Genocide

Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group. Well-known examples of genocide include the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and more recently the Rwandan genocide.

Etymology

Raphael Lemkin, in his work Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944), coined the term "genocide" by combining Greek genos (γένος), "race, people" and Latin cīdere "to kill".^[1]

Lemkin defined genocide as follows:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

The preamble to the Genocide Convention ("CPPCG") notes that instances of genocide have taken place throughout history,^[2] but it was not until Lemkin coined the term and the prosecution of perpetrators of the Holocaust at the Nuremberg trials that the United Nations defined the crime of genocide under international law in the Genocide Convention.

During an interview with Lemkin, the interviewer asked him about how he came to be interested in this genocide. He replied: "I became interested in genocide because it happened so many times. It happened to the Armenians, then after the Armenians, Hitler took action."^[3][4]

Lemkin was also a close relative of genocide victims, losing 49 relatives in the Holocaust. However, his work on defining genocide as a crime dates to 1933, and it was prompted by the Simele massacre in Iraq.^[5]

Genocide as a crime

International law

Buchenwald concentration camp was not an extermination camp, though it was responsible for a vast number of deaths

After the Holocaust, which had been perpetrated by the Nazi Germany and its allies prior to and during World War II, Lemkin successfully campaigned for the universal acceptance of international laws defining and forbidding genocide. In 1946, the first session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that "affirmed" that genocide was a crime under international law, but did not provide a legal definition of the crime. In 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) which defined the crime of genocide for the first time.^[6]

The CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)). It contains an internationally recognized definition of genocide which has been incorporated into the national criminal legislation of many countries, and was also adopted by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC). Article II of the Convention defines genocide as:

The first draft of the Convention included political killings, but these provisions were removed in a political and diplomatic compromise following objections from some countries, including the USSR, a permanent security council member.^[7][8] The USSR argued that the Convention's definition should follow the etymology of the term,^[8] and may have feared greater international scrutiny of its own Great Purge.^[7] Other nations feared that including political groups in the definition would invite international intervention in domestic politics.^[8]

The convention's purpose and scope was later described by the United Nations Security Council as follows:

Specific provisions

"Intent to destroy"

In 2007 the ^[12]

In the same judgement the ECHR reviewed the judgements of several international and municipal courts judgements. It noted that International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice had agreed with the narrow interpretation, that biological-physical destruction was necessary for an act to qualify as genocide. The ECHR also noted that at the time of its judgement, apart from courts in Germany which had taken a broad view, that there had been few cases of genocide under other Convention States municipal laws and that "There are no reported cases in which the courts of these States have defined the type of group destruction the perpetrator must have intended in order to be found guilty of genocide".^[13]

"In part"

The phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law.^[14] The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Trial Chamber I – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001)^[15] that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Appeals Chamber – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004)^[16] paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 addressed the issue of in part and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." The Appeals Chamber goes into details of other cases and the opinions of respected commentators on the Genocide Convention to explain how they came to this conclusion.

The judges continue in paragraph 12, "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."^[17][18]

In paragraph 13 the judges raise the issue of the perpetrators' access to the victims: "The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. ... The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can—in combination with other factors—inform the analysis."^[16]

CPPCG coming into force

The Convention came into force as international law on 12 January 1951 after the minimum 20 countries became parties. At that time, however, only two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council were parties to the treaty: France and the Republic of China. The Soviet Union ratified in 1954, the United Kingdom in 1970, the People's Republic of China in 1983 (having replaced the Taiwan-based Republic of China on the UNSC in 1971), and the United States in 1988. This long delay in support for the Convention by the world's most powerful nations caused the Convention to languish for over four decades. Only in the 1990s did the international law on the crime of genocide begin to be enforced.

UN Security Council on genocide

UN Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 28 April 2006, "reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity".^[19] The resolution committed the Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict.^[20]

In 2008 the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1820, which noted that "rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act with respect to genocide".^[21]

Municipal law

Since the Convention came into effect in January 1951 about 80 United Nations member states have passed legislation that incorporates the provisions of CPPCG into their municipal law.^[22]

Criticisms of the CPPCG and other definitions of genocide

William Schabas has suggested that a permanent body as recommended by the Whitaker Report to monitor the implementation of the Genocide Convention, and require States to issue reports on their compliance with the convention (such as were incorporated into the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture), would make the convention more effective.^[23]

Writing in 1998 Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Björnson stated that the CPPCG was a legal instrument resulting from a diplomatic compromise. As such the wording of the treaty is not intended to be a definition suitable as a research tool, and although it is used for this purpose, as it has an international legal credibility that others lack, other definitions have also been postulated. Jonassohn and Björnson go on to say that none of these alternative definitions have gained widespread support for various reasons.^[24]

Jonassohn and Björnson postulate that the major reason why no single generally accepted genocide definition has emerged is because academics have adjusted their focus to emphasise different periods and have found it expedient to use slightly different definitions to help them interpret events. For example Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn studied the whole of human history, while Leo Kuper and R. J. Rummel in their more recent works concentrated on the 20th century, and Helen Fein, Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr have looked at post World War II events. Jonassohn and Björnson are critical of some of these studies, arguing that they are too expansive, and conclude that the academic discipline of genocide studies is too young to have a canon of work on which to build an academic paradigm.^[24]

The exclusion of social and political groups as targets of genocide in the CPPCG legal definition has been criticized by some historians and sociologists, for example M. Hassan Kakar in his book The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979–1982^[25] argues that the international definition of genocide is too restricted,^[26] and that it should include political groups or any group so defined by the perpetrator and quotes Chalk and Jonassohn: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator."^[27] While there are various definitions of the term, Adam Jones states that the majority of genocide scholars consider that "intent to destroy" is a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide, and that there is growing agreement on the inclusion of the physical destruction criterion.^[28]

Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr defined genocide as "the promotion and execution of policies by a state or its agents which result in the deaths of a substantial portion of a group ...[when] the victimized groups are defined primarily in terms of their communal characteristics, i.e., ethnicity, religion or nationality."^[29] Harff and Gurr also differentiate between genocides and politicides by the characteristics by which members of a group are identified by the state. In genocides, the victimized groups are defined primarily in terms of their communal characteristics, i.e., ethnicity, religion or nationality. In politicides the victim groups are defined primarily in terms of their hierarchical position or political opposition to the regime and dominant groups.^[30][31] Daniel D. Polsby and Don B. Kates, Jr. state that "... we follow Harff's distinction between genocides and 'pogroms,' which she describes as 'short-lived outbursts by mobs, which, although often condoned by authorities, rarely persist.' If the violence persists for long enough, however, Harff argues, the distinction between condonation and complicity collapses."^[32][33]

According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes non-killings that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder. It is to avoid confusion regarding what meaning is intended that Rummel created the term democide for the third meaning.^[34]

Highlighting the potential for state and non-state actors to commit genocide in the 21st century, for example, in failed states or as non-state actors acquire weapons of mass destruction, Adrian Gallagher defined genocide as 'When a source of collective power (usually a state) intentionally uses its power base to implement a process of destruction in order to destroy a group (as defined by the perpetrator), in whole or in substantial part, dependent upon relative group size'.^[35] The definition upholds the centrality of intent, the multidimensional understanding of destroy, broadens the definition of group identity beyond that of the 1948 definition yet argues that a substantial part of a group has to be destroyed before it can be classified as genocide (dependent on relative group size).

A major criticism of the international community's response to the Rwandan Genocide was that it was reactive, not proactive. The international community has developed a mechanism for prosecuting the perpetrators of genocide but has not developed the will or the mechanisms for intervening in a genocide as it happens. Critics point to the Darfur conflict and suggest that if anyone is found guilty of genocide after the conflict either by prosecutions brought in the International Criminal Court or in an ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal, this will confirm this perception.

International prosecution of genocide

By ad hoc tribunals

Nuon Chea, the Khmer Rouge's chief ideologist, before the Cambodian Genocide Tribunal on 5 December 2011.

All signatories to the CPPCG are required to prevent and punish acts of genocide, both in peace and wartime, though some barriers make this enforcement difficult. In particular, some of the signatories—namely, Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, Yemen, and former Yugoslavia—signed with the proviso that no claim of genocide could be brought against them at the International Court of Justice without their consent.^[36] Despite official protests from other signatories (notably Cyprus and Norway) on the ethics and legal standing of these reservations, the immunity from prosecution they grant has been invoked from time to time, as when the United States refused to allow a charge of genocide brought against it by former Yugoslavia following the 1999 Kosovo War.^[37]

It is commonly accepted that, at least since World War II, genocide has been illegal under customary international law as a peremptory norm, as well as under conventional international law. Acts of genocide are generally difficult to establish for prosecution, because a chain of accountability must be established. International criminal courts and tribunals function primarily because the states involved are incapable or unwilling to prosecute crimes of this magnitude themselves.

Nuremberg Tribunal (1945–1946)

Because the universal acceptance of international laws, defining and forbidding genocide was achieved in 1948, with the promulgation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), those criminals who were prosecuted after the war in international courts, for taking part in the Holocaust were found guilty of crimes against humanity and other more specific crimes like murder. Nevertheless the Holocaust is universally recognized to have been a genocide and the term, that had been coined the year before by Raphael Lemkin,^[38] appeared in the indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders, Count 3, which stated that all the defendants had "conducted deliberate and systematic genocide—namely, the extermination of racial and national groups..."^[39]

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (1993 to present)

The cemetery at the Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial and Cemetery to Genocide Victims

A boy at a grave during the 2006 funeral of genocide victims

The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995,^[40] or to ethnic cleansing that took place during the 1992–1995 Bosnian War.^[41]

In 2001, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) judged that the 1995 Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide.^[42]

On 26 February 2007, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Bosnian Genocide Case upheld the ICTY's earlier finding that the Srebrenica massacre in Srebrenica and Zepa constituted genocide, but found that the Serbian government had not participated in a wider genocide on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war, as the Bosnian government had claimed.^[43]

On 12 July 2007,

Extinction Phenomena Background extinction rate Coextinction Ecological extinction Extinction debt Genetic pollution Lazarus taxon Local extinction Pseudoextinction Models Extinction vortex Causes Genetic erosion Habitat destruction Human overpopulation Muller's ratchet Mutational meltdown Overexploitation Theories and concepts De-extinction Hypothetical species Extinction risk from global warming Extinction events Timeline of extinctions Cretaceous–Paleogene Triassic–Jurassic Permian–Triassic Late Devonian Ordovician–Silurian Holocene Quaternary Extinct species Lists of extinct species List of extinct plants IUCN Red List extinct species Organizations International Union for Conservation of Nature IUCN Species Survival Commission Portal

Racism History of racism Racial Equality Proposal Civil rights movement Apartheid in South Africa Racist ideologies Aryanism Black supremacy Discrimination Kahanism Malay supremacy Nazism Neo-Nazism Sinocentrism White supremacy Acts of racism Crime of apartheid Hate group Hate speech Institutional racism Interminority racism Racial segregation Scientific racism Segregation academy Slavery State racism Racial violence Ethnic cleansing Genocide Hate crime Lynching Race war Racism against groups Anglophobia Anti-Arabism Anti-Armenianism Anti-Australian sentiment Anti-British sentiment Anti-Chinese sentiment Anti-Filipino sentiment Anti-German sentiment Anti-Iranian sentiment Anti-Irish sentiment Anti-Italianism Anti-Japanese sentiment Anti-Korean sentiment Anti-Mexican sentiment Anti-Pakistan sentiment Anti-Pashtun sentiment Anti-Polish sentiment Anti-Quebec sentiment Racial antisemitism Anti-Romanian sentiment Anti-Slavism Anti-Turkism Anti-Ukrainian sentiment Antiziganism Francophobia Hispanophobia Indophobia Lusophobia Russophobia Xenophobia Racist groups Heathen Front Kach and Kahane Chai Ku Klux Klan Aryan Nations National Party of South Africa New Black Panther Party Nation of Islam Zaitokukai Hamas Hezbollah SPLC list Racism by region Africa Arab world Asia Europe Middle East Anti-racist groups and movements Anti-Defamation League Anti-Fascist Action Anti-racism Civil rights movement Diversity/Multiculturalism Fighting Discrimination/Human Rights First National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Searchlight Southern Poverty Law Center

• Goldhagen, Daniel (14 April 2010). "Genocide: Worse Than War". PBS. 
• Ethnocide by Barbara Lukunka in the encyclopedia of mass violence
• GenocideDefining the Terms: at Yad Vashem website
• Genocide and Democide

External links

• Centre for the Study of Genocide and Mass Violence, Sheffield, United Kingdom
• Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
• Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota
• Genocide Studies Program, Yale University
• GenoDynamics: Understanding Genocide Through Time and Space by Christian Davenport (Kroc Institute – University of Notre Dame) and Allan Stlam (University of Michigan)
• Montreal Institute for Genocide Studies, Concordia University
• Minorities at Risk project at the University of Maryland
• The Inforce Foundation (International Forensic Centre of Excellence), UK
• Foundation for the International Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities, Hungary
• Master of Arts in Holocaust & Genocide, The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey

Research programs

• Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation
• USA for UNHCR Web site

Resources

• Institute for the Study of Genocide/International Association of Genocide Scholars
• Genocide Intervention Network
• OneWorld Perspectives Magazine: Preventing Genocide (April/May 2006)- global human rights and development network looks at genocide from a variety of perspectives
• Committee on Conscience of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum; Responding to Threats of Genocide
• Staff, The Crime of Genocide in Domestic Laws and Penal Codes, Prevent Genocide International
• Voices of the Holocaust—a learning resource at the British Library
• Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide at Law-Ref.org—fully indexed and crosslinked with other documents
• Documents and Resources on War, War Crimes and Genocide
• International Network of Genocide Scholars (INoGS)
• Genocide Watch at the Wayback Machine (archived June 18, 2007) stages of genocide
• Genocide & Crimes Against Humanity—a learning resource, highlighting the cases of Myanmar, Bosnia, the DRC, and Darfur
• Whitaker Report

Overviews

• Andreopoulos, George J., ed. (1994). Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Dimensions. University of Pennsylvania Press.  
• Ball, P., P. Kobrak, and H. Spirer (1999). State Violence in Guatemala, 1960–1996: A Quantitative Reflection. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
• Bloxham, Donald & Moses, A. Dirk [editors]: The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies. [Interdisciplinary Contributions about Past & Present Genocides]. Oxford University Press, second edition 2013. ISBN 978-0-19-967791-7
• Chalk, Frank; Kurt Jonassohn (1990). The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies. Yale University Press.  
•  
• Conversi, Daniele (2005). "Genocide, ethnic cleansing, and nationalism". In Gerard Delanty, Krishan Kumar (eds). Handbook of Nations and Nationalism. vol. 1. London: Sage Publications. pp. 319–333.  
• Corradi, Juan, Patricia Weiss Fagen, and Manuel Antonio Garreton, eds. 1992. Fear at the Edge: State Terror and Resistance in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Elliot, G. (1972). Twentieth Century Book of the Dead. New York, C. Scribner.
•  
• Harff, Barbara (August 2003). Early Warning of Communal Conflict and Genocide: Linking Empirical Research to International Responses. Westview Press.  
•  
•  
• Horvitz, Leslie Alan; Catherwood, Christopher (2011). Encyclopedia of War Crimes & Genocide (Hardcover) 2 (Revised ed.). New York: Facts on File.   ISBN 0816080836
• Jonassohn, Kurt; Karin Björnson (1998). Genocide and Gross Human Rights Violations. Transaction Publishers.  
•  
• Kelly, Michael J. (2005). Nowhere to Hide: Defeat of the Sovereign Immunity Defense for Crimes of Genocide & the Trials of Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. Peter Lang.  
•  
• Laban, Alexander (2002). Genocide: An Anthropological Reader. Blackwell Publishing.  
•  
• Levene, M. (2005). Genocide in the Age of the Nation State. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
•  
• Lewy, Guenter (2012). Essays on Genocide and Humanitarian Intervention. University of Utah Press. ISBN 978-1-60781-168-8.
• Mamdani, M. (2001). When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press.
•  
•  
• Rotberg, Robert I.; Thomas G. Weiss (1996). From Massacres to Genocide: The Media, Public Policy, and Humanitarian Crises. Brookings Institution Press.  
•  
• Sagall, Sabby (2013). Final Solutions: Human Nature, Capitalism and Genocide. Pluto Press. p. 309.  
•  
• Schmid, A. P. (1991). Repression, State Terrorism, and Genocide: Conceptual Clarifications. State Organized Terror: The Case of Violent Internal Repression. P. T. Bushnell. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. 312 p.
• Shaw, Martin (2007). What is Genocide?. Cambridge: Polity Press.  
• . New York: Cambridge University Press. 978-0521-42214-7The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violenceStaub, Ervin (1989).
• . New York: Oxford University Press. 978-0-19-538204-4Overcoming Evil: Genocide, violent conflict and terrorismStaub, Ervin (2011).
•  
• Sunga, Lyal S. (1992). Individual Responsibility in International Law for Serious Human Rights Violations. Springer.  
• Tams, Christian J.; Berster, Lars; Schiffbauer, Björn (2014). Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: A Commentary. Munich: C.H. Beck. ISBN 978-3-406-60317-4.
• Totten, Samuel; William S. Parsons, and  
• Valentino, Benjamin A. (2004). Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century.  
• Van den Berghe, P. L. (1990). State Violence and Ethnicity. Niwot, Colo., University of Colorado Press.
• Weitz, Eric D. (2003). A Century of Genocide: Utopias of Race and Nation.  
• "Preventing Genocide and Mass Killing: The Challenge for the United Nations" (PDF). Archived from the original on 3 July 2007.  PDF (366 KB), report by Minority Rights Group International, 2006

Books

• The Genocide in Darfur is Not What It Seems Christian Science Monitor
• (in Spanish) Aizenstatd, Najman Alexander. "Origen y Evolución del Concepto de Genocidio". Vol. 25 Revista de Derecho de la Universidad Francisco Marroquín 11 (2007). ISSN 1562-2576 [2]
• No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder since 1955 American Political Science Review. Vol. 97, No. 1. February 2003.
• Harff, B. and T. R. Gurr (1988). "Toward Empirical Theory of Genocides and Politicides: Identification and Measurement of Cases since 1945." International Studies Quarterly 32: 359–371.
• (in Spanish) Marco, Jorge. "Genocidio y Genocide Studies: Definiciones y debates", en: Aróstegui, Julio, Marco, Jorge y Gómez Bravo, Gutmaro (coord.): "De Genocidios, Holocaustos, Exterminios...", Hispania Nova, 10 (2012). Véase [3]
• What Really Happened in Rwanda? Christian Davenport and Allan C. Stam.
• Reyntjens, F. (2004). "Rwanda, Ten Years On: From Genocide to Dictatorship." African Affairs 103(411): 177–210.
• Brysk, Alison. 1994. "The Politics of Measurement: The Contested Count of the Disappeared in Argentina." Human Rights Quarterly 16: 676–92.
• Davenport, C. and P. Ball (2002). "Views to a Kill: Exploring the Implications of Source Selection in the Case of Guatemalan State Terror, 1977–1996." Journal of Conflict Resolution 46(3): 427–450.
• Krain, M. (1997). "State-Sponsored Mass Murder: A Study of the Onset and Severity of Genocides and Politicides." Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(3): 331–360.

Articles

Further reading

• Kakar, M. Hassan. Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979–1982. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. ISBN 0-520-08591-4.
• Lemkin, Raphael (1944). Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation – Analysis of Government – Proposals for Redress. Washington, D.C:  

References

Notes

• The Center for the Study of Genocide, Conflict Resolution, and Human Rights
• International Association of Genocide Scholars

Research

• Autogenocide
• Countervalue
• Crimes against humanity
• Ethnic cleansing
• Forensic osteology
• Gendercide
• Holodomor
• Infanticide
• List of genocides
• Local extinction
• Mass murder
• Genocidal rape
• Policide
• Social cleansing
• Utilitarian genocide

See also

Other authors have focused on the structural conditions leading up to genocide and the psychological and social processes that create an evolution toward genocide. authoritarian cultures and political systems, and the passivity of internal and external witnesses (bystanders) all contribute to the probability that the violence develops into genocide.^[84] Intense conflict between groups that is unresolved, becomes intractable and violent can also lead to genocide. The conditions that lead to genocide provide guidance to early prevention, such as humanizing a devalued group,creating ideologies that embrace all groups, and activating bystander responses. There is substantial research to indicate how this can be done, but information is only slowly transformed into action.^[85]

In a paper for the Social Science Research Council Dirk Moses criticises the Stanton approach concluding:

In April 2012, it was reported that Stanton would soon be officially adding two new stages, Discrimination and Persecution, to his original theory, which would make for a 10-stage theory of genocide.^[81]

The Stanton paper was presented to the State Department, shortly after the Rwandan Genocide and much of its analysis is based on why that genocide occurred. The preventative measures suggested, given the briefing paper's original target audience, were those that the United States could implement directly or indirectly by using its influence on other governments.

In 1996 Gregory Stanton, the president of Genocide Watch, presented a briefing paper called "The 8 Stages of Genocide" at the United States Department of State.^[79] In it he suggested that genocide develops in eight stages that are "predictable but not inexorable".^[79][80]

Stages of genocide, influences leading to genocide, and efforts to prevent it

Revisionist attempts to challenge or affirm claims of genocide are illegal in some countries. For example, several European countries ban denying the Holocaust, while in Turkey it is illegal to refer to mass killings of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians by the Ottoman Empire toward the end of the First World War as a genocide.^[74]

In many cases where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans have fiercely disputed such an interpretation and the details of the event. This often leads to the promotion of vastly different versions of the event in question.

The preamble to the CPPCG states that "genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world," and that "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity."

Naked Soviet POWs in Mauthausen concentration camp. "... the murder of at least 3.3 million Soviet POWs is one of the least-known of modern genocides; there is still no full-length book on the subject in English." —Adam Jones^[73]

Genocide in history

On 4 March 2009, the ICC issued a warrant of arrest for Omar Al Bashir, President of Sudan as the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I concluded that his position as head of state does not grant him immunity against prosecution before the ICC. The warrant was for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It did not include the crime of genocide because the majority of the Chamber did not find that the prosecutors had provided enough evidence to include such a charge.^[72]

On 14 July 2008, prosecutors at the International Criminal Court (ICC), filed ten charges of war crimes against Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir: three counts of genocide, five of crimes against humanity and two of murder. The ICC's prosecutors claimed that al-Bashir "masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part" three tribal groups in Darfur because of their ethnicity.

In April 2007, the Judges of the ICC issued arrest warrants against the former Minister of State for the Interior, Ahmad Harun, and a Militia Janjaweed leader, Ali Kushayb, for crimes against humanity and war crimes.^[71]

In March 2005, the Security Council formally referred the situation in Darfur to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, taking into account the Commission report but without mentioning any specific crimes.^[68] Two permanent members of the Security Council, the United States and China, abstained from the vote on the referral resolution.^[69] As of his fourth report to the Security Council, the Prosecutor has found "reasonable grounds to believe that the individuals identified [in the UN Security Council Resolution 1593] have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes," but did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute for genocide.^[70]

There has been much debate over categorizing the situation in Darfur as genocide.^[65] The on-going conflict in [67]

A mother with her sick baby at Abu Shouk IDP camp in North Darfur

Darfur, Sudan

Since 2002, the International Criminal Court can exercise its jurisdiction if national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute genocide, thus being a "court of last resort," leaving the primary responsibility to exercise jurisdiction over alleged criminals to individual states. Due to the United States concerns over the ICC, the United States prefers to continue to use specially convened international tribunals for such investigations and potential prosecutions.^[64]

By the International Criminal Court

There has been disagreement between some of the international jurists and the Cambodian government over whether any other people should be tried by the Tribunal.^[58]

• Kang Kek Iew was formally charged with war crime and crimes against humanity and detained by the Tribunal on 31 July 2007. He was indicted on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity on 12 August 2008.^[59] His appeal against his conviction for war crimes and crimes against humanity was rejected on 3 February 2012, and he is serving a sentence of life imprisonment.^[60]
• Nuon Chea, a former prime minister, who was indicted on charges of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and several other crimes under Cambodian law on 15 September 2010. He was transferred into the custody of the ECCC on 19 September 2007. His trial, which is ongoing, started on 27 June 2011.^[61][62]
• Khieu Samphan, a former head of state, who was indicted on charges of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and several other crimes under Cambodian law on 15 September 2010. He was transferred into the custody of the ECCC on 19 September 2007. His trial, which is ongoing, started on 27 June 2011.^[61][62]
• Ieng Sary, a former foreign minister, who was indicted on charges of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and several other crimes under Cambodian law on 15 September 2010. He was transferred into the custody of the ECCC on 12 November 2007. His trial, which is ongoing, started on 27 June 2011.^[61][62]
• Ieng Thirith, a former minister for social affairs and wife of Ieng Sary, who was indicted on charges of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and several other crimes under Cambodian law on 15 September 2010. She was transferred into the custody of the ECCC on 12 November 2007. Proceedings against her have been suspended pending a health evaluation.^[62][63]

The investigating judges were presented with the names of five possible suspects by the prosecution on 18 July 2007.^[53][58]

The genocide charges related to killings of Cambodia's Vietnamese and Cham minorities, which is estimated to make up tens of thousand killings and possibly more^[56][57]

On 6 June 2003 the Cambodian government and the United Nations reached an agreement to set up the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) which would focus exclusively on crimes committed by the most senior Khmer Rouge officials during the period of Khmer Rouge rule of 1975–1979.^[52] The judges were sworn in early July 2006.^[53][54][55]

The Cambodians between 1975–1979, including deaths from slave labour.^[51]

Skulls in the Choeung Ek.

Rooms of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum contain thousands of photos taken by the Khmer Rouge of their victims.

Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (2003 to present)

So far, the ICTR has finished nineteen trials and convicted twenty seven accused persons. On 14 December 2009 two more men were accused and convicted for their crimes. Another twenty five persons are still on trial. Twenty-one are awaiting trial in detention, two more added on 14 December 2009. Ten are still at large.^[50] The first trial, of Jean-Paul Akayesu, began in 1997. In October 1998, Akayesu was sentenced to life imprisonment. Jean Kambanda, interim Prime Minister, pled guilty.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is a court under the auspices of the United Nations for the prosecution of offenses committed in Rwanda during the genocide which occurred there during April 1994, commencing on 6 April. The ICTR was created on 8 November 1994 by the Security Council of the United Nations in order to judge those people responsible for the acts of genocide and other serious violations of the international law performed in the territory of Rwanda, or by Rwandan citizens in nearby states, between 1 January and 31 December 1994.

Rwandan Genocide Victims

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (1994 to present)

Slobodan Milošević, as the former President of Serbia and of Yugoslavia, was the most senior political figure to stand trial at the ICTY. He died on 11 March 2006 during his trial where he was accused of genocide or complicity in genocide in territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina, so no verdict was returned. In 1995, the ICTY issued a warrant for the arrest of Bosnian Serbs Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić on several charges including genocide. On 21 July 2008, Karadžić was arrested in Belgrade, and he is currently in The Hague on trial accused of genocide among other crimes.^[48] Ratko Mladić was arrested on 26 May 2011 by Serbian special police in Lazarevo, Serbia.^[49]

About 30 people have been indicted for participating in genocide or complicity in genocide during the early 1990s in European Court of Human Rights. A further eight men, former members of the Bosnian Serb security forces were found guilty of genocide by the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (See List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions).

^[47], in the way in which it was carried out by the Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to expel Muslims and Croats from their homes, did not constitute genocide. However, there are also a considerable number of scholars who have suggested that these acts did amount to genocide, and the ICTY has found in the Momcilo Krajisnik case that the actus reu, of genocide was met in Prijedor "With regard to the charge of genocide, the Chamber found that in spite of evidence of acts perpetrated in the municipalities which constituted the actus reus of genocide".ethnic cleansing The ECHR also noted that in the 21st century "Amongst scholars, the majority have taken the view that ^[46][45][44]