Discuss the Concept of 'Protected Groups' under the Genocide Convention in Relation to Developments in International Law Through Jurisprudence and Emergence of Similar Deserving Groups

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benard Onyinkwa
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Genocide Convention

JAK LUDOBÓJSTWO ZOSTAŁO UZNANE ZA ZBRODNIĘ – DZIEDZICTWO RAFAŁA LEMKINA

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam MCFARLAND ◽  
Katarzyna HAMER
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Entire Life ◽  
War Crimes Trials ◽  
Criminal Charge ◽  
Short Biography ◽  
The World ◽  
Real Change ◽  
History Of

Raphael Lemkin is hardly known to a Polish audiences. One of the most honored Poles of theXX century, forever revered in the history of human rights, nominated six times for the Nobel PeacePrize, Lemkin sacrificed his entire life to make a real change in the world: the creation of the term“genocide” and making it a crime under international law. How long was his struggle to establishwhat we now take as obvious, what we now take for granted?This paper offers his short biography, showing his long road from realizing that the killing oneperson was considered a murder but that under international law in 1930s the killing a million wasnot. Through coining the term “genocide” in 1944, he helped make genocide a criminal charge atthe Nuremburg war crimes trials of Nazi leaders in late 1945, although there the crime of genocidedid not cover killing whole tribes when committed on inhabitants of the same country nor when notduring war. He next lobbied the new United Nations to adopt a resolution that genocide is a crimeunder international law, which it adopted on 11 December, 1946. Although not a U.N. delegate – hewas “Totally Unofficial,” the title of his autobiography – Lemkin then led the U.N. in creating theConvention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted 9 December, 1948.Until his death in 1958, Lemkin lobbied tirelessly to get other U.N. states to ratify the Convention.His legacy is that, as of 2015, 147 U.N. states have done so, 46 still on hold. His tomb inscriptionreads simply, “Dr. Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), Father of the Genocide Convention”. Without himthe world as we know it, would not be possible.

The Bosnia Genocide Case

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 411-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. AMERASINGHE
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
State Succession ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Law Of Evidence ◽  
International Law Commission

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.

State of the Netherlands v. Mothers of Srebrenica Association and Others

2021 ◽  
Vol 195 ◽  
pp. 239-294
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
The Law

239State responsibility — Attribution — United Nations peacekeeping troops — Dutch battalion contingent of United Nations Protection Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (“Dutchbat”) — Responsibility for conduct of Dutchbat — Acts of Dutchbat taking place up until 23.00 on 11 July 1995 under UN flag — Whether attributable to Netherlands — Whether Netherlands having effective control over acts — UN International Law Commission Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001, Articles 4(1) and 8 — Dutchbat United Nations organ — Whether Dutchbat’s conduct taking place under direction or control of Netherlands — Effective control standard — Whether Netherlands responsible for Dutchbat’s conduct at relevant timeInternational organizations — Responsibility — United Nations — Peacekeeping troops — Dutchbat — Dutchbat United Nations organ — Responsibility for conduct of Dutchbat — Acts of Dutchbat taking place up until 23.00 on 11 July 1995 under UN flag — Ultra vires conduct — Attribution to UN — UN International Law Commission Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations 2011, Article 8Treaties — Interpretation — Application — Effect — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 — Article I — Obligation to prevent genocide — Interpretation of provision in accordance with Articles 31-3 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Text of Genocide Convention — Legislative history of Genocide Convention — Whether Contracting Parties intending obligation to have direct effect — Whether terms of provision sufficiently precise to be applied directly — Whether obligation having direct effect in proceedings between civilians and NetherlandsRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 — Article I — Obligation to prevent genocide — Whether Article I of Genocide Convention having direct effect within meaning of Articles 93 and 94 of Constitution of the Netherlands — Interpretation of provision in accordance with Articles 31-3 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Text of Genocide Convention — Legislative history of Genocide Convention — Whether Contracting Parties intending obligation to have direct effect — Whether terms of provision sufficiently 240precise to be applied directly — Whether obligation having direct effect in proceedings between civilians and NetherlandsInternational criminal law — Genocide — Whether Netherlands failing to prevent genocide perpetrated by Bosnian Serbs — Obligation to prevent genocide in Article I of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 — Whether Netherlands violating Article I of Genocide Convention — Whether Article I having direct effect in proceedings between civilians and NetherlandsRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Articles 2 and 3 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Protection of rights to life and physical integrity — Whether Dutchbat’s acts wrongful to be assessed under Dutch law — Applicable standard — Article 6:162 of Dutch Civil Code — Duty of care — Standards derived from Articles 2 and 3 of European Convention inherent in duty of care — Whether Court of Appeal applying correct standardHuman rights — Rights to life and physical integrity — Treaties — Standards — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Articles 2 and 3 — War situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina — Evacuation of refugees — Rights of male refugees — Violation of rights by Bosnian Serbs — Whether Dutchbat’s command knew, or reasonably ought to have known, at time of evacuation of real risk of violation of those rights — Whether Dutchbat acting wrongfully — Whether wrongful for Dutchbat to continue to cooperate in evacuation of refugees located in safe area outside compound — Whether wrongful for Dutchbat not to offer male refugees the choice of remaining in compound — Whether real chance that male refugees could have escaped Bosnian Serbs if remaining in compound — Estimation of chanceDamages — Claim for damages — Whether Netherlands to pay compensation — Whether order of Court of Appeal for compensation to be paid — Whether based on incorrect interpretation of law — Whether incomprehensible — Whether claim for damages could only be lodged by surviving relatives of male refugees evacuated from compound on 13 July 1995 — Whether Mothers of Srebrenica Association could claim damages — The law of the Netherlands

‘With or Without You’: Why Italy Should Incorporate Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide Into Its National Legal System

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 698-714
Author(s):  
Luigi Prosperi
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
International Obligation ◽  
Draft Convention ◽  
International Law Commission

Abstract By ratifying the Genocide Convention, Italy undertook an obligation to enact legislation ‘to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide’. Accordingly, in 1967 the legislator incorporated the offences enumerated in the convention into the domestic legal system. As it was under no such obligation with regard to crimes against humanity, Italy has not criminalized them. Two major legal issues arise from this decision. First, Italy may be unable to execute cooperation requests submitted by the International Criminal Court, and thus breach an international obligation. Furthermore, domestic authorities can only charge suspects with ‘corresponding’ ordinary offences, which are subject to statutes of limitations. Both issues are addressed in the Draft Convention on Crimes Against Humanity adopted by the International Law Commission, whose provisions require States Parties to enact legislation to ensure that under domestic criminal law such crimes constitute offences and are not subject to a statute of limitations.

scholarly journals Groups Defined by Gender and the Genocide Convention

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-75
Author(s):  
Filip Strandberg Hassellind
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Similar Treatment ◽  
Protected Group ◽  
Gender Groups ◽  
Gender Specific ◽  
Historical Origins

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.

Picking Battles

2019 ◽  
pp. 216-232
Author(s):  
Rotem Giladi
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
International Society ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Mandate System

Race is one of the more ubiquitous, yet least explored, shifts in twentieth-century international law. From law that was founded in key areas and concepts on racial distinctions, international law quickly came to denounce various manifestations of race theories and racial discrimination. The establishment of the UN reflected a racialized understanding of the international society assumptions of the League of Nations mandate system. The 1948 Universal Declaration addressed entitlement to human rights without distinction of race, yet the Genocide Convention extended protection to racial (identity of) minority groups. In South Africa, race policies provided both the impetus and multiple occasions for formulating claims about a new, de-racialized international law from 1946 onwards. At these struggles against apartheid, binary political confrontations could take form as competing visions of international law, both old and new. This chapter charts the sites of contestation over apartheid and its effects on international law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document