The Turks cannot effectively voice pains and victimhood on the international platform, and this appears as an indicator that pain is silenced in Turkish culture. The pride of "A Turk cannot be a victim" restricts us from effectively using our rights in international law or putting forth our arguments at the negotiation table. Our tendency to erase these pains from our memory concerns me about the opportunities that might arise for Azerbaijan. Bringing Armenian military members, who were involved in crimes against humanity during Azerbaijan's counter-terrorism operations, to justice also offers an opportunity for the Turkish world to activate soft power within the framework of international law. However, due to the mentioned cultural reasons, we might miss the chance to use a new psychological pressure method against Armenia and might fail to create awareness in the international public opinion regarding war reparations.
The capability of international war crime trials to create psychological superiority costs far less than the millions of dollars spent on lobbying. Indeed, I personally had the opportunity to observe this in the past. I had the chance to watch a trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, where Croatian generals were being tried. The look of shame and guilt I saw on the face of a Croatian friend sitting next to me as a spectator is still vivid in my memory. In a courtroom, the authority represented by the gendarmerie standing next to a defendant is significant. Seeing soldiers of his own nation being tried under the supervision of tall African-American soldiers was a tragic moment for my Croatian friend. This scene represents a crucial moment where a nation's national pride is tested, revealing the gravest outcomes of a psychological war. The Armenian Nation should also take its place in this scene.
For a nation making claims about Ağrı from Turkey, that has a loosely attached reality, incomprehensible bravery, and builds its national identity upon opposition to Turkey and a profound narrative of victimhood, an international trial conducted in front of the global community will have a significant psychological impact. We must be aware of this.
Specifically considering the symbolic importance of the Khojaly Massacre, if an international criminal trial to be conducted in Khojaly in front of the international public is carried out under the leadership of the Organization of Turkic States with the participation of jurists from regional countries, it will provide an opportunity to gain psychological superiority in the context of victimhood. This can somewhat take away the psychological advantage the Armenians have gained in the Western public through the diaspora. Undoubtedly, due to the fact that the Khojaly Massacre took place on Azerbaijani territory, Azerbaijan might want the trial to be held in its national courts. However, considering that the massacre was carried out by elements of the Armenian State, the necessity of handling the events within the framework of international humanitarian law should also be considered. In this context, the first steps of a potential future permanent regional criminal court can be taken through an ad hoc court to be established for the Khojaly Massacre and other crimes against humanity committed in Karabakh.
States expand their influence not only with their military power but also with the lawful judicial systems they establish. Justice can have a direct or indirect impact on a country's soft power. Policies and actions supporting justice can increase a country's soft power by creating a positive image in the international community.
In times when Britain's naval power was at its peak, Britain was known not only for its military power but also for having an efficient and lawful judicial system. Indeed, in 1883, Scottish jurist J. Lorimer in his book "The Institutionalization of the Law of Nations" indicated that "British law is now the only tool that has ever existed and that a just person can use," pointing out that the highest level of justice dispensing mechanism was British law. Looking back at that historical period, we understand very well that such a claim, especially in international trade, had its counterpart. Individuals, who believed that the Ottoman courts were insufficient in delivering justice, mostly in commercial disputes, could appeal to foreign consular courts by taking advantage of the capitulations. Especially the consular courts of England, France, and Italy became the preferred courts among foreigners in the Ottoman Empire and sometimes among Ottoman citizens. Thus, a state with a strong and just judicial system can persuade citizens of other states, which are reluctant to share their judicial authority, to come under its judicial authority. If Turkey wants to become a power in its region along with other Turkic states, it has to face its deficiencies in justice. The often-used phrase in Turkey, "We won on the battlefield, but we lost at the table," that 'table' is actually this deficiency.
The existing judicial cooperation agreements Turkey has made with the Turkic States are undoubtedly a noteworthy step. Transforming this judicial cooperation into a broader "Common Turkic Justice Area" will be less constraining in criminal law. For instance, if a search and arrest warrant is issued in Turkey for a citizen of a third country who has insulted a Turkish citizen, a system can be created where this information is shared with other member states through the Organization of Turkic States. Similar to how, in the European Union, a suspect is subject to measures within the Schengen Area when a crime is committed against an EU citizen, suspects in crimes against citizens of OTS member countries can also be made subject to measures within the "Common Turkic Justice Area". In short, if the defendant commits a crime against an OTS citizen, their entry and exit within an area of 4.2 million km2 will be restricted with necessary measures. This will serve as a significant deterrent against crimes committed against OTS citizens. We must not forget that the restriction of travel opportunities to Turkey might have a greater deterrent effect than expected. Considering that Istanbul Airport is particularly a frequently chosen hub for transit flights globally and is perceived as a gateway between the east and west, the impact of deterrence will be better understood.
From the mid-19th century onwards, during the period when international war law and rules for the protection of civilians became pronounced, Turkic people suffered numerous oppressions guided by fanatic ideologies of some Orthodox nationalist groups. Especially the last two centuries are filled with the frequency and intensity of these attacks against Turkic people. The mass deaths of Turks due to the Balkan exile, the events of 1922 where Greece violated the rules of war resulting in the death of tens of thousands of Turks, the exposure to famine in Kazakhstan, the bloodstained attacks of EOKA in Cyprus, the Turks subjected to assimilation in Bulgaria, and the Bosniaks, referred to as 'Turks' and subsequently genocided by Serbian nationalists, are just a few examples of these tragic events. The incidents in Khojaly and Ganja are bloody examples of recent atrocities committed against Azerbaijan Turks.
Just as the Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany against Jews shocked the world, these attacks, which occurred against Turkic people in the last two centuries should be equally known. Our cultural tendency to forget or overlook historical events will not bring a solution to prevent these tragedies from recurring. Thus, the establishment of a permanent court is seen as a solution in terms of deterring massacres.
The permanent criminal court, planned to be established under the Organization of Turkic States, which would operate in the field of international humanitarian law, might not create a full perception of impartiality due to the idea of granting privileges to Turkic people while evaluating crimes against them. This could lead to questioning the legitimacy of the court's decisions on the international stage. Therefore, a permanent court that will be established covering Eurasia in general, but especially with the dominant participation of the Organization of Turkic States members, could address crimes committed against Turkic people.
In this context, it can be considered that the permanent court prosecutor may make definitive and compelling decisions about crimes committed against Turkic people by the Taliban in regions such as Afghanistan. In the execution of court decisions, the court can primarily request assistance from a security unit similar to Europol to be established under the Organization of Turkic States. In addition, the prosecutor's office affiliated with the permanent court can apply to the OTS security unit to intervene for the purpose of crime prevention. Court decisions will provide international legitimacy in terms of interventions to protect Turkic people in the region.