Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did the Supreme Court Really Reject the `Armenian Thesis'?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Did the Supreme Court Really Reject the `Armenian Thesis'?

    Did the Supreme Court Really Reject the `Armenian Thesis'?

    http://massispost.com/archives/8871
    Updated: June 20, 2013

    By Edvin Minassian

    (translated from the original article in Turkish Published by Agos
    Weekly Newspaper on June 14,2013)

    Pursuant to a decision published this week, the Supreme Court of the
    United States rejected the appeal filed by Armenian plaintiffs of the
    ruling by a lower court in favor of the German Insurance Company
    Munich Re (Munchener Ruchvershieherungs-Gesellschaft
    Aktiengesellschaft).

    Newspaper headlines (in Turkey) reported this as `The United States
    Supreme Court rejects the Armenian Thesis'. This is not an accurate
    representation of the ruling. The question before the High Court was
    not the accuracy of the Armenian Thesis (or the Cause/ Position); it
    was not whether the Genocide did or did not happen. The real question
    before the Court centered around whether or not a conflict existed
    between the State of California and the federal government of the
    United States of America that involved an alleged infringement by
    California on foreign policy powers of the federal government.
    Depending on the existence of such conflict of authority, the follow
    up question the Court had to address was whether or not a California
    Statute should be stricken down. That was the dispute before the
    Supreme Court.

    HISTORY OF THE LEGAL CASE:

    To be able to understand this complex matter better one needs to
    review the history of the legal proceedings. Approximately ten years
    ago the Legislature of the State of California passed a law extending
    the statute of limitations for filings against certain life insurance
    carriers. Generally, and based upon legal tradition, laws that
    involve regulations and obligations pertaining to insurance companies
    have been the domain of individual and sovereign states. In other
    words, insurance laws differ from each other in New York, Florida and
    California. The legislation in question was passed based upon the
    understanding of the legal and constitutional traditional powers
    possessed by the State of California; and provided a ten year
    extension of the statute of limitations for filing law suits against
    life insurance companies, by the heirs of those individual citizens
    of the Ottoman Empire, who owned life insurance policies, and lost
    their lives, were exiled or escaped to save their lives, between 1915
    and 1923.

    The key area of contention of the statutory language is its reference
    to the time period of 1915 through 1923, as the era commonly known
    to be the `Armenian Genocide'. Nevertheless, despite the
    misrepresentations in the Media, the deceased policy holder is not
    mandated to be a victim of the Armenian Genocide or exclusively of
    Armenian ancestry. In other words, the deceased person could have
    passed away in his house in Kayseri or Sivas due to natural causes and
    this insured (Ottoman) citizen could have been a Greek, or a Turk or
    an Albanian. Due to the prevailing chaotic circumstances of the time
    period, the present day heirs would have not been able to have access
    to the insurance policies, and this law would enable them to pursue
    their just claims for compensation against the German insurance
    company. The statutory reference in essence is descriptive of the
    time period as it is known to the California Legislature. The right
    to compensation, however, does not rest on proof that the description
    of the Era is accurate. Consequently, however, the descriptive
    terminology rests at the core of the legal dispute.

    Hence a legitimate private lawsuit against a private German Insurance
    company, all of a sudden gets turned into an international dispute due
    the terminology used in its enabling legislation. The fact that the
    parties to both sides of the dispute are either private individuals or
    private companies gets totally ignored. Moreover, the blaring
    injustice of the windfall obtained by German insurers who sold
    thousands of policies, collected premiums and never had to pay up when
    the time came; got cast aside. One of the most disturbing aspects of
    these cases is the evidence that was discovered in the course that the
    French, British and German life insurance companies had a policy to
    target Armenians in general as part of their sales efforts in the
    Ottoman Empire. The marketing and sales training manuals taught
    salespersons that compared to other ethnic and religious groups the
    Armenians were more sensitive to providing for their families should
    they pass away; while the others had shied away for such close
    contemplations of their own mortality; and thus were less attractive
    as potential customers of life insurance policies. These observations
    do not necessarily establish the accuracy of such stereotyping, but do
    explain the fact that Armenians disproportionately held more policies
    than other groups.

    The U.S. Supreme Court decision did uphold the decision by the 9th
    Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, reached after a long period
    contemplation, various reversals and historic oral arguments,
    determining that the California law interfered with the foreign policy
    powers and authority of the federal government. Prior to the ruling
    upholding the 9th Circuit decision, the Supreme Court asked the Obama
    Administration their views as to the legal dispute. The Solicitor
    General who represents the Executive Branch before the Supreme Court,
    presented an extraordinarily long position statement which was
    factually and legally questionable. The Solicitor General, also
    supported by the State Department indicated that they were concerned
    and apprehensive about the implications of this law on foreign policy;
    expressing support for the decision of the Court of Appeals. One of
    their most controversial contentions in that brief was that the issue
    of compensation for Armenian Victims had been resolved via the
    Lausanne II Treaty between the U.S. and the Republic of Turkey;
    despite the fact that is an invalid treaty not even remembered by most
    observers. Specifically, that was a Treaty that was never approved by
    the Senate and therefore had no legal effect as an international
    treaty. Even if it were a valid treaty, it had no impact on legal
    disputes for compensation between private individuals and business
    entities.

    Another irony is the fact that this California Statute was found to be
    unconstitutional since the terminology offended Turkey as alleged by
    the defendants and the Obama Administration; while over 40 State
    Legislatures and Governors officially have and continue to recognize
    the Armenian Genocide; and President Obama in his April 24 statements,
    while avoiding the usage of the word Genocide to the dismay of
    Armenians, utilizes words and phrases which should have the same end
    result of the perceived offensiveness.

    In similar lawsuits that involved other life insurance companies, New
    York Life and French carrier AXA had chosen to reach settlements with
    the heirs. The German insurer Munich Re rejected that path and by
    litigating this all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court was able to
    prevail due to a favorable interpretation of the Constitution of the
    United States on an issue involving federalism, which gives primacy to
    the federal executive on matters that are deemed to involve foreign
    affairs. However, the real question one must ask and answer is whether
    or not justice was rendered. When considered in the historical
    perspective isn't the responsibility of Germany even greater? More
    importantly, considering what took place in Anatolia in 1915, why
    should the Republic of Turkey not pass a law similar to the one passed
    in California?

    The insurance companies conducted business within the borders of
    Turkey, they sold insurance policies and the purchasers are certainly
    not alive today. Naturally, the documentation that would have entitled
    their beneficiaries to the proceeds disappeared in the chaotic
    atmosphere, and only surfaced through valiant efforts of attorneys who
    pursued these companies and compelled the release of the names of
    policyholders. Whomever has a grandfather or grandmother who had
    purchased life insurance policies from these companies within the
    borders of the Ottoman Empire (the legal predecessor of the Republic);
    and had been victimized during World War I, irrespective of their
    cause of death, should as their legal heirs be entitled to their
    contractual rights. Isn't unjust enrichment a reprehensible form of
    injustice that offends our collective notion of justice?



    From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Working...
X