Jeylan Mammadova,
Uluslararası Suçlar ve Tarih, 14, 2013, pp. 37-68.
Abstract
If “more than 600 people were killed” intentionally by one
group of people on February 26, 1992 in Khojaly, Azerbaijan, why is it
that the dominant member states of the international community—
specifically the European Union (EU), the Organization of Security and
Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE), and the United Nations Security
Council (UNSC)—have not accepted that the massacre was genocide,
while only three states, Mexico, Pakistan and Colombia, have already
recognized it as such (“Pakistani Senate Recognizes” 2012)? Global
powers do not recognize the case as genocide, not because the killings
were not committed at a level of genocide, but because of two key
factors: first, confirmation of the occurrence of the genocide does not
benefit their international political and economic interests and second,
recognition does not benefit their internal political interests (defined by
interest groups). This research paper develops an existing argument of
the primacy of the theory of Realpolitik in light of neglected human
rights issues, in this case the Khojaly massacre. The paper builds on the
main theory of the clash between human rights and realism and then
outlines the shortcomings of the limited literature on the Khojaly
massacre. The paper focuses on nine countries that have played an
important role in the discussion of the recognition of the massacre (U.S.,
Russia, France, Germany, Turkey, Israel, Pakistan, Mexico, and UK),
and observes their current approach to the issue through expert opinion
and data that strongly yields evidence for the realist approach of certain
countries in discussing the Khojaly massacre.