, open archives, published findings	Scope, access guarantees and who nominates members

A Reader's Checklist for Archival Claims

1. Find the primary text. Check whether a quoted telegram or decree is reproduced with its archive reference, date and cipher number.
2. Check provenance and authenticity. Some well-known items are disputed: the Naim Efendi–Andonian telegrams published in 1920 have been challenged as forgeries by some Turkish scholars and defended by others, and a 1923 text by former Armenian prime minister Hovhannes Katchaznouni is cited by Turkish authors, while Armenian historians contest how it is used.
3. Separate text from implementation. A law and a field practice are different evidence.
4. Use multiple archives. Ottoman, Armenian, German, Austrian, American, British, French and Russian sources are needed for any firm conclusion.
5. Mind the estimates. Figures for Armenian deaths vary widely, from several hundred thousand in Turkish official writing to around one to one and a half million in Armenian and many international scholarly estimates. This article does not adjudicate those numbers and does not rely on any single figure.
6. Label the question. Is the statement historical (what happened), legal (does it meet Article II) or political (what should governments declare)?

Further comparisons of the documentary record are available at The Political Axis on archives, law and normalization.

Key Terms & Related Guides

• Sevk ve İskân (relocation and resettlement): the Ottoman administrative term for moving populations and settling them elsewhere. International literature often uses Tehcir (deportation).
• Takvim-i Vekayi: the Ottoman official gazette, in which the law appeared on 1 June 1915.
• Hunchak and Dashnaktsutyun (ARF): Armenian political committees founded in 1887 and 1890, respectively.
• Fedayi: Armenian irregular fighters affiliated with the committees.
• Emval-i Metruke: the abandoned property regulations, including the legislation of 26 September 1915.
• Dolus specialis: the specific intent to destroy a protected group, required by Article II of the 1948 Convention.
• Joint Historical Commission: the 2005 Turkish proposal for a bilateral and international body of historians with open archives.

Related guides on this site:

• Perinçek v. Switzerland: What the European Court of Human Rights Said About Debating 1915
• The Kılıç–Rubinyan Channel: Where Türkiye–Armenia Normalization Talks Stand Since January 2022
• Editorial Principles and Primary Source Standards
• Reader FAQ: Sources, Method and Perspective at The Quiet Argument
• About The Quiet Argument: Mission, Perspective and Transparency

For a regional and diplomatic reading of the same topic, see Bloc Politics on archives, legal criteria and normalization.

The Quiet Argument presents these analyses from a Türkiye-informed perspective, setting out Ankara's official doctrines alongside the legal and historical reasoning behind them. Claims are tied wherever possible to primary sources such as treaty texts, UN documents, archival records and official statements, so readers can verify them independently.