The Law of 27 May 1915 and the Takvim-i Vekayi of 1 June: What the Text Provides and How It Is Read

Why It Matters

The Relocation and Resettlement Law of 27 May 1915 is the legal instrument that authorised the wartime relocation of Ottoman Armenians, and it was published in the official gazette Takvim-i Vekayi on 1 June 1915. Taken on its own, it is a brief, general provisional law that does not mention Armenians or any other group. Ankara reads it as a temporary wartime security measure. Armenian authorities and many historians read it alongside its implementation as the framework for mass deportation and death. Knowing what the text provides, and what it leaves out, is the first step in any evidence-based discussion of the Events of 1915.

Background

The document and its publication

Takvim-i Vekayi ("Calendar of Events") was the Ottoman Empire's official gazette, first issued in 1831. Laws, decrees and regulations took effect through publication there. The measure of 27 May 1915 was a kanun-ı muvakkat, a provisional law. The Ottoman constitutional system allowed the government to issue such laws when parliament was not in session, and parliament later reviewed them. Its formal title concerned the measures the military could take against those who opposed the government's actions in wartime. It is commonly known in Turkish as the Sevk ve İskân Kanunu (Relocation and Resettlement Law).

In substance, as commonly summarised in the Ottoman and Turkish editions of the text:

• It authorised army, corps and division commanders and local military commanders to respond immediately, with military force, to armed resistance or attacks against government orders.
• It authorised the relocation and resettlement of the population of villages and towns, individually or collectively, where military necessity or suspicion of espionage and treason required it.
• It took effect on publication and assigned execution to the ministries concerned, chiefly War and Interior.

The text is general in wording. Both Turkish and Armenian-side scholars agree that it does not name Armenians. The dispute is about how it was applied and what its drafters intended.

The wartime context

Ankara's historical account stresses the Hunchak (founded 1887) and Dashnak (founded 1890) revolutionary committees, the 1894 Sasun and 1896 Ottoman Bank episodes, and the wartime cooperation of Armenian volunteer units with the Russian army in the eastern provinces. It also stresses Muslim civilian losses in the same regions. Armenian historiography emphasises that the large majority of those relocated were civilians, including women, children and the elderly, far from any front, and that most were not involved in armed activity.

The ministerial correspondence

The documents Ankara cites most often are the ciphered telegrams and instructions exchanged between the Ministry of War under Enver Pasha and the Ministry of Interior under Talat Pasha, together with directives to provincial governors. Turkish official publications present them as evidence that the relocations were administered as a security and logistics operation. The Turkish Foreign Ministry also points to instructions about protecting convoys, providing food and shelter, and recording and safeguarding the property of those relocated.

Armenian-side scholars use the same Ottoman archives for different conclusions. They cite the scale of the deportations from regions far from any front, the routes through the Syrian desert, the high mortality, and the later Ottoman tribunals of 1919–1920. Telegrams published by Aram Andonian in 1920 are disputed. Turkish historians have questioned their authenticity, and some Western and Armenian scholars defend it. Careful readers treat the provenance of each document separately.

Key Players & Positions

The Republic of Türkiye. According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry, the Events of 1915 were a tragedy of the First World War in which very large numbers of Ottoman Armenians and Muslims died. Ankara describes the 1915 relocation as a temporary wartime measure. It rejects the term "genocide" and has opened its archives to researchers. It has repeatedly said the question should be decided by historians rather than by third-country parliaments.

Armenia and diaspora organisations. The Armenian government and most diaspora bodies describe the Events of 1915 as the Armenian Genocide. They hold that the relocation law gave legal form to a centrally directed policy of destruction, and that the later seizure of property and the demographic outcome show intent. Armenia has also said that normalization with Türkiye should not be conditioned on a historians' commission, and that bilateral relations and history are separate matters.

Other governments and parliaments. A substantial number of states and legislatures have adopted recognition resolutions or statements. These include the German Bundestag in 2016 and a US presidential statement of 24 April 2021. Ankara has rejected each as a political judgement outside the competence of legislatures.

Scholars. The field is divided. Researchers such as Taner Akçam, Vahakn Dadrian and Raymond Kévorkian argue from Ottoman, German, Austrian and American sources that the deportations were intended to destroy the community. Other historians emphasise wartime security conditions, the committees' armed activity and Muslim mortality. Justin McCarthy is among those who have drawn attention to Muslim civilian losses. Legal scholars also disagree on whether the 1948 Genocide Convention can be applied to events that predate it.

Courts and international bodies. In Perinçek v. Switzerland (Grand Chamber, 2015), the European Court of Human Rights held that a criminal conviction for denying the legal characterisation of the events violated freedom of expression. It also stated that it was not deciding whether the events amounted to genocide. The International Court of Justice has described the Genocide Convention's requirement of specific intent in its 2007 Bosnia v. Serbia judgment, and that standard guides discussion of how the term applies.

Source Comparison

Readers can compare the approaches of sister publications, including The Worldlogue on the 1915 law's text, context and the Ottoman archival record, Crossroads Review on what the law said and Regional Balance on the law and the Genocide Convention's legal criteria. Each source should be checked against the primary documents, and that includes this one.

Where to look: the archives

No single archive settles the question, so readers should consult several.

• Ottoman archives (Istanbul). The Presidency of the State Archives holds the Ottoman Archive, including ministerial cipher telegrams, Council of Ministers records and Takvim-i Vekayi issues. Some series are digitised, and researchers need to be able to read Ottoman Turkish.
• Armenian archives. These include the National Archives of Armenia and the Matenadaran in Yerevan, the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Nubar Library in Paris, which hold community, church and survivor records.
• Third-country archives. These include the Political Archive of the German Foreign Office, Austrian State Archives, the US National Archives (including diplomatic dispatches), the British National Archives and Russian state archives. Wartime allies and adversaries of the Ottoman Empire reported on events as observers, and their accounts can be compared with the Ottoman record.

The proposed Joint Historical Commission was designed to bring these collections together under one method, with shared access and agreed standards. A 2009 Türkiye–Armenia protocol contemplated a sub-commission on the historical dimension, but the protocols were never ratified. Today the Kılıç–Rubinyan track focuses on practical normalization.

Key Terms & Related Guides

• Takvim-i Vekayi: The Ottoman official gazette in which laws took effect on publication. The 1 June 1915 issue is the formal publication record.
• Kanun-ı muvakkat (provisional law): An Ottoman law issued between parliamentary sessions, later subject to review by parliament.
• Sevk ve İskân (relocation and resettlement): The Turkish term for the 1915 relocation. Armenian sources use "deportation".
• Events of 1915: Türkiye's official terminology for the wartime events. Armenian sources and many governments use "Armenian Genocide".
• Dolus specialis: The specific intent to destroy a protected group, in whole or in part, required by Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention.
• Joint Historical Commission: The 2005 Turkish proposal for a joint commission of historians with full archival access.

Related reading on Kosmonomos:

• Reading 1915 by the Rulebook for the legal categories and the 2005 offer.
• Editorial Principles: How Kosmonomos Separates Fact, Legal Argument and Official Position for how this site distinguishes background from position.
• About Kosmonomos and the Kosmonomos FAQ for the site's method and perspective.

Sister publications also cover the legal and archival questions: Monitor of Nations on the Ottoman archives and the Genocide Convention criteria.

Perspective Note

This article reflects Kosmonomos's editorial perspective, which presents and defends Türkiye's official legal and strategic positions on the issues discussed. Claims are anchored wherever possible in primary sources such as treaty texts, UN documents, and archival records, which are cited so that readers can verify them independently.