Genocide and Atrocity
Crimes Prevention
Tibi Galis, PhD
Soghomon Tehlirian,
Survivor of Armenian
Massacres
Assassination of
Mehmed Talaat
March 15, 1921
Raphael Lemkin
(1900-1959)
University of Lvov
(Poland)
Concept of State
Sovereignty
League of Nations
– Madrid (1933)
“Acts Constituting a
General
(Transnational)
Danger Considered as
Offences Against the
Law of Nations”
Protected Groups
Ethnic, Religious, or
Social Collectives
Acts Defined as
Criminal
Acts of Barbarity
Acts of Vandalism
Jurisdictional
Responsibility
Universal
Enforcement
Churchill BBC Speech
(August 24, 1941)
Axis Rule in Occupied
Europe (1944)
“Genocide” = Geno
(race, tribe) + Cide
(killing)
…“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 disintegration
of the political and social institutions, of culture,
language, national feelings, religion, and
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…Genocide
is directed against the national group as an entity,
and the actions involved are directed against
individuals, not in their individual capacity, but
as members of the national group.”
Nuremberg Trials
(1945-46)
Appeals to the United
Nations
December
11, 1946
• UN Resolution 96 (I)
• Charges Economic and Social Council with Drafting a Convention
June 1947
• Secretariat Draft (3-person committee)
• UN Doc. E/447
May 1948
• Ad Hoc Committee Draft (7 delegates)
• UN Doc. E/794
November
1948
• Sixth Committee Draft
• UN Resolution 260 (III)
Resolution
96(I)
Secretariat
Draft
Ad Hoc
Committee
Draft
Sixth
Committee
Draft
Protected Groups:
Racial, Religious,
Political, and Other
Groups
Protected Groups:
Racial, Religious,
Political, National,
and Linguistic
Protected Groups:
Racial, Religious,
Political, and
National
Protected Groups:
National, Ethnical,
Racial, or Religious
Acts Defined as
Criminal:
“Destroyed entirely
or in part”
Acts Defined as
Criminal: Physical,
Biological, and
Cultural Genocide
Acts Defined as
Criminal: Physical
and Cultural
Genocide
Acts Defined as
Criminal: Any of
Five Listed Acts
with Intent
Jurisdictional
Responsibility: “A
matter of
international
concern”
Jurisdictional
Responsibility:
Universal
Enforcement
Jurisdictional
Responsibility:
State or Territorial
Enforcement
Jurisdictional
Responsibility:
State or Territorial
Enforcement
December 9, 1948 – General Assembly of
the United Nations unanimously passed
the “Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”
(commonly known as the “Genocide
Convention”).
Sixth Committee Draft Adopted
Without Alterations
55 Delegates Voted “Yes;” None Voted
No
January 12, 1951 – The Genocide
Convention was ratified by 20 member
states of the United Nations and became
official international law.
Light Green = Signed and Ratified
Dark Green = Acceded or Succeeded (Party to the Convention but Not Original Signatory)
Yellow = Signed but Not Ratified (Dominican Republic)
Grey = Nonparties to the Genocide Convention (approximately 50 nations)
Article 2: In the present Convention, genocide
means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(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.
Artigo 2.º: Na presente Convenção, entende-se por
genocídio os atos abaixo indicados, cometidos com a
intenção de destruir, no todo ou em parte, um grupo
nacional, étnico, racial ou religioso, tais como:
a) Assassinato de membros do grupo;
b) Atentado grave à integridade física e mental de
membros do grupo;
c) Submissão deliberada do grupo a condições de
existência que acarretarão a sua destruição física, total
ou parcial;
d) Medidas destinadas a impedir os nascimentos no
seio do grupo;
e) Transferência forçada das crianças do grupo para
outro grupo.
National, Ethnical, Racial, or
Religious
Major Concerns
Violates Fundamental Principle of
Equality Before the Law
Objective Identities are Not SelfEvident or Stable
Perhaps Perpetrators’
Subjective Definition of Victim
Group Matters Most
Broadening of Protected
Groups in Domestic National
Courts
Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Cambodia,
Columbia, Ecuador, Panama,
Costa Rica, Cote d’ Ivoire, Peru,
Poland, Slovenia, Lithuania,
Paraguay, France, and Romania
Defining Characteristics of Acts of Destruction
(a) killing members of the group,
(b) causing them 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,
or (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group.
Determination of “Intent”
What does intent mean?
How does intent differ from motive?
How do we prove intent?
Meaning of “In Whole or in Part”
Article 6: “Persons charged with genocide…shall be
tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the
territory of which the act was committed, or by
such international penal tribunals as may have
jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting
Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.”
• What is the relation of “genocide” to the broader
category of atrocity crimes?
•
War Crimes
Crimes Against Humanity
Ethnic Cleansing
Rome Statute
http://www.preventgenocide.or
g/law/icc/statute/part-a.htm
War Crimes
May Be Isolated or Sporadic
Violations of Laws or
Customs of War
Committed During Armed
Conflict
Crimes Against Humanity
(1907)
Widespread and Systematic
No Intent to Destroy in Whole
or Part
Apply in War and Peace
Ethnic Cleansing
Rendering an Area Ethnically
Homogenous
“…preventing genocide is an achievable
goal. Genocide is not the inevitable result of
‘ancient hatreds’ or irrational leaders.
…There are ways to recognize its signs and
symptoms, and viable options to prevent it
at every turn if we are committed and
prepared. Preventing genocide is a goal
that can be achieved… with the right
blueprint.”
Genocide Prevention Task Force (2008)
“Never again” : (Raul Hilberg) signs set up
outside Buchenwald by liberated prisoners
1948: Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide
Conflict prevention policy – 1994 – Carnegie
Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict
Rwanda (1994)
Former Yugoslavia (1995)
2004: Fourth Stockholm Forum: Preventing
Genocide: Threats and Responsibilities –
creation of the position of the Special
Adviser to the UN Secretary General on the
Prevention of Genocide
Inclusion in the sphere of mass atrocity and
genocide prevention of:
Transitional justice
Civilian Protection
Policy classifications as:
Primary, secondary, tertiary
Upstream, midstream, downstream
Structural, conflict management, post-conflict
Primary Prevention
Upstream Prevention
“Before” Analysis of
Structural Risk Factors
Secondary Prevention
Midstream Prevention
Immediate, Real-Time
Relief Efforts During
Crisis
Tertiary Prevention
Downstream Prevention
“After” Efforts to Foster
Resiliency in PostGenocide Society
PostConflict
PreConflict
MidConflict
Assumption 1
The enduring belief that atrocities tend to unfold
sequentially, in steps or phases that lead, in logical order,
from one to the next.
Origin: Hilberg (1961)
Best known example: Stanton (1996) model
1) Classification
2) Symbolization
3) Dehumanization
4) Organization
5) Polarization
6) Preparation
7) Extermination
8) Denial
Policy consequences
genocide and mass atrocities are flexible concepts
that do not follow one particular developmental path
differences across cases may include bureaucratic
efficiencies, stage of economic and political
development, technological sophistication,
geographic variances, and the threat (or lack thereof)
of significant violence by the victim group – not
captured by linear models
Genocide by attrition
Assumption 2
atrocity prevention can be practiced above or outside
of politics, as a technical matter, without regard for
relations of power
it is impossible to practice effective atrocity
prevention without a keen understanding of the
political and economic dynamics of each individual
situation
international response blockages
Assumption 3
it is completely clear by now what we mean by prevention
the challenge presented by the space between structural
prevention and crisis management
Assumption 4
atrocity prevention as a policy area is enacted apart from
other matters; it is only a matter of policy, exclusively by
governments and other institutions, as opposed to
something enacted by society as a whole
challenge: the other, existing arenas - human rights
protection systems, anti-discrimination systems, civilian
protection institutions, conflict and crisis management
systems
Bellamy (2015): atrocity prevention lens is a lens
facilitating decisions rather than a set of policy
options or structural choices that enduringly protect
groups from becoming victims of mass atrocities
Implications for the creation of bodies specifically
tasked with atrocity prevention – national
mechanisms for mass atrocity prevention
Assumption 5
atrocity prevention is exclusively or primarily a matter
for the “international community” (usually used as a
synonym for the UN and its agencies), a set of
policies and practices formulated outside the
countries or societies where there is a risk of
atrocities and implemented or applied inside a
country or society from the outside
domestication
regional efforts: International Conference on the
Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) or the Latin American
Network for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention
domestication
the move from the discursive commitment to
prevention to attempts to operationalize prevention in
very different societies.
a reality check on the international community’s
capacity to engage in prevention beyond crisis
management.
not an invitation to international apathy: the ‘donor’
agenda
Extreme diversity of preventive agendas
early prevention - the intersection of human
rights protection, structural conflict prevention,
development policy, transitional justice,
education policy with focus on one element: the
protection of groups
Preventing Genocide and Mass Atrocity
Reduces…
Human Costs
Protection/Preservation of Human Life & Security
Instability Costs
Contributes to National & Regional Peace
Economic Costs
Prevention Less Costly Than Intervention or Rebuilding
Diplomatic Costs
Reinforces State Sovereignty