Causes and Consequences of Third-Party Intervention in Disputes over History: Recognition of the Armenian Massacre as Genocide and Relations with Turkey

Q3 Social Sciences

World Political Science Pub Date : 2018-04-25 DOI:10.1515/wps-2018-0006

Naosuke Mukoyama

{"title":"Causes and Consequences of Third-Party Intervention in Disputes over History: Recognition of the Armenian Massacre as Genocide and Relations with Turkey","authors":"Naosuke Mukoyama","doi":"10.1515/wps-2018-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the post-Cold War international society, third-party intervention has become increasingly common across various spheres. What were previously assumed to be domestic or bilateral issues have become of great interest to foreign governments and international organizations. Disputes over history, whose intensification in many parts of the world is also a recent political phenomenon, are no exception. Regarding past atrocities by one country upon another, the “victim” side seeks recognition and redress from third parties, while the “perpetrator” side tries to prevent such interference. This paper investigates the causes of such intervention and the consequences of it for bilateral relations between the intervenor and the “perpetrator” country, using the conflict between Armenia and Turkey over the recognition of the 1915–1916 Armenian Massacre as genocide as a case study. The results reveal that countries with a Christian majority and a large Armenian population typically conduct such intervention, and that although third-party intervention affects bilateral relations negatively, the effect is only temporary.","PeriodicalId":37883,"journal":{"name":"World Political Science","volume":"39 1","pages":"101 - 122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/wps-2018-0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In the post-Cold War international society, third-party intervention has become increasingly common across various spheres. What were previously assumed to be domestic or bilateral issues have become of great interest to foreign governments and international organizations. Disputes over history, whose intensification in many parts of the world is also a recent political phenomenon, are no exception. Regarding past atrocities by one country upon another, the “victim” side seeks recognition and redress from third parties, while the “perpetrator” side tries to prevent such interference. This paper investigates the causes of such intervention and the consequences of it for bilateral relations between the intervenor and the “perpetrator” country, using the conflict between Armenia and Turkey over the recognition of the 1915–1916 Armenian Massacre as genocide as a case study. The results reveal that countries with a Christian majority and a large Armenian population typically conduct such intervention, and that although third-party intervention affects bilateral relations negatively, the effect is only temporary.

查看原文本刊更多论文

第三方介入历史争端的前因后果:承认亚美尼亚大屠杀为种族灭绝及与土耳其的关系

在冷战后的国际社会中，第三方干预在各个领域变得越来越普遍。以前被认为是国内或双边问题的问题已经成为外国政府和国际组织非常感兴趣的问题。历史争端也不例外，在世界许多地方，历史争端的加剧也是一种最近出现的政治现象。对于一个国家过去对另一个国家的暴行，“受害者”一方寻求第三方的承认和纠正，而“肇事者”一方则试图阻止这种干涉。本文以亚美尼亚与土耳其因承认1915-1916年亚美尼亚大屠杀为种族灭绝而发生的冲突为例，研究了这种干预的原因及其对干预国与“肇事者”国之间双边关系的影响。结果显示，基督教占多数和亚美尼亚人口众多的国家通常进行这种干预，尽管第三方干预对双边关系产生负面影响，但这种影响只是暂时的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

World Political Science Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations

CiteScore

0.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： World Political Science (WPS) publishes translations of prize-winning articles nominated by prominent national political science associations and journals around the world. Scholars in a field as international as political science need to know about important political research produced outside the English-speaking world. Sponsored by the International Political Science Association (IPSA), the premiere global political science organization with membership from national assoications 50 countries worldwide WPS gathers together and translates an ever-increasing number of countries'' best political science articles, bridging the language barriers that have made this cutting-edge research inaccessible up to now. Articles in the World Political Science cover a wide range of subjects of interest to readers concerned with the systematic analysis of political issues facing national, sub-national and international governments and societies. Fields include Comparative Politics, International Relations, Political Sociology, Political Theory, Political Economy, and Public Administration and Policy. Anyone interested in the central issues of the day, whether they are students, policy makers, or other citizens, will benefit from greater familiarity with debates about the nature and solutions to social, economic and political problems carried on in non-English language forums.