This thesis investigates the selective recognition of genocide by states and international organizations (IOs) as a political and discursive act rather than a neutral legal process. Despite the 1948 Genocide Convention, genocide recognition remains inconsistent, raising questions about the legitimacy of global actors who claim to uphold universal norms. Using a comparative case study of the Armenian Genocide (1915-1917) and the Bosnian Genocide (1992-1995), the thesis explores how recognition practices reflect institutional interests, geopolitical constraints, and strategic performances of legitimacy. Grounded in Constructivism and Historical Institutionalism, the analysis examines how shared meanings, institutional legacies, and pivotal moments shape recognition outcomes. Through qualitative content analysis of institutional texts and state discourse, the study identifies five analytical dimensions: framing, justification, silence/avoidance, timing/responsiveness and legitimacy claims. Findings reveal that recognition is often delayed, symbolically framed or selectively applied based on political alignment, historical path dependencies and institutional self-preservation. The thesis concludes that genocide recognition functions as a performative act through which actors negotiate their normative commitments and legitimacy in global politics. It contributes to broader debate on how international norms are performed and contested, and how institutions manage legitimacy in the face of moral and legal expectations.