To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Genocide convention of 1948.
Journal articles on the topic 'Genocide convention of 1948'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Genocide convention of 1948.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Sagatienė, Dovilė. "Deconstruction of Soviet Deportations in Lithuania in the Context of the Genocide Convention." International Criminal Law Review 21, no. 3 (April 27, 2021): 588–608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10057.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This paper explores Soviet deportations of Lithuanian citizens during occupations in 1940–1941 and 1944–1952 in the framework of a genocidal act as listed in Article ii, (c) of the 1948 Genocide Convention—deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. The focus of this paper is on the nature of Soviet deportations and the evaluation of two types of Soviet deportations from the perspective of legal elements indicated by Article ii, (c) of the Genocide Convention; including targeted persons, premeditation and principal mechanisms.
2
Lityński, Adam. "Powracające ludobójstwo w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej i Rosji (1894-1995)." Miscellanea Historico-Iuridica 19, no. 2 (2020): 267–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.15290/mhi.2020.19.02.13.
Full textAbstract:
There have been numerous publications on genocide, which provides evidence that this topic is up-to-date, important and still insufficiently researched. The author of the legal concept of "genocide " is Rafał Lemkin, a Polish scholar of Jewish nationality: "Father of Genocide Convention". In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide crime. During the hundred years (1894-1995), genocide repeatedly occurred in Central and Eastern Europe. The greatest genocide in human history is the extermination of the Jews (the Holocaust). The author also recalls the genocide of the Armenians (1894-1915) in the Ottoman Empire (although it goes beyond Central and Eastern Europe and Russia). There were numerous genocide cases in the Soviet Union, and it is only about them that it is possible to accumulate substantial literature. Namely, the author reminds: the Cossacks genocide following the Bolshevik revolution; genocide in the countryside in connection with the collectivization process; Great Famine in Ukraine; the extermination of entire national minorities (so-called national operations 1937-1938); the most massive such operation was the "Polish operation." The author also recalls genocide in the countries of former Yugoslavia: especially in the fascist so-called Independent Croatian State [Nezavisna Država Hrvatska - NDH). The genocide of Ukrainian nationalists on Poles (1943-1946) closes the text. The article describes the largest genocidal operations carried out in Central and Eastern Europe over the course of a century and outlines their historical and political background, the manner in which they were carried out and their relationship with the international law and individual national regulations in force at the time.
3
Hofmann, Robin. "Conference Report – “The Genocide Convention” International Conference: Commemorating its 60th Anniversary (4 – 6 December 2008 Marburg, Germany)." German Law Journal 10, no. 5 (May 1, 2009): 621–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200001255.
Full textAbstract:
In 1944 Raphael Lemkin wrote in his book titled Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: “By Genocide we mean the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group.” Four years later, on 9 December 1948 the term “genocide” coined by Lemkin simply by merging the Greek word “genos” (people) and the Latin word “caedere” (to kill) was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the Genocide Convention. Now, six decades later an international conference on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Genocide Convention took place from the 4th – 6th December in Marburg and the city of Frankfurt in Hesse/Germany sponsored mainly by the German Foreign Office and the Fritz-Thyssen Foundation. The main purpose was to discuss the implications of the genocide convention from 1948 on an international platform with scholars from different countries and disciplines.
4
Beham, Markus P. "1948 – The 1948 Genocide Convention: Origins, Impact, Legacy." Austrian Review of International and European Law Online 23, no. 1 (December 3, 2020): 85–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15736512-02301005.
Full text
5
Aydin, Devrim. "The Interpretation of Genocidal Intent under the Genocide Convention and the Jurisprudence of International Courts." Journal of Criminal Law 78, no. 5 (October 2014): 423–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1350/jcla.2014.78.5.943.
Full textAbstract:
Many scholars studying substantive criminal law examine the crime in an analytical way to determine the elements of crime, determining these elements as the material or objective element ( actus reus) and the mental or subjective element ( mens rea). In accordance with this, a crime consists of a physical act or omission (material element) and the psychological bond that links the act to the perpetrator (mental element). The elements of the crime of genocide are derived from the definition of Article 2 of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. According to this, the crime of genocide is committing any of the acts enumerated in the Convention with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. The mental element of genocide was not mentioned either during the Nuremberg trials or in the Convention. The discussion on the mental element of the crime of genocide or ‘genocidal intent’ took place within international criminal law for the first time during the trials at international courts for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in order to prove the perpetrators' genocidal intent. This article discusses the definition of genocide, the mental element of the crime in substantive criminal law, the mental element of the crime of genocide and the jurisprudence of the international tribunals related to the issue.
6
Madley, Benjamin. "California's Yuki Indians." California History 96, no. 4 (2019): 11–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ch.2019.96.4.11.
Full textAbstract:
This article summarizes the heretofore incomplete and disputed assessment of the Yuki genocide, narrates the cataclysm, reevaluates state and federal culpability, and explains how this catastrophe constituted genocide under the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention. Finally, the article explores how other case studies and the convention may inform future research on genocide in California and the United States in general.
7
Agybaev, A. N. "THE 1948 UN GENOCIDE CONVENTION: SOME CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS." EurasianUnionScientists 8, no. 61 (2019): 17–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.31618/esu.2413-9335.2019.8.61.65.
Full text
8
Kagan, Joshua M. "Speeding Up the International Community's Response Time in Addressing Acts of Genocide: Deferring to the Judgment of Nongovernmental Organizations." International Journal of Legal Information 34, no. 1 (2006): 145–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0731126500001244.
Full textAbstract:
Although the United Nations’ 1948 Genocide Convention was a well-intentioned step toward ending genocide, acts of genocide have continued since its ratification. This paper suggests that because genocide is widely considered to be the most horrific of all crimes, the leaders of the international community owe it to their constituents to put some teeth in the Genocide Convention by increasing the speed with which acts of genocide are identified and eradicated. In order to speed up the international community's response time in stopping existing situations of genocide, this paper asserts that certain specified international human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should be given the designated role of identifying genocide and related acts. Such a designation would then initiate, within the U.N. system itself, appropriate action to stop these genocidal acts.This paper examines the relevant statutory provisions and precedents for significant NGO involvement within the United Nations (UN) system. I also discuss several practical concerns associated with granting deference to NGOs and evaluate the degree to which such concerns may be refutable or compelling. This paper explores the moral and pragmatic values of creating a new system to identify cases of genocide, in the hope that the “never again” mentality that permeated the original drafting of the Genocide Convention can finally be given some force.
9
Bruneteau, Bernard. "Génocide. Origines, enjeux et usages d'un concept." Journal of Modern European History 5, no. 2 (September 2007): 165–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.17104/1611-8944_2007_2_165.
Full textAbstract:
Genocide. Origins, Challenges, and Applications of the Concept After a long period of intellectual formation, the concept of genocide was introduced by Raphael Lemkin in 1944. It suffers, however, from the vagueness of the official definition established by the UN Convention in 1948. That is why this category of crime has been instrumentalized by widely different groups trying to be acknowledged as historical victims, whether these rights were real or not. Despite increasing controversy about problems of collective memory, the field of «genocide studies» has proven to be especially dynamic since the 1990s. The notion of «genocidal process» has become a focus of attention that allows the combination of anthropological, sociological and historical approaches. The question about the relation between genocide and war, which has become increasingly significant for historians, permits the conclusion that the First World War and the «minority question» led to a new sense of justice regarding «crimes against humanities». Although it may seem that Lemkin was influenced by the tragic fate of the Armenian and Jewish peoples, it is nonetheless necessary to discuss the genocidal character of other events, like colonial massacres, Stalinist policy, or ethnic cleansing.
10
Salter, Michael, and Maggi Eastwood. "Post-war Developments of the Martens Clause: The Codification of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ Applicable to Acts of Genocide." Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies 2, no. 2 (2011): 250–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187815212x624256.
Full textAbstract:
The Martens Clause continues to provide resources for a free-standing norm of customary law prohibiting acts of genocide that are free from many of the restrictions concerning, for example, protected groups contained in the original 1948 Genocide Convention’s definition. This article addresses post-war developments of the Martens Clause and the codification of crimes against humanity applicable to acts of genocide. It suggests an alternative way of examining how the idea of humanity originated from the Nuremberg and post-Nuremberg developments. We also explore the historical developments of the 1948 Genocide Convention, and its application within ad hoc tribunals that have adopted a narrow definition and application. Finally, we conclude that through an expansive and sympathetic judicial interpretation and legislative reception, the Martens Clause has operated as one of the key milestones along the path that culminated in the international criminalisation of genocide.
11
Gasparyan, Gayane. "A Valuable Research." Armenian Folia Anglistika 14, no. 1-2 (18) (October 15, 2018): 147–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.46991/afa/2018.14.1-2.147.
Full text
12
Tournaye, Cécile. "Genocidal Intent Before the Icty." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 52, no. 2 (April 2003): 447–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/iclq/52.2.447.
Full textAbstract:
Several crimes recognized in international criminal law are intimately linked to the horrors of the holocaust. Persecution, extermination, and genocide are historically intertwined notions that in all minds refer to the ordeal of the Jewish people before and during the Second World War. This is particularly so with genocide. The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the ‘Genocide Convention’) is a legal answer to the holocaust. Yet, as any legal notion, genocide goes beyond the characterisation of a specific historical tragedy. It is fated to evolve through legal interpretation, which operates pursuant to certain rules and principles that only subsidiarily rely on the drafting history.
13
Costi, Alberto. "The 60th Anniversary of the Genocide Convention." Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 39, no. 4 (December 1, 2008): 831. http://dx.doi.org/10.26686/vuwlr.v39i4.5494.
Full textAbstract:
On 9 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. A symbolic response to the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi regime during World War II, the Convention quickly succumbed to the politics of the Cold War. Its renaissance in the 1990s owes much to the thaw in East-West relations and the emergence of international criminal law and institutions in the aftermath of the events in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. As we celebrate the 60th anniversary of this venerable instrument, time is ripe for an assessment of the Convention, in particular the extent to which recent international developments have curbed genocide and other related acts. This article examines the backdrop against which the Convention was adopted, including the reasons explaining why genocide developed as a separate crime. It then looks at the definition that was eventually adopted, including the issues surrounding acts of genocide, protected groups and the requisite intent to prove genocide, and argues that political considerations have shorn the Convention of some important elements. The final part of the paper offers a few general reflections on post-Cold War developments aimed at eradicating genocide and other international crimes.
14
MCFARLAND, Sam, and Katarzyna HAMER. "JAK LUDOBÓJSTWO ZOSTAŁO UZNANE ZA ZBRODNIĘ – DZIEDZICTWO RAFAŁA LEMKINA." Civitas et Lex 10, no. 2 (June 30, 2016): 69–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.31648/cetl.2306.
Full textAbstract:
Raphael Lemkin is hardly known to a Polish audiences. One of the most honored Poles of theXX century, forever revered in the history of human rights, nominated six times for the Nobel PeacePrize, Lemkin sacrificed his entire life to make a real change in the world: the creation of the term“genocide” and making it a crime under international law. How long was his struggle to establishwhat we now take as obvious, what we now take for granted?This paper offers his short biography, showing his long road from realizing that the killing oneperson was considered a murder but that under international law in 1930s the killing a million wasnot. Through coining the term “genocide” in 1944, he helped make genocide a criminal charge atthe Nuremburg war crimes trials of Nazi leaders in late 1945, although there the crime of genocidedid not cover killing whole tribes when committed on inhabitants of the same country nor when notduring war. He next lobbied the new United Nations to adopt a resolution that genocide is a crimeunder international law, which it adopted on 11 December, 1946. Although not a U.N. delegate – hewas “Totally Unofficial,” the title of his autobiography – Lemkin then led the U.N. in creating theConvention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted 9 December, 1948.Until his death in 1958, Lemkin lobbied tirelessly to get other U.N. states to ratify the Convention.His legacy is that, as of 2015, 147 U.N. states have done so, 46 still on hold. His tomb inscriptionreads simply, “Dr. Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), Father of the Genocide Convention”. Without himthe world as we know it, would not be possible.
15
Potot-Warren, Jade. "Identifying Genocide: The Yazidi Massacre in the Context of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide 1948." Student Journal of Professional Practice and Academic Research 2, no. 1 (June 9, 2020): 30–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.19164/sjppar.v2i1.922.
Full textAbstract:
In August 2014 ISIS conducted a coordinated attack on the Yazidi population of the Mount Sinjar area. As a result, the entirety of this Yazidi population was displaced[1], and an estimated total of 3,100[2] Yazidis were killed (approximately half were executed, and the rest died whilst fleeing[3]) and 6,800[4] were kidnapped and subjected to numerous abuses, including torture and forced religious conversion. The “genocide” is ongoing[5] and as of August 2014, there are an estimated 3,200[6] women and girls still in ISIS captivity. This article will explore these events in the context of the elements of genocide and with references to the findings of the Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic and the Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the human rights situation in Iraq in the light of abuses committed by the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and associated group. This article will critically examine if, and to what extent, these attacks constitute a genocide within the meaning of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (‘Genocide Convention’) 1948.In August 2014 ISIS conducted a coordinated attack on the Yazidi population of the Mount Sinjar area. As a result, the entirety of this Yazidi population was displaced[1], and an estimated total of 3,100[2] Yazidis were killed (approximately half were executed, and the rest died whilst fleeing[3]) and 6,800[4] were kidnapped and subjected to numerous abuses, including torture and forced religious conversion. The “genocide” is ongoing[5] and as of August 2014, there are an estimated 3,200[6] women and girls still in ISIS captivity.This article will explore these events in the context of the elements of genocide and with references to the findings of the Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic and the Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the human rights situation in Iraq in the light of abuses committed by the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and associated group. This article will critically examine if, and to what extent, these attacks constitute a genocide within the meaning of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (‘Genocide Convention’) 1948.
16
Guematcha, Emmanuel. "Genocide Against Indigenous Peoples: The Experiences of the Truth Commissions of Canada and Guatemala." International Indigenous Policy Journal 10, no. 2 (June 4, 2019): 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2019.10.2.6.
Full textAbstract:
The truth commission of Guatemala stated that a genocide was committed against Indigenous Peoples in Guatemala. The truth commission of Canada concluded that a cultural genocide was committed against Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. The article questions the contribution of the truth commissions of Guatemala and Canada to the recognition of a genocide. Their contribution is analyzed in two areas. The article argues that the work of the two truth commissions shows that the context of a country and the perception of the crime influence the findings on genocide. It also states that the work of the two truth commissions on genocide is part of a movement towards an evolution of the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention.
17
Docker, John. "Instrumentalising the Holocaust: Israel, Settler-Colonialism, Genocide (Creating a Conversation between Raphaël Lemkin and Ilan Pappé)." Holy Land Studies 11, no. 1 (May 2012): 1–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/hls.2012.0027.
Full textAbstract:
With the appearance in 2010 of an essay by Martin Shaw, ‘Palestine in an International Historical Perspective on Genocide’, Holy Land Studies has taken the hermeneutic initiative in bringing together into the one field of analysis two areas that have usually been kept separate, genocide studies and studies of the history of Palestine-Israel. In an important challenge to contemporary scholarship, Shaw makes a cogent critique of the notion of ‘ethnic cleansing’ as euphemistic and perpetrator-inflected. I follow Shaw in translating ‘ethnic cleansing’ as ‘genocide’ of a group or society by deploying the terms and argument of Raphaël Lemkin, the creator of the concept of ‘genocide’ and prime mover in the 1948 UN Convention on genocide.
18
Morris, P. Sean. "Economic Genocide Under International Law." Journal of Criminal Law 82, no. 1 (February 2018): 18–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022018317749698.
Full textAbstract:
The status of genocide in international law is well developed and forms part of customary international law and also treaty law. International tribunals such as the International Criminal Court and specialised chambers such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda have addressed and made a number of convictions regarding genocide. This relative success in the international criminal justice system regarding genocide has given the appearance that perpetrators responsible for genocide will be brought to justice. Yet, there is a fundamental crack in international criminal law with regard to genocide as a crime and how to bring perpetrators to justice. That crack, is essentially, the narrow scope and definition of genocide, and also how to demonstrate that perpetrators had the intention of committing genocide. I contend in this article that the scope of genocide should be extended to include economic genocide and argue that spillover intent of aiders and abettors of genocide requires more clear and coherent rules to include economic genocide as part of how the crime of genocide is assessed in international law. The article first presents and discusses the notion of genocide, taking into consideration the Genocide Convention (1948) and then discusses the status of Article 2(c) of the Convention to define economic genocide. The article then posits the calculated economic measures that affect the conditions of life of peoples involve intent and that intention has a spillover effect.
19
Bachman, Jeffrey. "Cases Studied in Genocide Studies and Prevention and Journal of Genocide Research and Implications for the Field of Genocide Studies." Genocide Studies and Prevention 14, no. 1 (May 2020): 2–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.14.1.1706.
Full textAbstract:
The adoption of the Genocide Convention in 1948 was accompanied by the emergence of genocide as a field of study, first in the form of Holocaust Studies, followed by Genocide Studies, then Comparative Genocide Studies and, most recently, Critical Genocide Studies. Over the last 20-30 years, the field of genocide studies has greatly expanded. According to Alexander Hinton, “As the outlines of the field emerge more clearly, the time is right to engage in critical reflections about the state of the field.” This article seeks to enhance the field of genocide studies by answering Hinton’s call for reflective analysis. It does so by analyzing every original research article published in the Journal of Genocide Research (1999-2018) and Genocide Studies and Prevention (2006-2018), based on case of genocide studied; the canon location of the case; method of genocide; and the type of government of the perpetrator. The results of this research show that the field remains dominated by particular understandings genocide and which types of governments are most associated with the crime.
20
Schabas, William A. "Developments in the law of genocide." Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 5 (December 2002): 131–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1389135900001069.
Full textAbstract:
Probably more has happened in the past five years to the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide than in the previous 50, that is, in the half-century following its adoption by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.Indeed, for the first five decades of its existence, the Convention was largely ignored by lawyers, viewed by most of them — as Georg Schwar-zenberger famously remarked — to be ‘unnecessary when applicable and inapplicable when necessary’. Over the years there had been attempts to apply the ‘g-word’ to a wide range of atrocities and gross violations of human rights, including those of China in Tibet, of Iraq against the Kurds, of the United States in Vietnam as well as towards its African-American and aboriginal populations, of Pakistan in Bangladesh, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and Israel in Lebanon. But in each of these cases, some interpretative flair was required in order to stretch the definition to fit the crimes, and the efforts were not always very convincing. In 1990 scholars Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn wrote that ‘the wording of the Convention is so restrictive that not one of the genocidal killings committed since its adoption is covered by it’.
21
Earl, Hilary. "Prosecuting genocide before the Genocide Convention: Raphael Lemkin and the Nuremberg Trials, 1945–1949." Journal of Genocide Research 15, no. 3 (September 2013): 317–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2013.821225.
Full text
22
Mako, Shamiran. "Cultural Genocide and Key International Instruments: Framing the Indigenous Experience." International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 19, no. 2 (2012): 175–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157181112x639078.
Full textAbstract:
Since its introduction by Raphael Lemkin during the Second World War, cultural genocide has served as a conceptual framework for the non-physical destruction of a group. Following a vigorous debate over the legitimacy of the concept by states fearing prosecution for ethnocidal acts, namely Australia, the United States, Sweden and Canada, cultural genocide/ethnocide was abrogated from the 1948 Genocide Convention. This pivotal move has shifted the frame of analysis and has sparked a contentious debate about the distinguishing elements of the physical destruction of a people and their cultural dissipation. The achievements of the indigenous peoples’ movement throughout the 1980s reignited the debate surrounding cultural genocide within the international arena. This article is both a survey of cultural genocide of indigenous populations of North America, South America and Australia, as well as the role of indigenous social movements within the international arena. It analyzes the development of cultural genocide within international law by Raphael Lemkin, its subsequent debate by the United Nations’ Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide, its omission from the Genocide Convention, and its reintroduction by indigenous peoples’ mobilization to the international arena. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (Philippines), the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the various findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia relating to cultural genocide, the conference findings of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe relating to minorities, along with Lemkin’s original reference to the term will be used as frameworks for illuminating the extent and gravity of such crimes.
23
Mayers, David. "Humanity in 1948: The Genocide Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Diplomacy & Statecraft 26, no. 3 (July 3, 2015): 446–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2015.1067522.
Full text
24
Finnegan, Ciara. "The Uyghur Minority in China: A Case Study of Cultural Genocide, Minority Rights and the Insufficiency of the International Legal Framework in Preventing State-Imposed Extinction." Laws 9, no. 1 (January 11, 2020): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/laws9010001.
Full textAbstract:
Raphael Lemkin, the man who founded the term ‘genocide,’ did so with a view to protecting not only physical beings from systematically imposed extinction, but also protecting their cultures from the same fate. However, in the wake of the atrocities and bloodshed of WWII, cultural genocide was omitted from the 1948 Genocide Convention, and as a result, does not constitute an international crime. This omission has left a lacuna in international law which threatens minority groups. Not a threat of loss of life but rather loss of the culture that distinguishes them and identifies them as a minority. Powerful States with indifferent attitudes towards their international obligations face no significantly harsher punishment for cultural genocide than they do for other human rights transgressions. Consequently, cultural genocide continues as minority cultures are rendered extinct at the hands of States. The Case Study of this article investigates the present-day example of the Uyghur minority in China and analyzes whether this modern cultural genocide can pave the way for the recognition of cultural genocide as an international crime or whether the Uyghur culture will become a cautionary tale for minorities in the future.
25
Jørgensen, Nina H. B. "“The Next Darfur” and Accountability for the Failure to Prevent Genocide." Nordic Journal of International Law 81, no. 4 (2012): 407–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718107-08104002.
Full textAbstract:
Genocide has occurred throughout history and the task of prevention may sometimes appear futile in spite of the clear obligation to prevent in the 1948 Genocide Convention. Taking Raoul Wallenberg’s inspiration to the collective consciousness as a backdrop, this article aims to explore the different accountability mechanisms that give strength to the legal obligation to prevent genocide. The situation in Sudan and South Sudan provides a focal point as it tests the international community’s resolve to act to prevent future instances of genocide within the parameters of the responsibility to protect. In relation to Darfur, individual responsibility of senior leaders has taken centre-stage, but this should not divert the spotlight from other accountability options focused on the state and international organisations. An attempt is made to connect the different aspects of the legal regime with reference to the goal of ensuring accountability if prevention fails in the context of Sudan and South Sudan.
26
Abd Ali Issa, Hussein, and Lajan Mohammed Amin Othman. "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948. (A Study on its History, Content, and Importance)." Journal of Legal and Political Studies 8, no. 1 (June 1, 2020): 9–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.17656/jlps.10168.
Full text
27
Madajczyk, Piotr. "Raphael Lemkin and West Germany’s Accession to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide." Rocznik Polsko-Niemiecki, no. 28 (December 17, 2020): 47–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.35757/rpn.2020.28.14.
Full textAbstract:
On 20 December 1950, the Secretary General of the United Nations invited the Federal Republic of Germany to accede to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948. For several reasons the West German authorities treated the Convention as a tool to conduct foreign policy. The ratification of the Convention by West Germany and the form in which it was to take place were also important for Lemkin. Lemkin’s aforementioned fears explain why it was so important to him that the German language version of the Convention did not include phrases that distorted its original connotation and bring it closer to the Nuremberg principles. After a meeting of the Bundestag Law Committee on 3 May 1954, the West German justice minister informed Lemkin about the course of the discussions and also informed him that most of the proposed amendments and changes were accepted.
28
Gunawan, Yordan, Sonya Whisler Refisyanti, Aliza Mufida, Kukuh Derajat Takarub, and Aisah Nur. "Jurisdiction of International Court of Justice (ICJ) Over the Genocide Violations: with Special References to Rohingya Case." Fiat Justisia: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 14, no. 4 (July 28, 2020): 313. http://dx.doi.org/10.25041/fiatjustisia.v14no4.1900.
Full textAbstract:
In 2019, Gambia, a small country which located in West Africa, is suing Myanmar to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with alleging that Myanmar has violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948. The governments of Myanmar in doing the violations were intended to destroy the Rohingya Muslim as a group, wholly or partly, followed by other violations such as mass murder, rape, and also damage to the villages by fire with some people are still locked in the house and burnt inside the house. Government of Myanmar keep doing so, because based on Burma Citizenship Law 1982, Myanmar doesn’t recognize the existence of Rohingya as citizen of Myanmar. It causes Rohingya as stateless. The study is normative legal research with Statute Approach and Case Approach. The study analyse the violations which is done by Myanmar to the Rohingya Ethnic in Rakhine. The result shows that International Court of Justice has a jurisdiction upon Rohingya case under the Statute of the Court as well as the Genocide Convention. The statute of the Court in Article 36 (1) stated that ICJ has jurisdiction to all cases of the Convention as long as the states are contracting parties. The Article IX of the Convention also stated that any dispute between contracting parties must be referred to ICJ.
29
Szaz, Paul C. "Case Analysis: Comment on the Genocide Case (Preliminary Objections)." Leiden Journal of International Law 10, no. 1 (March 1997): 163–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156597000150.
Full textAbstract:
On 11 July 1996, the International Court of Justice, in its third Substantive decision and first Judgment in respect of the dispute brought before it by Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnia or BH) against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia or FRY) under Article IX of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, dismissed all the preliminary objections that had been raised by Yugoslavia, as well as several additional bases of jurisdiction invoked by Bosnia. The Court also found that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute and that the application filed by Bosnia on 20 March 1993 was admissible. It thus positioned itself, over three years after the application had been filed, to resume the proceedings to consider the case on its merits, though still on an somewhat lcisurely schedule.
30
Gagro, Sandra Fabijanić. "Protection of “Exclusive” Groups Only – An Essential Element of Genocide." Russian Law Journal 6, no. 3 (August 30, 2018): 100–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2018-6-3-100-124.
Full textAbstract:
The crime of genocide, as one of the most complex crimes ever to be examined and prosecuted, is often referred to as the“crime of crimes.” It is never the result of a tragic accident, but always a deliberate, conscious, and intentional act. It is never a single act, but a collection of acts committed by a number of people acting in consort. Several elements of genocide prescribed by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) distinguish it from other core crimes. The first one is the intention to destroy a protected group – the very specific intention that brings into question the core existence of the group itself. The second element is the focus of the perpetrator’s intent on a particular group; his intent on destruction has to be directed against a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. No other groups are included on that list. Given the significance to the protected group, this paper will focus on some important issues relating to the protected groups and their identifications, both in legal theory and jurisprudence of international courts. It will also cover some considerations on the exclusion of some other groups that are left unprotected from genocide.
31
Lippman, Matthew. "A road map to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime Genocide." Journal of Genocide Research 4, no. 2 (June 2002): 177–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623520220137958.
Full text
32
Kampmark, Binoy. "Shaping the holocaust: the final solution in us political discourses on the genocide convention, 1948–1956." Journal of Genocide Research 7, no. 1 (March 2005): 85–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623520500045062.
Full text
33
Jarząbek, Wanda. "Czy polityka okupacyjna Niemiec wobec Polaków w czasie II wojny światowej była ludobójstwem?" Rocznik Polsko-Niemiecki, no. 24/2 (April 29, 2016): 72–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.35757/rpn.2016.24.13.
Full textAbstract:
Due to the very limited use of the term ‘genocide’ in scientific discourse, researchers did not carry out broad methodological considerations on the legitimacy of its use in relation to the occupation policy of the Third Reich against the Poles during World War II. Historians often conducted their research based on other theoretical models (often those that were popular at that time). For example, they studied the policy of the Third Reich in terms of the racial theory, social engineering, ethnic cleansing, total war or in a classical way, i.e. they examined various aspects of the Nazi occupation without referring to models and theories. Interestingly, many authors presented the problem in a manner similar to that resulting from Lemkin’s definition of genocide. In other words, they described the phenomenon, but without using the term ‘genocide’. They used it, however, in reference to the Holocaust. Perhaps, they did not apply it in reference to other nations due to the fact that almost the entire Jewish population was annihilated in the areas occupied by the German Third Reich. The term ‘genocide’ appeared with regard to the German policy against the Poles mainly in the colloquial sense, thereby reducing its conceptual content to mass murder. The discussions on genocide have entered a new phase in Poland. The aim of this article is to reflect on the possibility of using the term ‘genocide’ to describe the German policy against the Poles in the context of the definition created by Raphael Lemkin and the UN Convention of 1948.
34
SCHABAS, WILLIAM. "The Contribution of the Eichmann Trial to International Law." Leiden Journal of International Law 26, no. 3 (July 31, 2013): 667–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156513000290.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe trial of Adolf Eichmann was poorly received by many contemporary observers, who felt that it bent the law beyond recognition in several key areas. With the renaissance of international criminal law in recent decades, the handling of difficult issues by the District Court of Jerusalem and the Supreme Court has been shown to fare rather well. The understanding of the relationship between crimes against humanity and genocide by the Israeli courts, and their response to the charge of retroactive criminality, to the consequences of the kidnapping, and to claims that the tribunal lacked impartiality, have also stood the test of time. Perhaps most important of all, the Eichmann decisions actually moved the law forward on the question of universal jurisdiction, effectively setting aside the narrow jurisdictional frame set by the 1948 Genocide Convention. Critics at the time of the judgments, possibly influenced by the famous but harsh commentary of Hannah Arendt, were much too negative in their assessments.
35
Kościółek, Jakub. "The Conditions of Development of The Anti-Genocide Movement in The Usa in The Context of The Prevention of Genocide in Africa." Afrika Tanulmányok / Hungarian Journal of African Studies 12, no. 4. (May 22, 2019): 147–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.15170/at.2018.12.4.12.
Full textAbstract:
The United States of America ratified the Anti-genocide Convention only thirtysix years after its initial signature. It was passed to the Senate for the first time by President Harry Truman in 1949. It evoked great controversy as it was perceived as something that might be favorable to communist regimes and possibly be an attack on the basic rights of US citizens. Successive attempts to pass it began much later in 1970 due to the support from Richard Nixon who backed the ratification initiative. The main reason for the reluctance to pass the convention was its record on international jurisdiction on persons responsible for genocide.
36
Karazsia, Zachary. "An Unfulfilled Promise: The Genocide Convention and the Obligation of Prevention." Journal of Strategic Security 11, no. 4 (February 2019): 20–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.11.4.1676.
Full text
37
Ghandhi, Sandy. "II. AVENA AND OTHER MEXICAN NATIONALS {MEXICO v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA), PROVISIONAL MEASURES, ORDER OF 5 FEBRUARY 2003." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 53, no. 3 (July 2004): 738–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/iclq/53.3.738.
Full textAbstract:
The International Court of Justice is not a human rights court but it does hear human rights cases.1This is hardly remarkable. As Professor Ian Brownlie has pointed out ‘[h]uman rights problems occur in specific legal contexts. The issues may arise… within the framework of a standard-setting convention, or within general international law.’2Because human rights treaties normally have their own dispute settlement procedure, the situations in which the International Court of Justice is more likely to have to grapple with human rights issues lie within the realms of general international law or in non-human rights specific treaty provisions, which may, nevertheless, raise such issues. In addition, some human rights treaties, such as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948, contain provisions specifically referring disputes to the International Court of Justice.3Thus, it should come as no surprise that the Court has been involved in a number of cases involving human rights questions.
38
Weiss, Thomas G. "RtoP Alive and Well after Libya." Ethics & International Affairs 25, no. 3 (2011): 287–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0892679411000220.
Full textAbstract:
With the exception of Raphael Lemkin's efforts on behalf of the 1948 Genocide Convention, no idea has moved faster in the international normative arena than “the responsibility to protect” (RtoP), which was formulated in 2001 by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). Friends and foes have pointed to the commission's conceptual contribution to reframing sovereignty as contingent rather than absolute, and to establishing a framework for forestalling or stopping mass atrocities via a three-pronged responsibility—to prevent, to react, and to rebuild. But until the international military action against Libya in March 2011, the sharp end of the RtoP stick—the use of military force—had been replaced by evasiveness and skittishness from diplomats, scholars, and policy analysts.
39
van Rossum, Roel. "Adjudication of International Crime in the Netherlands." International Journal of Legal Information 39, no. 2 (2011): 194–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0731126500028109.
Full textAbstract:
During the Second World War, the government of the Netherlands realized that it had no adequate penalization system in place for wartime offences. Thus, the Criminal Law Wartime Occupation Decree of 22 December 1943 (BBS, Stb. D 61) was enacted to penalize offences committed during wartime. This emergency legislation was recognized as legally valid after the war. It then took until the Wartime Offences Act of 10 July 1952 (effective date 5 August 1952, the “WOS”) for wartime offences to be subjected to specific penalties. This was followed by separate statutes penalizing genocide (Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 2 July 1964, effective date 24 October 1970) and torture (Torture Convention Implementation Act of 29 September 1988, effective date 20 January 1989).
40
Guilfoyle, Douglas. "Nulyarimma v Thompson: Is Genocide a Crime at Common Law in Australia?" Federal Law Review 29, no. 1 (March 2001): 1–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0067205x0102900101.
Full textAbstract:
Australia will, I believe, ratify the convention and afterwards this Parliament will pass the necessary legislation to show other countries that we join in universal condemnation of the horror [of genocide]. 1 1 Cth Parl Deb 1949, Vol 203 at 1873 per Dr Evatt.
41
Van der Merwe, Hermanus J. "The Prosecution of Incitement to Genocide in South Africa." Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad 16, no. 5 (May 17, 2017): 327. http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2013/v16i5a2436.
Full textAbstract:
The inchoate crime of direct and public incitement to commit genocide was first recognised under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948). The creation of the crime was a direct result of the horrific effects of acts of incitement before and during the Second World War. Today the crime is firmly established under international law and is also criminalised in many domestic legal systems. History shows that incitement to crime and violence against a specific group is a precursor to and catalyst for acts of genocide. Consequently, the goal of prevention lies at the core of the prohibition of direct and public incitement to genocide. However, it may be said that this preventative objective has thus far been undermined by a general lack of prosecutions of the crime, especially at the domestic level. This prosecutorial void is rather conspicuous in the light of the new vision of international criminal justice under which domestic legal systems (including that of South Africa) bear the primary responsibility for the enforcement of the law of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), which in Article 25(3)(e) includes the crime of direct and public incitement to commit genocide. This article provides a brief historical and teleological overview of the crime of direct and public incitement to commit genocide under international law, as well as the definitional elements thereof as interpreted and applied by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Thereafter it examines the criminalisation of incitement to genocide in contemporary South African law in order to assess South Africa’s capacity to prosecute incitement to genocide at the domestic level. In this regard there are, in theory, various 'legal avenues' for the prosecution of incitement to commit genocide in South Africa, namely: as a crime under the Riotous Assemblies Act 17 of 1956; as a crime under the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002 (the ICC Act); or as a crime under customary international law pursuant to section 232 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. The article reflects critically on the viability of prosecuting incitement to genocide in terms of each of these alternatives. The article highlights a number of practical and legal problems as regards the prosecution of incitement to commit genocide under the Riotous Assemblies Act as well as under customary international law. It is argued that the prosecution of incitement to genocide in terms of the ICC Act is preferable, as this would respond directly to an international consensus as regards the unique and egregious nature of genocide by providing for a limited form of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction. Prosecution under the ICC Act would also reflect the objectives of the Rome Statute pursuant to which South Africa has certain international legal obligations. However, it is submitted that legislative amendment of the ICC Act is needed, since the crime is not explicitly provided for thereby at present. It is submitted that the legislative amendment must provide for the distinct crime of direct and public incitement to genocide in terms of South African criminal law. Such an amendment will remove the existing legal obstacles to the domestic prosecution of incitement to genocide and enable effective prosecution thereof at the domestic level. The proposed amendment will have the effect of strengthening the alignment between South African law and the objectives of the Rome Statute and may have preventative benefits in the long run.
42
Hamilton, Rebecca. "Atrocity Prevention in the New Media Landscape." AJIL Unbound 113 (2019): 262–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/aju.2019.45.
Full textAbstract:
Journalists have traditionally played a crucial role in building public pressure on government officials to uphold their legal obligations under the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. But over the past twenty years there has been radical change in the media landscape: foreign bureaus have been shuttered, young freelance journalists have taken over some of the work traditionally done by experienced foreign correspondents, and, more recently, the advent of social media has enabled people in conflict-affected areas to tell their own stories to the world. This essay assesses the impact of these changes on atrocity prevention across the different stages of the policy process. It concludes that the new media landscape is comparatively poorly equipped to raise an early warning alarm in a way that will spur preventive action, but that it is well-positioned to sustain attention to ongoing atrocities. Unfortunately, such later stages of a crisis generally provide the most limited policy options for civilian protection.
43
Gerasymenko, Mykola. "Features of the investigation of genocide." Law Review of Kyiv University of Law, no. 2 (August 10, 2020): 398–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.36695/2219-5521.2.2020.77.
Full textAbstract:
The article is devoted to the consideration of such a resonant crime as genocide. The purpose of the article is to form an idea ofgenocide as a crime, its investigation on the basis of analyzed regulations and investigations of this category of crimes.Particular attention is paid to the definition of the term “genocide” in accordance with national and international law (the definitionof the term is considered in the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide).The procedure of recognizing acts as genocide (the Holodomor of 1932–1933 in Ukraine; deportation of Crimean Tatars fromCrimea in 1944 as genocide of the Crimean Tatar people) and coverage of such events by the international community is studied.The process of genocide investigation is considered, taking into account the term of the crime, the number of victims and thedamage caused.One of the most resonant crimes provided by the Law of Ukraine on Criminal Liability is genocide. The scale of this illegal acthas aroused civil society for a long time, but only now, in the territory of independent Ukraine, it is possible to identify those responsiblefor the genocide and bring them to justice. It is impossible to ignore the fact that the investigation of genocide and the prosecution ofthose responsible for its commission is an extremely relevant process that requires special knowledge and skills in conducting an investigation.Officials who gather evidence in criminal proceedings, find persons involved in the crime and carry out other actions aimedat establishing the truth in the case, bear a huge burden of responsibility in the form of evidence.The investigation process consists of a set of necessary investigative (search) actions and must meet the requirements for theirconduct. It is necessary to involve in the investigation trained officers who have knowledge in this area and can clearly formulate a planof investigative (search) actions, and move in this direction.
44
Roscini, Marco. "Establishing State Responsibility for Historical Injustices: The Armenian Case." International Criminal Law Review 14, no. 2 (March 13, 2014): 291–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718123-01401010.
Full textAbstract:
The article aims to identify a legal structure for the determination of state responsibility for historical injustices by using the deportations and mass killings of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire (1915-1916) as a case study. It first determines whether the conduct was unlawful at the time it was committed and concludes that the 1948 Genocide Convention cannot be applied retroactively to the events in question and that customary international law provided, at the time, that the treatment by a state of its subjects was within its domestic jurisdiction. The Ottoman Empire, however, breached a series of treaties that provided for the amelioration of the conditions and for the protection of Christian minorities in the empire. The article then discusses whether the conduct was attributable to the state under the law of state responsibility in force at the time of the commissi delicti and argues that while the conduct of the Ottoman ministers, local authorities, and the military can be attributed to the Ottoman Empire, the attribution of the actions of other entities and individuals involved in the killings is more problematic.
45
Klose, Fabian. "Human Rights for and against Empire – Legal and Public Discourses in the Age of Decolonisation." Journal of the History of International Law 18, no. 2-3 (April 13, 2016): 317–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718050-12340061.
Full textAbstract:
Against the background of an ongoing debate about the role of human rights in the age of decolonisation this essay approaches the issue from two different angles. It concentrates on the paradoxical situation that anti-colonial movements as well as colonial powers instrumentalised international human rights documents such as the Genocide Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and the European Conventions on Human Rights for achieving their political goals. In combining legal and public discourses in a significant way both sides accused each other of gross human rights violations while at the same time presenting themselves as respecting and even guaranteeing fundamental human rights. Especially during the course of the wars of decolonisation after 1945 this phenomenon became obvious in various diplomatic debates at the United Nations and made universal rights a diplomatic pawn in international debates.
46
Singsank, Lauralei. "Massacre or Genocide? Redefining the Sook Ching." Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 17, no. 1 (August 17, 2020): 76–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.5399/uo/ourj/17.1.7.
Full textAbstract:
Sook Ching is a Chinese term meaning “purge through cleansing.” Operation Sook Ching took place in Singapore from February 21 to March 4, 1942. It was a military operation carried out by the Japanese with the intent of executing anti-Japanese Chinese men between the ages of 18 and 50. Ultimately, it is impossible to know exactly how many people were killed; the official Japanese figure is 5,000, while unofficial estimates reach as high as 50,000. Men were called into screening centers where disorganized screening procedures determined if they were anti-Japanese. The Sook Ching’s legacy lives on as one of the greatest tragedies in Singapore’s history. The intent of this paper is to argue for a redefinition of the Sook Ching as a genocide rather than a massacre. The cornerstones of this research are the United Nations’ Genocide Convention and contemporary sources discussing the crime. This research is important because it sets a precedent of accountability, as well as acknowledging the crimes the Japanese committed during the Second World War. This thesis will discuss the Sook Ching, its legacy, and the steps required to address the incident and right the wrongs that occurred. It will also examine the racial and political environment that set the stage for the tragedy, as well as the scars it left behind.
47
Swords, Colleen, and Alan Willis. "The Decision of the International Court of Justice in the Case Concerning Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Canada)." Canadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 42 (2005): 353–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0069005800008547.
Full textAbstract:
SummaryIn the spring of 1999, the NATO allies conducted a bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for several weeks. The campaign was a response to the failure of negotiations at Rambouillet, France, relating to a situation in Kosovo that United Nations agencies had characterized as a “humanitarian crisis.” In late April, only a few days after filing an Optional Clause declaration under the Statute of the International Court of Justice accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the court subject to reservations, Yugoslavia initiated proceedings in the court against ten NATO allies, including Canada. The application was accompanied by a request for the indication of “provisional measures” pursuant to the statute, enjoining the NATO allies from continuing the use of force against Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia relied upon its new declaration and upon the compromissary clause of the Genocide Convention as grounds of jurisdiction. In June 1999, the court refused the request for provisional measures on the ground that it lacked prima facie jurisdiction. Canada and other remaining respondents filed preliminary objections on jurisdiction and admissibility. The objections on jurisdiction were based on the grounds that had been advanced at the provisional measures stage and largely endorsed by the court: first, that Yugoslavia was not then a member of the United Nations and was therefore not entitled to make an Optional Clause declaration; second, that the declaration was limited to future disputes; and, third, that the subject matter of the dispute was not covered by the Genocide Convention, which could therefore not be invoked to establish jurisdiction.Following oral hearings in April 2004, the court ruled in a judgment of 15 December 2004 that it lacked jurisdiction. The ruling was based exclusively on the fact that Yugoslavia lacked United Nations membership and standing in the court in 1999. The judgment concludes that the exception in Article 35(2) of the statute relating to “treaties in force” does not entitle a non-member of the United Nations to appear before the court in a matter related to the Genocide Convention, which the Court interprets as applying only to treaties in existence before 1945. This reasoning came as a surprise, since the court had assiduously avoided the issue of UN membership both in its provisional measures ruling and in its decisions in closely related proceedings taken by Bosnia and Croatia against Yugoslavia pursuant to the Genocide Convention. It remains to be seen how the judgment will be reconciled with rulings already made on jurisdiction in the proceedings taken by Bosnia, where jurisdiction has already been confirmed and where hearings on the merits are scheduled for 2006.
48
Westing, Arthur H. "Core values for sustainable development." Environmental Conservation 23, no. 3 (September 1996): 218–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0376892900038832.
Full textAbstract:
SummaryThe cultural norms or core values for sustainable development are an amalgamation of core social values and core environmental values. Widely-shared core social values became strikingly articulated following the Second World War via such instruments as the 1948 Genocide Convention and the 1948 Human Rights Declaration. By contrast, widely-shared core environmental values did not surface until some two decades after the Second World War, being first clearly expressed in the 1972 Stockholm Declaration, to be followed by the 1982 World Charter for Nature and, more recently, by the 1992 Rio Declaration. I find that whereas the emerging core social values have until quite recently been essentially innocent of environmental concerns, the emerging core environmental values have been from the start generally couched in social terms.Key ethical issues regarding the cultural norms underlying sustainable development include the questions of how to strike a proper balance between anthropocentric and ecocen-tric justifications; and a proper apportionment of the global biosphere between humankind and the other life on earth. Several lines of evidence suggest to me that the environmental and social strands of widely-shared core values for sustainable development are beginning to merge, and that there has begun to occur a slow but progressive development in mainstream thinking toward a recognition of an unbreakable link between social development and environmental conservation.A number of major stumbling blocks to the achievement of sustainable development exist of course, amongst them the imbalance between human numbers plus needs and available natural resources, the prevalence of totalitarian and corrupt regimes, and the ineffective system of peaceful world governance. Despite obstacles to sustainable development, a trend towards a commitment to it seems evident in such components of society as governments, intergovernmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, academia, religious bodies, and grass-roots movements.
49
Sarkar, Swargodeep. "Protection Rohingyas through International Adjudication-Decoding Provisional Measures of International Court of Justice in The Gambia vs. Myanmar." Musamus Law Review 3, no. 1 (October 14, 2020): 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.35724/mularev.v3i1.3090.
Full textAbstract:
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres acknowledged Rohingya, “one of, if not the, most discriminated people in the world”. In Myanmar, a country with a Buddhist majority, around a million Rohingya who is the minority having their language and culture, have been persecuted for decades. In the year 2014 census, Myanmar excluded Rohingya by denying basic citizenship. Thousands of Rohingya have fled to neighbouring States after facing persecution orchestrated by Myanmar security forces with the help of local Buddhist mobs. In this background, the Gambia with the help of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation filed the case in the International Court of Justice, alleging that the actions perpetrated by Myanmar violated the provisions of Genocide Convention 1948 to which both States are the parties. Myanmar rightly questioned the standing of Gambia as the interest of Gambia was not threatened or at stake. So, in the absence of a cause of action or rights of the Gambia not affected even remotely, the International Court of Justice should not entertain the case. One of the major issues before the Court whether the Gambia has stood without being affected directly from the violations alleged to have been committed on the Rohingya. The present author will discuss the provisional measures rendered by the ICJ on 23rd January 2020 and the challenges such as jurisdiction, admissibility, urgency or irreparable prejudice condition, faced by the Court with a special focus on the “Plausibility requirement” in provisional measures.
50
Alvarez, Alexander. "Adjusting to Genocide: The Techniques of Neutralization and the Holocaust." Social Science History 21, no. 2 (1997): 139–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0145553200017697.
Full textAbstract:
In recent years, as social scientists questioned the intellectual boundaries set by customary perceptions of criminality, their discourse expanded to incorporate more than purely legalistic definitions of crime. In addition to conventional street crimes, some scholars began examining both interpersonal and collective actions and behaviors that were once considered to be outside the scope of commonly accepted definitions of criminality. For example, criminologists now study crime categorized as occupational (Albanese 1987; Cressey 1953; Green 1990; Hollinger and Clark 1983; Horning 1979; Nettler 1974; Tracy and Fox 1989), environmental (Block and Bernard 1988; Brady 1987; Stone 1987; Tallmer 1987), political (Barak 1994; Block 1989; Block and Chambliss 1981; Chambliss 1993; Quinney 1970; Schwendinger and Schwendinger 1970; Tunnell 1993; Turk 1969), and corporate (Clinard and Yeager 1980; Clinard et al. 1979; Coleman 1994; Reiman 1979; Sutherland 1949), using methodology and terminology once reserved for predatory street crime. This trend can be traced to the pioneering work of Thorsten Sellin (1938) and Edwin Sutherland (1940, 1949), who argued for broader, more inclusive definitions of criminality and less conventional approaches to the study of crime.