Turkey's International Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed by the Ottoman Empire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the legal consequences of the commission by the Ottoman Empire of internationally wrongful acts, including acts of genocide, against the Armenian population during World War I. Specifically, the present paper examines the following question: can the modern State of Turkey (which was only officially proclaimed in 1923) be held responsible, under international law, for internationally wrongful acts committed by the Ottoman Empire before its disintegration? This paper first briefly examines whether Turkey should be considered, under international law, as the "continuing" State of the Ottoman Empire or whether it should instead be deemed as a "new" State, We will show that Turkey is, in legal terms, "identical" to the Ottoman Empire and is therefore "continuing" the international legal personality of the Empire. This paper will then focus on the legal consequences arising from this conclusion of continuity. Our analysis of past case law and State practice shows that both in the context of secession and of cession of territory, the continuing State continues to be held responsible for its own internationally wrongful acts committed before the date of succession. Accordingly, Turkey should be held responsible for all internationally wrongful acts committed by the Ottoman Empire.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".