GENOCIDE VS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

By

[Date of Submission]

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to explore different conceptions and regulations regarding genocide in a holistic manner. There are several conceptions and legal implications regarding genocide that will be discussed in the paper. Moreover, the core objective of the paper is to analyze the contexts on the basis of which genocide differs from other crimes against humanity. The paper will discuss lawful implications against genocide and contrast it from the crimes against humanity. The paper will also present one of the crucial historic genocide incidents; in addition, the paper will analyze lawful implications against genocide in context of different nations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION4

GENOCIDE: AN UNLAWFUL AND CRIMINAL OFFENCE5

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY7

GENOCIDE DIVERGENCE FROM CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY7

HISTORIC INCIDENTS OF GENOCIDE10

LEGAL PERCEPTION ABOUT GENOCIDE IN DIFFERENT NATIONS11

CONCLUSION13

GENOCIDE VS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

INTRODUCTION

Since the passage of the UN Convention there have been only two courts to ever consider genocide cases. These tribunals have been tasked with interpreting the Convention and applying it in prosecutions of genocides. Several legal scholars have tried to assist the ICTY and ICTR by offering their interpretation of the Genocide Convention. The signatories to the UN Convention agreed to prevent genocide when possible and to punish those responsible for committing genocide. As part of adopting the UN Convention, each nation had to add genocide as a criminal offence in their respective legal codes. From this, an international prohibition against genocide emerged rather quickly following passage of the UN Convention. Unfortunately, in most instances of genocide there is no punishment for the atrocity. Legal scholars have focused their research on three main issues in the prosecution and enforcement of genocide statutes—intent, sovereign immunity, and universal jurisdiction.

The core objective of the paper is to elaborate genocide under different conceptions; moreover, the paper aims to differentiate genocide from other crimes against humanity. The intent element of the UN Convention has caused some concern that it is too restrictive. The issue of sovereign immunity had to be dealt with before prosecutions were possible, and the claim of universal jurisdiction causes some concerns within the legal field. Like many crimes, the UN Convention requires that genocide be committed with intent, not through negligence or recklessness. It has been argued that requiring specific intent for genocide is too strict. A general knowledge requirement has been offered to replace specific intent. If the perpetrators have knowledge that their act is in pursuit of genocide as a whole then criminal liability should attach. The reason for this concern is that genocides will be able to avoid punishment by claiming that they did not have the intent to destroy an entire group. While it would be possible to make a defense of lack of intent, there is no assurance that it would be successful.

GENOCIDE: AN UNLAWFUL AND CRIMINAL OFFENCE

The court failed to articulate any specific number of victims where intent can be reasonably inferred. There has not been another court decision focusing on the precision of the intent element since the Sikirica ...