To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Genocide convention.
Journal articles on the topic 'Genocide convention'
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.'
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
Strauss, Ekkehard. "Reconsidering Genocidal Intent in the Interest of Prevention." Global Responsibility to Protect 5, no. 2 (2013): 129–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-00502002.
Full textAbstract:
Early establishment of evidence for genocidal intent would allow responses in the context of R2P, targeted specifically at the prevention of genocide and focus scarce resources and limited political will. This article is an attempt to develop an interpretation of genocidal intent that supports the application of the obligation to prevent genocide in future situations. Past examples, including the situations in Rwanda and Darfur, demonstrated that the interpretation of genocidal intent has important implications for the application of the obligation to prevent genocide under the Convention. While some of the challenges can be traced back to the drafting history of the Convention, a review of the Travaux Preparatoire reveals very limited cross-references between the discussions on intent and considerations of the obligation to prevent genocide. Since the drafting of the Convention there have been significant developments in the interpretation and application of genocidal intent by national and international courts, and in the development of methodology and institutions for early-warning and early action to respond to situations at risk of genocide. International and national courts would have to acknowledge their role in assisting national and international entities in implementing the obligation to prevent and punish genocide by opting for a ‘prevention-friendly’ interpretation and ensuring punishment as early as possible during unfolding events of genocide through the application of genocidal intent. The interpretation of intent must be opened to subsume relevant precursors of genocide into the definitions of article II and III of the Convention. The interpretation of intent has to evolve over time to link well-established risk factors with the acts of genocide spelled out in the Convention.
2
Bro, Brickelle. "Destroying Disability: Expanding Application of the Genocide Convention." International and Comparative Law Review 21, no. 1 (June 1, 2021): 124–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2021-0005.
Full textAbstract:
Summary Disability is not a protected class under the Genocide Convention, even though disabled people across the world frequently face egregious human rights violations. Many of those practices should be considered genocide because they meet the criteria listed in the definition. In order to amount to genocide, an action must be committed with the intent to destroy a group, in whole or in part, by killing, causing serious harm, inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about destruction of the group, prevent births, or forcibly transfer children out of the group. Disabled people have been subjected to all these actions. By refusing to grant this group status as a protected class, the international community has allowed acts of genocide to continue into the twenty first century. To prevent future genocides against this group, and advance disability rights on a global scale, disabled people need the protections provided in the Genocide Convention.
3
Strandberg Hassellind, Filip. "Groups Defined by Gender and the Genocide Convention." Genocide Studies and Prevention 14, no. 1 (May 2020): 60–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.14.1.1679.
Full textAbstract:
This article explores the crime of genocide in connectivity to groups defined by gender. Its aim is to investigate whether including groups defined by gender as a protected group in the Genocide Convention appears legally plausible. It begins by probing the historical origins of the concept of genocide. This exposition emanates into an analytical examination of the rationale of protecting human groups in international criminal law. Against this background, the article advocates an understanding of the crime of genocide as a rights-implementing institute. Subsequently, it employs an ejusdem generis analysis to assess whether groups defined by gender are coherent with the current canon of the protected groups, and if similar treatment thereby can be warranted. It then turns to examine other international law instruments, to expose that none of these are suitable proxies in dealing with gender-specific genocides. From this perspective, the article suggests that the content of the crime of genocide is not determinate, but rather emerges as a battlefield for hegemonic interests. Hence, it is easily discernible that the way in which the current construction of the protected groups in the Genocide Convention relates to gender groups reflects a deliberate choice. The article concludes with asserting that the choice represents a lacuna in international criminal law that in the end compromises the legitimacy of the crime of genocide, since the personal scope of the crime of genocide risks being in discord with current social and political trajectories.
4
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.
5
Nishat, Nusrat Jahan, and Mohammad Pizuar Hossain. "1971 Killing of the ‘Bengali’ Intellectuals: An Analysis from the Perspective of the 1948 Genocide Convention." Contemporary Challenges: The Global Crime, Justice and Security Journal 3 (September 28, 2022): 4–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ccj.v3.7075.
Full textAbstract:
The lessons of the history of past genocidal incidents expose that the educated and the leaders, collectively called ‘intellectuals’, have often been a distinct target by the perpetrators. Bengali intellectuals were also targeted and killed by the Pakistani military and its local collaborators during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. As the Bangladesh genocide, committed by the Pakistani military and its local collaborators, is still internationally overlooked, the issue of killing the Bengali intellectuals during such genocide has not obtained much attention. This study identifies the killing of the intellectuals as one of the genocidal policies employed by the Pakistani military and its local collaborators during the war. The massacre of the Bengali intellectuals in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War is examined in this article from the perspective of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The authors have critically analyzed the killing of the Bengali intellectuals in light of the definition of ‘genocide’ and the travaux preparatoires of the Convention to explore whether it forms a genocidal policy.
6
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.
7
Hussaini, Sumaya. "Genocide in Disguise." Cornell International Affairs Review 15, no. 1 (May 11, 2022): 109–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.37513/ciar.v15i1.652.
Full textAbstract:
The international community remains unwilling to protect vulnerable populations against genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, as evidenced by international oversight of the Bosnian and Rwandan genocides.1 This paper will examine this issue through a case study of the Islamic State’s (IS) persecution, ethnic cleansing, and unrecognized genocide of Shi’a Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. While the United Nations Security Council has labeled IS’ attempts to exterminate Iraq’s Christian and Yazidi populations as genocide, little efort has been made to recognize, investigate, or prosecute IS’ crimes against the Shi’a. As I argue, the Islamic State’s systematic killing and cultural destruction of Shi’a Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria constitutes genocidal conduct under the Genocide Convention. As such, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has an obligation to recognize and investigate such activities through the creation of an international criminal tribunal dedicated to prosecuting members of IS for atrocities committed against the Shi’a. I further argue that use of veto power by permanent members of the Security Council should be restricted in the face of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes to ensure that the UN fulflls its guiding principles to prevent and punish atrocity crimes. I will also explain the legal signifcance of prosecuting a non-state actor for genocide at the ICC and the impact that this recognition would have on humanitarian policy, the integrity of early warning models for genocide, and justice for the Shi’a victims of the Islamic State’s brutality.
8
Paddeu, Federica. "GHOSTS OF GENOCIDES PAST? STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR GENOCIDE IN THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA." Cambridge Law Journal 74, no. 2 (July 2015): 198–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197315000495.
Full textAbstract:
IN Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v Serbia), the International Court of Justice (“ICJ” or “Court”) dealt with a claim by Croatia that Serbia was responsible for the commission of genocide against ethnic Croatians in contravention of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“the Convention”), and with Serbia's counter-claim that Croatia had committed genocide against ethnic Serbs also in breach of the Convention. In its judgment of 3 February 2015, the Court dismissed both the claim and counter-claim. While many of the acts complained of constituted the actus reus of genocide, there was no evidence that they had been perpetrated with the required mens rea, namely the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, the targeted group as such.
9
Korey, William. "The United States and the Genocide Convention: Leading Advocate and Leading Obstacle." Ethics & International Affairs 11 (March 1997): 271–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.1997.tb00032.x.
Full textAbstract:
While the United States is now an international leader in the fight against genocide and human rights abuses, it only recently ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide– forty years after the convention's unanimous adoption by the UN General Assembly. Korey provides a description of the long struggle for ratification of the Genocide Convention, detailing decades of work by a committee of fifty-two nongovernmental organizations lobbying the Senate and the American Bar Association, the treaty's key opponent. Despite the public support for the United Nations and human rights by the United States, failure to ratify the Genocide Convention stemmed primarily from the fear that international covenants were threats to U.S. sovereignty. The United States finally overcame this fear with the ratification of the Genocide Convention in 1988, which opened the door for U.S. leadership.
10
Nellans, Lily. "A Queer(er) Genocide Studies." Genocide Studies and Prevention 14, no. 3 (December 2020): 48–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.14.3.1786.
Full textAbstract:
This paper examines how queerness interacts with and is implicated in traditional genocides, i.e. those directed at racial, religious, national, and ethnic groups - the groups defined as protected classes in the Genocide Convention. It poses the following question: How can scholars of Genocide Studies learn from the queer theory-Genocide Studies nexus? To answer, this paper demonstrate how three distinct queer theory concepts can be woven with Genocide Studies to reveal novel insights into some of the field’s preeminent questions. Specifically, it draws on queer intellectual curiosity, heteronormativity, and reproductive futurism. Connecting queer theory with Genocide Studies yields empirical, analytical, and normative insights into the latter. Deploying queer theory concepts in Genocide Studies ensures the field is more attentive to queer lives, something all academic disciplines should strive for, and advances the field’s understanding of genocide as a phenomenon.
11
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.
12
PECORELLA, GIULIA. "Rape and Sexual Violence in the ICJ's Judgment in Croatia v. Serbia." Leiden Journal of International Law 28, no. 4 (October 30, 2015): 945–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156515000527.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis article examines the approach followed by the International Court of Justice in Croatia v. Serbia in relation to rape and sexual violence as acts of genocide under Article II of the Genocide Convention. It is argued that this decision leaves much uncertainty with respect to the elements constituting the actus reus of genocide. First, the Court has narrowed the interpretation given by the ad hoc tribunals to what constitutes ‘serious harm’ under Article II(b). Second, it has introduced an objective requirement, which is in fact unnecessary under Article II(c) of the Convention. Third, it seems that, according to the Court, in order for rape and sexual violence to be regarded as genocidal conduct within the meaning of Article II(d) of the Convention, it is necessary to prove that such conduct did in fact prevent births at least within a part of the group.
13
Fahim, Md Hasnath Kabir. "Rethinking Genocidal Intent: An Interpretation under the International Law and the Jurisprudence of International Criminal Tribunals." Lex Publica 9, no. 1 (January 30, 2022): 58–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.58829/lp.9.1.2022.58-78.
Full textAbstract:
Many criminal lawyers and scholars of criminal law have applied an analytical method to examine the elements of crime, and such elements are comprised of subjective elements (mens rea) and objective elements (actus reus). According to this, a crime is either an act or omission with a psychological bond relating to the physical act of the criminal. Regarding the crime of genocide, its elements are derived from the definition of genocide under the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute. The Genocide Convention defines genocide as the commission of an act with the intent to destroy, either wholly or partly, a national, racial, ethnical, or religious group. However, the ‘genocidal intent’ or mental element to commit the crime of genocide was not considered in the military trials of Nuremberg and Tokyo. This ‘genocidal intent’ received its very first attention during the trials of two ad hoc international tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. This paper attempts to discuss the definition of genocide under the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute. This paper, then, focuses on the mental element of genocide and the approach of the international criminal courts during the trial of genocide. Abstrak Banyak ahli hukum pidana dan sarjana hukum pidana telah menerapkan metode analisis untuk mengkaji unsur-unsur kejahatan dan unsur-unsur tersebut terdiri dari unsur subyektif (mens rea) dan unsur obyektif (actus reus). Menurut ini, kejahatan adalah perbuatan atau kelalaian dengan ikatan psikologis yang berkaitan dengan perbuatan fisik pelaku kejahatan. Mengenai kejahatan genosida, unsur-unsurnya diturunkan dari pengertian genosida di bawah Konvensi Genosida dan Statuta Roma. Konvensi Genosida mendefinisikan genosida sebagai tindakan yang bertujuan untuk menghancurkan baik seluruhnya atau sebagian, kelompok bangsa, ras, etnis atau agama. Namun, ‘niat genosida’ atau unsur mental untuk melakukan kejahatan genosida tidak dipertimbangkan dalam pengadilan militer di Nuremberg dan Tokyo. ‘Niat genosida’ ini mendapat perhatian pertama selama persidangan dua pengadilan internasional ad hoc untuk Bekas Yugoslavia dan Rwanda. Tulisan ini mencoba untuk membahas definisi genosida di bawah Konvensi Genosida dan Statuta Roma. Artikel tersebut kemudian berfokus pada unsur mental genosida dan pendekatan pengadilan pidana internasional selama persidangan genosida. Kata kunci: niat genosida, konvensi genosida, kelompok tertentu, hukum pidana internasional, penghancuran
14
Haseljić, Meldijana Arnaut. "Genocid(i) u Drugom svjetskom ratu – Ka konvenciji o genocidu (ishodišta, definiranje, procesuiranja)." Historijski pogledi 5, no. 8 (November 15, 2022): 239–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2022.5.8.239.
Full textAbstract:
The twentieth century began and ended with the execution of genocide. At the same time, it is the century in which large-scale armed conflicts were fought, including the First and Second World Wars. The Second World War was marked, among other things, by genocides committed against peoples that were planned for extermination by Nazi projects. In the first place, it is inevitable to mention the genocide (Holocaust) against the most numerous victims - the Jews. The Holocaust resulted in millions of victims. Mass murders of Jews were carried out, but in the Second World War, about a million people who were members of other nations were also killed. The Nazis carried out the systematic extermination of Jews and other target groups in concentration camps established in Germany, but also in occupied countries. Hundreds of camps were opened throughout the occupied territories of Europe. The target groups scheduled for extermination were collected and transported by trains, most often in transport and livestock wagons, and taken to camps where a certain number were immediately killed, while another number were temporarily left for forced labor. People who were used for forced labor often died of exhaustion, and those who managed to survive the torture were eventually killed. In addition to the closure and liquidation in the camps, individual and mass executions were also carried out in other places. The large number of those killed indicated the need for quick rehabilitation, which resulted in burning the bodies on pyres or burying them in mass graves. The committed genocides encouraged the formation of the United Nations, but also resulted in the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, or for short - the Genocide Convention, which was supposed to be a guarantee for „never again“. Sanctions issued in the form of death sentences to the most notorious war criminals for the terrible crimes for which they were found responsible should have been another obstacle to „never again“. However, the participants of our time testify that it was not so. Genocidal projects have revived and genocides have been realized, as is the case with the genocide committed in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the end of the 20th century. In the trial of the most notorious Nazis, known as the Nuremberg Trials, the harshest death sentences were handed down, as well as life and long-term imprisonment. The specificity of the Nuremberg process is that, in addition to proclaiming the principle of personal responsibility, it also represents a condemnation of the committed aggression, but also a political project as manifested by the condemnation of various organizations that were declared responsible for the crimes committed. At the main international military trial that began on October 18, 1945, 24 defendants were prosecuted for individual responsibility, but six criminal war organizations were also prosecuted - the leadership of the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers' Party - NSDAP (National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei) headed by was Adolf Hitler - the most responsible criminal for World War II and the execution of the Holocaust), SS (Schutzstaffel - military branch of the NSDAP), SA (Sturmabteilung - Assault Squad of the NSDAP), SD (Sicherheitsdienst - Intelligence Service of the NSDAP), Gestapo (Geheime Staats Polizei - secret state police) and OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht - Supreme Command of the German Army). Certain prosecutions were also carried out in the national courts of the countries that emerged victorious in the Second World War.
15
Simpson, A. W. B. "Britain and the Genocide Convention." British Yearbook of International Law 73, no. 1 (January 1, 2003): 5–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bybil/73.1.5.
Full text
16
Bozoki, Antal. "The crime of genocide." Glasnik Advokatske komore Vojvodine 70, no. 11-12 (1998): 453–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/gakv9811453b.
Full textAbstract:
The author explains the notion of genocide and points to its normative and historical roots. He analyzes the content of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide and the compliance of the Yugoslav Criminal Code with the Convention. He explains the character of the permanent International Criminal Court and of the Hague Tribunal.
17
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.
18
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.
19
Ozoráková, Lilla. "The Road to Finding a Definition for the Crime of Genocide – the Importance of the Genocide Convention." Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 21, no. 2 (July 12, 2022): 278–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341475.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Today, genocide is known as “the crime of crimes”, for its fundamental implications for human morality. The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) defines genocide as a crime perpetrated against “a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. The same definition was also adopted verbatim by the statutes of the international criminal tribunals and courts. Although this was a successful step towards the establishment of an international regime of criminal responsibility for one of the most heinous violations of international law (as well as towards the ultimate eradication of the crime of genocide), the definition of genocide, as set out in the Genocide Convention, has often been subjected to criticism due to its limited scope. The definition in Article II of the Genocide Convention was the outcome of a complex process of negotiations and consensus, reflecting the prevailing views on genocide during the drafting of the Genocide Convention. However, in order to understand the reasoning behind the limited scope of the definition, it is necessary to examine the historical context in which the crime of genocide was conceptualized and subsequently criminalized. The aim of this article is to explore the historical background of the concept of genocide, with specific attention to the drafting processes of the most important legal instruments, including the Genocide Convention and the statutes of the international criminal courts and tribunals, to illustrate the foundations of the concept and explain the reasoning behind the current definition of genocide. In particular, this article will focus on examining the legacy of Raphael Lemkin as the father of the term ‘genocide’, as well as the influence of the Nuremberg Trials. In addition, this article will focus on the historical context in which the 1948 Genocide Convention was drafted and subsequently adopted by the United Nations General Assembly as well as explore the developments that emerged in the post-1948 period, with specific attention paid not only to the drafting of the statutes of the international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court, but also to their jurisprudence.
20
FOURNET, CAROLINE. "The Actus Reus of Genocide in the Croatia v. Serbia Judgment: Between Legality and Acceptability." Leiden Journal of International Law 28, no. 4 (October 30, 2015): 915–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156515000497.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe long-awaited verdict of the International Court of Justice in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case between Croatia and Serbia brought to an end the speculations as to whether or not a finding of genocide would be reached. After lengthy considerations on the genocidal actus reus, the Court dismissed all the claims of genocide, based on the lack of genocidal intent. If this conclusion is perfectly in line with established law and case law, its wider readability and acceptability outside of the legal microcosm is perhaps doubtful. How can a judgment which recognizes that acts falling within the list of proscribed genocidal acts have been committed but which then refutes their qualification as genocidal due to a lack of specific intent be explicable to those who lost their loved ones in what they feel was an enterprise of destruction?
21
Vajda, Maja Munivrana. "Ethnic Cleansing as Genocide – Assessing the Croatian Genocide Case before the icj." International Criminal Law Review 15, no. 1 (December 17, 2015): 147–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718123-01406010.
Full textAbstract:
This article considers whether and if so, under what conditions, the practice of forced population transfer can be regarded a form of genocide, notwithstanding its formal exclusion from the Genocide Convention. This is particularly relevant in the context of the pending genocide case before the International Court of Justice between Croatia and Serbia since both states essentially base their claims on acts of ethnic cleansing. International case law on this matter is far from clear, yet it points to the conclusion that ethnic cleansing may rise to genocide when carried out with genocidal intent. In contrast, Croatian courts seem to have simply equated the intent to ethnically clean a given area with the intent to destroy. Following a brief overview of Croatian case law, this article considers the viability of the pending genocide allegations and whether the Croatian claim and Serbian counter-claim have any prospects of success.
22
Kent, Gregory. "Genocidal Intent and Transitional Justice in Bosnia." East European Politics and Societies: and Cultures 27, no. 3 (June 17, 2013): 564–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0888325413487068.
Full textAbstract:
Convictions for genocide in relation to the war in Bosnia (1992–1995) provide the strongest sense of justice-having-been-done to victims and their families. But at the ICTY, the reputation of which has been marred by a series of controversies, the few perpetrators found guilty of genocide were involved in the Srebrenica massacres of July 1995. Other courts have convicted individuals from a range of different locations (and periods) in the war, giving arguably a more complete sense of justice to victims, and a more accurate contribution to the historical record. It is widely perceived that the Genocide Convention has been narrowly interpreted. As most genocides do not result in total destruction, what counts as “part” of a group, especially when combined with other acts, is a key issue explored here. Two cases (outside Srebrenica) in which genocide indictees were not held responsible for genocide are examined, with the Jelisic case, involving a foot-soldier of genocide, the main focus for critical analysis. Reflection on the implications for Bosnian society are given in conclusion.
23
AMERASINGHE, C. F. "The Bosnia Genocide Case." Leiden Journal of International Law 21, no. 2 (June 2008): 411–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156508005001.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe Bosnia Genocide case dealt with several important matters of international law, apart from the issue of responsibility proper for genocide. The Court began by addressing issues of state succession in order to identify the proper respondent. It then found that the objection to jurisdiction raised by the respondent was res judicata. It held that the Genocide Convention created state responsibility in addition to international criminal responsibility of the individual. The contribution of the judgment to the law of evidence, in particular with reference to the standard and methods of proof, is significant. Finally, the Court applied the codification by the International Law Commission of attribution in state responsibility to the situation before it in deciding that the genocidal acts subject of the case were not attributable to Serbia, while also holding that Serbia was, nevertheless, responsible for omitting to prevent genocide.
24
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.
25
Hale, Christopher John. "Never Again: A Legal Chimarea?" Contemporary Challenges: The Global Crime, Justice and Security Journal 2 (October 3, 2021): 148–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ccj.v2.5294.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines the scope of the duty that arises from Article 1 of the Genocide Convention[1] (hereinafter, the Convention) that imposes on States the dual obligation to prevent and punish genocide as an international crime. The analysis will focus on the legal problems arising from the punishable acts of Article 3 which asserts a prophylactic framework regarding the crime of genocide. This article argues that Article 3 is fundamental to the obligation to prevent as well as punish since the prohibited acts are inchoate (meaning incomplete). If an act of genocide is legally conceived as incomplete, it can, in theory, be repressed in the spirit of the Convention.
[1] “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” open for signature December 9, 1948, registration no. A/RES/3/260, http://un-documents.net/a3r260.htm.
26
Ratner, Steven R. "The Genocide Convention after Fifty Years." Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting 92 (1998): 1–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0272503700057402.
Full text
27
Gavira Díaz, Pablo. "The Physical, Biological and Cultural Dimensions of Genocide: An Expansive Interpretation of the Crime?" Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe 21, no. 1 (2022): 111–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.53779/cnwq2236.
Full textAbstract:
This paper deconstructs the definition of genocide provided for by Article II of the Genocide Convention with a view to assessing whether an expanding scope of the crime is possible. The current definition of genocide does not seem to correspond with the original conception of the term, which finds its roots in Raphael Lemkin’s writings, the “father” of the Genocide Convention. Lemkin envisaged three forms of genocide, namely physical, biological, and cultural, so as to convey a concrete idea of the number of faces that genocide could show over time. The drafters of the Genocide Convention largely discussed the three-dimensional structure of genocide, which, in the end, did not reach a consensus when pondering the inclusion of a cultural component within the so-called crime of crimes. This notwithstanding, there are still some remnants of the cultural dimension within the current definition of genocide, although it reads differently as initially envisioned. In addition, this paper introduces the reader to some of the examples that in recent years have dealt explicitly or implicitly with the question of ‘cultural genocide’, whose definition has never been clearly determined. This is certainly problematic inasmuch as there is no unanimity in the scope of the term, as was evidenced throughout the discussions which preceded the adoption of the Genocide Convention. Broadly speaking, the notion of ‘cultural genocide’ appears to refer to an intent to destroy, entirely, or partially, the cultural traits which characterise the modus vivendi of a certain group, encompassing both tangible and intangible attributes. In this regard, this article also considers different alternatives which might circumvent the strict definition of genocide in order to subsume similar offences against the cultural characteristics of a group within other serious crimes under international law.
28
AKHAVAN, PAYAM. "Balkanizing Jurisdiction: Reflections on Article IX of the Genocide Convention in Croatia v. Serbia." Leiden Journal of International Law 28, no. 4 (October 30, 2015): 893–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156515000473.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractWhen it first encountered the Genocide Convention in its 1951 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice recognized that the treaty reflected the ‘most elementary principles of morality’. Its provisions were to be read broadly, in light of the Convention's transcendent object and purpose. This expansive approach stands in contrast with the narrow interpretation of Article IX in the recent Judgment in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia) case. This article is a commentary on the retroactive obligation to punish genocide under the Convention with regard to acts occurring prior to its entry into force for that state. It concludes that the Court's narrow interpretation of its jurisdiction ratione temporis raises wider questions for its contemporary jurisprudence, namely, whether it will interpret human rights treaties enshrining fundamental values any differently than other international instruments.
29
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.
30
Carranza Ko, Ñusta P. "Making the Case for Genocide, the Forced Sterilization of Indigenous Peoples of Peru." Genocide Studies and Prevention 14, no. 2 (September 2020): 90–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.14.2.1740.
Full textAbstract:
Peru’s national health program Programa de Salud Reproductiva y Planificación Familiar (PSRPF) aimed to uphold women’s reproductive rights and address the scarcity in maternity related services. Despite these objectives, during PSRPF’s implementation the respect for women’s rights were undermined with the forced sterilization of women predominantly of indigenous, poor, and rural backgrounds. This study considers the forced sterilization of indigenous women as a genocide. Making the case for genocide has not been done previously with this particular case. Using the normative markers of the Genocide Convention, this study categorically sets forced sterilization victims from the state-led-policy as victims of genocide, considering the effects the health malpractice had on victims’ reproductive rights and the prevention of births of future indigenous populations. In doing so, this study proves the genocidal intent from the state to destroy in whole or in part, an ethnic minority group.
31
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.
32
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.
33
TIMMERMANN, WIBKE KRISTIN. "The Relationship between Hate Propaganda and Incitement to Genocide: A New Trend in International Law Towards Criminalization of Hate Propaganda?" Leiden Journal of International Law 18, no. 2 (June 2005): 257–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156505002633.
Full textAbstract:
This article focuses on the development of the crime of incitement to genocide and the prohibition of hate propaganda. It first examines the conflict which exists between these and the right to freedom of speech and concludes that a limitation of this right through prohibition of hate propaganda and criminalization of incitement to genocide is justifiable. The article then analyses how the crime of incitement to genocide and the prohibition of hate propaganda first developed historically, focusing on judgments by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and the Genocide Convention, on the one hand, and on international conventions and case law by the Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights, on the other. Next, recent ICTR decisions are examined, in which the ICTR has considerably clarified and extended the concept of incitement to genocide. The tribunal has brought it closer to encompassing vicious hate propaganda by acknowledging that in order to incite individuals to commit genocide, incitement in the sense of instigation is insufficient; it requires the prior creation of a certain climate in which the commission of such crimes is possible. Hate propaganda leads to the creation of such a climate. It is argued that, for several reasons, virulent hate propaganda must be accorded the status of an international crime. Genocide could be prevented more effectively if such speech were criminalized. Several efforts to outlaw hate propaganda internationally in the past are examined. The article concludes that it can be regarded as a crime punishable under the Genocide Convention if a purposive interpretative approach is used, and that hate propagandists should be prosecuted for direct and public incitement to genocide if their hate speech is engaged in with the specific intent to commit genocide, and creates a substantial danger of genocide.
34
Adanan, Amina. "Reflecting on the Genocide Convention in its Eighth Decade." Journal of International Criminal Justice 19, no. 5 (November 1, 2021): 1039–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqab070.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract 9 December 2018 marked the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Genocide Convention by the United Nations General Assembly. Article 6 of the Convention explicitly grants adjudicatory jurisdiction to the territorial state and to an international penal tribunal. Yet, the textual content of the Article has not prevented other types of extraterritorial jurisdiction from applying to the crime, such as universal criminal jurisdiction. This article analyses the development of universal jurisdiction over the crime of genocide, and proposes that the main advancements occurred as a result of a number of key events in the 20th century. Providing a review of state practice and opinio juris, the article analyses how universal jurisdiction applies to genocide and outlines its scope.
35
Finger, Seymour Maxwell, and Lawrence J. LeBlanc. "The United States and the Genocide Convention." American Historical Review 97, no. 4 (October 1992): 1317. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2165707.
Full text
36
Jarvis, Michelle, and Alan Tieger. "Applying the Genocide Convention at the ICTY." Journal of International Criminal Justice 14, no. 4 (September 2016): 857–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqw061.
Full text
37
MAMO, ANDREW. "Introduction to the Mini-Symposium on Croatia v. Serbia." Leiden Journal of International Law 28, no. 4 (October 30, 2015): 887–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156515000461.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractOn 3 February 2015, the International Court of Justice delivered its Judgment on the merits of the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia) case. This Judgment concludes the Court's involvement with allegations of state responsibility for genocide in the Balkans, which has spanned more than two decades since Bosnia brought a case against Serbia under the Genocide Convention in 1993. The many judgments and separate and dissenting opinions in the Bosnia and Croatia genocide cases have not only addressed the elements of the crime of genocide itself and the obligations imposed by the Genocide Convention, but have also considered jurisdictional questions, matters of state succession, and the relationship between the International Court of Justice and the work of the ad hoc tribunals, in particular the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.The Leiden Journal of International Law has organized a mini-symposium about the Croatia Judgment in order to address this important decision. The six articles in this symposium address several of the main issues raised by the judgment. A brief summary of the judgment follows.
38
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.
39
Kerr, Asa M. "The Sand Creek Massacre." IU Journal of Undergraduate Research 1, no. 1 (June 1, 2015): 6–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.14434/iujur.v1i1.13265.
Full textAbstract:
The 1864 massacre of Cheyenne and Arapaho Native Americans by a Colorado territorial militia regiment is investigated through a genocidal lens, both as a component of the larger destruction of Native American cultures and peoples by U.S. forces and in its own specific economic and ideological context. Using the work of many other scholars in the field of genocide studies and the established definition of genocide provided by the UN Convention on Genocide, this essay initially defines how the gradual dwindling of Native American populations from the onset of European colonization through the next three centuries can be viewed as genocide. Following this groundwork, the question of culpability for the massacre is brought forth and three main categories of suspects are identified: local government and military leaders, the White settler population of Colorado, and the U.S. federal government. All three potential areas of culpability are shown to possess varying degrees of responsibility in effecting the massacre. Upon conclusion of the investigation, there is a brief discussion of possible means of reconciliation accompanied by an examination of the nature of current reconciliation efforts.
40
Turdush, Rukiye, and Magnus Fiskesjö. "Dossier: Uyghur Women in China’s Genocide." Genocide Studies and Prevention 15, no. 1 (May 2021): 22–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.15.1.1834.
Full textAbstract:
In genocide, both women and men suffer. However, their suffering has always been different; with men mostly subjected to torture and killings, and women mostly subjected to torture and mutilation. These differences stem primarily from the perpetrators' ideology and intention to exterminate the targeted people. Many patriarchal societies link men with blood lineage and the group’s continuation, while women embody the group’s reproductivity and dignity. In the ongoing genocide against the Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in East Turkistan, the ideology of Chinese colonialism is a root cause. It motivates the targeting of women as the means through which to destroy the reproductivity and the dignity of the people as a whole. It is a common misunderstanding to associate genocide with only mass killings, and the current lack of evidence for massacres has led some to prematurely conclude there is no genocide. But this overlooks the targeting of women, which is also a prominent part of the definition of genocide laid out in the Genocide Convention. State policy in China intentionally targets Uyghur and other Turkic women in multiple ways. This dossier is focused on analyzing China’s targeted policies against Uyghur women and their “punishment,” as rooted in part in ancient Chinese legalist philosophy. In doing so, this dossier contributes toward further exposing Chinese colonialism and the genocidal intent now in evidence.
41
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.
42
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.
43
SCHABAS, WILLIAM A. "Darfur and the ‘Odious Scourge’: The Commission of Inquiry's Findings on Genocide." Leiden Journal of International Law 18, no. 4 (December 2005): 871–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156505003031.
Full textAbstract:
The report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, set up pursuant to a UN Security Council resolution, is an important contribution to the evolving law of genocide. The Commission concluded that genocide had not been committed, but that the case should be referred to the International Criminal Court for prosecution as crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Commission did not find significant evidence of genocidal intent. It looked essentially for a plan or policy of the Sudanese state and, in its absence, concluded that genocide was not being committed. The Commission endorsed the ‘stable and permanent groups’ approach taken by one trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). On this point, it exaggerated the acceptance of this interpretation, which has been ignored by other trial chambers of the international tribunals. However, the Commission found that the better approach to determination of the groups covered by the Convention is subjective, and that the targeted tribes in Darfur meet this criterion.
44
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
45
Smith, Karen E. "Acculturation and the acceptance of the Genocide Convention." Cooperation and Conflict 48, no. 3 (May 3, 2013): 358–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010836713482451.
Full text
46
Joyner, Christopher C. "United States: Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987." International Legal Materials 28, no. 3 (May 1989): 754–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020782900021914.
Full text
47
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
48
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’.
49
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
50
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.