International Law of Genocide

International Law of Genocide

Introduction

This paper intends to explore the development of international law in the are of Genocide. Further it analyzes the elements to prevent the crime of Genocide.  According to sociologist and historian American Michael Mann, genocide is the most extreme of intergroup violence and the most extreme of all acts of ethnic cleansing. The author has explained the impact of genocide in the twentieth century that it has devastating results, both by the number of victims, which stands at over 70 million people, and in the extreme cruelty of the attacks (cjsonline.ca). 

Discussion

The crime of Genocide is legally defined under the international law in the Article of II and III of Convention in 1948 on Punishment and Prevention of Genocide.

The Article II explains the two given factors of the crime of Genocide. The first element is the mental one, which means “the intent to destroy in whole or in part, religious, ethnical, national or racial group, as such”. The second element is the physical one that includes 5 actions identified in the section a, b, c, d and e (preventgenocide.org).

In order for the crime to be termed as genocide, it must possess both elements mentioned above. In addition to this, in Article III, 5 types of genocide acts are described. Those acts are incitement, conspiracy, genocide, complicity and attempt (preventgenocide.org).

There are several former leaders from civilian and military backgrounds, which include former President Biljana Plavsiv, former yogoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic and Colonel Theoneste Bagosora are charged for the crime of Genocide (rferl.org).

International Criminal Law

Several delegations opposed the establishment of an international criminal court. Thus, the representative of Brazil (Mr. Amado) recalled that the organization of the repression of the crimes on the international level was developed in parallel with the organization of international cooperation, but until that time had not yet come to create an international criminal court because otherwise there was not yet strictly speaking an international criminal law.

The representative of India (Mr. Sundaram) noted that the establishment of a Criminal Court risked international intervention in the internal affairs of States, and therefore, a clear violation of the UN Charter.

By contrast, supporters of an international criminal court held that this jurisdiction was essential to effectively repress crime of genocide, and that national courts may find it impossible to prosecute and punish, particularly when the acts of the crime of ...