Genocide definitions on arvau

Wikipedia / Genocide definitions

Genocide definitions include both scholarly and legal definitions of genocide. Coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944, the word is a compound of the ancient Greek word (, 'genus', or 'kind') and the Latin word ("kill"). While there are various definitions of the term, almost all international bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), also called the Genocide Convention. The international legal definition is narrower than various sociological and cultural definitions of genocide, narrower than the public perception of what this word means, and also narrower than the legal definition of crimes against humanity. From a legal perspective, crimes against humanity are distinct from genocide, but can sometimes be just as heinous, according to the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur.

The Genocide Convention and nearly all genocide scholars include an intent to destroy as a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide. While many scholars also acknowledge cultural genocide as a form of genocide, there is general agreement that cultural destruction must also be accompanied by physical destruction to be called genocide. The Convention was a legal instrument resulting from a diplomatic compromise; the wording of the treaty was not intended to be a definition suitable as a research tool, and although it is used for this purpose, as it has an international legal credibility that others lack, other definitions have also been postulated. Rouben Paul Adalian writing in 2002 highlights the difficulty of trying to develop a common definition for genocide among specialists.

Legal definition of genocide

The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". The acts in question include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Genocide is a crime of special intent (); it is carried out deliberately, with victims targeted based on real or perceived membership in a protected group.

The Genocide Convention's words "in whole or in part" were interpreted by the International Court of Justice in 2007 as follows: [S]ince the object and purpose of the Convention as a whole is to prevent the intentional destruction of groups, the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole.

United States law also addresses this point. The 1987 statute implementing the Genocide Convention says that the words "in part" mean "in substantial part" and furthermore:

[T]he term "substantial part" means a part of a group of such numerical significance that the destruction or loss of that part would cause the destruction of the group as a viable entity within the nation of which such group is a part.

The genocides recognized under the 1948 legal definition that led to trials in international criminal tribunals are the Cambodian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, and the Srebrenica massacre. But, the International Court of Justice has never held a state liable for genocide. There has been scholarly advocacy for expanding or reinforcing the concept of genocide, while others adhere to the original meaning under the Genocide Convention.

Themes in definitions of genocide

Raphael Lemkin's original definition of genocide was broader than that later adopted by the United Nations; he focused on genocide as the 'destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups', including actions that led to the 'disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups'. Scholarly definitions vary, but there are three common themes: 'the violence or other action taken should be deliberate, organized, sustained, and large-scale', atrocities are selective for a distinguishable group, and 'the perpetrator takes steps to prevent the group from surviving or reproducing in a given territory'. The colloquial understanding of genocide is heavily influenced by the Holocaust as its archetype and is conceived as innocent victims targeted for their ethnic identity rather than for any political reason.

Genocide is often considered the apex of criminality, worse than other atrocities even if they lead to an equal amount of civilian death and destruction. However, it has also been argued that several categories of the eleven crimes against humanity can be just as heinous. In international law, genocide is distinct from crimes against humanity, and the legal definition of genocide is narrower. Genocide also has a narrower legal definition than many scholarly non-legal definitions, and the public understanding of genocide is likewise broader than the legal definition.

The tension between law and history serves to clarify the variations in the interpretation of genocide legal definitions and popular discussion. Law focuses on serious acts, defining genocide with specific criteria and limited group protections, while historians explore the complexity of genocides without legal restrictions. They consider long-term processes, various motives, and the evolution of group identities after attacks.

According to Ernesto Verdeja, associate professor of political science and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, there are three ways to conceptualise genocide other than the legal definition: in academic social science, in international politics and policy, and in colloquial public usage. According to Verdeja, most scholars do not require proof of intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Social scientists often define genocide more broadly than the Convention. The international politics and policy definition centres around prevention policy and intervention and may actually mean "large-scale violence against civilians" when used by governments and international organisations. Lastly, Verdeja says the way the general public colloquially uses "genocide" is usually "as a stand-in term for the greatest evils". This is supported by political scientist Kurt Mundorff who highlights how to the general public genocide is "simply mass murder carried out on a grand scale," akin to the crime of extermination which is a crime against humanity in international law, distinct from the crime of genocide.

List of definitions

Whether something is recognized as genocide depends on which definition is used.

Criticisms of definitions

Since the adoption of the CPPCG there has been criticism of the definition adopted. Common criticisms across definitions includes the focus on physical destruction, the defining of target groups, and the proportion of a group that needs to be affected to cross the threshold to be considered "genocide".

Christian Gerlach, professor of Modern History at the University of Bern, opposes the concept of genocide. His history of the Holocaust, The Extermination of the European Jews, does not use the term, and in a 2023 interview with the World Socialist Web Site he called genocide "an analytically worthless concept made for political purposes" and "an instrument of liberal imperialism".

In literature, some scholars have popularly emphasized the role that the Soviet Union played in excluding political groups from the international definition of genocide, which is contained in the Genocide Convention of 1948, and in particular they have written that Joseph Stalin may have feared greater international scrutiny of the political killings that occurred in the country, such as the Great Purge; however, this claim is not supported by evidence. The Soviet view was shared and supported by many diverse countries, and they were also in line with Raphael Lemkin's original conception, and it was originally promoted by the World Jewish Congress. By 1951, Lemkin was saying that the Soviet Union was the only state that could be indicted for genocide; his concept of genocide, as it was outlined in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, covered Stalinist deportations as genocide by default, and differed from the adopted Genocide Convention in many ways. From a 21st-century perspective, its coverage was very broad, and as a result, it would classify almost any gross human rights violation as a genocide, and many events that were deemed genocidal by Lemkin did not amount to genocide under the convention. As the Cold War began, this change was the result of Lemkin's turn to anti-communism in an attempt to convince the United States to ratify the Genocide Convention.

Historian Anton Weiss-Wendt has highlighted how much countries' own interest in not being prosecuted under the CPPCG led to changes to the final CPPCG adopted by the UN.

References

Bibliography

A collection of genocide definitions by the Aegis Trust