Product Code Database
Genocide is the destruction of a people through targeted violence.
The term genocide was coined by Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in the early 1940s. Lemkin lobbied for genocide to be outlawed by international treaty, but the Genocide Convention restricted his initially broad definition to five specific acts "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". Its definition remains contested by scholars and institutions across international law, history, sociology and related fields.
Genocide has occurred throughout human history, even during prehistoric times. Most genocides have occurred during wartime, and they are particularly likely in situations of imperial expansion and power consolidation. It is associated with colonialism, especially settler colonialism, as well as with both and repressive governments in the twentieth century. Despite efforts to end genocide, effective interventions have not occurred. The colloquial understanding of genocide is heavily influenced by the Holocaust as its archetype and is conceived as innocent victims being targeted for their ethnic identity alone rather than for any political reason.
Genocide is widely considered to be the epitome of human evil and is often referred to as the "crime of crimes"; consequently, events are often denounced as genocide. It is most often a state crime, and most perpetrators are psychologically normal. Genocide typically occurs when the perpetrators believe themselves existentially under threat, and is employed as a means to another end—often after other options failed. The most common pattern of genocidal violence involves the killing of adult men and non-lethal violence, such as sexual assault and enslavement, of women and children. Other common means include forced displacement, land theft, and the destruction of cultural heritage. After genocide, Genocide denial and impunity for the perpetrators are common.
According to Lemkin, the central definition of genocide was "the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" in which its members were not targeted as individuals, but rather as members of the group. The objectives of genocide "would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups". These were not separate crimes but different aspects of the same genocidal process. Lemkin's definition of nation was sufficiently broad to apply to nearly any type of human collectivity, even one based on a trivial characteristic. He saw genocide as an inherently colonial process, and in his later writings, he analyzed what he described as the colonial genocides occurring within European colonies, including the Soviet and Nazi empires. Furthermore, his definition of genocidal acts, which was to replace the national pattern of the victim with that of the perpetrator, was much broader than the five types that were later enumerated in the Genocide Convention. Lemkin considered genocide to have occurred since the beginning of human history and dated the efforts to criminalize it to the Spanish critics of colonial excesses, Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolomé de Las Casas. The Polish court that convicted Schutzstaffel official Arthur Greiser in 1946 was the first to mention the term in a verdict, using Lemkin's original definition.
Lemkin brought his proposal to criminalize genocide to the newly established United Nations in 1946. Opposition to the convention was greater than Lemkin expected, due to states' concerns that it would lead their own policies—including treatment of indigenous peoples, European colonialism, racial segregation in the United States, and Soviet nationalities policy—to be labeled genocide. Before the convention was passed, powerful countries (both Western powers and the Soviet Union) secured changes in an attempt to make the convention unenforceable and applicable to Cold War' actions but not their own. Few formerly colonized countries were represented, and "most states had no interest in empowering their victims—past, present, and future".
The result narrowed Lemkin's original concept; he privately considered it a failure. Lemkin's anti-colonial conception of genocide was transformed into one that favored colonial powers. Among the violence freed from the stigma of genocide was the destruction of political groups, which the Soviet Union is particularly blamed for blocking. Although Lemkin credited women's NGOs with securing the passage of the convention, the gendered violence of forced pregnancy, marriage, and divorce was left out. Additionally omitted was the ethnic cleansing, which had been carried out by the Soviet Union and its allies, condoned by the Western powers, against millions of Germans from central and Eastern Europe. Cultural genocide was also taken out, despite Lemkin's argument that it and physical genocide were two mechanisms aiming at the same goal.
]] Two years after passing a resolution affirming the criminalization of genocide, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Genocide Convention on 9 December 1948. It came into effect on 12 January 1951 after 20 countries ratified it without reservations. The convention defines genocide as:
A dolus specialis "intent to destroy" is the mens rea requirement of genocide. The issue of what it means to destroy a group "as such" and how to prove the required intent has been difficult for courts to resolve. The legal system has also struggled with how much of a group can be targeted before triggering the Genocide Convention. The two main approaches to intent are the purposive approach, where the perpetrator expressly wants to destroy the group, and the knowledge-based approach, where the perpetrator understands that destruction of the protected group will result from his actions. Intent is the most difficult aspect for prosecutors to prove; the perpetrators often claim that they merely sought the removal of the group from a given territory, instead of destruction as such, or that the genocidal actions were collateral damage of military activity.
Attempted genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, incitement to genocide, and complicity in genocide are criminalized. The convention does not allow the retroactive prosecution of events that took place before 1951. Signatories are also required to prevent genocide and prosecute its perpetrators. Many countries have incorporated genocide into their municipal law, varying to a lesser or greater extent from the convention. The convention's definition of genocide was adopted verbatim by the ad hoc international criminal tribunals and by the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). The crime of genocide also exists in customary international law and is therefore prohibited for non-signatories.
After the failure to prevent the Bosnian genocide and in the 1990s, the United Nations established criminal tribunals to try individuals for genocide and other international crimes. Although these tribunals had mixed results, the International Criminal Court was established in 2002 and counts a majority of states as members. Some of the most powerful states in the world, such as the United States, China, India, Russia, and Turkey, have not joined. Other perpetrators have been tried by various countries around the world, either involved in the genocide or not. As with other serious international crimes, no jurisdictional or temporal limitations apply to prosecution. The first former head of state to be convicted of genocide was Khieu Samphan in 2018 for the Cambodian genocide. Although it is widely recognized that punishment of the perpetrators cannot be an order for their crimes, the trials often serve other purposes, such as attempting to shape public perception of the past. There are several cases in which the International Court of Justice has been called upon to adjudicate accusations of genocide against states, including the Bosnian genocide case, the Rohingya genocide case, and the Gaza genocide case.
Some scholars and activists use the Genocide Convention definition. Others prefer narrower definitions that reduce genocide to mass killing or distinguish it from other types of violence by the innocence, helplessness, or defencelessness of its victims. Most genocides occur during wartime, and distinguishing genocide or genocidal war from non-genocidal warfare can be difficult. Likewise, genocide is distinguished from violent and coercive forms of rule that aim to change behavior rather than destroy groups. Isolated or short-lived phenomena that resemble genocide can be termed genocidal violence.
Cultural genocide or ethnocide refers to actions targeted at the reproduction of a group's language, culture, or way of life. Although left out of the Genocide Convention, most genocide scholars believe that both cultural genocide and structural violence should be included in the definition of genocide if committed with the intent to destroy the targeted group. Many of the more sociologically oriented definitions of genocide overlap with that of the crime against humanity of extermination, large-scale killing or induced death as part of a systematic attack on a civilian population. Although included in Lemkin's original concept and by some scholars, political and social groups were also excluded from the Genocide Convention. As a consequence, perpetrators attempt to evade the stigma of genocide by labeling their targets as a political or military enemy. However, in Drėlingas v. Lithuania, the ECtHR affirmed that prosecutions may treat the destruction of a politically defined subgroup as genocide where that subgroup is shown to constitute a significant part of a protected national/ethnic group and the requisite Genocidal intent that protected group "in part" is established.Theriault, Henry C. "The Drėlingas case, the limits of law, and new avenues for repair of and resistance to genocide." Two Years after Drėlingas Case: Changes and Perspectives for the Future 10-09-2021: Conference Proceedings. ISBN 9786094880469. 2022.
The word genocide inherently carries a value judgement, as it is widely considered to be the epitome of human evil. Although genocidal violence has at times been celebrated by its perpetrators and observers, it has always had critics. The idea that genocide sits on top of a hierarchy of atrocity crimes—worse than crimes against humanity or war crimes—is controversial among scholars and suggests that the protection of groups is more important than that of individuals and that the intention of states is more important than the suffering of civilian victims of violence. A. Dirk Moses and other scholars argue that the prioritization of genocide causes other causes of civilian deaths, such as blockades, bombing, and other "collateral damage", to not be considered in the study and response.
Most genocides are not planned long in advance, but emerge through a process of gradual radicalization, often escalating to genocide following resistance by those targeted. Genocide perpetrators often fear—usually irrationally—that if they do not commit atrocities, they will suffer a similar fate as they inflict on their victims. Despite perpetrators' utilitarian goals, ideological factors are necessary to explain why genocide seems to be a desirable solution to the identified security problem. Noncombatants are harmed because of the collective guilt ascribed to an entire people, defined according to race but targeted because of its supposed security threat. The victims are viewed as other and are often deliberately excluded from society before genocide begins through formal measures such as the denial of citizenship.
Although many scholars have emphasized the role of ideology in genocide, there is little agreement on how ideology contributes to violent outcomes. Another debate concerns whether genocide is caused by aberrant political ideology or if there is, in fact, a great deal of continuity between genocidal and ordinary political ideologies. Early research focused on radical revolutionary ideologies, such as Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism, as the cause of genocide. Although such regimes have produced some of the most extreme mass killings, relatively few genocides are associated with them and even those that are were not necessarily committed because of the regime's revolutionary goals. Some scholars have emphasized moral disengagement as an ideological cause of atrocities, but contrary to this theory, many perpetrators defend their crimes on moral grounds, citing vengeance, loyalty, and duty.
A revision of the above theories emphasizes the use of normal moral categories, such as self-defense and the punishment of criminals, to justify genocide. As self-defense is the most widely recognized justification for violence, the victims of genocide are usually perceived as a threat by the perpetrator, even though they are unarmed civilians. Most genocides are ultimately caused by their perpetrators perceiving an existential threat to their own existence, although this belief is usually exaggerated and can be entirely imagined. The victims of genocide are demonized as traitors, criminals, and enemies of the people; they are scapegoated for various forms of wrongdoing—real or imagined—that make the genocide seem like a just punishment or revenge. Other scholars have cited rational explanations for atrocities, such as material self-interest in the form of theft and land grabbing.
How ordinary people can become involved in extraordinary violence under circumstances of acute conflict remains poorly understood. The foot soldiers of genocide (as opposed to its organizers) are not demographically or psychologically aberrant.; ; ; People who commit crimes during genocide are rarely true believers in the ideology behind genocide, although they are affected by it to some extent alongside other factors such as obedience, diffusion of responsibility, and conformity. Other evidence suggests that ideological propaganda is not effective in inducing people to commit genocide and that, for some perpetrators, the dehumanization of victims and adoption of nationalist or other ideologies that justify the violence occurs after they begin to perpetrate atrocities, often coinciding with escalation. Although genocide perpetrators have often been assumed to be male, the role of women in perpetrating genocide—although they were historically excluded from leadership—has also been explored. People's behavior changes over the course of events, and someone might choose to kill one genocide victim while saving another.
Although the popular view of genocide is that it involves mass killing, according to many definitions, it may occur without a single person being killed. Forced displacement is a common feature of many genocides, with the victims often transported to another location, where their destruction is easier for the perpetrators, and killed or deprived of the necessities of life. People are often killed by the displacement itself, as was the case for many Armenian genocide victims, and their homes are razed or stolen. Although definitions vary, cultural genocide usually refers to tactics that target a group by means other than attacking its physical, biological existence. It encompasses attacks against the victims' language, religion, cultural heritage, political and intellectual leaders, and traditional lifestyle, and is commonly encountered even in cases where it is not the primary means of group destruction. Along with the abduction of children from the victimized group, such as residential schools, cultural genocide is particularly common during settler-colonial consolidation. Perpetrators often deny indigenous groups' existence and identity.
The weapons of genocide are varied and flexible, with perpetrators' strategies varying based on the technology available. The invention of deadlier weapons enabled more systematic forms of destruction (for example, using in the Holocaust versus relying on harsh desert conditions in the Herero genocide). A countervailing tendency is to avoid appearing like the stereotypical genocide by employing more selective violence, such as drone warfare.
The responsibility to protect is a doctrine that emerged around 2000, in the aftermath of several genocides around the world, that seeks to balance state sovereignty with the need for international intervention to prevent genocide. However, disagreements in the United Nations Security Council and a lack of political will have hampered its implementation. Although military intervention to halt genocide has been credited with reducing violence in some cases, it remains deeply controversial and is usually illegal. Researcher Gregory H. Stanton found that calling crimes genocide rather than something else, such as ethnic cleansing, increased the chance of effective intervention. Almost all genocides are brought to an end either by the military defeat of the perpetrators or the accomplishment of their aims.
Although all imperial rule depends on violence, empires generally seek to preserve and rule the conquered rather than eradicate them. Alternatives to genocide might include integration (via enslavement or otherwise) or exile. Although the desire to exploit populations could disincentivize extermination, genocide occurred in response to resistance by the conquered. Ancient and medieval genocides were often committed by empires. Unlike traditional empires, settler colonialism—particularly the settlement of Europeans outside of Europe—is characterized by militarized populations of settlers in remote areas beyond effective state control. Rather than labor or economic surplus, settlers want to acquire land from indigenous people, making genocide more likely than with classical colonialism. While the lack of law enforcement on the frontier ensured impunity for settler violence, the advance of state authority enabled settlers to consolidate their gains using the legal system.
The twentieth century has often been referred to as the "century of genocide". It was committed on a large scale during both . The prototypical genocide, the Holocaust, involved such large-scale logistics that it reinforced the impression that genocide was the result of civilization drifting off course and required both the "weapons and infrastructure of the modern state and the radical ambitions of the modern man". After the horrors of World War II, the United Nations attempted to proscribe genocide via the Genocide Convention. Despite the promise of "never again" and the international effort to outlaw genocide, the practice has continued to occur. The Cold War included the perpetration of mass killings by both communist and anti-communist states, although these atrocities usually targeted political and social groups, therefore not meeting the legal definition of genocide. The 1990s saw a surge of ethnic violence in the former Yugoslavia and Rwandan genocide that led to a resurgence in interest in genocide. In the twenty-first century, new communications technologies have also transformed genocide, with both perpetrators and victims able to communicate instantly across borders and raise transnational support.
Genocide not only affects victim and perpetrator groups, but also those who benefited from or observed it. The effects of genocide on societies are under-researched. Much of the qualitative research on genocide has focused on the testimonies of victims, survivors, and other eyewitnesses. Studies of genocide survivors have examined rates of depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, and post-traumatic growth. While some have found negative effects, others find no association with genocide survival. There are no consistent findings that children of genocide survivors have worse health than comparable individuals. Most societies can recover demographically from genocide, but this is dependent on their position early in the demographic transition. In the aftermath of genocide, many survivors experience forced displacement from their homes and may face additional challenges due to being labeled as immigration offenders. Success at rebuilding lives in another country is high, despite survivors' limited resources upon arrival.
Because genocide is often perceived as the "crime of crimes", it grabs attention more effectively than other violations of international law. Consequently, victims of atrocities often label their suffering as genocide as an attempt to gain attention to their plight and attract foreign intervention. In popular culture, victims of genocide are often endowed with moral superiority while perpetrators are demonized, which can flatten the ethical complexity of real-world conflicts. Although remembering genocide is often perceived as a way to develop tolerance and respect for human rights, the charge of genocide often leads to increased cohesion among the targeted people—in some cases, it has been incorporated into national identity—and stokes enmity towards the group blamed for the crime, reducing the chance of reconciliation and increasing the risk of future occurrence of genocide. Some genocides are commemorated in memorials or museums. Lemkin believed that genocide harmed the entire world because of the loss of cultural outputs from the targeted group.
|
|
