Genocide. The crime of genocide has featured in Assembly debates and resolutions, although its record has been inconsistent and controversial.659 Member States had levied allegations against other Members during earlier Assembly sessions – against the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1959 and Iraq in 1963 respectively - without it resulting in any substantive discussion or consideration.660 The implication of genocide – without using the phrase itself - can be seen in Resolution 1819 (XVII) (1962) on Angola, condemning the ‘mass extermination of the indigenous population’ by the Portuguese colonial authorities. 661 Portugal referred to this statement as a ‘grossly unjust allegation’, the ‘product of a fertile imagination’ and seduced by the ‘cult of slogans’.662 Brazil also opposed the resolution because the language used (including, ‘suppression’) ‘suggests the idea of genocide’ and it would be better that the ‘door to a solution should not be closed’.663 Here was an early indication, from the perspective of one of its Member States, of the possibility that the imperatives of ‘peace’ and ‘justice’ can come into conflict in the Assembly; here Brazil’s preference, as they saw it, was to keep dialogue alive rather than foreclosing this possibility through the use of what they regarded to be polarising language with genocidal connotations. In actuality, there was no further discussion in the explanations of vote on the ‘mass extermination’ reference and the evidence that it was based upon. Rather, what dominated discussions was the competence of the Assembly to recommend 657 See eg UNGA Res 54/179 (1999), [2] (violations in the ‘eastern parts’ of the DRC); UNGA Res 49/199 (1994), [11] (‘massacre of approximately fifty villagers in Battambang Province in October 1994’); UNGA Res 40/161 E (1985), [1] (expelling the mayor of a town in the Israeli-occupied territories). 658 UNGA Res 1312 (XIII) (1958), [5] (Hungary). 659 Although its record has been criticised as inconsistent: Paola Gaeta, The UN Genocide Convention: A Commentary (OUP 2009), 538; Antonio Cassese, Violence and the Modern Age (Polity 1988), 76-77. 660 On allegations that the PRC had committed genocide: UNGA, Fourteenth session, 833rd plenary meeting (21 October 1959) UN Doc A/PV.833, [8] (El Salvador), [28] (Netherlands); UNGA, Fourteenth session, 831st plenary meeting (20 October 1959) UN Doc A/PV.831, [13] (Malaya), [126] (Cuba); UNGA, Fourteenth session, 812th plenary meeting (20 September 1959) UN Doc...
Genocide. Genocide is a crime that consists of one or more of several prohibited underlying acts targeting members of a group,291 committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a 287 United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 37/7, A/RES/37/7, 28 October 1982, Annex: World Charter for Nature, Preamble (“Reaffirming that man must acquire the knowledge to maintain and enhance his ability to use natural resources in a manner which ensures the preservation of the species and ecosystems for the benefit of present and future generations…”). See also UNGA Resolution 69/314 (“Reaffirming the intrinsic value of biological diversity and its various contributions to sustainable development and human well-being, and recognizing that wild fauna and flora in their many beautiful and varied forms are an irreplaceable part of the natural systems of the Earth which must be protected for this and the generations to come…”). 288 World Heritage Convention 1972, article 4. 289 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 8 July 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226 (“ICJ Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (1996)”). 290 See Xxxxxxxxxx Commission, World Commission on Environment and Development 1990, Our Common Future, Australian edn, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, p.85 (“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”). 291 The underlying acts listed in the Genocide Convention, article 3 are: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.292 ICTR judgements have called genocide “the crime of crimes”,293 and at the ICTY it has been noted that genocide is “singled out for special condemnation and opprobrium” as it xxxxx all of humanity.294 While genocide is clearly anthropocentric in a broad sense, as it concerns the suffering of groups of human beings, it could more precisely be labeled as genus-centric, because the core value that it seeks to protect is the existence of groups of people, rather than specific individuals.295 Direct evidence of genocidal intent is rare. Instead, this specific intent (d...
Genocide. The NMTs have had little impact on the modern crime of genocide, most likely because the judgments dealt with genocide as a crime against humanity in a rather cursory manner. The international community was also negotiating the terms of the Genocide Convention at the same time as the trials were being held. That said, the Justice case represents the first example of a trial in which defendants were specifically convicted of genocide – a symbolically important development. The ICTR Appeals Chamber also rightly cited Justice in Rwamakuba for the idea that genocide “was treated as a crime under customary international law” during World War II.118
Genocide. 1. The International Tribunal for Rwanda shall have the power to pros- ecute persons committing genocide as defined in paragraph 2 of this article or of committing any of the other acts enumerated in para- graph 3 of this article.
Genocide. Mass killing of particular group - As a result of genocide in the small nation , thousands of children have now become homeless orphans.
Genocide. The concept of genocide was first mentioned in Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx‟s opening argument in the Medical case. At this point in the trials, genocide had no legal function; Xxxxxx simply used the term to describe the Nazis‟ systematic persecution of various groups: Mankind has not heretofore felt the need of a word to denominate the science of how to kill prisoners most rapidly and subjugated people in large numbers. This case and these defendants have created this gruesome question for the lexicographer. For the moment we will xxxxxxxx this macabre science "thanatology," the 96 Ministries, Prosecution Argument, XIII TWC 100. 97 Ministries, XIV TWC 556-57. Judge Xxxxxx dissented from the majority’s legal conclusion, agreeing with the Flick and Farben tribunals that “[a] persecution… must involve some act of violence against the person of the persecuted.” Id. at 917, Powers Dissent. 98 Xxxx, V TWC 977-78. 99 Flick, VI TWC 1214. 100 Xxxx, V TWC 977. 101 RuSHA, V TWC 96. 102 Ministries, XIV TWC 677-78. science of producing death. The thanatological knowledge, derived in part from these experiments, supplied the techniques for genocide, a policy of the Third Xxxxx, exemplified in the "euthanasia" program and in the widespread xxxxxxxxx of Jews, gypsies, Poles, and Russians.103 The OCC did not rely on genocide as a legal concept until Case No. 8 – RuSHA. Count 1 of the RuSHA indictment, concerning crimes against humanity, alleged that “[t]he acts, conduct, plans and enterprises charged in paragraph 1 of this count were carried out as part of a systematic program of genocide, aimed at the destruction of foreign nations and ethnic groups, in part by murderous extermination, and in part by elimination and suppression of national characteristics.”104 Very similar language then appeared in the Einsatzgruppen and Ministries indictments.105 American war-crimes officials made a conscious decision during the Medical case to try to establish genocide as a crime against humanity in the later trials. As the prosecution was nearing the end of its case-in-chief, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, the Polish Jew who coined the term “genocide,” wrote to Xxxxx Xxxxxx, the head of the War Department‟s War Crimes Branch, to stress “the necessity of developing the genocide concept” in the case.106 Xxxxxx‟s memo came too late, but it led Xxxx X.X. Xxxxx, then a legal consultant to the Secretary of War, to submit his own memo to the OCC not long thereafter promoting the idea of developing genocide in subsequent...
