The United Nations Genocide Convention: an introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Haoliang Zhang
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
The United Nations

The Intent to Destroy Groups in the Genocide Convention: The Proposed U.S. Understanding

1984 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 369-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence J. LeBlanc
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention) in December 1948. A representative of the United States signed the Convention, and President Truman later transmitted it to the Senate with a request that it give its advice and consent to ratification. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the Convention in 1950. It has since held hearings on four occasions (1970, 1971, 1977 and 1981), and favorably reported the Convention to the Senate four times (1970, 1971, 1973 and 1976). However, the Senate has failed to act; a resolution of ratification was debated on the floor in 1973-1974, but it fell victim to a filibuster and the Convention remains in committee.

The Role of the United Nations, the African Union and Africa's Sub-Regional Organizations in Dealing with Africa's Human Rights Problems: Connecting Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect

2009 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Sarkin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
African Union ◽  
Regional Institutions ◽  
African Context ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Right

AbstractThis article examines the basis for humanitarian intervention (HI) in the United Nations Charter, the African Union (AU) Charter and in a number of African sub-regional institutions. It traces the historical development of HI and argues that, while the right to HI emerged more than 100 years ago, that right also emerges from the Genocide Convention. The article argues that this treaty connects HI to the developing norm of the responsibility to protect (R2P) and examines the extent to which R2P is garnering wider support around the world. It focuses on the UN, and the various AU and sub-regional institutions and instruments that sanction HI. It assesses whether intervention can be authorized even in the absence of a UN Security Council mandate and examines the principles, application and interrelationship of R2P and HI in the African context. It traces the use of these norms in Africa, including in the various sub-regional structures, and evaluates the AU's political will and capability to deal with conflict and human rights abuse.

The Twenty-Ninth Year of the World Court

1951 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-36
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
The World ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Advisory Opinions

The twenty-ninth year of the Court at The Hague was marked by sustained and fruitful activity. Two judgments were handed down in the Colombian-Peruvian Case Relating to Asylum, and four advisory opinions were given at the request of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Proceedings in the Franco-Egyptian Case on Protection of French Nationals in Egypt were discontinued. At the close of the year four cases were on the Court’s list: the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, the Rights of American Nationals in Morocco Case, a second Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case, and a request for an advisory opinion concerning Reservations to the Genocide Convention. The progress registered during the year in the extension of the Court’s jurisdiction was disappointingly slight.

From a ‘Marginal Problem’ to the ‘Supreme International Jurisdiction’

2021 ◽  
pp. 137-175
Author(s):  
Rotem Giladi
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Marginal Problem ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations

The first of two chapters to explore the theme protection, chapter 4 records the range of conflicting attitudes displayed by Jacob Robinson and Shabtai Rosenne towards the Genocide Convention during its drafting, with regard to and following its ratification, and at the International Court of Justice advisory proceedings on the question of reservations to the Convention. The chapter describes their early disinterest in and indifference towards the Genocide Convention as a ‘marginal problem’ on the United Nations agenda, but also the circumstances under which they came to acknowledge and appropriate the Convention’s Jewish paternity, exploit the opportunities it presented while, in private, recording their hostility towards Raphael Lemkin, its progenitor, as well as their derision of the Convention’s promise to protect Jewish existence.

scholarly journals Det negative omslag i ‘Aldrig igen!’ – om historiepolitiske manipulationer af moralske imperativer

2018 ◽  
pp. 41-52
Author(s):  
Ditte Marie Munch Hansen
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Categorical Imperative ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Ethnic Violence ◽  
Philosophical Analysis ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
World War ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Second World

In Negative Dialektik, Theodor W. Adorno claimed that after the Second World War a new categorical imperative was imposed on mankind: namely, to prevent Auschwitz – or something similar – from happening again. Today – 60 years after the United Nations Genocide Convention came into effect – it is difficult to remain optimistic about the preventive character of Adorno’s “Never Again!” imperative. In spite of its existence, the second half of the 20th Century was filled with ethnic violence andgenocide. This article undertakes a philosophical analysis of the “Never Again!” refrain and questions whether this new imperative is as preventive as we assume. The analysis looks at how Serbian nationalism used (and misused) history and expressions as “Never again!”. This example shows us that the impulse of moral abhorrence in “Never again!” does not necessarily lead to preventing atrocity, but can be an incitement to initiate new ones.

Continuation of Membership in the United Nations Revisited: Lessons from Fifteen Years of Inconsistency in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Lusa Bordin
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The United Nations

AbstractThe judgment on preliminary objections in Croatia v. Serbia provided closure to fifteen years of controversy as to whether Serbia had access to the ICJ from 1992 to 2000, a period in which Serbia was involved in three sets of cases before the Court. At the heart of the controversy lay the question of the status of Serbia vis-à-vis the United Nations following the disaggregation of the former Yugoslavia. Taking as a starting point the series of cases relating to the application of the Genocide Convention and the legality of use of force by NATO states, this article revisits the issue of continuation of membership in the United Nations. It begins by discussing the problems posed by the “horizontal inconsistency” among the Court’s jurisdictional findings, which implied that Serbia had and did not have access to the Court in the relevant period. It then offers a critique of the ICJ’s decision in Legality of Use of Force, and proposes an approach to continuation of membership in the UN that would have allowed the Court not only to avoid inconsistency, but also to clarify an important question of UN law. The argument to be advanced is that, according to the soundest interpretation of the UN Charter, a de facto exercise of membership may produce valid legal effects.

Has Pandora's Box Been Closed? The Decisions on the Legality of Use of Force Cases in Relation to the Status of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) within the United Nations

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARIA CHIARA VITUCCI
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Federal Republic ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Serbia And Montenegro ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
The Status ◽  
The United Nations

In its judgments on the preliminary objections in the Legality of Use of Force cases, the Court held that the FRY was not a UN member in the period between 1992 and 2000. This finding is controversial, at odds with previous decisions of the Court, and has indeed attracted criticism from various judges. This article proposes a different construction of the question of the FRY's membership within the UN and reviews arguments that allow doubts to be cast on the reasoning of the Court. Because of the link between UN membership and the FRY's participation in the Genocide Convention, the Court's finding in the Legality of Use of Force cases may have some implications for two sets of proceedings still pending before the Court (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro and Croatia v. Serbia and Montenegro). In the former case, an interpretation of the extent of the res judicata principle may allow the Court not to reopen the issue of jurisdiction, already decided in 1996 on the basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention. In the latter case, various options might allow the FRY to be regarded as a party to the Genocide Convention.

scholarly journals Speeding Up the International Community's Response Time in Addressing Acts of Genocide: Deferring to the Judgment of Nongovernmental Organizations

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-168
Author(s):  
Joshua M. Kagan
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Response Time ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
Speed Up ◽  
International Human ◽  
The United Nations

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.

The Decision of the International Court of Justice in the Case Concerning Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Canada)

2005 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
pp. 353-383
Author(s):  
Colleen Swords ◽  
Alan Willis
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Humanitarian Crisis ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Serbia And Montenegro ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations

SummaryIn the spring of 1999, the NATO allies conducted a bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for several weeks. The campaign was a response to the failure of negotiations at Rambouillet, France, relating to a situation in Kosovo that United Nations agencies had characterized as a “humanitarian crisis.” In late April, only a few days after filing an Optional Clause declaration under the Statute of the International Court of Justice accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the court subject to reservations, Yugoslavia initiated proceedings in the court against ten NATO allies, including Canada. The application was accompanied by a request for the indication of “provisional measures” pursuant to the statute, enjoining the NATO allies from continuing the use of force against Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia relied upon its new declaration and upon the compromissary clause of the Genocide Convention as grounds of jurisdiction. In June 1999, the court refused the request for provisional measures on the ground that it lacked prima facie jurisdiction. Canada and other remaining respondents filed preliminary objections on jurisdiction and admissibility. The objections on jurisdiction were based on the grounds that had been advanced at the provisional measures stage and largely endorsed by the court: first, that Yugoslavia was not then a member of the United Nations and was therefore not entitled to make an Optional Clause declaration; second, that the declaration was limited to future disputes; and, third, that the subject matter of the dispute was not covered by the Genocide Convention, which could therefore not be invoked to establish jurisdiction.Following oral hearings in April 2004, the court ruled in a judgment of 15 December 2004 that it lacked jurisdiction. The ruling was based exclusively on the fact that Yugoslavia lacked United Nations membership and standing in the court in 1999. The judgment concludes that the exception in Article 35(2) of the statute relating to “treaties in force” does not entitle a non-member of the United Nations to appear before the court in a matter related to the Genocide Convention, which the Court interprets as applying only to treaties in existence before 1945. This reasoning came as a surprise, since the court had assiduously avoided the issue of UN membership both in its provisional measures ruling and in its decisions in closely related proceedings taken by Bosnia and Croatia against Yugoslavia pursuant to the Genocide Convention. It remains to be seen how the judgment will be reconciled with rulings already made on jurisdiction in the proceedings taken by Bosnia, where jurisdiction has already been confirmed and where hearings on the merits are scheduled for 2006.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document