Question 1

What is the definition of ‘genocide’?

Accepted Answer

The term “genocide” was coined by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944, in part to describe the Nazis’ systematic murder of Jews during the Holocaust. The Genocide Convention of 1948 codified genocide as an international crime, defining it as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Those acts include killings, inflicting serious harm on a group, making its living conditions impossible, preventing births within the group or forcibly transferring children to another group. Under the convention, which was signed after the Holocaust, ratifying parties agreed to “prevent and to punish” genocide wherever it occurred; 153 member states of the United Nations have either ratified or acceded to the convention, while 41 have not. Past genocides include the killing of more than 800,000 people — primarily Tutsis, but also moderate Hutus — in Rwanda by Hutu extremists in 1994, the massacre of Bosnian Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica in 1995, and the forced displacement of and attacks on ethnic groups by Sudanese forces and militias in the Darfur region in the early 2000s. In a genocide, as opposed to crimes against humanity or war crimes, “there has to be an intention to destroy an ethnic or a national group,” said Amichai Cohen, a law professor at the Ono Academic College in Israel.

Question 2

How do courts handle genocide cases?

Accepted Answer

Article 6 of the convention states that genocide is a crime under international law and should be tried under a “competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal.” The convention names the ICJ as the body to decide such allegations brought by states against states. It is the main judicial body of the United Nations. Founded after World War II to settle disputes among countries, it is empowered by the Genocide Convention to try the crime, but has done so only rarely over eight decades. The only way to enforce an ICJ order is through a vote of the U.N. Security Council. Any of the council’s five permanent members, including the United States, could veto any such measure. Additionally, while the court’s rulings are legally binding, they are not always enforced. Russia refused to comply with a 2022 order to cease its war against Ukraine. The International Criminal Court, a newer international body that was set up to try individuals accused of the most serious international crimes, also can take up genocide cases. Like the ICJ, it is also based in The Hague. Last year, judges for the ICC issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and another top Russian official on charges related to the transfer of Ukrainian children, a crime that could count as genocide under the convention. However, the ICC does not try the accused in absentia, which has limited its ability to go after top individuals. Among U.N. members states, 123 are party to the court. Israel and the United States do not recognize its authority.

Question 3

How hard is genocide to prosecute?

Accepted Answer

Genocide is often viewed as the ultimate crime, even though it holds the same weight under international law as war crimes and crimes against humanity, experts said. But prosecuting it can be especially difficult. According to the U.N. Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, proving intent is the “most difficult” part of any genocide case. “To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group,” it said. The bar for proving that a genocide has occurred is “so high,” said Cohen, the law professor. The ICJ has previously said that crimes that may be abhorrent, such as those constituting ethnic cleansing, do not automatically fall under the definition of genocide, he added. A. Dirk Moses, an expert on genocide at the City College of New York, said the legal definition of genocide “is extremely stringent and narrow” and added that he is “skeptical” it can be “a tool for recourse for those that are suffering mass violence.” The definition was set “not by the victims but by states, to ensure that the law cannot be used against them in meeting or confronting security threats,” he said.

What qualifies as genocide? Breaking down the ICJ case against Israel.