Tehcir Law

Tehcir Law
Ottoman Empire · Public domain · source
Name	Tehcir Law
Long name	Ottoman Temporary Law of Deportation and Resettlement
Enacted by	Ottoman Empire
Enacted	1915
Status	repealed

Tehcir Law is the common designation for the Ottoman Imperial decree of 1915 authorizing mass removal and relocation of populations during World War I. The measure was promulgated amid the Balkan Wars, World War I, and the internal political struggles involving the Committee of Union and Progress, Young Turks, and Ottoman provincial authorities. It precipitated large-scale forced movements affecting Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, and other groups across Anatolia, Kurdistan, and the Aegean Region.

Background and Legislative Context

The law emerged during a period marked by the First Balkan War, Second Balkan War, and the Ottoman alliance with the Central Powers. Political actors such as Enver Pasha, Talat Pasha, Special Organization operatives, and legal officials in Istanbul confronted challenges posed by the Arab Revolt, Gallipoli Campaign, and the collapse of Ottoman authority in provinces like Anatolia, Armenia, and Pontus. Security concerns referenced by proponents invoked incidents such as the Siege of Van and clashes in Bitlis, Sivas, and Aleppo. Debates in the Ottoman Parliament and communications between the Sublime Porte and provincial governors framed the law as an emergency measure alongside earlier practices like population exchange precedents and Law of Villages-era regulations.

Provisions of the Law

The statute granted provincial and central authorities powers to authorize removal, resettlement, and seizure of property for security and logistical reasons. Textual provisions referenced administrative organs including the wali, Mutasarrifate, and military commands such as units from the Ottoman Sixth Army and Ottoman Third Army. Measures included authorization for convoying populations to Syrian Desert, Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor, and interior destinations. Specific clauses regulated custody of movable and immovable assets, transit arrangements via routes like the Baghdad Railway and Hejaz Railway, and oversight by entities linked to the Ottoman Ministry of War and the Ministry of Interior.

Implementation and Administration

Implementation involved coordination among provincial governors, military commanders, and organizations such as the Teşkilât-ı Mahsusa and local nazirs; key figures included Djemal Pasha in Syria and Ahmed Djemal Pasha in broader administration. Execution relied on logistical infrastructure including the Ottoman railway network, river routes on the Euphrates River, and caravan trails through Aleppo Vilayet. Administrators worked with local actors like Kurdish chieftains, Arab tribal leaders, and Greek Orthodox hierarchies to varying degrees. Humanitarian intermediaries such as representatives from the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, International Committee of the Red Cross, and the Near East Relief attempted relief operations amid wartime constraints and interactions with embassies including British Embassy and U.S. Legation officials.

Impact on Armenian and Other Populations

The enforced removals produced mass displacement, death from starvation, disease, and attacks, and the collapse of community institutions in urban centers such as Constantinople, Smyrna, Erzurum, Van, and Kharpert. Populations affected included Armenians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Pontic Greeks, Cypriot Greeks, and Muslim groups caught in counter-movements. Diaspora formations followed migrations to destinations including Aleppo, Beirut, Cairo, Athens, Yerevan, and Tiflis. Cultural consequences affected institutions like the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople, Armenian Apostolic Church, Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, and educational centers such as Robert College and mission schools. Economic disruption hit commercial hubs tied to Smyrna Trade, Anatolian textile centers, and agrarian districts in Kayseri and Sivas.

Legal Challenges and International Response

International reaction involved diplomatic protests from representatives of United Kingdom, France, United States, Russia, and the Hellenic Kingdom; legal scrutiny engaged jurists from the Mixed Courts of Egypt, scholars at Oxford University, and commentators in journals like the Times (London). After the war, military tribunals such as the Postwar Ottoman Courts-Martial addressed perpetrators including members of the Union and Progress Committee and Ottoman officials. Treaties including the Treaty of Sèvres and subsequent Treaty of Lausanne intersected with questions of accountability, repatriation, and minority protections involving bodies like the League of Nations and commissions related to the Armenian Question. Legal arguments invoked contemporary Ottoman codes, precedents from the Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire, and emerging doctrines in international law.

Historiography and Scholarly Debate

Scholars have debated intent, causation, and categorization, with historians at institutions such as Harvard University, Oxford University, Yale University, University of Chicago, and University of Texas at Austin contributing to literature on the subject. Major works by authors affiliated with Cambridge University Press, Princeton University Press, and Columbia University Press examine archival materials from the Ottoman Archives, British Foreign Office archives, U.S. National Archives, and Armenian Patriarchate archives. Debates involve scholars aligned with studies on Genocide studies, Ottoman historiography, and regional scholarship from Turkey, Armenia, Greece, France, and United States. Controversies include disputes over sources cited in works by historians associated with Zürich University, Bilkent University, Bogazici University, and independent researchers publishing in journals like International Journal of Middle East Studies.

Category:Ottoman Empire