Everyday genocide: femicide, transicide and the responsibility to protect

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to establish a conceptual connection between gender-based violence (GBV) and genocide. Victims of gendercide, such as femicide and transicide, should be eligible for protections assigned to victims of genocide, including the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Design/methodology/approach This study examines genocide, gendercide, femicide, transicide and the R2P doctrine to formulate a platform of engagement from which to argue the alignment and congruence of genocide with gendercide. Using a content analysis of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees definition of GBV, and Article II of the Genocide Convention (GC) five “directive” facets are examined, namely, identity, physical violence, psychological violence, oppressive violence and repressive violence. Findings Expressions of physical violence, psychological violence, oppressive violence and repressive violence reflected similarity, whereas the GCs omit sex and gender as facets of identity group inclusion. The only variation is the encapsulation of identity factors included in the acts of harm. Practical implications The elevation of gendercide to the status of genocide would permit us the leverage to make it not only illegal to permit gendercide – internationally or in-country – but make it illegal not to intervene, too. Social implications Deliberate harm based on sex and gender are crimes against people because of their real or perceived group membership, and as such, should be included in genocide theory and prevention. Originality/value This study explores a new conceptual basis for addressing gendercidal violence nationally to include sex and gender victim groups typically excluded from formal parameters of inclusion and address due to limitations in Article II. The analysis of genocide alongside GBV may inform scholars and activists in the aim to end gendered violence.

DEGENERATING DISCURSIVE ATTEMPTS IN THE BALKANS TO ALTER THE LEGAL DEFINITION AND CONTENT OF THE CONCEPT OF GENOCIDE

Raphael Lemkin, a Polish lawyer of Jewish ancestry, coined the term of genocide in 1944. The period in which Lemkin coined the term coincides with the Second World War. He started to write his most significant work, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, in 1942. He formulated his work in Nazi Germany's and other Axis Power's occupation policy especially in Poland and the Soviet Union. Lemkin's central insight was to deduce from these occupation regulations that the Germans intended to reorganize Europe along racial lines, which would entail mass murder and the suppression of other cultures. Lemkin modified his initial proposals on genocide formulated in the Axis Rule in Occupied Europe and advocated that the newly formed United Nations should sponsor a treaty to prevent genocide and use its machinery to enforce it. On December 11, 1946, one year after the final armistice, the UN General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution which stressed that "The punishment of the crime of genocide is a matter of international concern."In the ensuing period, The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948. According to the Genocide Convention, genocide is a crime that can take place both in times of war and in the time of peace. The concept of genocide, which Lemkin brought to the agenda and tried to make it an international crime, was fully established on a legal basis by adopting the legally binding Genocide Convention. The Genocide Convention should not be eroded, and the term genocide, which has a strict legal definition, should not be used randomly. Recently statements were made that will erode the genocide convention, especially in the Balkans. Statements by the President of Croatia, Zoran Milanovic, downplaying the Srebrenica Genocide are example. Speaking to the press in the city of Komija on the Croatian island of Vis, Milanovic, answering a question on whether he considered Srebrenica a genocide, recently said the following: "I say yes, but then for some more serious crimes, we have to invent another name. I respect other people's sacrifices, but not everything is the same. If everything is genocide, we will have to find another name for what the Nazis and the German machinery did to the Jews in the Second World War. It is the Holocaust, but it is also genocide. Not every victim is the same, it is relativization.'' Considering that certain EU countries have been recently bringing up revisionist views and suggestions regarding the Balkans, we cannot ignore the possibility that Milanovic will jump on the bandwagon of producing "brilliant" ideas. In this context, it suffices to recall the Slovenian Prime Minister's plan (as the Slovenian EU presidency) to dismember Bosnia and Herzegovina, reorganize the borders of Croatia, Serbia, Albania, and Kosovo..The statements of Milanovic in this respect are also noteworthy in that they seriously question the current legal basis and framework of the crime of genocide.These statements will inevitably have repercussions both in the Balkans and internationally. It should be noted that any misuse of the term genocide based on shallow political interests will constitute an utter disservice to the fundamental principles of maintaining international peace, security, and stability as enshrined in the UN Charter. In terms of the Balkans, as mentioned above, it is noteworthy that revisionist discourses have recently come from countries such as Slovenia and Croatia, which are both NATO and EU members. It is disappointing that these countries, instead of playing a role that strengthens security and stability in the Balkans, play a role that disrupts security and stability. Member states of these influential international and supranational organizations are naturally expected to be much more careful in ensuring and maintaining security and stability in the Balkans. If there is a danger of fire in an area, instead of throwing flammable materials into the area, it is necessary to try to prevent the fire hazard. As AVİM, we hope that rhetoric and policies to the contrary will not be accepted in both NATO and the EU.

The International Court of Justice as a “Shortcut” to Identifying Custom

A frequently used shortcut to identifying rules of customary international law is to rely on statements by the International Court of Justice instead of conducting a more cumbersome investigation of state practice and opinio iuris. The purpose of this article is to consider when the Court’s statements align or may come to align with customary rules and, consequently, to what extent this shortcut is justified. Its value is in systematically exploring ideas that international lawyers may already have internalised; it may also help students of the subject to understand why reliance is placed on judicial decisions. Often, the Court simply elucidates pre-existing customary rules. But examples such as Factory at Chorzów, Fisheries, and Reservations to the Genocide Convention suggest that an additional or alternative justification for the shortcut may be stronger. This is the tendency of states to endorse or “ratify” statements by the Court through subsequent practice and opinio iuris.

Interventionist or internationalist? Coercion, self-determination, and humanitarianism in Third World practice

This article argues that contemporary debates around intervention, and especially humanitarian intervention, have misunderstood the meaning of these concepts in Cold War international society. By comparing a specific kind of humanitarian interventionism with a specific kind of internationalism, that of a revolutionist strain of Third World practice, it shows that existing studies have paid too little attention to discursive entanglements of coercion, self-determination, and humanitarianism. The Angola case provides a significant illustration: in 1975 the problem of intervention comes to be tied not just to dictatorial interference, but to a logic of self-determination, which is itself tied to causes of anticolonialism and anti-racism. It is too easy to say that the period’s rules of non-intervention precluded the legitimate coercive prevention of atrocities and related international crimes. Particular practices of internationalism, linked to the promotion of self-determination, provided a basis for enforcing international human rights treaties, including the Genocide Convention. All this seems very different from what we usually know of the legitimacy of saving strangers and the character of Third World organising in the mid-20th century.

Three days in December: Jewish human rights between the United Nations and the middle east in 1948

The twin birth of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Genocide Convention in 1948 have received enormous scholarly attention in recent years. Yet historians have largely ignored how these legal projects intersected with that year’s war in Israel/Palestine. In this article, I push these two stories back into a single frame by examining the year-long efforts of one early human rights organization, the World Jewish Congress, to advance rights-claims on behalf of Middle Eastern Jewish communities imperiled by the regional repercussions of the war. The WJC’s record of activities affords us a direct window into contemporaneous activist understandings of the ties between the Holocaust and the Nakba, human rights and genocide, and international law and politics. More broadly, it reveals the intrinsic limits of early human rights advocacy in an emerging global system exclusively structured around nation states.

Prosecuting Crimes against Humanity and Genocide at the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh: An Approach to International Criminal Law Standards

Bangladesh is recently prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and genocide committed in the Liberation War of 1971 via a domestically operated International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh (‘ICTB’). Though the Tribunal is preceded under the municipal law, it's material jurisdiction, i.e., crimes against humanity and genocide are originated from international criminal law. Therefore, this study purposes to examine several legal obligations of the ICTB in defining crimes against humanity and genocide as the core international crimes. Firstly, I scrutinize what is the legal status of international law (treaty and customary law) in Bangladesh's legal system? Secondly, by applying international criminal law standards, I focus on that is it one of the obligations of Bangladesh to apply international criminal law definitions of genocide under the treaty obligation as the contracting parties to Genocide Convention 1948, and the ICC Statute 1998? Thirdly, I also discuss whether Bangladesh has any obligation to apply customary international law definitions of crimes against humanity because crimes against humanity are considered as jus cogens offense in general international law, from which no derogation is permitted. Lastly, after a critical evaluation of domestic and international criminal law instruments, I conclude that Bangladesh certainly failed to fulfill its legal obligation to define international crimes under a treaty and customary laws, which is one of the fatal errors of the ICTB, a government-sponsored criminal tribunal, to secure criminal justice to the accused.

Never Again: A Legal Chimarea?

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.

Complicating Genocide: Missing Indigenous Women’s Stories

Having existed for centuries, genocide is a criminal practice that aims to destroy in whole or in part a population from a particular ethnic, racial, and religious background. The study of genocide is one that builds on historic cases of genocidal violence. Specifically, it takes on various approaches to examine genocidal crime, the intent of genocide, and how the motivation to cause physical pain and harm is knowingly implemented as a strategy of war, a tool of colonization, and a government policy of progress and modernization. Predominantly the scholarship on genocide can be summarized into three methodological approaches: (a) the theoretical that emphasizes the historic context of the crime; (b) the legal that draws from the United Nations Genocide Convention; and (c) the applied perspective that focuses on specific cases of genocide using the theoretical and legal lens. Recently, in the 21st century, genocide studies involving Indigenous populations has gained more traction as governments have been forced to recognize their own involvement in genocide, such as the forced removal of children in Canada and Australia from Indigenous families in efforts to assimilate them to the majority culture. Among this group, however, the Indigenous populations of the Americas, specifically the Indigenous women, have been further targeted for genocide more than other communities of color due to their historic relations with settler-colonial and postconquest emerging societies. The experiences of Indigenous women and their genocides involving sexual violence and coercive sterilization practices are the missing story in the genocide literature.