2014/01/30 by Michelle Tusan · 38 citations
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #Historical and Contemporary Political Dynamics #Cambodian History and Society #Genocide #Armenian #Humanity #Crimes against humanity #Human rights #Empire #Criminology #Political science #Law #History #Ancient history #War crime #Sociology #International law
paper · doi:10.1093/ahr/119.1.47
published in The American Historical Review 119(1), 47-77 (Oxford University Press)
openalex publication_date 2014/01/30 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
Michelle Tusan is a Professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, where she teaches modern British history. Her latest book, Smyrna's Ashes: Humanitarianism, Genocide, and the Birth of the Middle East, was published by the University of California Press in 2012. Other publications include Women Making News: Gender and Journalism in Modern Britain (University of Illinois Press, 2005) and articles on humanitarianism, liberalism, and media in Britain and the empire. She lives in Boulder City, Nevada. In early 1919, British Solicitor General Sir Ernest Pollock faced the monumental question of how to prosecute those responsible for “crimes against humanity” committed against minority Christians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. “I think that a British Empire war tribunal should do it,” he argued to fellow Allied jurists.1 Although the notion of international justice was not new, initiating war crimes tribunals for perpetrators of wartime civilian massacres as a prosecutable offense had no precedent. Attempts to bring Turkish war criminals to justice for what would come to be known as the Armenian Genocide had their roots in imperial politics and humanitarian intervention. Starting in the second half of the nineteenth century, Britain considered it an imperial responsibility to enforce what we now understand as a universal standard of human rights. The response to the massacres of Ottoman Christian minorities in the late nineteenth century and the 1915 genocide in Armenia can be situated in the infrastructure and ideological commitments of the British Empire. Contemporary reactions to, and the subsequent politicization of, the Armenian question were part of an imperial framework that eventually undermined attempts to document, prosecute, and memorialize the genocide. The script that still shapes contemporary understanding of the first large-scale genocide of the twentieth century relied on Britain's positioning of itself as a global empire and an arbiter of international justice. At the same time, Britain looked to manage imperial concerns as a Christian power that ruled diverse Islamic peoples. This positioning became increasingly problematic after World War I, during the attempt to prosecute Ottoman Turkey for “crimes against humanity” in a period of rising nationalism and growing unrest in the British Empire at the dawn of new media. To understand why the so-called forgotten genocide emerged as an early test case of human rights justice, we must go back to this imperial story. The approach of the one-hundredth anniversary of the Armenian Genocide has drawn historians back to the moment when geopolitics and human rights first converged around the Armenian issue.2 In the face of an influential denialist contingent, early scholarship was focused on marshaling evidence to prove that the massacres that killed more than one million Armenian civilians during World War I constituted genocide.3 More recently, scholars have moved away the question of and in to understand the Armenian Genocide as an a that has as the of and the response and the reactions of imperial and have the of global the of war crimes in and the Armenian case in of has the Armenian case to genocide and war crimes as a of the twentieth the massacres of Armenian civilians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I as a for genocide has historians and a to the of the of this scholarship has a to the response to the Armenian Genocide the of Turkish nationalism and the of and to how the and of the British Empire to the of human rights justice. The of genocide as an of human rights has in the case of the The on genocide has focused on the as first genocide as the of to to the of the in the of genocide of concerns that the as one in a of genocide would than the to include of global human rights that back to the nineteenth century has new for the of the and genocide more a of the Armenian Genocide as an in and not the genocide as more than a of and have and of the Armenian case to to part of the of modern human To include the Armenian Genocide in this a in In to understand the response to the Armenian massacres as in imperial we must the of of the human rights the human rights as to the as the of the as is in this to the of in the of modern human rights and human rights should not be considered of In the case of the Armenian Genocide, this “crimes against humanity” as an early of human rights justice in humanitarian and imperial that massacres against civilians as a and prosecutable an approach the away the of the and twentieth to the on human rights of humanitarianism, as it in and a imperial of human rights that we the British an more the of human rights than their for historians of have on the in the of human rights and humanitarian to The increasingly to understand the response to genocide has historians to more in the human rights by roots in and to of The nineteenth century in is as the period of the it is to that the of empire still The and British and of empire the The British Empire was a empire in a that were more it as In the East, this and by imperial the Ottoman Empire a of and in a that was not part of Britain's a as has Britain for in the Middle after World War I the of was by empire as an for civilians during the to that the British Empire first Britain itself as the of what can be considered the to international and that to a of humanitarian a that a in the War I international in an international as the of and the the British Empire that for The and of the global how Britain and is In a that not to be as on a empire was as a Britain's imperial of itself as a in the the to humanitarian on of Ottoman and as a as would during World War I, the British to what one an of their as a of British and the humanitarian and imperial The British Empire was a empire in the of liberalism, diverse and peoples. the in as a of Christian and a global empire of during World War I and international justice at the moment when the first to the Armenian the of as it was at by the concerns of on a humanitarian that relied on British imperial for The to prosecute Ottoman for crimes against the the of to Ottoman Christian back to the nineteenth century, and imperial In of emerged as a new of media the to on for the first time, how had part of and after the The of and as a and by a against a Christian minority Britain's imperial humanitarian had around a in minority and Starting in the nineteenth century, Britain as a of minority rights in the Ottoman The in the of as an part of as an imperial after the War the of the of in Britain to the rights of Christian The of more than in the was an moment in the of what the a on of In to this when he in a in of of that Britain and empire had an in the face of the response by the to in the of the the British to diverse humanitarian fellow at the same that this was would not of as in This humanitarian the of a that the Armenian as an imperial British The in the of by one contemporary as a a of the of the as a and and was by the of of the the of the first of Ottoman of the to the of for Christian The of humanitarian not come for the British Empire. the of minority in the of that the the in to Ottoman to the of minorities a the on the of the War a new of to the and how Britain to Ottoman In Ottoman of Christian the and the for a more for the British Empire as arbiter of he would do the Armenian he to of of justice, and of in the and empire have the of and the in a considered empire of and that of is he had In the of the the a new for empire to would and the by the that one of to the of the was of as the of and of the of Empire would a in this he on the we for by and the of justice and and to this in on of as to a that a and the and in the Ottoman humanitarian as a and imperial that would In the as an to for Ottoman minorities that and Other the the of and the of by the of as a Christian and civilians This the British Empire a of minority rights in the Ottoman Empire. The of the War and the of the of in a of in of humanitarian on of Christian of the Britain's minority it in the of as a this international British responsibility for Ottoman the a growing Armenia Britain's and to and to for the British than to enforce minority for The on of to humanitarian to for what one and crimes that have the of human This question of responsibility would be during the massacres at and during the of when influential of the of the British Armenia to for the of Ottoman minority the war on the the British Empire was as the and of minority in the Ottoman Empire. massacres of Armenian civilians would by those in to this to this by of massacres against Ottoman and the on of more than Armenian and the Allied at on an The of in the Ottoman the humanitarian and what one as the British against war of for and The the and the by the international the Armenian as a in the evidence more than one the of in the of Armenian civilians that in the of a known for of Armenian the after it published to the should that the is still this for and part the evidence of massacres a that on a of and Christian minorities the Ottoman Empire. a of the was of and and The Ottoman that Armenian to the empire the of In were and the case for the the This by the the and that would how and the of in and the itself the of the not the British the of in the of to at of Armenian and to have and can what has not to argued that should be to the of this for what we The was for to for what would the he argued that to would the and massacres by of the Turkish of and and to their Christian argued that is in the of this The British had a and had the responsibility to evidence and of this Christian in this was was a to the and a a in the of would a on the of the the Armenian he the against in on of civilians was and as a for the war on the of as an against civilians during war in the of the the case for the by the British in humanitarian This on of civilians and the of international a to on of Britain's responsibility to enforce the of and the of to Christian of to as a and to the to and to the has a of published and that had a as the first of this by and as the of an international humanitarian of the genocide as by politics than by and at the that on the Armenian would in the empire. it in the an no no not the by to the of the the of to the The in the international in part to to manage and the of British and and historians to the and the of to at the War to the of the and to it and it that be and by The to the of the the a for the humanitarian At the same time, it a of on to the war as a and of for Ottoman in the British imperial and the and by the of and The Armenia and The in the the in the and and had a after the massacres of the and a that by the by a British in the In more the of a that the of the the to and a that the around the of the the in the and the of the of were by and on the General of the Ottoman Empire published at the of the international Ottoman and The of in the Ottoman This published to the the in the Ottoman Empire that in the to the where massacres of Armenian civilians during World War I. The of in the Ottoman Empire. relied on imperial it was and humanitarian that and in the international and Britain and the of the massacres as an The the of an to a of during Ottoman against and after the the of the in an to the of to the case for of in after one it must be I of the Turkish in of the of by for in this of to the of and the and of the constituted on in the This in international that the massacres as what would be on Turkey of crimes and the first of the in to war by the the the for of the in minority and for the of Ottoman and evidence in the to the case that the massacres of Armenian civilians constituted a against to the Turkish and their at and to for the that the in At the of World War I, the British and humanitarian on the had the and to this The British Empire the in war crimes after the The Ottoman Empire had and was during that it would be responsible for the crimes committed against minorities during Britain's and as of Ottoman now in a as as was by the of the massacres in the The of the the Ottoman in the that in Armenian in has one the massacres in part on of the This the more than one million still in the Ottoman Empire at the the British to the in Allied on the the of the Armenian World War I as a for international justice by the British Empire. This in the of the and those responsible for the Armenian the Britain to the of and in a of wartime published as The as have he British and the for of for In a he of the of imperial and of more than one million to the war To this of he of the British it in the for human In of an Allied the this must be for of international would those had for the of In a response to the Ottoman at the the of he had in The case against the Ottoman Empire the of civilian during wartime on that to is a of that it itself to and of the on a that it to have The to the of war criminals the of The war crimes tribunal was a new by the in the case of the and The British had for the for war crimes after the The were the and in the to a of that to the of in a for war The to Ottoman for a new of committed during wartime against their would In the British an the Ottoman was on the of the at on the of The of this the first to what the 1915 had as a universal to human and what the had Britain to was the the as the in of British and the at he had the that this was to be a British to have a in the were on the that to more than in the of one The Armenian question of the that on in the subsequent of war for Armenian Britain of Turkish of and the to Armenian to The and document, to the for in the the was the that the of responsible for the massacres would come as a of the that would be by the In the of massacres and humanitarian this a The Ottoman War a of to prosecute Turkish for the Armenian would those responsible as a of the the of 1919, the Ottoman British had more than one and The and and in the of for “crimes against a that in to the The to prosecute the responsible for the genocide was in part to the of human rights justice the of the British Empire. the of the the British Empire had the the and the to an the The of a to prosecute war crimes was first in at the where Allied as part of the on the of of the War to of was on this that Sir Ernest Pollock to the what he as the in an Pollock that an international would of the of the and the in the and Allied This to that the British Empire this global and the of and that British Empire is in of at the in their as to how the should be and the evidence in to be it,” he a to in he the of the British Empire he had the and on the the to the British Empire Britain to on war crimes of on war This had to do a of the of as a of Christian at the and the of the in the after the The in the of an international to war crimes as Allied in to the of the on the British a for the of to of justice. the that a should be by the of to be it would it is of and in of human To the question of would the was the of a war The of Ottoman for the Armenian massacres the of the of of war Britain and the of in the Ottoman case crimes against British and Armenian civilian the of the by at the was to committed by a against In the case of the this a the case around the of for the of and of war of the British British as by the of and the case against the Ottoman Empire The of Ottoman be for crimes against their during wartime new the of human rights in a British the committed in the of the and of committed by Turkish against Turkish of the Armenian In the the War not the of the British Empire the of to by Ottoman the British that the was in the of to the of the of this Ottoman their tribunals to war the British Empire was to the of of those of civilians and of it would have to to human rights concerns what it and not do in the early of an relied on the of imperial the the that British had when the that the would be responsible and that it was the of to this In an an Ottoman the question of the Armenian massacres and the of British an that of would have to be that the Ottoman to those and that would the this were not we looked for was more than it was for that Britain was the in the of human rights justice had the of that on the of of war criminals had not in a to the is of that should be has he of the of a to the and that of was not to to that the and the of the of the and would to the that the be to The subsequent of by the Ottoman a 1919, the British of the at The of war criminals to in the British of to the had to the a that was the rising power of the that Turkish to the British in the on in the of a by in massacres of This against the the of Ottoman The and by what would eventually of the British as the of human rights and still and as a in this the British had to The of the Ottoman was still and the of in the of and the the of 1919, Britain had in the to The of Turkish at an In the the of the of War a a for for a Turkish was at the case in the of the that the this was of crimes against civilians during the The to was on the of the Turkish was to and at that had to do war crimes of In to the that an would one come a when it be a to commitments to the on human rights a as the of to a to the on Although a of were the around to the that the British Empire would the at for a of British and by the Turkish was in for eventually The this that it was more to lives of British than it was by the of the as the Turkish at for the of the the to why those of the had not when the evidence was in 1919, and to that it was still not to the argued against a of the of the that an of war criminals would the the of and not of has by a we this how we the growing The to prosecute Ottoman war crimes the of responsibility and a universal standard of human rights by a British Empire as a than of international justice in imperial The imperial and the to human rights justice after the as in the the Armenian massacres at The of the of the first known the of universal of for of genocide on humanitarian of a of the of a Armenian in by the in Britain in the of The on it was at and the to had a in the where the of as a of and in The of the lives of the Turkish in the in a of a of the has by the Armenian of the Armenian media in Britain to the Armenian Genocide that the of that had and of war The for humanitarian on of Ottoman Christians had relied on the of in the the and in of a The new of had and during the the of of in this the of and as the has as a modern to has of when to the would how to in the to and to the case for the and of the as a in it as a for humanitarian and This was of the of of in where to and this and as a of This positioning of of to by the of had during the war to in The of the of the and to of for British the more to the to one of on their was the of in Britain question the of new media to civilian massacres as a of modern war during a The of the in the and the humanitarian to for In it the of the of genocide to a a of of a a of in of to a of of the and the was for the in of published by a at the the of and for during the to one a for the and massacres were that should not and an to for the British for an at the of the British for the Turkish Empire and that the of as one to what he and of of as a a that would on as a of of the of and crimes by and humanitarian is a the has at the moment of the by a by a of a in this new that to against that it constituted more than the that the for the he and and has by an of the Armenian the modern of in of an to a to international justice and human rights. the of the late it and it would an of In the same the of had after the war to the to the of the in the would the on of after the The of that was of the on The that the and the the to of to of the of and that one that be a question as one and The of the Armenian massacres as of had for the by the and by In the of the of 1919, when British on a a by against Christians to in The of General for crimes the in the and of a and empire that was not ruled by and the of that the would Britain's by The Islamic the to the it as of by one to to that he would fellow to of The would Christians and in this that to the of the the to that this new it would come the what had and in the was one to a The of the Christian the and to perpetrators on the against Christian and The a that a had to it in more than British the to on the British of The the during in and in to that it be in to one the the and the that it be must be was more must be The was the on the empire and In the of the of the General that of constituted an that the would not of the the case to the and that the of second to imperial to is in the of it in and as it is to the of and and it is that the had an to in the would the than a that the on the of the Armenian massacres and is to in and in the itself in to on the of the of the the to to of on the the of and empire. that the it is to to the on this is of the of the of was in to concerns the of and that the were to it the to on that of this were not This of the as and what one as as would the more in than in the to be drawn the The the for The of to that the was the and against it was not to prove that the were the of to the on the of of of of the Armenian a in the of imperial the of the notion that the British Empire had a to prosecute crimes against by it to the genocide as and had as a humanitarian The to concerns a imperial by the the at a the of the Ottoman for the Armenian massacres as a by a and British Empire. of the by the as In the the to the in be In to the the This the to genocide by the massacres as and the to prosecute perpetrators justice for The of the of a million Christian was in of humanitarian the of she the of and this and for a new this for the to genocide to as a against the of genocide was as an of that to the that was to the a of of a of considered it part of a of to the that the massacres were to by The was than that the genocide it it as a that a one the of the the notion of imperial responsibility against to prosecute, and memorialize the Armenian the evidence in the the case that the of a minority constituted a against humanity” that as the of the War a universal notion of human rights during wartime of an imperial that had and the British Empire was the the and of of a The Britain not not in the in as an international to a Ottoman Empire to prosecute war Britain's to this not be as attempts to imperial and human rights concerns the of a empire at the of the after the of evidence that to and not to a to the of the and the humanitarian that it had The the after the war the of the Armenian massacres as a universal humanitarian than a This the of the humanitarian response that had Britain to against the in the first The notion of imperial responsibility by a responsibility to Christian minorities and the of the British and the empire historians the of the of human it is how the of empire and the humanitarian the genocide to be as a against contemporary of the of human rights in the and of the British Empire. responsibility to to of an imperial that Christian a universal of humanitarian of this British imperial framework emerged a new of the of minority civilians during wartime as genocide. The global of an empire that had the and power to to perpetrators this response At the same time, the of the British Empire to universal of commitments to prosecute this as a against when the empire itself humanitarian Christian on the one and the that it to be to on the humanitarian and imperial emerged the of the modern of human rights justice. The Armenian as the forgotten genocide an of Britain's humanitarian empire. that the massacres in Armenia to and were as one of the of War as a of empire. the of of the genocide the Britain has one in the of The to the Ottoman