Final Baby

8/12/2019 Final Baby

1/24


2/24

Contents

Genocide (History of Word/Concept)

1948 Convention on the Prevention and

Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

State Parties

Case: Bosnia & Herzegovina vs. Yugoslavia ICJ

Decision, 26 February 2007


3/24

Word/Concept) The idea of genocide is relatively young in

the modern international context

The term itself was only coined in 1944 by

U.S Jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work "Axis

Rule in Occupied Europe

He combined the greek genos (race) and

the Latin cide (killing)

The word was formed out of the context ofthe Nazi extermination of the Jews


4/24

Genocide (History of Word/Concept)

Lemkin on Genocide- It is intended to signify a coordinated plan

of different actions aiming at the

destruction of essential foundations of the

life of national groups themselves. Theobjectives of such plan would be the

disentegration of the political and social

institutions, of culture, language, nationalfeelings, religion, and the economic

existence of national groups


5/24

Raphael Lemkin


6/24

State Parties

144 states have ratified or acceded tothe treaty ever since it was opened for

signature on December 11,1948.

The treaty came into force and closed

for signature on 12 January 1951. Since

then, states that did not sign the treaty

can now only accede (agree to a

demand, request, or treaty) to it.


7/24



It was adopted by the U.N on December9,1948

It consists of 19 articles

It was entered into force January 12,1951

Its main importance in the field of

international law is that it defined what

constitutes the crime of genocide in legalterms (found in Article 2)


8/24



(Rundown)

The opening text before the

Articles recognize that indeed

Genocide has inflicted greatlosses on humanity and that

international cooperation is

required to eradicate this.


9/24

Rundown of Significant Articles

Article 1: Genocide can be committed in

times of war or peace

This article also establishes that it is a

crime in international law

Additionally, the contracting parties

should PREVENT and PUNISH

perpetrators of it.


10/24


11/24


Article 3: What acts are punishable The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit

genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.


12/24

Rundown of Significant

Slides

Article 4: This article

guarantees that anybody can

be punished for Genocide bethey constitutionally

responsible rulers, public

officials or private individuals


13/24


Article 5 The Contracting Parties undertake to enact,

in accordance with their respective

Constitutions, the necessary legislation togive effect to the provisions of the present

Convention, and, in particular, to provide

effective penalties for persons guilty of

genocide or any of the other actsenumerated in article III.


14/24


15/24


Article 7: Genocide and other crimesenumerated in Article 3 shall not beconsidered as Political Crimes for thepurpose of EXTRADITION.

Article 8:Any Contracting Party may callupon the competent organs of the UnitedNations to take such action under theCharter of the United Nations as theyconsider appropriate for the prevention andsuppression of acts of genocide or any ofthe other acts enumerated in article III.


16/24

Rundown of Significant

SlidesArticle 9: Disputes between the

Contracting Parties relating to the

interpretation, application or fulfillment of

the present Convention, including thoserelating to the responsibility of a State

for genocide or for any of the other acts

enumerated in article III, shall be

submitted to the International Court ofJustice at the request of any of the

parties to the dispute.


17/24

Case: Bosnia & Herzegovina vs. Yugoslavia ICJ

Decision, 26 February 2007

About: Serbia's alleged attempts to

exterminate the Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim)population of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The case was filed by Dr. Francis Boyle

The case specifically touched on the incidentof the Srebrenica Masscare, where on July1995, more than 8,000 Bosniaks where killedin and around town in Srebrenica

This was perpetrated by units of the Army ofRepublika Srpska, under Gen R. Mladic

1993Safe area


18/24

Case: Bosnia & Herzegovina vs. Yugoslavia

ICJ Decision, 26 February 2007

This case took 14 years to be brought to afinal decision and historian T.D Gill has three

reasons for that

1. The Yugoslav conflict has just ended 2. Yugoslavias Government and name have

changed

3. The amount of evidence presented to courtoral and written was very large


19/24

Case: Bosnia & Herzegovina vs.

Yugoslavia ICJ Decision, 26 February

2007 The case discussed 2 previous decisions relatingto the courts decision

The First (July 11, 1996)

It rejected Yugoslavias preliminary objectionrelating to the courts jurisdiction

The Second (February 3, 2003)

Court again rejected Yugoslavias attempt to havethe court revise its earlier decision on that issuerelating to new facts not known at the time of the

original jurisdiction Finally, in this case, the ICJ ruled that it had

jurisdiction over the case on the basis of resjudicata


20/24

Ruling The ICJ judgment on 26 February 2007, in

which, among other things, it confirmedthe ICTY Judgment that the Srebrenicamassacre was genocide.

The Court concludes that the acts committed atSrebrenica falling within Article II (a)and (b)ofthe Convention were committed with thespecific intent to destroy in part the group of theMuslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such;and accordingly that these were acts ofgenocide, committed by members of the VRS inand around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995


21/24

Ruling The Court found - although not unanimously -

that Serbia was neither directly responsiblefor the Srebrenica genocide, nor that it wascomplicit in it, but it did rule that Serbia hadcommitted a breach of the GenocideConvention by failing to prevent the genocidefrom occurring and for not cooperating withthe ICTY in punishing the perpetrators of the

genocide, in particular General Ratko Mladi,and for violating its obligation to comply withthe provisional measures ordered by theCourt


22/24

RULING Court rightly emphasized the special and specific nature of the crime of

genocide requiring, as it does, a demonstrable specific intent (dolus

specialis) to target and destroy as such an identifiable group in whole or in

part. This requirement distinguishes genocide from other violations of the

law relating to armed conflict and places a heavy burden of proof on the

party alleging the occurrence of the crime of genocide. It is not enough to

establish that widespread unlawful killings, mistreatment, rape or mass

expulsion of civilians (euphemistically referred to as ethnic cleansing) have

taken place; it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that such

atrocities were perpetrated as part of a campaign to totally or partially wipe

out a discrete ethnic, religious or national group as such. In view of this

requirement and the special nature of genocide as the crime of all crimes

under international law


23/24

RULING

ICTYStandard of OVERALL CONTROLvs. ICJStandard of EFFECTIVE

CONTROL (Nicaragua vs. U.S) [U.S not

held liable for actions of Contra Guerillas

despite PUBLICIZED support] Yugoslavia's responsibility was limited to its

failure to (attempt to) prevent the massacre

and did not encompass direct responsibility

for either the commission of genocide or

complicity in the commission of genocide.


24/24

Documents

Final Baby