This analysis unpacks how interstate conflicts change the scope and function of memory laws. Following diplomatic ruptures, memory entrepreneurs deploy conflict-time memory laws to essentialize adversaries, cause them reputational damage, and communicate specific interpretations of the conflict to both domestic and international audiences. At the same time, conflict-time memory laws also recalibrate collective memory narratives by linking past grievances to contemporary conflicts. Developing the concept of conflict-time memory laws, the article evaluates Greece’s 1996 recognition of the Armenian Genocide following the Imia crisis with Turkey (1995–1996). The study reveals how the conflict provided a diverse group of Greek MPs with a strategic opportunity to recognize the Armenian Genocide, shame Turkey, and characterize it as immutably transgressive to both domestic and international audiences. The concept of conflict-time memory laws introduces novel insights into the interactive dynamics between memory politics and interstate conflicts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daniel Fittante (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: