Legal Performativity: Recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the Czech Republic

The Armenian genocide has so far been recognized by 31 states (ANI 2021) and 70 regional governments, but also by international institutions such as the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, the Turkish Human Rights Association, and others (Řoutil, Košťálová, Novák 2017, 388). The level of its legitimacy, ethical aspect, national narrative, or real political impact on the actors has been scrutinized by political scholars (Akçam 2004; Bilali 2013; Dixon 2010, Zarifian 2013, Aharon 2019). In this context, the issue of national narrative is very often chosen for political research (Souleimanov, Ehrmann, Kopeček 2013, 248).

A less-explored dimension of research on Armenian genocide is the performative dimension of the recognition. Performative analysis uncovers deeper circumstances under which memory laws are regulated and is not limited to the interpretation and application of the law. Nanor Kebranian researched the performative aspect of memory laws regarding the Armenian genocide in France and Germany. This paper follows up on Kebranian's work and focuses on the case of the Czech Republic.

The Czech Republic is exceptional in the recognition of the Armenian genocide for two main reasons: Firstly, the Czech Republic has neither a historical nor a fundamental political position in the Armenian-Turkish dispute over the “g” word in comparison with France and Germany. Secondly, the Czech Republic has recognized the Armenian genocide several times, in various legal forms and by different constitutional authorities. This experience allows us to conceptualize the entire process. The first statement of recognition came from the President of the Czech Republic Miloš Zeman. During the visit of the official Armenian delegation in Prague in January 2014, he called the massacres of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I a genocide (CT 2014). The Armenian genocide was also recognized by both chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (Chamber of Deputies and Senate) and by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.

This article examines the performative dimension of the recognition of the Armenian genocide by the Czech Republic. Regarding the above-mentioned actions, two research questions are presented examining recognition by the executive and legislative powers: 1)

What are the performative aspects in the recognition of the Armenian genocide by the President of the Czech Republic?

This article proceeds as follows: The first section is dedicated to performative theory. The second and third sections focus on the legal form and chronological order of the recognition and present unsuccessful attempts to recognize the Armenian genocide. The analysis of failed attempts could reveal facts and motives that the analysis of successful attempts alone does not reveal. Given the number of constitutional institutions in the Czech Republic that have recognized the Armenian genocide, it is necessary to acquaint the reader with the political context and constitutional framework. Finally, the fourth chapter analyzes the performative aspect of the recognition.

In the field of linguistics and speech act theory, the performative theory was presented by J. L. Austin. In his understanding, utterances can be divided into constatives—declaratory statements that are describing something based on true or false dichotomy, and performatives—actions we do through words (Austin 1962, 11). Conditions for performative utterance are: 1) accepted conventional procedure 2) the person and circumstance must be appropriate for the situation 3) the procedure must be executed by all participants correctly and completely (Austin 1962, 14–15).

Over time, the performative theory has been developed and transmitted to different scientific fields, mainly after Judith Butler's performative agency “Performative turn” (Licoppe 2010) in social science was addressed. Gender theorist Judith Butler's performative approach claims that “gender” and “feminism” are determined by performative process rather than natural, fixed, or biologically given in the scheme of things (Seear 2015, 68). In Butler's words, performativity seeks to counter a certain kind of positivism according to which we might begin with already limited understandings of what gender, the state, and the economy are (Butler 2010, 147).

Legal scholars also applied performative theory in their research. Kane Race explores the co-constitution of drugs and identities through the law (Race 2011). According to scientists Kane Race and Casimir MacGregor, the performative dimension in the study of laws forces us to observe whether and how certain statements or legislation achieve the intended goals in creating social reality. In this respect, lawmakers and/or proponents of drug prohibition often assume — if not intend — that drug laws will show drugs as unhealthy, risky and dangerous (Seear 2015, 69). More on drugs and addiction in law was conceptualized by Kate Seear (2015).

Legal performativity on memory laws was conceptualized by Nanor Kebranian (2020). Memory laws recognize past injustice and normatively address historical events. At the same time, they reflect the will of the legislator to create a comprehensive interpretation of these events. Disputes concerning these laws often stem from their binary perspective, which prevents them from fully addressing experiences, actions, emotions, claims, or realities (Kebranian 2020, 255).

Kebranian analyzed the recognition of the Armenian genocide by France and Germany. The Armenian genocide is generally linked to the ideological prejudices that determine the attitudes of the Armenian and Turkish sides. Many studies work with this binary output and examine whether the recognition of the Armenian genocide is guided by the values of justice and morality, or whether it is driven by powers and political interests. In this context, Kebranian states (2020, 225) that the approach is binary in terms of distinction: recognition/nonrecognition, victims/perpetrators, guilt/innocence, facts/fiction. This binary output encourages research into the causes and consequences of recognition. Performative theory opens up the possibility of identifying the broader effects of memory laws that go beyond the binary approach. Performativity is not limited to a final declaration that recognizes historical events as genocide but consists of actions and practices that create a certain reality. This level also measures whether such statements or legislation “fail” by having unintended or spontaneous subversion, and revealing when, where, and how the law does not do as it says (Kebranian 2020, 255). In analyzing the performative act, we can uncover the deeper meaning of the actor's performance, which in turn appears to be a simple binary declaration—who is the culprit and who is the victim—but hides a deeper political reality. The result of Kebranian's work reveals the ingrained ideological prejudices of memory laws in France, and in the case of Germany the performance analysis points out how the ethnic-national origin of some legislators can be a source of political influence (Kebranian 2020, 256).

In the case of recognition of the Armenian genocide by the Czech Republic, the subject of the research becomes the conceptualization of the various declarations and resolutions as one cumulative process of recognition concerning failed attempts at recognition. Data are gathered from official websites of political institutions—the Chamber of Deputies of Czech Republic (www.psp.cz), the Senate (www.senat.cz), and from the official website of the President of the Czech Republic (www.hrad.cz) and the government (www.vlada.cz). This analysis is, however, limited. Interviews with participants could further unfold other details that are not available from official sources.

The first unsuccessful attempt at recognition took place in 2006. In 2006, Senator Jaromír Štětina intended to submit a draft resolution to the Senate that would recognize the Armenian genocide (CZ 2006). He had organized a conference on the topic of the Armenian genocide in the Senate, hosted by historians and scientists who are experts in this field. This conference aimed to acquaint senators with historical facts and at the same time prepare them for the future proposal (Štětina 2006). Among the guests invited were the following: Arman Kirakossian (Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, historian), Vahakn Dadrian (historian, sociologist), Tessa Hoffman (sociologist), Jan Čarnogurský (politician, former Czechoslovak and subsequently Slovak politician), Anna Sochová (historian from the Faculty of Arts), and others (Štětina 2006). No person defending the position of Turkish government spoke at the conference. During the conference, Štětina revealed that the submitted proposal would take the form of a declaratory resolution (Štětina 2006). Such a resolution is not legally binding, and it does not set a normative rule of conduct. Declaratory resolutions only state certain facts. In the end, the proposal failed to gain sufficient support among the senators. Due to insufficient support, Štětina decided to withdraw the proposal before the vote itself (Jandák 2015).

The Senator's club Civic Democratic Party (Občanská demokratická strana, hereafter, “ODS”) played a key role in the refusal of the resolution. The Senators’ club had 42 seats (from a total of 81) after the 2006 Senate elections. With this number, they controlled more than half of the Senate. In this context, Jan Zahradil, an ODS Member of the European Parliament, wrote an article in 2006 in which he perceived the recognition of the Armenian genocide as problematic and said that it was dangerous to play with the concept of genocide and recognition (Zahradil 2006). In an article entitled “Dangerous Manipulation,” he sets out his arguments for not recognizing the Armenian genocide. The main arguments presented by Zahradil in this article are the emphasis on the weak meaning of declaratory acts in realpolitik and the incorrect criminalization of the denial of the Armenian genocide (Zahradil 2006).

The second unsuccessful attempt to recognize the Armenian genocide took place in 2016 in the Chamber of Deputies. Zdeněk Soukup, a member of the ANO parliamentary group (ANO stands for Action of Dissatisfied Citizens, the Czech word ANO means yes in English), proposed at the 48^th meeting to include a part of the schedule entitled “Recognition of the Ottoman Empire genocide in the Armenian minority between 1915 and 1917” (PSP – debate 2016). He presented the reasons for this proposal, primarily in collegiality visà-vis the European Parliament, which set out the criteria for improving human rights in Turkey's accession conditions to the EU. One of these conditions, as proposed by Soukup, is a comparison with the past, which in the context of historical events during the First World War was not recognized by the Republic of Turkey as genocide. Soukup sees the adoption of this resolution as a demonstration of collegiality towards the EU and at the same time, it is “a clear message that the Czech Republic will not back down from basic values, from the principles of democracy and humanism, will not bend the law” (PSP – debate 2016). The proposal was eventually not included in the program because of a vote that resulted in the rejection of the proposal—65 deputies voted in favor, with 81 abstentions and 21 voting against (PSP - vote 2016).

The first recognition took place in 2014. During an official visit by a delegation from the Republic of Armenia, President Zeman stated that in 2015 100 years would have passed since the Armenian genocide (CT 2014). This statement was confirmed by the then-director of the foreign department of the presidential office, Hynek Kmoníček, who, however, stated that this was a private opinion of the president of the Czech republic, which was afterwards explained to the Turkish side (CT 2014). Due to the formal nature of the official visit and the fact that the speech was intercepted by the Armenian media at the official agenda (Azatutyun-am 2014) and on the occasion of a joint dinner between the two delegations organized by the President of the Republic at Prague Castle (MZV 2014), we cannot consider Zeman's speech to be a speech of a private person. This argument can be legally based on finding IV of the Senate of the Constitutional Court, file no. 3076/20 (CC 2021). Given the fact that this speech took place during the planned program of the official visit of the delegation of the Republic of Armenia, this fact cannot be reliably deduced. Thus, although President Zeman commented on the Armenian genocide several times, the first official statement took place in 2014.

Subsequently, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, the Chamber of Foreign Affairs Committee approved a resolution expressing condolences and sympathy for the Armenian people and condemning the relativization or denial of the Armenian genocide (PSP 2015). The resolution was adopted on April 14^th, 2015.

The President commented on the Armenian genocide in 2016, the day before he left for a state visit to Yerevan. In an interview for Parlamentní listy,

Parlamentní listy is often referred to as one of the disinformation websites in the Czech Republic.

Two acts of recognition took place in April of the following year. The first is a letter from Zeman, the President of the Republic, dated April 24, 2017 and addressed to the spiritual priest of the Armenian community in the Czech Republic Barsegh Pilavchyan, in which Zeman explicitly mentions the genocidal designation (Zeman 2017). The following day, April 25, 2017, the Chamber of Deputies resolved during the first reading of the amendment to “Act no. 245/2000 Coll. on public holidays” on the accompanying resolution, which condemned the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis during World War II, the Armenian genocide, and other genocidal violence anywhere in the world (PSP 2017a, PSP 2017b).

The last act of recognition took place on May 20, 2020. The Senate adopted a resolution that day condemning the crimes against humanity committed during the two world wars and explicitly mentioning the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis during World War II and the genocide of Armenians and others in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. (Senate 2020a–d).

The key to the whole recognition process was the impulse from the President of the Czech Republic. Not only was he the first actor who recognized the Armenian genocide, but the continuity of his position formed a strong argumentative basis for constitutional officials in the Parliament of the Czech Republic. The motive of the President of the Republic can be assessed by the presence of the Armenian party in that recognition of the genocide would be recognized as an effort to establish friendly relations with the diplomatic counterpart. This fact is confirmed by the signing of six bilateral agreements, which concerned deeper cooperation between the two parties after the first visit in 2014. The agreements concerned cooperation in criminal matters, medical and health sciences, economic cooperation, customs cooperation, etc. (MZV 2014). The act of the president here served as a precedent for the Parliament of the Czech Republic, which could rely on this recognition and claim that it is not the first body to recognize the Armenian genocide in the Czech Republic.

This situation shows that the unique position of the President of the Republic, who represents the state (art. 63 of the Czech constitution), is not responsible in his position (art. 54 of the Czech constitution) and is also elected by direct universal suffrage (art. 56 of the Czech constitution). The unique position is strengthened by the charisma and long-term political resistance of Miloš Zeman. On the other hand, Miloš Zeman is considered a polarizing figure in the Czech political landscape.

The government's opposite position was repeated after the last recognition by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Tomáš Petříček for the weekly Aktuálně. cz (Truchlá 2020). According to the government, historians should deal with the issue of the Armenian genocide, not politicians. This argument has been discussed several times in the Parliament of the Czech Republic, and it has always been emphasized that there is a comprehensive historical consensus. Given the government's opposition to the position of the president, it is possible to conclude that the President of the Republic did not consult the government in advance on these steps and thus created an environment in which the executive has a different view of the issue.

After the recognition of the Armenian genocide by the president, a domino effect arose in the Parliament of the Czech Republic, which led to the recognition of the genocide in 2015, 2017, and 2020. Despite significant differences in the content of parliamentary debates, we can find certain features that are repetitive. In all cases, resolutions are symbolically conceived on a certain occasion. In the case of a resolution of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, this was the occasion of the anniversary of a specific historical event. In its resolution, the Foreign Affairs Committee explicitly mentions presenting the resolution on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, while the Senate resolution, on the other hand, was adopted on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II. The resolutions are symbolic both in terms of the anniversary and the specific historical events, while the resolution of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Deputies was the only one to dedicate the entire resolution to the Armenian genocide. In comparison with the speeches of the President of the Republic, which are directly linked to the Republic of Armenia, as an active actor, the Parliament of the Czech Republic finds the recognition of genocide linked to certain symbolic historical events.

The formal concept by which the Armenian genocide was declared is also interesting. These are not documents that would directly enshrine this concept into law or call on the international community to recognize the Armenian genocide. The documents mentioned only the declaratory nature of the Armenian genocide within a certain context, which differs from the criteria of the procedural process for the adoption of a law. It is important to note that the textual content attached to the recognition of the Armenian genocide does not play the same role for a consistent outcome of the action from the point of view of the other two actors as it does for the actor himself who acknowledged the Armenian genocide. For the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey, the use of the term genocide plays a key role. The significance of the entire resolution is important, especially in terms of procedural acceptance and the symbolism it brings to the Czech public.

Another common feature that appears in all resolutions is the mention of the Holocaust, both in the form of a direct reference to the condemnation of this crime and in a more subtle way, which occurred in the first resolution. It refers to the Holocaust in terms of the crime that preceded it—the Armenian genocide. There is the connection between World War I and World War II and the condemnation of the crimes against humanity that took place during them to emphasize the relevance of the Armenian genocide in the Czech Republic. It is through this connection that the legislators try to legitimize the recognition of the Armenian genocide and at the same time find and connect it by relevance to the Czech Republic. It is the common features of all of these resolutions that reveal the specifics of Czech parliamentary culture and at the same time prove the premise that the legitimizing function

The function of parliamentary debate is divided into two theories - legitimization and creation theory (Wintr 2010, 16–24). The theory of legitimacy establishes the function of parliamentary debate as a public expression of arguments and at the same time as legitimate for the public. Creation theory, on the other hand, argues that it is a parliamentary debate that serves to build consensus among constitutional actors.

It is quite clear that, despite the common features, all resolutions have specific features that are linked to the procedural aspect of their adoption. The foreign committee's resolution is the most significant in this regard, given its independent focus on the Armenian genocide and the symbolic date of its presentation on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Although the Holocaust is mentioned in this resolution as well, it does not play as significant a legitimizing function as in the other resolutions. Because of the nature of the committee and the number of its members, the number of votes for approval is greatly reduced. In this case, the smallest number of individuals voted for this resolution (since it is only a committee) compared to other resolutions. A total of eight deputies voted in favor of this resolution; at the same time, all of them also voted in favor of the proposal (PSP – ZV 2015). In the case of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, the numbers present were higher, in the Chamber of Deputies with 126 deputies present, 104 voted for the accompanying resolution and 22 abstained (PSP – vote 2017). In the Senate, the draft resolution was adopted by 47 votes; the remaining 13 abstained. The vote against the resolution did not appear in either case.

The disproportionate dimension of the voters in this case directly reflects the nature of the wording of the resolution. The more votes that needed to be obtained in the end, the more legitimizing elements the resolution contains. Given the potential controversies and the consequences of the resolutions, the draftsmen were aware of the need to conceive of the resolution in such a way as to find the support of a sufficient majority to endorse the proposal. To find sufficient support, they looked for the most effective options, both in terms of procedure and in terms of content.

Firstly, in terms of form, the Chamber of Deputies opted for a legally nonbinding solution in the form of a declaratory resolution as opposed to a binding codification in the form of a normative act. At the same time, the adopted resolution was very short in scope, and its originally proposed wording was approved without a more comprehensive debate. Because of the sufficient support in the Chamber of Deputies to approve the draft amendment to the Act on Holidays already in the first reading, the draft was discussed with priority.

Secondly, the text of the resolution was adapted to find sufficient favor for adoption. In this step, there are several approaches, the first of which is to include the Armenian genocide in a symbolic occasion, either on a certain historical anniversary or in a direct connection with the Holocaust (in the sense of a common condemnation of horrific crimes).

The second approach is to add other points that condemn genocide at the global level, call on the international community to work together to prevent the crime of genocide, or rely on states that have already recognized the genocide. A resolution that would separately declare historical events genocide could be problematic, with many possible consequences for Czech-Turkish political relations, so it prefers to work with the term Armenian genocide without explicitly designating historical events as genocide.

A third approach is to present the unquestionability of the Armenian genocide as a historical fact, which was explicitly stated by some deputies and senators (e.g., MP Plzák, Senator Jirsa, and others). Historically, this question has not been disputed by anyone. This phenomenon seems paradoxical, given that politicians try to distance themselves from the historical discourse of the concept, even though everyone considers it a historical fact.

As I have already indicated, in both debates we follow the legitimizing function of the parliamentary debate, in which the parties try to explain to the public the arguments for and against the decision (Wintr 2010, 18). The legitimizing elements that I repeat in the other two debates are the following: 1)

This is not a declaratory recognition of historical events as genocide.

Symbolic opportunity—the Chamber of Deputies Foreign Affairs Committee found the opportunity on the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, and the Senate found it on the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II.

On the other hand, some skepticism about the recognition of the Armenian genocide has been expressed. In such a case, the primary question has been whether the legislature of the Czech Republic should respond to a historical event that took place more than 100 years ago. The solution was based on a written resolution. The resolution does not directly label historical events as genocide but condemns genocidal crimes in general. It is in the context of the convicted that the authors of the text refer to the Armenian genocide when applying this term.

Further skepticism about the recognition of the Armenian genocide focused on the impact of economic and political relations with the Republic of Turkey. The Committee on Foreign Affairs also emphasized the relationship with a fourth actor, Azerbaijan, which might also react negatively to a similar resolution. The example of the recognition of the Armenian genocide by the Slovak Republic was given in the discussion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on this issue. The Slovak Republic did not experience a serious deterioration in relations after the recognition. However, in the case of recognition of the Armenian genocide by a binding legal act (e.g., the Memory Act), the reactions of the Republic of Turkey have been much more intense. Arguments concerning the impact on relations with the Republic of Turkey were answered in a legally mild form (resolutions are not legally binding) and at the same time providing an example of other countries that did not suffer a more serious deterioration of relations with Turkey after such a declaration.

On his official website, Senator Jirsa expresses an argument that was not heard in the Parliament of the Czech Republic. He argues that similar declaratory resolutions recognizing the Armenian genocide may one day serve as a basis for Armenia to make claims for reparations. This argument expresses a deep concern that these steps may cause strong negative reactions from the Republic of Turkey, which in the future could serve as a detonator in a region in which political relations have long been strained even without significant incentives. He concludes that: “the issue of genocide recognition is a problem that the Turks and Armenians have to solve themselves, there is no other solution” (Tomáš 2009).

The concern about the future development of Armenian-Turkish relations and the impact that a similar declaratory resolution may have is a fundamental question that nation-states declaring similar resolutions should ask themselves. Armenian-Turkish relations are known to be frozen for the long run, and attempts to establish them have failed in the last decade. From this point of view, the debate has narrowed down to only the issue of legitimization for the Czech public and focuses primarily on Czech-Turkish and Czech-Armenian relations. The remaining link and the consequences that the resolution may have on Armenian-Turkish relations have been overlooked.

This article examined the performative aspect of the recognition of the Armenian genocide by the Czech Republic. The role of the President of the Czech Republic was crucial in this matter. Miloš Zeman, with his repeated recognition of the Armenian genocide, ensured the continuity of his position and established friendly diplomatic relations with the Republic of Armenia. Even though the government did not support Zeman's positions, the chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic based their declaratory recognition on his statements. Zeman, despite the disagreement of the executive, promoted his interests. Parliamentary resolutions, on the other hand, were not addressed directly to the Armenian or Turkish parties. They were primarily conceived as a reminder of these tragic historical events.

During the performative analysis of the resolution in the Parliament of the Czech Republic, the specifics of parliamentary culture were revealed, primarily in the growing importance of legitimization theory. The main benefit lies in finding the legitimizing elements that the particular resolutions bring; these are summarized in four main points: 1)

The resolution is not a legally binding resolution.

At the same time, the above analysis proves that to find sufficient support in the Parliament of the Czech Republic, the procedural form and legally nonbinding nature of similar declaratory acts have always been considered.