Determining When and How Charges of Genocide Are Used in Tribunals and the ICC

• In Event: NGOs, IOs, and Human Rights Protection

Abstract

Prior to the Nuremberg Trials following World War II, virtually all focus on international justice was on states. Nuremberg marked a shift, where states were no longer the sole actors; individuals were put on trial for their participation in state-organized violence against individuals, encapsulated in the concept of "crimes against humanity." Following Nuremberg, the United Nations ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which made it possible to hold individuals responsible for state-organized violence against groups. Indeed, only the Bosnia v. Serbia case at the International Court of Justice seems to have attempted to hold states accountable for such crimes. What has the balance been between protection of groups and protection of individuals in subsequent international tribunals and at the International Criminal Court? This paper hypothesizes that despite protections offered to groups under the Genocide Convention, more protection is provided to individuals, both through international statutes and in the enforcement of international law through the crimes prosecuted at tribunals and the ICC. Although protection can be extended to groups, the Genocide Convention creates additional hurdles to enforcement, leaving crimes against humanity and similar statutes as the least complicated method for achieving international justice, even though genocide convictions potentially send a stronger message about the protection of human rights.

Authors

• Petra Hendrickson, Northern Michigan University

• Patrick Larue, Collin College