Genocide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Genocide is the intent to systematically eliminate a
cultural,
ethnic,
linguistic,
national,
racial or
religious group. Well-known examples of genocide include the
Armenian Genocide, the
1971 Bangladesh genocide, the
Cambodian Genocide, the
Holocaust, and more recently the
Bosnian Genocide, the
Kurdish Genocide and the
Rwandan Genocide.
Etymology
Genocide has become an official term used in international relations. The word
genocide
was not in use before 1944. Before this, in 1941, Winston Churchill
described the mass killing of Russian prisoners of war and civilians as
"a crime without a name".
[1] In that year, a Polish-Jewish lawyer named
Raphael Lemkin,
described the policies of systematic murder founded by the Nazis as
genocide. The word genocide is the combination of the Greek prefix
geno- (meaning tribe or race) and
caedere
(the Latin word for to kill). The word is defined as a specific set of
violent crimes that are committed against a certain group with the
attempt to remove the entire group from existence or to destroy them.
The word
genocide was later included as a descriptive term to the process of indictment, but not yet as a formal legal term
[2] According to Lemkin, genocide was defined as "a coordinated strategy to destroy a
group
of people, a process that could be accomplished through total
annihilation as well as strategies that eliminate key elements of the
group's basic existence, including language, culture, and economic
infrastructure.” He created a concept of mobilizing much of the
international relations and community, to working together and
preventing the occurrence of such events happening within history and
the international society.
[3] Australian anthropologist Peg LeVine coined the term "
ritualcide" to describe the destruction of a group's cultural identity without necessarily destroying its members.
[4]
The study of genocide has mainly been focused towards the legal
aspect of the term. By formally recognizing the act of genocide as a
crime, involves the undergoing prosecution that begins with not only
seeing genocide as outrageous past any moral standpoint but also may be a
legal liability within international relations. When genocide is looked
at in a general aspect it is viewed as the deliberate killing of a
certain group. Yet is commonly seen to escape the process of trial and
prosecution due to the fact that genocide is more often than not
committed by the officials in power of a state or area. In 1648 before
the term genocide had been coined, the
Peace of Westphalia was established to protect ethnic, national, racial and in some instances religious groups. During the 19th century
humanitarian intervention was needed due to the fact of conflict and justification of some of the actions executed by the military.
[5]
Raphael Lemkin, in his work
Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944), or possibly in 1943, coined the term "genocide" by combining Greek
genos (
γένος, 'race, people') and Latin
caedere ('to kill').
[6]
Lemkin defined genocide as follows:
Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate
destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of
all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated
plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential
foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating
the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the
disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture,
language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of
national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty,
health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such
groups.
The preamble to the
Genocide Convention (CPPCG) notes that instances of genocide have taken place throughout history,
[7] but it was not until Lemkin coined the term and the prosecution of perpetrators of the Holocaust at the
Nuremberg trials that the United Nations defined the crime of genocide under
international law in the Genocide Convention.
During a video interview with Raphael Lemkin for the CBS, news
commentator Quincy Howe asked him about how he came to be interested in
the crime of genocide. He replied: "I became interested in genocide
because it happened so many times. It happened to the Armenians, then
after the Armenians, Hitler took action".
[8][9]
Lemkin was also a close relative of genocide victims, losing 49
relatives in the Holocaust. However, his work on defining genocide as a
crime dates to 1933, and it was prompted by the
Simele massacre in Iraq.
[10]
As a crime
International law
After the Holocaust, which had been perpetrated by the
Nazi Germany and its allies prior to and during
World War II,
Lemkin
successfully campaigned for the universal acceptance of international
laws defining and forbidding genocides. In 1946, the first session of
the
United Nations General Assembly adopted a
resolution
that "affirmed" that genocide was a crime under international law, but
did not provide a legal definition of the crime. In 1948, the UN General
Assembly adopted the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) which defined the crime of genocide for the first time.
[11]
The
CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December
1948 and came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)). It
contains an internationally recognized definition of genocide which has
been incorporated into the national criminal legislation of many
countries, and was also adopted by the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which established the
International Criminal Court (ICC). Article II of the Convention defines genocide as:
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- (a) Killing members of the group;
- (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The first draft of the Convention included political killings, but
these provisions were removed in a political and diplomatic compromise
following objections from some countries, including the
USSR, a permanent security council member.
[12][13] The USSR argued that the Convention's definition should follow the etymology of the term,
[13] and may have feared greater international scrutiny of its own
Great Purge.
[12]
Other nations feared that including political groups in the definition
would invite international intervention in domestic politics.
[13] However leading genocide scholar
William Schabas
states: “Rigorous examination of the travaux fails to confirm a popular
impression in the literature that the opposition to inclusion of
political genocide was some Soviet machination. The Soviet views were
also shared by a number of other States for whom it is difficult to
establish any geographic or social common denominator: Lebanon, Sweden,
Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Iran,
Egypt, Belgium, and Uruguay. The exclusion of political groups was in
fact originally promoted by a non-governmental organization, the World
Jewish Congress, and it corresponded to Raphael Lemkin’s vision of the
nature of the crime of genocide.”
[14]
The convention's purpose and scope was later described by the
United Nations Security Council as follows:
The Convention was manifestly adopted for humanitarian and civilizing
purposes. Its objectives are to safeguard the very existence of certain
human groups and to affirm and emphasize the most elementary principles
of humanity and morality. In view of the rights involved, the legal
obligations to refrain from genocide are recognized as erga omnes.
When the Convention was drafted, it was already envisaged that it would
apply not only to then existing forms of genocide, but also "to any
method that might be evolved in the future with a view to destroying the
physical existence of a group".[15]
As emphasized in the preamble to the Convention, genocide has marred
all periods of history, and it is this very tragic recognition that
gives the concept its historical evolutionary nature.
The Convention must be interpreted in good faith, in accordance with the
ordinary meaning of its terms, in their context, and in the light of
its object and purpose. Moreover, the text of the Convention should be
interpreted in such a way that a reason and a meaning can be attributed
to every word. No word or provision may be disregarded or treated as
superfluous, unless this is absolutely necessary to give effect to the
terms read as a whole.[16]
Genocide is a crime under international law regardless of "whether
committed in time of peace or in time of war" (art. I). Thus,
irrespective of the context in which it occurs (for example, peace time,
internal strife, international armed conflict or whatever the general
overall situation) genocide is a punishable international crime.
— UN Commission of Experts that
examined violations of international humanitarian law committed in the
territory of the former Yugoslavia.[17]
Specific provisions
"Intent to destroy"
In 2007 the
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), noted in its judgement on
Jorgic v. Germany
case that in 1992 the majority of legal scholars took the narrow view
that "intent to destroy" in the CPPCG meant the intended
physical-biological destruction of the protected group and that this was
still the majority opinion. But the ECHR also noted that a minority
took a broader view and did not consider biological-physical destruction
was necessary as the intent to destroy a national, racial, religious or
ethnic group was enough to qualify as genocide.
[18]
In the same judgement the ECHR reviewed the judgements of several international and municipal courts judgements. It noted that
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the
International Court of Justice
had agreed with the narrow interpretation, that biological-physical
destruction was necessary for an act to qualify as genocide. The ECHR
also noted that at the time of its judgement, apart from courts in
Germany which had taken a broad view, that there had been few cases of
genocide under other Convention States
municipal laws
and that "There are no reported cases in which the courts of these
States have defined the type of group destruction the perpetrator must
have intended in order to be found guilty of genocide".
[19]
"In part"
The phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law.
[20] The
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in
Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Trial Chamber I – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001)[21] that Genocide had been committed. In
Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Appeals Chamber – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004)[22] paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 addressed the issue of
in part
and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The
aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction
of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant
enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." The Appeals Chamber
goes into details of other cases and the opinions of respected
commentators on the Genocide Convention to explain how they came to this
conclusion.
The judges continue in paragraph 12, "The determination of when the
targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve
a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of
the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in
all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals
targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in
relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the
numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group
can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is
emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that
may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the
meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."
[23][24]
In paragraph 13 the judges raise the issue of the perpetrators'
access to the victims: "The historical examples of genocide also suggest
that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the
possible extent of their reach, should be considered. ... The intent to
destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by
the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not
indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can—in
combination with other factors—inform the analysis."
[22]
CPPCG coming into force
The Convention came into force as international law on 12 January
1951 after the minimum 20 countries became parties. At that time
however, only two of the five permanent members of the
UN Security Council were parties to the treaty: France and the
Republic of China. The
Soviet Union
ratified in 1954, the United Kingdom in 1970, the People's Republic of
China in 1983 (having replaced the Taiwan-based Republic of China on the
UNSC in 1971), and the United States in 1988. This long delay in
support for the Convention by the world's most powerful nations caused
the Convention to languish for over four decades. Only in the 1990s did
the international law on the crime of genocide begin to be enforced.
UN Security Council on genocide
UN Security Council Resolution 1674,
adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 28 April 2006,
"reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005
World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity".
[25] The
resolution committed the Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict.
[26]
In 2008 the UN Security Council adopted
resolution 1820,
which noted that "rape and other forms of sexual violence can
constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act
with respect to genocide".
[27]
Municipal law
Since the Convention came into effect in January 1951 about 80 United
Nations member states have passed legislation that incorporates the
provisions of CPPCG into their
municipal law.
[28]
Criticisms of the CPPCG and other definitions of genocide
William Schabas has suggested that a permanent body as recommended by the
Whitaker Report
to monitor the implementation of the Genocide Convention, and require
States to issue reports on their compliance with the convention (such as
were incorporated into the United Nations
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture), would make the convention more effective.
[29]
Writing in 1998 Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Björnson stated that the
CPPCG was a legal instrument resulting from a diplomatic compromise. As
such the wording of the treaty is not intended to be a definition
suitable as a research tool, and although it is used for this purpose,
as it has an international legal credibility that others lack,
other definitions
have also been postulated. Jonassohn and Björnson go on to say that
none of these alternative definitions have gained widespread support for
various reasons.
[30]
Jonassohn and Björnson postulate that the major reason why no single
generally accepted genocide definition has emerged is because academics
have adjusted their focus to emphasise different periods and have found
it expedient to use slightly different definitions to help them
interpret events. For example, Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn studied
the whole of human history, while
Leo Kuper and
R. J. Rummel in their more recent works concentrated on the 20th century, and
Helen Fein,
Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr have looked at post World War II events.
Jonassohn and Björnson are critical of some of these studies, arguing
that they are too expansive, and conclude that the academic discipline
of genocide studies is too young to have a canon of work on which to
build an academic
paradigm.
[30]
The exclusion of social and political groups as targets of genocide
in the CPPCG legal definition has been criticized by some historians and
sociologists, for example M. Hassan Kakar in his book
The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979–1982[31] argues that the international definition of genocide is too restricted,
[32]
and that it should include political groups or any group so defined by
the perpetrator and quotes Chalk and Jonassohn: "Genocide is a form of
one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to
destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the
perpetrator."
[33]
While there are various definitions of the term, Adam Jones states that
the majority of genocide scholars consider that "intent to destroy" is a
requirement for any act to be labelled genocide, and that there is
growing agreement on the inclusion of the physical destruction
criterion.
[34]
Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr defined genocide as "the promotion and
execution of policies by a state or its agents which result in the
deaths of a substantial portion of a group ...[when] the victimized
groups are defined primarily in terms of their communal characteristics,
i.e., ethnicity, religion or nationality."
[35] Harff and Gurr also differentiate between genocides and
politicides
by the characteristics by which members of a group are identified by
the state. In genocides, the victimized groups are defined primarily in
terms of their communal characteristics, i.e., ethnicity, religion or
nationality. In politicides the victim groups are defined primarily in
terms of their hierarchical position or political opposition to the
regime and dominant groups.
[36][37] Daniel D. Polsby and Don B. Kates, Jr. state that "... we follow Harff's distinction between genocides and '
pogroms,'
which she describes as 'short-lived outbursts by mobs, which, although
often condoned by authorities, rarely persist.' If the violence persists
for long enough, however, Harff argues, the distinction between
condonation and complicity collapses."
[38][39]
According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The
ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their
national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership. The legal
meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty, the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
This also includes non-killings that in the end eliminate the group,
such as preventing births or forcibly transferring children out of the
group to another group. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to
the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political
opponents or otherwise intentional murder. It is to avoid confusion
regarding what meaning is intended that Rummel created the term
democide for the third meaning.
[40]
Highlighting the potential for state and non-state actors to commit
genocide in the 21st century, for example, in failed states or as
non-state actors acquire weapons of mass destruction, Adrian Gallagher
defined genocide as 'When a source of collective power (usually a state)
intentionally uses its power base to implement a process of destruction
in order to destroy a group (as defined by the perpetrator), in whole
or in substantial part, dependent upon relative group size'.
[41]
The definition upholds the centrality of intent, the multidimensional
understanding of destroy, broadens the definition of group identity
beyond that of the 1948 definition yet argues that a substantial part of
a group has to be destroyed before it can be classified as genocide
(dependent on relative group size).
A major criticism of the international community's response to the
Rwandan Genocide was that it was reactive, not proactive. The
international community has developed a mechanism for prosecuting the
perpetrators of genocide but has not developed the will or the
mechanisms for intervening in a genocide as it happens. Critics point to
the
Darfur conflict
and suggest that if anyone is found guilty of genocide after the
conflict either by prosecutions brought in the International Criminal
Court or in an
ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal, this will confirm this perception.
[citation needed]
International prosecution of genocide
By ad hoc tribunals
All signatories to the CPPCG are required to prevent and punish acts
of genocide, both in peace and wartime, though some barriers make this
enforcement difficult. In particular, some of the signatories—namely,
Bahrain,
Bangladesh,
India,
Malaysia, the
Philippines,
Singapore, the
United States,
Vietnam,
Yemen, and former
Yugoslavia—signed with the proviso that no claim of genocide could be brought against them at the
International Court of Justice without their consent.
[42] Despite official protests from other signatories (notably
Cyprus and
Norway) on the ethics and legal standing of these reservations, the
immunity from prosecution
they grant has been invoked from time to time, as when the United
States refused to allow a charge of genocide brought against it by
former
Yugoslavia following the 1999
Kosovo War.
[43]
It is commonly accepted that, at least since
World War II, genocide has been illegal under
customary international law as a
peremptory norm, as well as under
conventional international law.
Acts of genocide are generally difficult to establish for prosecution,
because a chain of accountability must be established. International
criminal courts and tribunals function primarily because the states
involved are incapable or unwilling to prosecute crimes of this
magnitude themselves.
Nuremberg Tribunal (1945–1946)
Because the universal acceptance of
international laws which in 1948 defined and forbade genocide with the promulgation of the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(CPPCG), those criminals who were prosecuted after the war in
international courts for taking part in the Holocaust were found guilty
of
crimes against humanity
and other more specific crimes like murder. Nevertheless, the Holocaust
is universally recognized to have been a genocide and the term, that
had been coined the year before by
Raphael Lemkin,
[44] appeared in the
indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders,
Count 3, which stated that all the defendants had "conducted deliberate
and systematic genocide—namely, the extermination of racial and
national groups..."
[45]
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (1993 to present)
A boy at a grave during the 2006 funeral of genocide victims
The term
Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to
the genocide committed by Serb forces in
Srebrenica in 1995,
[46] or to ethnic cleansing that took place during the 1992–1995
Bosnian War.
[47]
In 2001, the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) judged that the 1995
Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide.
[48]
On 26 February 2007, the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the
Bosnian Genocide Case
upheld the ICTY's earlier finding that the Srebrenica massacre in
Srebrenica and Zepa constituted genocide, but found that the Serbian
government had not participated in a wider genocide on the territory of
Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war, as the Bosnian government had
claimed.
[49]
On 12 July 2007,
European Court of Human Rights when dismissing the appeal by
Nikola Jorgić against his conviction for genocide by a German court (
Jorgic v. Germany)
noted that the German courts wider interpretation of genocide has since
been rejected by international courts considering similar cases.
[50][51][52] The ECHR also noted that in the 21st century "Amongst scholars, the majority have taken the view that
ethnic cleansing,
in the way in which it was carried out by the Serb forces in Bosnia and
Herzegovina in order to expel Muslims and Croats from their homes, did
not constitute genocide. However, there are also a considerable number
of scholars who have suggested that these acts did amount to genocide,
and the ICTY has found in the Momcilo Krajisnik case that the actus reu,
of genocide was met in Prijedor "With regard to the charge of genocide,
the Chamber found that in spite of evidence of acts perpetrated in the
municipalities which constituted the actus reus of genocide".
[53]
About 30 people have been indicted for participating in genocide or complicity in genocide during the early 1990s in
Bosnia. To date, after several
plea bargains and some convictions that were successfully challenged on appeal two men,
Vujadin Popović and
Ljubiša Beara, have been found guilty of committing genocide,
Zdravko Tolimir has been found guilty of committing genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide, and two others,
Radislav Krstić
and Drago Nikolić, have been found guilty of aiding and abetting
genocide. Three others have been found guilty of participating in
genocides in Bosnia by German courts, one of whom
Nikola Jorgić lost an appeal against his conviction in the
European Court of Human Rights. A further eight men, former members of the Bosnian Serb security forces were found guilty of genocide by the
State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (See
List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions).
Slobodan Milošević,
as the former President of Serbia and of Yugoslavia, was the most
senior political figure to stand trial at the ICTY. He died on 11 March
2006 during his trial where he was accused of genocide or complicity in
genocide in territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina, so no verdict was
returned. In 1995, the ICTY issued a warrant for the arrest of Bosnian
Serbs
Radovan Karadžić and
Ratko Mladić
on several charges including genocide. On 21 July 2008, Karadžić was
arrested in Belgrade, and he is currently in The Hague on trial accused
of genocide among other crimes.
[54] Ratko Mladić was arrested on 26 May 2011 by Serbian special police in Lazarevo, Serbia.
[55]
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (1994 to present)
The
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is a court under the auspices of the United Nations for the prosecution of offenses committed in
Rwanda during the
genocide which occurred there
during April 1994, commencing on 6 April. The ICTR was created on 8
November 1994 by the Security Council of the United Nations in order to
judge those people responsible for the acts of genocide and other
serious violations of the international law performed in the territory
of Rwanda, or by Rwandan citizens in nearby states, between 1 January
and 31 December 1994.
So far, the ICTR has finished nineteen trials and convicted twenty
seven accused persons. On 14 December 2009 two more men were accused and
convicted for their crimes. Another twenty five persons are still on
trial. Twenty-one are awaiting trial in detention, two more added on 14
December 2009. Ten are still at large.
[56] The first trial, of
Jean-Paul Akayesu, began in 1997. In October 1998, Akayesu was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Jean Kambanda, interim Prime Minister, pled guilty.
The
Khmer Rouge, led by
Pol Pot,
Ta Mok
and other leaders, organized the mass killing of ideologically suspect
groups. The total number of victims is estimated at approximately 1.7
million
Cambodians between 1975–1979, including deaths from slave labour.
[57]
On 6 June 2003 the Cambodian government and the United Nations reached an agreement to set up the
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) which would focus exclusively on crimes committed by the most senior
Khmer Rouge officials during the period of Khmer Rouge rule of 1975–1979.
[58] The judges were sworn in early July 2006.
[59][60][61]
The genocide charges related to killings of Cambodia's
Vietnamese and
Cham minorities, which is estimated to make up tens of thousand killings and possibly more
[62][63]
The investigating judges were presented with the names of five possible suspects by the prosecution on 18 July 2007.
[59][64]
- Kang Kek Iew was formally charged with war crime and crimes against humanity
and detained by the Tribunal on 31 July 2007. He was indicted on
charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity on 12 August 2008.[65]
His appeal against his conviction for war crimes and crimes against
humanity was rejected on 3 February 2012, and he is serving a sentence
of life imprisonment.[66]
- Nuon Chea,
a former prime minister, who was indicted on charges of genocide, war
crimes, crimes against humanity and several other crimes under Cambodian
law on 15 September 2010. He was transferred into the custody of the
ECCC on 19 September 2007. His trial, which is ongoing, started on 27
June 2011.[67][68]
- Khieu Samphan,
a former head of state, who was indicted on charges of genocide, war
crimes, crimes against humanity and several other crimes under Cambodian
law on 15 September 2010. He was transferred into the custody of the
ECCC on 19 September 2007. His trial, which is ongoing, started on 27
June 2011.[67][68]
- Ieng Sary,
a former foreign minister, who was indicted on charges of genocide, war
crimes, crimes against humanity and several other crimes under
Cambodian law on 15 September 2010. He was transferred into the custody
of the ECCC on 12 November 2007. His trial started on 27 June 2011, and
ended with his death on 14 March 2013. He was never convicted.[67][68]
- Ieng Thirith,
a former minister for social affairs and wife of Ieng Sary, who was
indicted on charges of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and
several other crimes under Cambodian law on 15 September 2010. She was
transferred into the custody of the ECCC on 12 November 2007.
Proceedings against her have been suspended pending a health evaluation.[68][69]
There has been disagreement between some of the international jurists
and the Cambodian government over whether any other people should be
tried by the Tribunal.
[64]
By the International Criminal Court
Since 2002, the International Criminal Court can exercise its
jurisdiction if national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate
or prosecute genocide, thus being a "court of last resort," leaving the
primary responsibility to exercise jurisdiction over alleged criminals
to individual states. Due to the
United States concerns over the ICC,
the United States prefers to continue to use specially convened
international tribunals for such investigations and potential
prosecutions.
[70]
Darfur, Sudan
Main article:
War in Darfur
A mother with her sick baby at Abu Shouk IDP camp in
North Darfur
There has been much debate over categorizing the situation in Darfur as genocide.
[71] The ongoing conflict in
Darfur, Sudan, which started in 2003, was declared a "genocide" by
United States Secretary of State Colin Powell on 9 September 2004 in testimony before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
[72]
Since that time however, no other permanent member of the UN Security
Council followed suit. In fact, in January 2005, an International
Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, authorized by
UN Security Council Resolution 1564
of 2004, issued a report to the Secretary-General stating that "the
Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide."
[73]
Nevertheless, the Commission cautioned that "The conclusion that no
genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the
Government authorities, directly or through the militias under their
control, should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity
of the crimes perpetrated in that region. International offences such as
the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in
Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide."
[73]
In March 2005, the Security Council formally referred the situation
in Darfur to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, taking
into account the Commission report but without mentioning any specific
crimes.
[74] Two permanent members of the Security Council, the United States and
China, abstained from the vote on the referral resolution.
[75]
As of his fourth report to the Security Council, the Prosecutor has
found "reasonable grounds to believe that the individuals identified [in
the
UN Security Council Resolution 1593] have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes," but did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute for genocide.
[76]
In April 2007, the Judges of the ICC issued arrest warrants against the former Minister of State for the Interior,
Ahmad Harun, and a Militia
Janjaweed leader,
Ali Kushayb, for crimes against humanity and war crimes.
[77]
On 14 July 2008, prosecutors at the
International Criminal Court (ICC), filed ten charges of
war crimes against Sudan's President
Omar al-Bashir: three counts of genocide, five of
crimes against humanity
and two of murder. The ICC's prosecutors claimed that al-Bashir
"masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part"
three tribal groups in Darfur because of their ethnicity.
On 4 March 2009, the ICC issued a warrant of arrest for Omar Al
Bashir, President of Sudan as the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I concluded that
his position as head of state does not grant him immunity against
prosecution before the ICC. The warrant was for war crimes and crimes
against humanity. It did not include the crime of genocide because the
majority of the Chamber did not find that the prosecutors had provided
enough evidence to include such a charge.
[78]
Genocide in history
The preamble to the
CPPCG
states that "genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to
the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized
world," and that "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted
great losses on humanity."
In many cases where accusations of genocide have circulated,
partisans have fiercely disputed such an interpretation and the details
of the event. This often leads to the promotion of vastly different
versions of the event in question.
Revisionist attempts to challenge or affirm claims of genocide are illegal in some countries. For example, several European countries ban denying
the Holocaust, while in Turkey referring to
mass killings of Armenians,
Greeks and
Assyrians as a genocide may be prosecuted under
Article 301.
[79]
William Rubinstein argues that the origin of 20th century genocides
can be traced to the collapse of the elite structure and normal modes of
government in parts of Europe following the First World War:
The 'Age of Totalitarianism' included nearly all of the infamous
examples of genocide in modern history, headed by the Jewish Holocaust,
but also comprising the mass murders and purges of the Communist world,
other mass killings carried out by Nazi Germany and its allies, and also
the Armenian genocide of 1915. All these slaughters, it is argued here,
had a common origin, the collapse of the elite structure and normal
modes of government of much of central, eastern and southern Europe as a
result of the First World War, without which surely neither Communism
nor Fascism would have existed except in the minds of unknown agitators
and crackpots.
— William Rubinstein, Genocide: a history[80]
Stages of genocide, influences leading to genocide, and efforts to prevent it
For genocide to happen, there must be certain preconditions. Foremost
among them is a national culture that does not place a high value on
human life. A totalitarian society, with its assumed superior ideology, is also a precondition for genocidal acts.[81]
In addition, members of the dominant society must perceive their
potential victims as less than fully human: as "pagans," "savages,"
"uncouth barbarians," "unbelievers," "effete degenerates," "ritual
outlaws," "racial inferiors," "class antagonists,"
"counterrevolutionaries," and so on.[82]
In themselves, these conditions are not enough for the perpetrators to
commit genocide. To do that—that is, to commit genocide—the perpetrators
need a strong, centralized authority and bureaucratic organization as
well as pathological individuals and criminals. Also required is a
campaign of vilification and dehumanization of the victims by the
perpetrators, who are usually new states or new regimes attempting to
impose conformity to a new ideology and its model of society.[81]
In 1996
Gregory Stanton, the president of
Genocide Watch, presented a briefing paper called "The 8 Stages of Genocide" at the
United States Department of State.
[84] In it he suggested that genocide develops in eight stages that are "predictable but not inexorable".
[84][85]
The Stanton paper was presented to the State Department, shortly
after the Rwandan Genocide and much of its analysis is based on why that
genocide occurred. The preventative measures suggested, given the
briefing paper's original target audience, were those that the United
States could implement directly or indirectly by using its influence on
other governments.
| Stage |
Characteristics |
Preventive measures |
1.
Classification |
People are divided into "us and them". |
"The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend... divisions." |
2.
Symbolization |
"When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups..." |
"To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden as can hate speech". |
3.
Dehumanization |
"One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases." |
"Local and international leaders should condemn the use of hate
speech and make it culturally unacceptable. Leaders who incite genocide
should be banned from international travel and have their foreign
finances frozen." |
4.
Organization |
"Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed..." |
"The U.N. should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of countries involved in genocidal massacres, and create commissions to investigate violations" |
5.
Polarization |
"Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..." |
"Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or
assistance to human rights groups...Coups d’état by extremists should be
opposed by international sanctions." |
6.
Preparation |
"Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity..." |
"At this stage, a Genocide Emergency must be declared. ..." |
7.
Extermination |
"It is 'extermination' to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human". |
"At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can
stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be
established with heavily armed international protection." |
8.
Denial |
"The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..." |
"The response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts" |
In April 2012, it was reported that Stanton would soon be officially
adding two new stages, Discrimination and Persecution, to his original
theory, which would make for a 10-stage theory of genocide.
[86]
In a paper for the
Social Science Research Council Dirk Moses criticises the Stanton approach concluding:
In view of this rather poor record of ending genocide, the question
needs to be asked why the "genocide studies" paradigm cannot predict and
prevent genocides with any accuracy and reliability. The paradigm of
"genocide studies," as currently constituted in North America in
particular, has both strengths and limitations. While the moral fervor
and public activism is admirable and salutary, the paradigm appears
blind to its own implication in imperial projects that are themselves as
much part of the problem as they are part of the solution. The US
government called Darfur a genocide to appease domestic lobbies, and
because the statement cost it nothing. Darfur will end when it suits the
great powers that have a stake in the region.
Other authors have focused on the structural conditions leading up to
genocide and the psychological and social processes that create an
evolution toward genocide. Ervin Staub showed that economic
deterioration and political confusion and disorganization were starting
points of increasing discrimination and violence in many instances of
genocides and mass killing. They lead to scapegoating a group and
ideologies that identified that group as an enemy. A history of
devaluation of the group that becomes the victim, past violence against
the group that becomes the perpetrator leading to psychological wounds,
authoritarian
cultures and political systems, and the passivity of internal and
external witnesses (bystanders) all contribute to the probability that
the violence develops into genocide.
[88]
Intense conflict between groups that is unresolved, becomes intractable
and violent can also lead to genocide. The conditions that lead to
genocide provide guidance to early prevention, such as humanizing a
devalued group, creating ideologies that embrace all groups, and
activating bystander responses. There is substantial research to
indicate how this can be done, but information is only slowly
transformed into action.
[89]
Kjell Anderson uses a dichotomistic classification of genocides: "hot
genocides, motivated by hate and the victims’ threatening nature, with
low-intensity cold genocides, rooted in victims’ supposed inferiority."
[90]
See also
Research
Notes
Discrimination portal
After the Holocaust, which had been perpetrated by the Nazi Germany and its allies prior to and during World War II, Lemkin successfully campaigned for the universal acceptance of international laws defining and forbidding genocides. In 1946, the first session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that "affirmed" that genocide was a crime under international law, but did not provide a legal definition of the crime. In 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) which defined the crime of genocide for the first time.[11]Members of the Sonderkommando burn corpses of Jews in the fire pits at Auschwitz II-Birkenau, an extermination camp
The phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law.[20] The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Trial Chamber I – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001)[21] that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Appeals Chamber – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004)[22] paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 addressed the issue of in part and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." The Appeals Chamber goes into details of other cases and the opinions of respected commentators on the Genocide Convention to explain how they came to this conclusion.Armenian Genocide victims
All signatories to the CPPCG are required to prevent and punish acts of genocide, both in peace and wartime, though some barriers make this enforcement difficult. In particular, some of the signatories—namely, Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, Yemen, and former Yugoslavia—signed with the proviso that no claim of genocide could be brought against them at the International Court of Justice without their consent.[42] Despite official protests from other signatories (notably Cyprus and Norway) on the ethics and legal standing of these reservations, the immunity from prosecution they grant has been invoked from time to time, as when the United States refused to allow a charge of genocide brought against it by former Yugoslavia following the 1999 Kosovo War.[43]Nuon Chea, the Khmer Rouge's chief ideologist, before the Cambodian Genocide Tribunal on 5 December 2011.
The cemetery at the Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial and Cemetery to Genocide Victims
The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995,[46] or to ethnic cleansing that took place during the 1992–1995 Bosnian War.[47]A boy at a grave during the 2006 funeral of genocide victims
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is a court under the auspices of the United Nations for the prosecution of offenses committed in Rwanda during the genocide which occurred there during April 1994, commencing on 6 April. The ICTR was created on 8 November 1994 by the Security Council of the United Nations in order to judge those people responsible for the acts of genocide and other serious violations of the international law performed in the territory of Rwanda, or by Rwandan citizens in nearby states, between 1 January and 31 December 1994.Rwandan Genocide Victims
Rooms of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum contain thousands of photos taken by the Khmer Rouge of their victims.
The Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, Ta Mok and other leaders, organized the mass killing of ideologically suspect groups. The total number of victims is estimated at approximately 1.7 million Cambodians between 1975–1979, including deaths from slave labour.[57]Skulls in the Choeung Ek.
There has been much debate over categorizing the situation in Darfur as genocide.[71] The ongoing conflict in Darfur, Sudan, which started in 2003, was declared a "genocide" by United States Secretary of State Colin Powell on 9 September 2004 in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.[72] Since that time however, no other permanent member of the UN Security Council followed suit. In fact, in January 2005, an International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1564 of 2004, issued a report to the Secretary-General stating that "the Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide."[73] Nevertheless, the Commission cautioned that "The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the Government authorities, directly or through the militias under their control, should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region. International offences such as the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide."[73]A mother with her sick baby at Abu Shouk IDP camp in North Darfur
No comments:
Post a Comment