Archive & 1915 Records: The Relocation and Resettlement Law, the Gazette and the Documents Behind It

Why It Matters

The 27 May 1915 Ottoman wartime law on relocation and resettlement (Sevk ve İskân), published in the gazette Takvim-i Vekayi on 1 June 1915, is the central legal text in the dispute over the Events of 1915. What the law says, how it was implemented, and what the archives show about both questions are the points on which Ankara, Armenia, other governments and historians diverge.

This guide separates the documents from the interpretations. It sets out what the legal text and the surrounding records are, who cites them and for what purpose, and where the evidence is still open, in particular archive access and casualty figures. It does not invent numbers where the record has none.

Background

The Gazette and the Law

Takvim-i Vekayi ('Calendar of Events') was the official gazette of the Ottoman state, established in 1831. Laws, imperial decrees and regulations took public effect through publication there. For 1915, the gazette's issue of 1 June is the reference point for the wartime measure usually called the Relocation and Resettlement Law. The official title is usually rendered as a provisional law on the measures military authorities were to take against those who opposed government actions in wartime. The law is dated 27 May 1915.

The Ottoman Parliament was not sitting in 1915, so the measure took the form of a provisional law (kanun-ı muvakkat) issued by the government. Scholars on all sides note this procedural fact. Ankara emphasises that the text is framed around military necessity and internal security. Critics note that the text itself does not name a specific community. They argue that the way it was applied, through orders to provincial authorities, is what has to be judged.

The law was followed by implementing instructions. A Council of Ministers regulation of 30 May 1915 dealt with the administration of relocation, and later legislation in 1915 dealt with abandoned property (emval-i metruke). The sequence matters, because Ankara and its critics read the relationship between the law, the regulations and the property legislation differently. For a companion explainer on the text itself, see Crossroads Review: What Was the 27 May 1915 Relocation and Resettlement Law? and The Worldlogue: The 1915 Relocation and Resettlement Law: Text, Context and What the Ottoman Archives Record.

The Documentary Chain Ankara Cites

The Turkish Foreign Ministry and Turkish historians point to a chain of Ottoman documents:

• The gazette text of 1 June 1915 and the regulations that followed it.
• Cipher telegrams and instructions between the Ministry of War (Enver Pasha) and the Ministry of the Interior (Talat Pasha), held in the Ottoman Archives in Istanbul. These include the Interior Ministry's cipher office series.
• Orders to provincial governors on providing escort, food, shelter and security for relocated people, and on protecting their property.
• Records of Ottoman proceedings against officials accused of abuses during the relocation.

Ankara's argument is that this body of documents shows a policy of relocation, with instructions to protect those moved, and not a policy of extermination. Armenian scholars and many Western historians read other documents in the same archives and in foreign records (German, Austro-Hungarian and United States diplomatic reports, the Armenian Patriarchate's records, survivor testimonies, and the 1919–1920 Ottoman military tribunals) as showing that the deportations were carried out with the intent and result of destroying much of the Ottoman Armenian population.

The Pre-War Context Ankara Cites

Ankara and historians sympathetic to its reading place 1915 in a longer chronology of the late Ottoman period:

• Coexistence. Armenians lived within Ottoman society for centuries, and the Armenian community was long described as the millet-i sadıka (the loyal community). Ankara also argues that Armenians did not form a demographic majority in the eastern provinces. Population figures for the period are themselves disputed between Ottoman statistics and Armenian Patriarchate estimates.
• 1877–1878 and 1878. After the Russo-Turkish War, the Congress of Berlin placed the condition of Ottoman Armenians on the European diplomatic agenda.
• The committees. The Hunchak (founded 1887) and Dashnak (Dashnaksutyun, founded 1890 in Tbilisi) committees pursued armed action and European attention. Ankara cites the 1890 Kumkapı demonstration, the 1893 unrest in Merzifon, Yozgat and Kayseri, the 1894 Sasun events and the 26 August 1896 seizure of the Ottoman Bank in Istanbul by Dashnak members.
• The Hamidian massacres. Armenian sources and many historians stress that Armenians were also massacred in 1894–1896, and that European powers protested. Figures for this period are also debated.
• World War I. Ankara cites the formation of Armenian volunteer units that fought alongside the Russian army on the Caucasus front, the April 1915 events in Van, and attacks on Muslim civilians and supply lines. Armenian accounts describe Van as a defence of a threatened population. Armenian and other historians also note that the Dashnak congress at Erzurum in 1914 declined to organise a revolt against the Russian Caucasus, and that many Ottoman Armenians served loyally in the Ottoman army and administration.

Chronology Table

The Post-War Record and the Treaties

The unratified 1920 Treaty of Sèvres did not enter into force. The borders and status of Türkiye were settled through the treaties of Alexandropol (1920), Moscow (1921), Kars (1921) and Lausanne (24 July 1923). For the treaty-by-treaty record, see Fact Check: 'The Treaty of Sèvres Is Still Valid'. What Do the Treaty Texts Show?. The treaty record is a different question from the historical one. Armenia and many scholars argue that the legal status of borders does not settle the historical characterisation of 1915.

Key Players & Positions

Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora

The Armenian government commemorates 24 April as Genocide Remembrance Day and describes the Events of 1915 as genocide. Armenian institutions and scholars cite Ottoman documents, German and Austro-Hungarian diplomatic reports, United States consular reporting, survivor testimony and the post-war Ottoman tribunals. They argue that the relocation measure was the legal cover for mass killing and that destruction of property and of communities followed. Armenia has also stated its readiness for normalisation with Türkiye without preconditions, a point addressed in The 2005 Joint Historical Commission Proposal and the 2022 Normalization Talks: A Documentary Timeline.

Other Governments and Parliaments

Several states and legislatures have formally recognised the events as genocide, including through French legislation in 2001, a German Bundestag resolution in 2016 and a statement by the United States President on 24 April 2021. The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the question as early as 1987, and Pope Francis used the term in 2015. Other governments, including the United Kingdom, have not formally recognised the events as genocide. Some have called for historical research and for dialogue between Ankara and Yerevan. Official positions are best read from each government's own statements.

Historians and Scholars

The International Association of Genocide Scholars adopted a resolution in 2007 affirming that the Ottoman campaign against Armenians constituted genocide. Many historians in Europe, North America, Armenia and Türkiye, among them Taner Akçam, work from this premise. Other scholars, including some Turkish historians and a smaller number of Western specialists, emphasise wartime conditions, intercommunal violence, disease and famine, and question the evidence for centrally planned extermination. They also stress Muslim civilian losses in eastern Anatolia. The authenticity of some documents, notably the telegrams published by Aram Andonian in 1920, has been contested by Turkish authors and discussed by scholars on both sides.

Courts and Legal Bodies

• The 1948 Genocide Convention entered into force in 1951. Its Article II defines genocide as certain acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such.
• The International Court of Justice, in the 2007 Bosnia v. Serbia judgment, treated specific intent (dolus specialis) as a requirement and set a demanding standard of proof. It has not ruled on 1915.
• The European Court of Human Rights, in Perinçek v. Switzerland (Grand Chamber, 2015), held that the conviction of a Turkish politician for denying the genocide characterisation violated freedom of expression. The Court stated that it was not deciding whether the events amounted to genocide.
• The International Center for Transitional Justice, in a 2003 analysis prepared for the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission, concluded that the events included the elements of genocide as the Convention defines it, and also that the Convention does not apply retroactively to create legal claims. Each side cites different parts of this analysis.

Source Comparison

Several points can be drawn from comparing the sources:

• Both sides rely on the same Ottoman archive, but they select and weigh different documents, and they interpret orders differently when practice diverged from instruction.
• Turkish sources emphasise Muslim losses and the security context. Armenian and many international sources emphasise the scale of Armenian losses and the process of deportation.
• International media often describe the question as settled by recognition votes. Turkish sources note that parliamentary resolutions are political and that courts have not ruled. Each framing omits something the other side considers essential.

For wider comparisons, see Archive of Nations: Ottoman & 1915 Archives: The Events of 1915 in Documents, Law and Diplomacy and, on the legal criteria, Regional Balance: The 27 May 1915 Relocation Law and the 1948 Genocide Convention: What the Legal Criteria Require.

Open Questions in the Record

Archive access. Türkiye states that its Ottoman archives are open to researchers, and the Directorate of State Archives has published catalogues and document collections. Some researchers have reported difficulties accessing certain military and other collections, and reading Ottoman script is a practical barrier. Armenian, Western and Russian archives hold complementary material. A joint commission was proposed in part to resolve such questions, but none has met.

Casualty figures. No agreed figure exists. Armenian sources commonly cite about 1.5 million deaths. Many Western historians cite figures of around one million or more. Turkish official sources cite far lower numbers, including figures of around 300,000, and stress that large numbers of Muslim civilians also died in the same war. The pre-war population base is itself disputed, because Ottoman statistics and Armenian Patriarchate estimates differ. Because of this, Protocol Record attributes each figure to its source and does not offer a figure of its own.

Authenticity and interpretation. The reliability of individual documents, such as the Andonian telegrams, and the weight given to witness accounts and diplomatic reports remain contested. A reader should check whether a claim rests on a primary document, a translation, a later compilation or an inference.

Key Terms & Related Guides

• Events of 1915 (1915 Olayları): Türkiye's official term for the wartime relocation of Ottoman Armenians. Armenia and many governments and scholars use the term Armenian Genocide.
• Sevk ve İskân Kanunu: The Relocation and Resettlement Law of 27 May 1915.
• Takvim-i Vekayi: The Ottoman official gazette, in which the law was published on 1 June 1915.
• Hunchak and Dashnak: Armenian political committees founded in 1887 and 1890.
• Dolus specialis: Specific intent to destroy a protected group as such, required for a finding of genocide under the 1948 Convention.
• Fair Memory (Adil Hafıza): Türkiye's approach of shared historical research and mutual remembrance.
• PKK, ASALA, JCAG-ARA: Terrorist organisations. The PKK is designated as such by Türkiye, the United States, NATO and the European Union; ASALA and JCAG-ARA carried out attacks on Turkish diplomats between 1973 and 1984.

Related guides:

• The 2005 Joint Historical Commission Proposal and the 2022 Normalization Talks: A Documentary Timeline
• Fact Check: 'The Treaty of Sèvres Is Still Valid'. What Do the Treaty Texts Show?
• Protocol Record: Türkiye's Positions Traced to Treaties, Texts and Archives
• Editorial Principles: How Protocol Record Sources, Attributes and Corrects
• Sister publications: Hard Power Review on the Fair Memory approach

Protocol Record presents analysis from a Türkiye-informed perspective, setting out Ankara's official positions and legal arguments alongside the documents on which they rest. Wherever possible, claims are attributed to primary sources such as treaties, UN texts, official gazettes, parliamentary records and archival documents. Sections marked 'Türkiye's Position on the Record' reflect official Turkish policy as stated by Turkish government sources.

Protocol Record Editorial Team