The term "crimes against humanity" has a broad definition in modern
international law, and the N'rnberg Charter's definition of "crimes against
humanity" includes genocide. The tribunal's charter gave it the authority to
indict and prosecute Nazi regime leaders for atrocities committed against
civilians as well as for acts of persecution based on politics, race, or
In doing so, it also helped make other forms of abusive behaviour a crime on a
global scale. The UN General Assembly passed Resolution 96-I (December 1946),
which made the crime of genocide punishable under international law, as a result
of the momentum created by the N'rnberg trials and the subsequent exposures of
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the
first UN human rights convention, was approved by Resolution 260-III (December
1948). More than 130 nations have ratified the pact, which went into effect in
1951. Despite having contributed significantly to its creation and being one of
the convention's original signatories, the United States Senate did not approve
it until 1988.
Criticisms of the genocide conventionThe convention has faced criticism for excluding political and social groups
from the list of potential genocide victims, despite the fact that it has almost
universal international support and that the International Court of Justice has
declared the prohibition of genocide to be a peremptory norm (Latin: "compelling
The "intentionality clause," which refers to the "purpose to eliminate, in whole
or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group," in the definition
of genocide provided by the convention, is also problematic. Two of the most
frequent criticisms are that it can be difficult to prove such intent and that
it makes little sense to try to link such aim to specific individuals in modern
cultures because violence can come from both nameless. Individual decisions are
influenced by social and economic circumstances.
Some academics have pointed out that the first criticism is supported by the
historical fact that governments do not publicly admit to perpetrating genocide.
For instance, Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq justified its use of chemical
weapons against Kurds in the 1980s as a measure to restore law and order, while
the Ottoman and succeeding Turkish governments claimed that Armenians
slaughtered in the massacres were simply the victims of war.
Even the Nazi government in Germany kept its mass murder of Jews and other
groups a secret. In response, supporters of the intentionality clause have
stated that regardless of the motives, "a pattern of planned behaviour" that
results in the destruction of a sizable portion of the targeted population is
sufficient to demonstrate genocidal intent.
The second objection's proponents contend that a strategy that only considers
intent ignores the:
"structural violence" of social institutions, where enormous political and
economic inequalities can result in the complete marginalisation and even
extinction of some populations. The intentionality clause's supporters argue
that it is essential for distinguishing genocidal acts from other types of mass
deaths and for creating successful preventative measures.
The study of the relationship between war crimes and genocide illustrates the
significant policy consequences of the arguments made by proponents and
opponents of the genocide convention.
The targeted group's definition and identification process is the main
difference between the two approaches. In contrast to war crimes, where the
targeted group is designated by its status as an adversary, genocide targets are
identified by their racial, national, ethnic, or religious traits.
The primary clue that the targeting is motivated by enemy status rather than
racial, ethnic, or religious identity is the way the group's adversary behaves
after the war has concluded.
Attacks against the targeted group must stop for the (likely) commission of war
to occur. Yet, if the attacks continue, it is reasonable to accuse someone of
committing genocide. The significance given to post-conflict behaviour reflects
the knowledge that genocide may and does occur during times of war, frequently
hidden behind military operations.
In any consideration of preventive action, the distinction between war crimes
and genocide is crucial. The end of the combat would be sufficient in cases of
war crimes, and no additional safety precautions would be required. In instances
of genocide, the resolution of the conflict would need the implementation of
safety precautions to guarantee the group's existence.
Despite the fact that many of the genocide convention's critiques are valid, its
benefits shouldn't be overlooked. The "war-nexus" condition, which had
restricted the jurisdiction of the N�rnberg tribunal to cases in which a crime
against humanity was committed in connection with a crime against interstate
peace, was disregarded by the genocide convention, which was the first legal
instrument to do so. Genocide is an international crime "whether perpetrated in
time of peace or in time of conflict," according to the convention.
The agreement was also the first UN legal document to say that anybody can be
held legally responsible for crimes committed abroad, regardless of whether they
operate on behalf of a state. According to Article 8, the convention might also
be used as the legal foundation for the Security Council's mandated enforcement
actions (the only UN organ that can authorise the use of force).
Although having provisions that would have allowed the UN to implement it, the
genocide treaty lacked effective enforcement measures for the first 50 years
after it was ratified. Although the convention mandated that those accused of
genocide be tried before an international criminal court or a court of the state
where the crime was committed, neither permanent international criminal courts
nor domestic criminal prosecutions were common until the early 21st century,
with the exception of the rare instance when a genocidal regime was overthrown
and its officials were brought to justice by a successor regime.
In 1993, the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina argued before the
International Court of Justice that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had
violated the convention's provisions. This was the first time the genocide
convention had been brought up in front of an international tribunal. The
international community stepped up its efforts to prosecute alleged genocide
crimes during the 1990s.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), which were both established
by the UN Security Council, helped to clarify the essential elements of the
crime of genocide as well as the standards establishing individual criminal
responsibility for its commission. Genocide, according to the Rwandan tribunal,
comprised "subjecting a group of people to a subsistence diet, systematic
deportation from homes, and the decrease of basic medical services below minimal
requirement," for instance.
Additionally, the court ruled that "rape and sexual violence constitute
genocide as long as they were committed with the specific intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a particular group, targeted as such"-as was the case during
the Rwandan conflict, when the Hutu-dominated government organised the
widespread rape of ethnic Tutsi women by HIV-positive men. The Yugoslav tribunal
also decided that persecution of both small and large groups of people can
constitute evidence of genocidal intent, which is a crucial problem.
According to the tribunal, such intent may consist of desiring the extermination
of a very large number of the members of the group, in which case it would
constitute an intention to destroy a group en masse. However, it may also
consist of the desired destruction of a more limited number of persons selected
for the impact that their disappearance would have upon the survival of the
group as such. This would then constitute an intention to destroy the group
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was ratified
by about 120 nations in 1998 in Rome, became effective on July 1, 2002. The
genocide crime falls under the purview of the ICC, and the law uses the same
description of the crime as the genocide convention. Although the United States,
China, and Russia chose not to participate, the creation of the ICC was another
sign of a rising international consensus in favour of active and coordinated
efforts to combat and punish the crime of genocide.
Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, is wanted by the International Criminal
Court (ICC) on suspicion of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the
western Sudanese province of Darfur. In 2010, a second warrant for Bashir's
arrest was issued, this time with a genocide charge. Myanmar was accused of
committing genocide in 2019 by The Gambia before the International Court of
Justice due to its systematic persecution of the Rohingya Muslim minority.
Law Article in India
You May Like
Legal Question & Answers