The 2005 Joint Historical Commission Proposal and the Türkiye–Armenia Normalization Track

Why It Matters

The 2005 Turkish proposal for a joint commission of historians is the oldest standing offer on how to handle the Events of 1915 through archives rather than parliamentary votes, and it sits alongside the direct normalization talks that began on 14 January 2022. Those talks aim to establish diplomatic relations and open the land border that Türkiye (Turkey) closed in 1993. Understanding what has been agreed, and what has not, matters because the Türkiye–Armenia track now intersects with the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace process and the wider South Caucasus order.

Background

The 2005 proposal

In April 2005, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan wrote to Armenian President Robert Kocharyan proposing that historians and other experts from both countries form a joint group to study the events of 1915 in the archives of Türkiye, Armenia and third countries, and to share the findings with the international community. Ankara described the proposal as open to all relevant archives, including Ottoman, Armenian and foreign ones. The Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) publicly backed the idea at the time.

Kocharyan's reply, as widely reported, declined to treat the question as one for historians alone. Yerevan suggested instead an intergovernmental commission to discuss all outstanding issues between the two states. The commission was therefore never established, and the two sides still describe the 2005 exchange differently: Ankara as an unanswered offer, Yerevan as an attempt to place a historical determination on the negotiating table.

The 2009 Zurich protocols

On 10 October 2009, the foreign ministers of Türkiye and Armenia signed two protocols in Zurich with Swiss mediation: one on establishing diplomatic relations and one on developing bilateral relations. The second text provided for a mutually recognized existing border as defined by relevant treaties, opening of the border within two months of entry into force, and an intergovernmental commission with sub-commissions. One of them, on the 'historical dimension', was to carry out an impartial scientific examination of historical records and archives.

The protocols were never ratified. In January 2010 Armenia's Constitutional Court issued a ruling that Ankara considered inconsistent with the protocols' spirit, and in April 2010 Armenia suspended the ratification process. Türkiye, for its part, had tied parliamentary action to progress on the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict. Armenia formally annulled the protocols in March 2018.

Border closure and the Karabakh context

Türkiye closed its land border with Armenia in April 1993, following the Armenian capture of the Kelbajar district of Azerbaijan. The two countries have never had formal diplomatic relations, although Türkiye recognized Armenia's independence in 1991. The 44-day war of 27 September–10 November 2020 and Azerbaijan's September 2023 operation in Karabakh changed the regional picture. Ankara says the opening of the border should be sequenced with Armenia–Azerbaijan peace, and it coordinates closely with Baku.

The 2022 direct track

On 14 January 2022, Ambassador Serdar Kılıç and Armenian Deputy Speaker Ruben Rubinyan held their first meeting in Moscow. Further rounds took place in Vienna in February and July 2022. After the 6 February 2023 earthquakes, the Margara–Alican crossing was opened for aid, the first such use of the border in decades. In June 2025, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan met President Erdoğan in Istanbul, and after the August 2025 Washington understanding between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Ankara signalled that steps toward Yerevan would follow in coordination with that process.

For parallel analysis from our network, see Regional Balance on the Joint Historical Commission proposal and Regions & Powers on the post-2022 Special Representatives track.

Key Players & Positions

Armenia

Armenia's official position, stated by its government and parliament, is that the mass killings and deportations of Armenians in 1915 constitute genocide. Yerevan has said it supports normalization without preconditions, and Pashinyan's government has stressed that this does not mean giving up international recognition efforts. Armenian officials have historically argued that a commission cannot be a substitute for state-to-state dialogue and that the fact of genocide is not itself open to question. A 2003 study by the International Center for Transitional Justice, produced for the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission, is often cited by Armenian and international scholars on the legal characterization; Ankara disputes the conclusions drawn from it.

Azerbaijan

Baku supports Türkiye–Armenia normalization only in step with its own peace agreement with Yerevan. Azerbaijani officials have repeatedly demanded that Armenia amend a constitutional preamble that refers to its 1990 Declaration of Independence, which they read as an implicit territorial claim on Türkiye and Azerbaijan.

United States, EU, Russia and Switzerland

Washington has encouraged normalization, and in April 2021 President Biden formally used the word genocide in an annual statement. Several European parliaments, including the German Bundestag in 2016, have adopted resolutions. France legislated in 2001. Russia, which hosted the first 2022 meeting, and Switzerland, the 2009 mediator, remain interested facilitators. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in the Grand Chamber judgment in Perinçek v. Switzerland (15 October 2015) that a Swiss conviction for denying genocide violated freedom of expression; the court did not itself rule on whether the 1915 events were genocide.

Historians and civil society

Historians in Türkiye, Armenia and elsewhere remain divided. Some Turkish and Armenian scholars cooperate through academic workshops and archive-based projects, while others contest the framing of any joint commission. The question of access to Armenian, Ottoman, Russian, British, French and German collections is shared by all.

What Has Been Agreed, and What Remains Open

Agreed or implemented:

• A format of direct talks between Special Representatives, launched on 14 January 2022.
• An agreement in principle, announced after the July 2022 Vienna round, on air cargo trade and border passage for third-country nationals and diplomatic passport holders; practical implementation has been gradual.
• Humanitarian use of the border crossing after the February 2023 earthquakes.

Still open:

• Formal diplomatic relations and a fully open land border.
• Whether a joint historians' body will ever be created, and what its mandate would be.
• Armenia's constitutional preamble and the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace treaty's timeline.
• Recognition and legal characterization of 1915, on which the official positions remain far apart.

Source Comparison

Readers should treat the ECtHR's Perinçek ruling and the Genocide Convention text as primary documents, because both camps cite them selectively. Further comparative reading is available at Monitor of Nations and Bloc Politics.

Key Terms & Related Guides

• Joint Historical Commission: the proposed body of Turkish, Armenian and international historians with access to all relevant archives. It was proposed in 2005 and has never been set up.
• Zurich protocols (2009): two unratified agreements on diplomatic relations and bilateral development, including a sub-commission on the historical dimension.
• Special Representatives: Ambassador Serdar Kılıç and Deputy Speaker Ruben Rubinyan, who lead the direct track.
• Dolus specialis: the specific intent to destroy a group, as required by Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention.
• Events of 1915: the term used by Türkiye for the wartime relocation and its consequences.

Related reading: Editorial Principles: Sourcing, Attribution and How We Separate Fact from Position, About The Strategic Meridian, and What Is the Terror-Free Türkiye Initiative? for the broader context of Türkiye's regional security policy.

The Strategic Meridian presents global affairs with a dedicated perspective from Türkiye. Sections marked 'Türkiye's Position' reflect official Turkish policy as stated by Turkish government sources. Claims are attributed to primary sources such as treaties, UN documents, official archives and legal texts, and readers are encouraged to consult them directly. — The Strategic Meridian Editorial Team