Center for Study of Law & Genocide Notes 'Clear Signal' on Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day

Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day Statement

America’s political branches have now spoken with one voice. In 2019, both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed bipartisan resolutions formally recognizing the Armenian Genocide (Meds Yeghern) perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire. Earlier today, President Biden joined with them in a landmark statement. These actions send a clear signal that the United States does not defer to nationalistic denialism of mass atrocities, whether past or perhaps even present. It must be remembered that a mere two decades after the early 20th century Armenian Genocide, the failure of the world to pressure Turkey to acknowledge its crimes encouraged Germany that it would suffer no consequences for a genocidal war against the Jews.

The Loyola Center for the Study of Law & Genocide has, for over a dozen years, sought official recognition of the tragic Turkish genocide of Armenians. The first of a number of symposia sponsored by the Center on the issue of recognition took place in February 2009, with the most recent occurring just last Monday, April 19, 2021. In 2011, the Center filed an amicus brief in a Ninth Circuit case involving the use of the term “Armenian Genocide” in a California state law. The Center’s brief was instrumental in persuading the three-judge panel to reverse an earlier decision and declare the California law constitutional. Unfortunately, a Ninth Circuit en banc panel, at the oral argument of which both of the undersigned appeared as co-counsel, reversed on the grounds that the recognition of the “Armenian Genocide” was contrary to federal policy. California was thus prevented from even using the phrase in its restitution statute. In 2012, Center Director Stan Goldman published a law review article, Is it Nobody’s Business but the Turks?, concluding that America’s federal refusal to recognize the Genocide was actually contrary to past actions and pronouncements made decades ago by both the executive and congressional branches. Prior to joining the Center, Deputy Director Rajika Shah acted as counsel for Armenian plaintiffs in multiple cases repeatedly blocked by courts due to the lack of federal recognition, outlining this history in a 2017 article.

Only a few months ago, Turkey again took shamefully aggressive actions against Armenians by supporting Azerbaijan with military and non-military equipment and personnel in its unprovoked attack on Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenian churches, significant cultural property, and hospitals were demolished, and Armenian civilians were subjected to unspeakable violence and cruelty, again raising the specter of genocide. President Biden’s announcement is particularly important at this pivotal moment. 

In memory of all those who lost their lives and loved ones, we hope that today’s statement from President Biden is not only the beginning of the end of Turkish denialism, but will also put other would-be authors of mass atrocities on notice that they cannot count on impunity and American indifference.

Prof. Stanley Goldman, Founding Director and Professor of Law
Prof. Rajika Shah, Deputy Director and Adjunct Professor

Honoring Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day

By Rajika Shah, Deputy Director, Center for the Study of Law & Genocide

Today marks Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day. Our thoughts are with the victims of the Armenian Genocide and every genocide. They lost lives and livelihoods, families and friends, and every basic sense of security in this world—yet the survivors find ways to live again and thrive. The difficulties and disruptions they faced inspire us to persevere through our own challenges.

We are also concerned for all the fragile populations around the world who are at greatest risk of humanitarian catastrophe due to the global Covid-19 pandemic: those who live in conditions of violence, conflict, and political instability; those living in refugee camps and shelters; and those without the resources to care for themselves and their families.

You can view information on our Armenian Genocide Remembrance events and all our past events, including links to videos of the presentations, here.

Reflecting on International Holocaust Remembrance Day

By Rajika Shah, Deputy Director, Center for the Study of Law & Genocide

Today, on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, we remember and honor all the victims and survivors of the Holocaust. We particularly mourn those who lost their lives at the Auschwitz concentration camp, which was liberated 75 years ago today.

We also celebrate an important step in the modern struggle to end genocide. Last Thursday, January 23, 2020, the International Court of Justice unanimously indicated binding provisional measures designed to preserve the rights protected by the 1948 Genocide Convention. Those rights were asserted by The Gambia against Myanmar and arose out of the egregious human rights abuses committed from October 2016 onwards against members of the Rohingya ethnic and religious minority group, hundreds of thousands of whom were forced to flee their homes in Myanmar’s northern Rakhine state amid conditions of abject terror. The Gambia claimed protections for all members of the Rohingya who remain in the territory of Myanmar, as members of a protected group under the Genocide Convention. The Gambia also asserted its own rights under the Genocide Convention to seek compliance by Myanmar with its obligations as a signatory state to prevent genocide, to punish perpetrators, and of course to refrain from committing genocide itself.

Specifically, the Court ordered Myanmar to (1) take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of acts of genocide within the scope of Article II of the Convention in relation to members of the Rohingya within its territory; (2) ensure that the Myanmar military, including any irregular armed units directed or supported by it and any organizations or persons subject to its control, direction, or influence, do not commit any acts of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide, in relation to members of the Rohingya within its territory; and (3) take effective measures to preserve evidence relating to allegations of genocidal acts within the scope of the Genocide Convention. Within four months, Myanmar must report to the Court on the measures taken to give effect to the order.

Prof. Goldman: Why House Resolution on Bigotry is Dangerous

Professor Stanley Goldman, director of the Center for the Study of Law & Genocide at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, writes the following in response to today’s House resolution on bigotry. Goldman, author of the critically acclaimed book, “Left to the Mercy of a Rude Stream: The Bargain that Broke Adolf Hitler & Saved My Mother,” is available for additional commentary. You are welcome to quote directly from the statement below.

Prof. Stanley Goldman statement:

I believe Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is dangerously mistaken in her conclusion that freshman Minnesota Congresswoman llhan Omar’s controversial remarks about Jewish influence and dual loyalties are not deserving of specific censure because the young Congresswoman did not realize they were anti-Semitic.

The history of anti-Semitism, not unlike other bigotry, unfortunately illustrates that adherents often do not see themselves and their beliefs as anti-Semitic. Therein lies the true danger. Anyone who has studied, even superficially, the history of the 19th and 20th centuries alone should understand that the well-meaning, and otherwise decent, who trade-in stereotypes of Jewish influence and motives can be groomed to accept ever harsher responses to correct the perceived Jewish problem. 

This danger ever lurks from, not only the political extremes, as the anti-bigotry resolution passed today by the House of Representatives seems to suggest, but also from those of the political center. Once they accept a few small innocent lies, they are predisposed to agree to ever more disturbing ones. Passivity in the face of such intolerance is not benign.

A Quest for Reparations

By Professor Stanley A. Goldman

This excerpt adapted from Prof. Goldman's new book, Left to the Mercy of a Rude Stream: The Bargain That Broke Adolf Hitler and Saved My Mother, originally appeared in the Nov. 30, 2018 edition of the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal. It is available from Amazon and Potomac Books.

In the late 1950s, four decades before the better-known and more all- encompassing German slave labor reparations cases of the late 1990s, a legal brief authored by the Conference on Jewish War Material Claims arrived at the Krupp Corporation. The document included the following allegations: “The firm of Krupp [had] exploited the prisoners’ labor without ever paying them for it, nor did it ever attempt to compensate its forced laborers for the injuries to life, health, freedom, and honor which were sustained,” and demanded that the company provide a financial settlement.

In response, the corporation’s representatives were adamant that any discussions of settlement that they might agree to participate in could not involve possible payments to the heirs of those already deceased, nor would they consider making any charitable contributions on their behalf. Furthermore, perhaps fearing that it could involve tens of millions of dollars in additional payouts, the company took the position that a Conference on Jewish war claims was not empowered to negotiate on behalf of potential gentile, as opposed to Jewish, plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs’ pro bono counsel in the negotiations, Benjamin B. Ferencz, who had been the youngest of the Nuremberg lead prosecutors, was appalled by these pre-negotiation restrictions. Ferencz was particularly eager that formerly subjugated Jews and gentiles should remain unified whenever possible and detested the suggestion that the discussions be limited to only certain former slaves. However, sadly concluding that Krupp would never make payments to non-Jewish victims based on a claim asserted by a Jewish organization, Ferencz agreed to the demands.

Krupp had been quite generous when providing retroactive compensation to his former German employees. In 1953, once he had felt secure at the head of his family business again, he sold off some of his land in order to make good on back payments owed to the company’s pensioners, and Ferencz believed a quick settlement could be reached by requesting a relatively modest sum.

Unfortunately, the very thought of compensation to non-German forced laborers, even in such a minimal amount, was abhorrent to Krupp, and negotiations between his designated agents and the plaintiffs’ Jewish lawyers proved fierce and unpleasant. “Each session was marred by recriminations, accusations of bad faith,” and even with what Ferencz later described as “anti-Semitic remarks” from the corporation’s representatives.

Getting closer to justice for descendants of victims of Armenian Genocide

By Professor Stan Goldman

Director, Center for the Study of Law & Genocide

Recently, I appeared at second chair before an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in yet another installment of what has been an ongoing saga to obtain payment of insurance claims due to descendants of victims of the Armenian Genocide. The case, Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung, stems from unpaid policies sold in 1915 to ethnic Turkish Armenians in the prelude to what would become the Armenian Genocide. In my role as director of the Center for the Study of Law & Genocide (CSLG), I have worked on an amicus curae on behalf of the plaintiffs represented by attorneys including alumni Mark Geragos '84 and Brian Kabateck '89 against defendant insurance companies Victoria Versicherung AG, Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG and parent company Munich Re.

First, a little back story: The side for which I was writing and appearing originally lost in the three-judge Ninth Circuit panel that had declared California's law unconstitutional as an interference with the federal government's exclusive control over foreign policy. The court then reversed itself, in significant part because of the historical argument we set forth in the CSLG's amicus I filed requesting a rehearing after the initial loss. The nation of Turkey, somewhat shaken by the court's reversal, then filed an amicus requesting yet another rehearing. In response to this, the court ordered a hearing en banc, at which time we filed an additional amicus, which included a reiteration of my earlier historical argument. That argument was that the United States had in fact recognized the genocidal nature of the Armenian massacres as a result of Congress's passage of various legislation in the 1980s and that hesitancy to reiterate that in recent times was insignificant. In other words, though you may not have chosen to renew your vows in the last few years, as long as you have not divorced in the interim you're still a married couple based on the original ceremony.

However, larger issues loom. An additional argument as to why California should be allowed to authorize civil lawsuits in order to redress losses during the Armenian Genocide is U.S. authorities are allowed to criminally prosecute the perpetrators of genocide if they come within U.S. borders. It would seem this is a right granted under the United Nations genocide convention to every signatory (of which the U.S. is one), and my interpretation of federal law is that it in turn allows state as well as federal prosecution. If this is in fact correct, then does that not, as a matter of logic, also authorize the lesser remedy of civil actions arising out of genocides including that of the Armenians? It should be additionally noted that while California's law may allow standing to sue, a total of 43 states acknowledge the Armenian massacre as having been a genocide. That is important because the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes as persuasive any overwhelming state support for a given proposition.

Though it may be historical in nature, the inclusion of the massacre of the Armenians as a genocide is a fitting project for Loyola's Genocide Center. In providing the potential for civil redress by these victims and their descendants, the ground is hopefully paved for claims based upon more contemporary mass atrocities.

Loyola symposium focus of story on looted Armenian art

The "Remnants of Genocide: Reclaiming Art and other Heirlooms Lost in Atrocities" conference hosted by Loyola Law School's Center for the Study of Law and Genocide was featured in The Art Newspaper story on a case brought against the Getty Museum by the Armenian Apostolic Church. Read the full story.

Loyola's Center for the Study of Law and Genocide hosts forum on recovery of looted art

Loyola Law School's Center for the Study of Law and Genocide will host "Remnants of Genocide: Reclaiming Art and other Heirlooms Lost in Atrocities" from 10 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. on Friday, March 11 on its downtown L.A. campus. Top international experts in art retrieval will discuss the recovery of art confiscated by Nazis during World War II and the reacquiring of cultural treasures taken during the Armenian Genocide, as well as art restitution in general. Examples of reclaimed art will be on display.

The lunchtime keynote address will be delivered by Mark J. Geragos, Esq., principal, Geragos & Geragos, Los Angeles; and Brian S. Kabateck, Esq., managing partner, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Los Angeles. The two attorneys have been involved in the recovery of artifacts confiscated during the Armenian Genocide.

The first panel, "Nazi Looted Art Recover," will feature speakers Donald S. Burris. Esq., partner, Burris, Schoenberg & Walden, LLP, Los Angeles; Monica Dugot, Esq., senior vice president and international director of restitution, Christie's, New York; and Thomas R. Kline, Esq., partner, Andrews Kurth LLP, Washington D.C. Professor Stan Goldman, director of Loyola's Center for the Study of Law and Genocide, will moderate.

The second panel, "The Armenian Genocide and Recovery of Looted Cultural Objects," will feature Jason Felch, staff writer at the Los Angeles Times and co-author of Chasing Aphrodite: The Hunt for Looted Antiquities at the World's Richest Museum, which will be released in May by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; and Heghnar Watenpaugh, Ph.D., associate professor of art history, University of California, Davis. The panel will be moderated by Michael Bazyler, professor of law and "1939" Club Scholar in Holocaust and Human Rights Studies, Chapman University School of Law and Visiting Professor of Law, Loyola Law School.

The final panel will examine other issues in art restitution. It will feature speakers Sermid Al-Sarraf, Esq., executive director, International Institute for the Rule of Law, Baghdad, Iraq & Los Angeles, CA; Seth M. Gerber, Partner, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Los Angeles; MaryKate Cleary, manager of historic claims and research, Art Loss Register, London, UK; and Lucille A. Roussin, J.D., Ph.D., adjunct professor and director, Holocaust Restitution Claims Practicum, Benjamin N. Cardoza School of Law, New York.

The day will end with a reception at the Fine Arts Building, 685 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017.

Co-sponsors of the event include the International Law Society, the Entertainment Law Review, the Jewish Law Students Association and the Armenian Law Students Association.