The recognition of the Armenian genocide by the EU institutions and its member states

Abstract

“The axe forgets, but the tree remembers.” This proverb captures the enduring legacy of the Armenian Genocide, whose trauma continues to reverberate through generations. While the perpetrators have persistently denied the events as genocide, Armenians have carried the memory of their suffering as a central part of their collective identity. This enduring remembrance underscores the moral imperative of recognition: without acknowledgement, justice remains incomplete and historical wounds cannot fully heal. The Armenian experience demonstrates how memory resists erasure and calls on the international community to confront historical truth with integrity and responsibility. This dissertation examines how the topic of the Armenian Genocide is approached by the European Union (EU), analysing the recognition efforts or lack thereof of EU institutions and Member States (MS). Although historians widely agree that the mass killings and deportations of Armenians by the Young Turk government constitute genocide, political recognition remains contested, particularly within the EU’s institutional framework. The European Parliament (EP) has consistently and explicitly recognised the events as genocide since 1987, reaffirming this stance on multiple occasions, most notably in its 2015 centenary resolution. In contrast, the European Commission and the Council of the EU have adopted more cautious approaches, avoiding the term “genocide” and prioritising diplomatic relations and the EU’s complex partnership with Türkiye. Through document-based analysis of resolutions, debates, national parliamentary records and other primary data, this dissertation addresses two central research questions: whether the EP’s recognitions influence the positions of other EU institutions and MS, and whether MS shape the EU’s overall agenda on genocide recognition. The findings reveal a clear institutional divergence, and by applying a Multi-Level Governance (MLG) lens, the differences across the various levels of government became particularly noticeable. The EP acts as the EU’s normative and symbolic actor, invoking human rights and historical justice, while the Commission and Council operate as diplomatic actors constrained by realpolitik and strategic interests. MS similarly display diverse approaches, shaped by domestic politics, diaspora influence, memory politics, and foreign policy priorities. Overall, this research demonstrates that the EP’s influence on executive institutions is limited, largely because its resolutions are non-binding and because of the sensitivities of EU–Türkiye relations. The dissertation demonstrates that debates surrounding Armenian Genocide recognition illustrate the enduring tension between normative commitments and strategic interests in EU external action, while highlighting how historical memory is negotiated within a multi-layered governance system.