z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
On What Conditions Can a State Be Held Responsible for Genocide?
Author(s) -
Paola Gaeta
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
european journal of international law
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.607
H-Index - 59
eISSN - 1464-3596
pISSN - 0938-5428
DOI - 10.1093/ejil/chm037
Subject(s) - genocide , obligation , law , international law , political science , treaty , state (computer science) , state responsibility , convention , responsibility to protect , commit , interpretation (philosophy) , international court , sociology , public international law , philosophy , linguistics , database , algorithm , computer science
In the Genocide case the ICJ placed a broad interpretation on the obligation to prevent genocide, enshrined in Article I of the Genocide Convention. For the Court, this obligation has an operative and non-preambular nature with respect to the other obligations laid down in the Convention. In addition, it would necessarily imply the obligation for states themselves not to commit genocide. This latter finding is not entirely convincing for it is not in keeping with the historical foundations of the Convention and in addition results from an interpretation that, instead of clarifying the meaning of a treaty rule, infers a new obligation from it. The paper suggests that under international law the criminal liability of individuals and state responsibility for genocide are not triggered by the violation of the same primary rule. The contrary view is not corroborated by state practice and international case law: while the crime of genocide can be committed regardless of the existence of a state genocidal policy, the state's international responsibility necessarily requires such a policy. Also, for the international responsibility of the state to arise there is no need to demonstrate that the state as such, or one or more of its officials, harboured a genocidal intent in the criminal sense. The Court's finding is based on the notion that the state's international responsibility for genocide presupposes that of an individual acting on behalf of the state. This approach is flawed: in criminal matters the presumption of innocence only allows criminal courts to satisfy themselves that a person committed a crime. The Court could have confined itself to interpreting the obligation to prevent and punish genocide set out in Article 1 as endowed with an autonomous content and concluding, as in fact it did, that Serbia had violated both of them. It did not need to embark upon a construction of the Convention substantially marred by a misapprehension of the difference between genocide as an international wrongful act of state and genocide as a crime involving individual criminal liability.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom