Genocidal Intent

The current dispute between South Africa and Israel before the International Court of Justice has many aspects of great legal interest. This article focuses on the identification and proof of the specific intent of a state in the crime of genocide. On this point, the arguments put forward by the two states in the preliminary phase of the proceedings are very different and raise several issues. The article addresses them especially in light of the International Court of Justice's previous case law on genocide. The following questions are addressed: Is the genocidal intent of individuals and that of states distinct and separate? Does the finding of individual criminal responsibility for genocide affect, and if so to what extent, state responsibility? What elements/factors are relevant for proving a specific intent? What organs express such an intent? What are the standards of evidence required? The International Court of Justice gave so far unclear answers to these questions. This article seeks to offer some solutions in this regard.

This short paper does not dispute that some factual findings in the Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic do constitute one or more of the enumerated acts of the crime of genocide. However, how and why they constitute as acts of the crime of genocide is the binary question this paper seeks to answer by focusing exclusively on the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (‘ICTR’) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (‘ICTY’) and drawing a comparison with domestic jurisdictions that have applied the principles of the Genocide Convention through universal jurisprudence.

If there’s anything positive about the sprawling Rohingya refugee camps near Cox’s Bazaar, Bangladesh, it’s that the residents – despite their appalling recent experiences and obvious deprivation – are at least safe here from Myanmar’s military.

Interviews in the camps paint a desperately sad picture. The details of these interviews are invariably confronting and often distressing, and explain why so many Rohingya fled Myanmar so quickly.

On 26 February 2007 the International Court of Justice ('ICJ') handed down its long-awaited judgment in the case concerning application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro).• The Court adjudicated alleged violations by Serbia and Montenegro ('Serbia') of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,2 examining whether genocide occurred during the secession of Bosnia and Herzegovina ('Bosnia') and, if it did, whether those actions could be attributed to Serbia. The Court found that Serbia had not committed genocide, but had violated obligations to prevent genocide and to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ('ICTy,).3 The Court also found that the award of compensatory damages was not appropriate in this case. The case has generated public division over the Court's reasoning on difficult jurisdictional questions, as well as the characterisation of, and responsibility for, atrocities committed. The fact alone that the case concerns alleged breaches of the jus cogens prohibition on genocide makes the case significant.

The military coup in Myanmar triggered a notorious uprising and subsequent armed conflict, resulting in military forces killing and imprisoning protesters, as well as setting fire to houses. This study employs a qualitative approach and uses James Scott's survival mechanism theory to analyze the hardships experienced by families in fire-damaged villages in the Sagaing region. Our findings reveal that military forces carried out targeted attacks and burned down houses, particularly in villages that supported the People's Defense Forces, leading to significant suffering among the local population. Families who were victims of this arson faced a host of challenges, including the loss of their homes and possessions, leaving them to seek shelter in the forest or makeshift tents, as well as food insecurity and a lack of access to medical care. Furthermore, many became unemployed as farming production costs were unaffordable and their children were unable to attend school. We highlight the urgent need for international humanitarian aid to address the dire situation faced by families whose homes were burned down by the military in Sagaing Region, Myanmar.

This research will discuss exigence to assign gender as protected groups in Genocide under Rome Statute which contains about gender (indeed third gender) selective mass killing. This research is inspired from the allegation of selective mass killing to gender in Nanjing, China, India, and Indonesia which begs protection from crime of genocide. This research method used is the juridical normative approach method. The research is conducted by analyzing the data gained from library studies and international conventions related to International Criminal Law. The specification of research is done by describing the related legislations associated with the legal theory and practice of implementing an object of research. The result of this research shows that the gender has similar characteristics exclusive groups as the protected groups under article 6 Rome Statute. What the result of that based on article 9 Rome Statute, amendment protected group is possible to do.  Keywords: Gender, Geno...

Th is paper examines the international order envisioned by Responsibility to Protect (R2P). With a heuristic tool it argues that particular international activities can be perceived as communal crime prevention eff orts against internationally condemned crimes. Second, it proposes how the R2P framework challenges the wider international order. For example, the full implementation of the world envisioned from within the R2P framework might require a signifi cant functional transformation of international law. R2P is not only a re-characterization of sovereignty as responsibility but an alternative world order.

Courts (iCourts). ‡ We are very grateful to Ioannis Panagis and Troels Kjeldbjerg Jessen, without whose competent assistance this article would not have been written. Thanks are also due to Amanda Potts who commented on and checked the early results of the corpus linguistic pilot study. Furthermore, we are grateful to the editors at the European Journal of Legal Studies, two anonymous reviewers for highly useful and probing comments, which have all helped improve this article, researchers at iCourts, members of the NoLesLaw network, and others with whom we have had enlightening discussions on the project throughout its development. European Journal of Legal Studies {Special Issue crimes, as well as forms of individual and superior responsibility', as the ICTR put it upon its closure.

Courts (iCourts). ‡ We are very grateful to Ioannis Panagis and Troels Kjeldbjerg Jessen, without whose competent assistance this article would not have been written. Thanks are also due to Amanda Potts who commented on and checked the early results of the corpus linguistic pilot study. Furthermore, we are grateful to the editors at the European Journal of Legal Studies, two anonymous reviewers for highly useful and probing comments, which have all helped improve this article, researchers at iCourts, members of the NoLesLaw network, and others with whom we have had enlightening discussions on the project throughout its development. European Journal of Legal Studies {Special Issue crimes, as well as forms of individual and superior responsibility', as the ICTR put it upon its closure.

This article traces the historical development of the term “genocide” and discusses how it evolved from a post-World War II concept into a key component of international criminal law. Dr. O’Brien outlines some of the legal challenges that attend several of the key terms in the generally accepted definition of genocide: ‘destroy’, ‘in part’, ‘groups’, ‘intent’, and so on. She then concludes with an important and politically nuanced point essential to understanding the politics and afterlife of the Rwanda genocide – the weight of the “g” word.

In this book chapter, Dojčinović focuses on the specific research and analytical project within the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the ICTY in the trial of Ratko Mladić, the Commander of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS). (For more, see: https://humanrights.uconn.edu/icty-digital-archive/#predrag) The analytical model designed and utilized throughout this trial is based on the specific speech acts and utterances identified in all categories of evidence indicating genocidal and persecutory intent of the Accused shared with other members of the joint criminal enterprise (JCE) at all levels. The chapter places strong emphasis on the semantic content of the utterances, the type of intent identified in the utterances, the effect they may have had on the principle perpetrators, as well as their relevance, probative value and modes of admissibility as a special category of evidence. Ultimately, the chapter demonstrates that international criminal proceedings have seen the emergence of a new type of key evidence: a cognitive, linguistic, contextually-determined manifestation of mens rea within a shared historical, political and cultural referential framework. Dojčinović argues that this emerging body of evidence requires a new set of rules and methods in international criminal proceedings, and a more comprehensive intellectual, scientifically-minded approach to the identification and interpretation of mental elements in mass atrocity crimes.

The concept of genocide is probably the most debated subject in Holocaust and genocide studies. The political implications to its usage, or resistance to do so, have also been lengthily discussed. Yet, when it came to the legal sphere of the concept it has been mostly descriptive, without much theorizing on the politicization of the convictions of genocide. This study investigates the relation between the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda application of the crime of genocide and how these judgements were informed. Through the court’s transcripts of a number of selected cases, the research will analyze the application qualitatively, identifying the key factors that determined its usage. The analyses rest on the legal and political aspects that influenced the chambers, evaluating which one explains best. The results indicate that there is no single explanation and that both legal and political reasonings merge in the international legal arena. The courts’ decisions have many inconsistencies that cannot be accounted by a solo description. Thus, matters of law interpretation, conflict’s ending, postcolonialism, and legitimacy all take a tool when convicting or acquitting someone for the crime of genocide.

This paper critically examines the Islamic State's annihilatory violence committed against the Êzîdîs in Iraq since 2014. It argues that the violence is a product of both Êzîdî marginality and the ideology of the Islamic State, which is grounded in its particular neo-historical iteration of Islam. Annihilatory violence is fundamental for the IS to actualize its iteration of the holy Qur'ān, the words and actions of the Islamic prophet, and historical events, dividing the world into binaries of the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War, or good and evil. It draws from anthropological research and interviews conducted by the authors with survivors and perpetrators in 2014 and 2016 to argue that the Islamic State's campaign against the Êzîdîs constitutes the subjective and objective elements of the crime of genocide.

The Srebrenica event during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina has become one of the most famous. It has also brought the first verdict of the criminal offense of genocide before the international body after the Second World War. The purpose of this paper is not to attempt relativization of facts or to answer the question of whether it was truly genocide in a subjective sense, but rather to comment on judicial practice in those essential segments related to dubious questions and theses. The purpose is, of course, to understand the issues in order to understand and classify other terrible events in the recent war or current or future conflicts and trials more easily and correctly.

the recent decision of the International Court of Justice in the case between Croatia and Serbia provides us with the opportunity to reassess the relationship between state and individual responsibility for international crimes. Although limited to the commission of acts of genocide, the judgment shows that the conceptual framework explaining such relationship is now well settled. However, the Court seems to reach solutions that at times are not entirely consistent with the premises of such conceptual scheme. The purpose of the following analysis is to test the general theoretical approach with respect to a number of issues dealt with by the Court in its recent decision.

Resumo: a recente decisão da Corte Internacional de Justiça no caso entre Croácia e Sérvia nos oferece a oportunidade de reavaliar a relação entre responsabilidade individual e estatal por crimes internacionais. Embora limitada ao cometimento de atos de genocídio, a sentença demonstra que o quadro conceitual explicando tal relação é ora bem definido. Contudo, a Corte parece chegar a conclusões que por vezes não são completamente consistentes com as premissas de tal quadro conceitual. O objetivo da análise é testar a abordagem teórica geral em relação a alguns problemas lidados pela Corte em sua recente decisão.

International Criminal Law attributes individual responsibility to perpetrators for atrocity crimes, presently these are identified as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It is therefore a paradox that a policy that deliberately violates both human life and dignity of a group is not directly criminalised under the law. Ethnic cleansing is recognised, diplomatically, politically and sociologically as an atrocity, yet it is neither explicitly identified under the atrocity crimes nor defined. Instead, it is mentioned in relation to all three crimes, but never in a context that captures the gravity of the policy in relation to the law and, in the case of genocide, the gravity of the crime in relation to the policy. Thus the present law does not do ethnic cleansing justice.

Wartime sexual violence against women has become a clearly visible and established issue of concern in the emerging international criminal apparatus. But what is it that we see when we make violence against women visible as an international criminal law issue? Are there limits to the strategy of seeing women, and the human rights abuses they suffer, within the work of war crimes tribunals? In this paper, I focus on the Yugoslav and Rwandan Tribunals as venues at which violence against women has been remarkably visible. I consider two decisions, Gacumbitsi and Krstić, one from each of the Tribunals, that reveal the ways in which sexual violence and inequality are both seen and unseen in the Tribunals' analyses. I focus, in particular, on the intersection of gender and ethnicity in the work of the Tribunals, and question if ethnicity may be emerging as a meta-narrative within which sexual violence against women materializes in constrained and limited ways.

2004 marks the tenth anniversary of both the start of the genocide in Rwanda and the establishment of the ICTR by the UN Security Council. In the past decade the ICTR has operated slowly but progressively, and it has delivered some insightful case law. Legal issues continue to arise, however, in the practice of the ICTR. This article considers some of these issues, namely the vagueness of the indictment, complicity in genocide, and the nexus requirement for war crimes. The overview shows that in various instances the ICTR has relied on pivotal case law of the ICTY. Moreover, it is demonstrated that, on occasion, the case law of the ICTR has been somewhat inconsistent. Nevertheless, the ICTR's case law is a next step in the building of a sound international criminal law system, and there will certainly be more opportunities for the ICTR to contribute. These contributions will only be worthwhile, however, if the ICTR's output continues to be of high quality.

Human history is plagued with acts of genocide. Whilst the brutality of the act remains the same throughout time the contexts and circumstances of its occurrence are ever changing. From the Genocide Convention onwards (as well as the current legal praxis and its incumbent jurisprudence) attacks on national, religious or ethnic groups have framed the surrounding debate. In the judicial processes for Rwanda and the Balkans the zealous protection of these groups has constantly rejected economic groups as part of the “protected groups” sanctioned in 1948. The present essay will argue that economic conditions in a country may lead to a “bureaucratic and administrative genocide” in which situations of extreme poverty are systematic attacks against the poor and vulnerable. Consequently a broader definition of “Group” is needed in order to encompass the socio–economic realities and inequalities of today in order to prevent the genocides of tomorrow.

While the Appeals Chambers of the International Criminal Court reversed the Pre-trial Chamber I"s decision not issue a warrant of arrest in respect of the crime genocide against President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan on the basis of existence of genocide intent, this article argues that the present definition of genocide is too narrow in scope. It excludes a significant category of victims groups, which undermines the prohibition of the crime of genocide. The crime of genocide ought to be redefined in order to protect all victim groups.

Uluslararası toplum, tarihinde ilk defa Ad Hoc Mahkemeler olarak kurulan mahkemeler aracılığıyla Soykırım Sözleşmesi hükümlerinin yorumlanması ve uygulanmasına tanıklık etmektedir. Şüphesiz ki, uluslararası ceza hukuku alanında soykırım suçunun unsurlarının ve kapsamının belirlenmesi bakımından, adı geçen mahkemelerin uygulamaları önemli bir yere sahiptir. Ad Hoc Mahkemelerin uygulamaları yanında, Uluslararası Adalet Divanı da Bosna Hersek devleti tarafından Sırbistan aleyhine açılan Soykırım Suçunun İşlenmesinin Önlenmesi ve Sorumlularının Cezalandırılması Sözleşmesinin Uygulanmasıyla İlgili Davada (Soykırım Davası), diğer birçok sorunun yanında, soykırım suçunun unsurlarıyla da ilgilenmek zorunda kalmıştır. Ancak, uluslararası ceza hukuku alanında bireysel cezai sorumluluğun tesisiyle görevli Ad Hoc Mahkemelerin, soykırım suçunu diğer uluslararası suçlardan ayırt etmeye yarayan ve suçun en önemli unsurunu oluşturan soykırım kastı olarak ifade edilen özel kasta yönelik görüşü, Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın yorum ve uygulamasından farklılık arz etmektedir. Uluslararası düzeyde faaliyet gösteren Ad Hoc Mahkemeler ile Uluslararası Adalet Divanı arasındaki bu farklı yorumlama ve uygulama nasıl açıklanabilir? İçtihat birlikteliği? Ya da İhtilaf?