Genocide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genocide is  a term defined by Article 2 of the  and  Punishment of the Crime of Genocide">Convention on the Prevention and  Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or  in part, a national, ethnic, racial or  religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or  mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or  in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and  forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Contents 1 Coining of the term genocide 2 Genocide as a crime under international law 2.1 In part 2.2 CPPCG coming into force 2.3 Security Council responsibility to protect 3 Criticisms of the CPPCG 4 International prosecution of genocide 4.1 Nuremberg Trials 4.2 Former Yugoslavia 4.3 Rwanda 4.4 Darfur 5 Genocide as a crime under domestic law 5.1 Belgium 5.2 Canada 5.3 Finland 5.4 France 5.5 Netherlands 5.6 Spain 5.7 Sweden 5.8 United Kingdom 5.9 Fiji 6 Genocide in history 7 Stages of genocide and  efforts to prevent it 8 See also 9 Bibliography 10 Notes 11 External links

[edit] Coining of the term genocide

Homicide
Murder
Felony murder
Consensual homicide
Negligent homicide
Vehicular homicide
Honor killing
Assassination
Ritual murder
Proxy murder
Torture murder
Murder-suicide
Spree killer
Child murder
Lynching
Lust murder
Mass murder
Serial killer
Human sacrifice
List of murdered people
Manslaughter
In English law
Non-criminal homicide
Justifiable homicide
Capital punishment
Other types of homicide
Infanticide
Fratricide
Sororicide
Parricide
Patricide
Mariticide
Matricide
Uxoricide
Filicide
Regicide
Genocide
Democide
Suicide
Deicide
This box: view • talk • edit

The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959), a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, in 1943, from the roots genos (Greek for family, tribe or  race) and  -cide (Latin - occidere or  cideo - to massacre).

In 1933 Lemkin made a presentation to the Legal Council of the League of Nations conference on international criminal law in Madrid, for which he prepared an  essay on the Crime of Barbarity as a crime against international law. The concept of the crime, which later evolved into the idea of genocide, was based mostly on the experience of Assyrians^[1] massacred in Iraq on 11 August 1933. The events in Iraq reminded him of earlier similar events of the Armenian Genocide during World War I.^[2]

In 1944, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published Lemkin's most important work, entitled Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, in the United States. This book included an  extensive legal analysis of German rule in countries occupied by Nazi Germany during the course of World War II, along with the definition of the term genocide. Lemkin's idea of genocide as an  offense against international law was widely accepted by the international community and  was one of the legal bases of the Nuremberg Trials.

Lemkin presented a draft resolution for a Genocide Convention treaty to a number of countries in an  effort to persuade them to sponsor the resolution. With the support of the United States, the resolution was placed before the General Assembly for a consideration. Lemkin said about the definition of genocide in its original adoption for international law at the Geneva Conventions:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. it  is intended rather to signify 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 the disintegration of the political and  social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and  the 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.[3]

Lemkin's original genocide definition was narrow, based mainly on the Holocaust and  Armenian Genocide, as it  addressed only crimes against "national groups" rather than "groups" in general. At the same time, it  was broad in that it  included not only physical genocide but also acts aimed at destroying the culture and  livelihood of the group. According to the Swiss professor Julia Fribourg, the term "genocide" includes displacement of national groups from their homelands with an  aim of destroying their cultural and  habitational grounds.

The words used before this to describe such an  atrocity were "Barbarity" and  "Vandalism." Lemkin felt that these did not accurately describe the atrocities and  coined the word Genocide.^[4]

[edit] Genocide as a crime under international law

In the wake of the Holocaust committed by the Nazis, Lemkin successfully campaigned for the universal acceptance of international laws, defining and  forbidding genocide. This was achieved in 1948, with the promulgation of the Convention on the Prevention and  Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and  came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)). it  contains an  internationally-recognized definition of genocide which was incorporated into the national criminal legislation of many countries, and  was also adopted by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or  in part, a national, ethnic, 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.

The first draft of the Convention included political killings but the USSR did not accept that actions against groups identified as holding similar political opinion or  social status, that would constitute genocide if carried out against an  ethnic group, was genocide. So they were removed in a political and  diplomatic compromise.

[edit] In part

The phrase "in whole or  in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Trial Chamber I - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001)^[5] that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004)^[6] paragraphs 8,9,10, and  11 addressed the issue of in part and  found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is  to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and  the part targeted must be significant enough to have  an impact on the group as a whole." The Appeals Chamber goes into details of other cases and  the opinions of respected commentators on the Genocide Convention to explian how they came to this conclusion.

The judges go on to say in paragraph 12 that "The determination of when the targeted part is  substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is  the necessary and  important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is  emblematic of the overall group, or  is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."^[7]

In paragraph 13 the judges raise the issue of the perpetrators' access to the victims: "The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and  control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. ... The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is  substantial, it  can - in combination with other factors - inform the analysis."^[6]

[edit] CPPCG coming into force

After the minimum 20 countries became parties to the Convention, it  came into force as international law on 12 January 1951. At that time however, only two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) were parties to the treaty: France and  the Republic of China. Eventually the Soviet Union ratified in 1954, the United Kingdom in 1970, the People's Republic of China in 1983 (having replaced the Taiwan-based Republic of China on the UNSC in 1971), and  the United States in 1988. This long delay in support for the Genocide Convention by the world's most powerful nations caused the Convention to languish for over four decades. Only in the 1990s did the international law on the crime of genocide begin to be enforced.

[edit] Security Council responsibility to protect

UN Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 28 April 2006, "reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and  139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and  crimes against humanity".^[8] The resolution commits the Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict.

[edit] Criticisms of the CPPCG

Much debate about genocides revolves around the proper definition of the word "genocide." The exclusion of social and  political groups as targets of genocide in the CPPCG legal definition has been criticized by some historians and  sociologists, for example M. Hassan Kakar in his book The Soviet Invasion and  the Afghan Response, 1979-1982^[9] argues that the international definition of genocide is  too restricted ^[10], and  that it  should include political groups or  any group so defined by the perpetrator and  quotes Chalk and  Jonassohn: "Genocide is  a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or  other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and  membership in it  are defined by the perpetrator."^[11]

According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is  murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or  religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and  Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes nonkillings that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or  forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. A generalized meaning of genocide is  similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or  otherwise intentional murder. it  is to avoid confusion regarding what meaning is  intended that Rummel created the term democide for the third meaning.^[12]

A major criticism of the international community's response to the Rwandan Genocide was that it  was reactive, not proactive. The international community has developed a mechanism for prosecuting the perpetrators of genocide but has not developed the will or  the mechanisms for intervening in a genocide as it  happens. Critics point to the Darfur conflict and  suggest that if anyone is  found guilty of genocide after the conflict either by prosecutions brought in the International Criminal Court or  in an  ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal, this will confirm this perception.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] International prosecution of genocide

All signatories to the CPPCG are  required to prevent and  punish acts of genocide, both in peace and  wartime, though some barriers make this enforcement difficult. In particular, some of the signatories — namely, Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, Yemen, and  Yugoslavia — signed with the proviso that no claim of genocide could be brought against them at the International Court of Justice without their consent^[13]. Despite official protests from other signatories (notably Cyprus and  Norway) on the ethics and  legal standing of these reservations, the immunity from prosecution they grant has been invoked from time to time, as when the United States refused to allow a charge of genocide brought against it  by Yugoslavia following the 1999 Kosovo War.

It is  commonly accepted that, at least since World War II, genocide has been illegal under customary international law as a peremptory norm, as well as under conventional international law. Acts of genocide are  generally difficult to establish, for prosecution, since intent, demonstrating a chain of accountability, has to be established. International criminal courts and  tribunals function primarily because the states involved are  incapable or  unwilling to prosecute crimes of this magnitude themselves.

To date all international prosecutions for genocide have  been brought in specially convened international tribunals. Since 2002, the International Criminal Court can exercise its jurisdiction if national courts are  unwilling or  unable to investigate or  prosecute genocide, thus being a "court of last resort," leaving the primary responsibility to exercise jurisdiction over alleged criminals to individual states. Due to the United States concerns over the ICC, the United States prefers to continue to use specially convened international tribunals for such investigations and  potential prosecutions.^[14]

[edit] Nuremberg Trials

Main article: Nuremberg Trials

The Nuremberg Trials is  the general name for two sets of trials of Nazis involved in World War II and  the Holocaust. The trials were held in the German city of Nuremberg from 1945 to 1949 at the Nuremberg Palace of Justice . The first and  more famous of these trials was the Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal or  IMT, which tried 24 of the most important captured (or still believed to be alive) leaders of Nazi Germany. it  was held from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946.

[edit] Former Yugoslavia

Main article: Bosnian Genocide

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is  a court under the auspices of the United Nations for the prosecution of genocide and  certain other types of crime committed in former Yugoslavia since 1991. The tribunal functions as an  ad-hoc court and  is located in The Hague. it  was established by Resolution 827 of the UN Security Council, which was passed on May 25, 1993.

Some of those found guilty of Genocide or  crimes against humanity are:

• Milan Babić (deceased), Krajina Serb , prime minister of Republika Srpska Krajina (Serb self proclaimed entity in Croatia); sentenced to thirteen years for his part in ethnic cleansing.
• Vidoje Blagojevic, Bosnian Serb, a Bosnian Serb Army officer, sentenced to 18 years for involvement in the Srebrenica genocide.
• Dragan Jokic, Bosnian Serb, sentenced to 9 years for involvement in Srebrenica massacre.
• Radislav Krstic, Bosnian Serb, Bosnian Serb Army general; sentenced to thirty-five years (originally forty-six years) for Srebrenica genocide, crimes against humanity and  violations of the laws or  customs of war.

[edit] Rwanda

Main article: Rwandan Genocide

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is  a court under the auspices of the United Nations for the prosecution of offenses committed in Rwanda during the genocide which occurred there during April, 1994, commencing on April 6. The ICTR was created on November 8, 1994 by the Security Council of the United Nations in order to judge those people responsible for the acts of genocide and  other serious violations of the international law performed in the territory of Rwanda, or  by Rwandan citizens in nearby states, between January 1 and  December 31, 1994.

So far, the ICTR has finished nineteen trials and  convicted twenty five accused persons. Another twenty five persons are  still on trial. Nineteen are  awaiting trial in detention. Ten are  still at large. The first trial, of Jean-Paul Akayesu, began in 1997. Jean Kambanda, interim Prime Minister, pleaded guilty.^[15]

[edit] Darfur

Main article: Darfur conflict

Survivors of genocide, from the Nazi Holocaust, Cambodia,  and  Herzegovina">Bosnia to Rwanda, called on October 20, 2006 for European Union sanctions to stop the Darfur conflict, saying so far the EU has done almost nothing to stop mass killing in western Sudan. A Holocaust survivor told that he didn't survive a Nazi concentration camp to sit back while genocide is  repeated. He was one of 120 people to sign an  open letter to EU leaders meeting in the Finnish town of Lahti, urging EU sanctions on the Sudanese government. Europe can play a leading role in stopping this slaughter but it  has to act now. The letter called on the EU to implement a U N-authorised no-fly zone over Darfur and  to apply concerted pressure on Sudan to stop killing civilians and  accept a UN force. it  also called for targeted sanctions in the form of asset freezes and  travel bans on those responsible for rights abuses and  for Brussels to set a date for EU-wide trade sanctions if the Sudanese did not respond to the pressure.[2]

[edit] Genocide as a crime under domestic law

[edit] Belgium

In 1993 Belgium had adopted universal jurisdiction, allowing prosecution of genocide, committed by anybody in the world. The practice was widely applauded by many human rights groups, because it  made legal action possible to perpetrators who did not have  a direct link with Belgium, and  whose victims were not Belgian citizens or  residents. Ten years later in 2003, Belgium repealed the law on universal jurisdiction (under pressure from the United States). However, some cases which had already started continued. These incuded those concerning the Rwandan genocide, and  complaints filed against the Chadian ex-President Hissène Habré. ^[16]

[edit] Canada

In Canada the War Crimes and  Crimes Against Humanity Act makes it  an offence under Canadian law to commit genocide, whether inside or  outside Canada. A person may be charged under this law if, at the time of the crime, the perpetrator was a Canadian citizen or  was employed by Canada, if the victim was a Canadian citizen or  a citizen of a country allied to Canada, if the perpetrator was a citizen of, or  employed by, a country that Canada was engaged in armed conflict with or  if, at any time after committing the crime, the perpetrator enters Canadian territory.

This Act is  in effect the Enabling Legislation that applies the articles of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, which was passed by the UN General Assmebly in 1948. However, Canada effectively blocked any such enabling legislation until the year 2000, rendering any application of the Convention to Canada ineffective. As a result, many victims of apparent genocide in Canada, such as aboriginal people and  inmates of the infamous "Indian Residential Schools" where more  than 50,000 children died between 1895 and  1984, have  been denied legal redress for these crimes. (Information: www.hiddenfromhistory.org; see also "Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust", 2005).

[edit] Finland

Genocide has been criminalized as a separate crime in Finland since 1995 and  carries a penalty from 4 years to life sentence^[17]. Attempted genocide or  planning it  are punishable. Genocide, as a number of other crimes of international nature is  inside Finnish universal jurisdiction, but under Chapter 1, Section 12 of the Penal Code, incidents of it  abroad may not be investigated unless the Prosecutor General gives an  order to do this.^[18]

The group "Falun Dafa in Europe" on their website report that in 2003 "the Finnish human right lawyer Mr. Erkki Kannsto filed a criminal lawsuit against Luo Gan with the National Criminal Prosecutor Office and  the Police Department in Helsinki on September 11 2003, on the charges of "cruel torture" and  "genocide." ... The Finnish Office of the Prosecutor General and  the Police Department immediately carried out an  investigation into the case after accepting the lawsuit"^[19]. However, Luo Gan returned to China before any further action was taken by Finnish authorities.^[18]

[edit] France

In December 2005, despite attempts by the French Defence Ministry to stop him, Jacques Baillet, the prosecutor at the army tribunal, began an  investigation into the role of the French army during the genocide in Rwanda. The 2,500 member French peace keeping force that was sent to Rwanda in 1994 by François Mitterrand is  accused not only of not stopping the genocide but also of actively participating in it. The allegations of participation are  brought by two witnesses who the prosecutor thinks are  credible enough to warrant an  inquiry. Aurea Mukakalisa says she saw Hutu militia enter a camp set up by the French army and  designated Tutsis who were forced to leave the camp by French soldiers. She says that she saw militia kill the Tutsis who left the camp and  that some Tutsis were killed by French soldiers. A second witness Innocent Gisanura says that French soldiers remained in their vehicles and  did not intervene in the killing of Tutsis by members of the Hutu militia in the Biserero forests.^[20]

[edit] Netherlands

Dutch law restricts prosecutions for genocide to its nationals. On December 23, 2005 a Dutch court ruled in a case brought against Frans van Anraat for supplying chemicals to Iraq, that "[it] thinks and  considers legally and  convincingly proven that the Kurdish population meets the requirement under the genocide conventions as an  ethnic group. The court has no other conclusion: that these attacks were committed with the intent to destroy the Kurdish population of Iraq" and  because he supplied the chemicals before 16 March 1988, the date of the Halabja poison gas attack, he is  guilty of a war crime but not guilty of complicity in genocide.^[21][22]

[edit] Spain

Under Spanish law, judges have  the right to try foreigners suspected of genocidal acts that have  taken place outside Spain. In June 2003 Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón jailed Ricardo Miguel Cavallo, (also known as Miguel Angel Cavallo), a former Argentine naval officer, extradited from Mexico to Spain pending his trial on charges of genocide and  terrorism relating to the years of Argentina's military dictatorship.^{[23] [24]}

On 11 January 2006 it  was reported that the Spanish High Court will investigate whether seven former Chinese officials, including the former President of China Jiang Zemin and  former Prime Minister Li Peng participated in a genocide in Tibet. This investigation follows a Spanish Constitutional Court (26 September 2005) ruling that Spanish courts could try genocide cases even if they did not involve Spanish nationals.^[25]The court proceedings in the case brought by the Madrid-based Committee to Support Tibet against several former Chinese officials was opened by the Judge on 6 June, 2006, and  on the same day China denounced the Spanish court's investigation into claims of genocide in Tibet as an  interference in its internal affairs and  dismissed the allegations as "sheer fabrication". ^[26][27]

[edit] Sweden

In Sweden genocide was criminalized in 1964. According to the Swedish law any act intended to destroy, in whole or  in part, a national, ethnic, racial or  religious group, as such, and  which is  punished according to the criminal act is  punished as genocide and  carries a penalty from 4 years to life sentence. The swedish legislation simply noticed that any severe common crime which is  committed in order to destroy an  ethnic group can be considered genocide, no matter what specific crime it  is. Also intent, preparation or  conspiring to genocide, and  also failure to reveal such a crime is  punishable as specified in penal code chapter 23, which is  applicable to all crimes. ^[28]

[edit] United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has incorporated the International Criminal Court Act into domestic law. it  is not retroactive so it  applies only to events after May 2001 and  genocide charges can be filed only against British nationals and  residents. According to Peter Carter QC, chairman of the Bar's human rights committee^[29] "It means that British mercenaries who support regimes that commit war crimes can expect prosecution".^[21]

[edit] Fiji

Fiji has enacted laws that address the matter of genocide in Fiji in the 1960's and  1970's and  are contained in Chapter VIII of the Fiji Islands Penal Code.

[edit] Genocide in history

Main article: Genocides in history

Genocide appears to be a regular and  widespread event in the history of civilization. The phrase "never again" or  "not on our watch" is  often used in relation to genocide and  has been contradicted up to the present day.

Determining which historical events constitute genocide and  which are  merely criminal or  inhuman behavior is  not a clear-cut matter. Furthermore, in nearly every case where accusations of genocide have  circulated, partisans of various sides have  fiercely disputed the interpretation and  details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. an  accusation of genocide is  certainly not taken lightly and  will almost always be controversial. Revisionist attempts to deny or  challenge genocides is, in some countries, penally repressed.

[ and  efforts to prevent it">edit] Stages of genocide and  efforts to prevent it

According to President of Genocide Watch, Gregory Stanton, genocide develops in eight stages that are  "predictable but not inexorable". The FBI has found somewhat similar stages for hate groups.

It is  worth noting that while some governments follow certain of the "recommendations" below, in other jurisdictions they are  actually illegal. For instance, in the United States, the First Amendment forbids the banning of so-called "hate speech".

Stage	Characteristics	Preventive measures
1. Classification	People are  divided into "us and  them".	"The main preventive measure at this early stage is  to develop universalistic institutions that transcend... divisions."
2. Symbolization	"When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups..."	"To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden as can hate speech".
3. Dehumanization	"Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder."	"Hate propaganda should be banned, hate crimes and  atrocities should be promptly punished."
4. Organization	"Genocide is  always organized... Special army units or  militias are  often trained and  armed..."	"To combat this stage, membership in these militias should be outlawed."
5. Polarization	"Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..."	"Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or  assistance to human rights groups..."
6. Identification	"Victims are  identified and  separated out because of their ethnic or  religious identity..."	"At this stage, a Genocide Alert must be called..."
7. Extermination	"It is  "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human."	"At this stage, only rapid and  overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or  refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed international protection."
8. Denial	"The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..."	"The response to denial is  punishment by an  international tribunal or  national courts."

[edit] See also

• Autogenocide
• Crime against humanity
• Cultural genocide
• Ethnic cleansing
• Gendercide
• Historical revisionism (negationism)
• Identicide
• International Association of Genocide Scholars
• Nazi eugenics
• Universal jurisdiction
• War crime
• Genocide Convention
• Minority Rights Group International
• Policide

[edit] Bibliography

• Annett, Kevin D., "Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust" (2001, 2005); access this extensive work through the following website: www.hiddenfromhistory.org .* Frank Chalk and  Kurt Jonassohn, The History and  Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and  Case Studies, Yale University Press, 1990
• Israel W. Charny, Encyclopedia of Genocide, ABC-Clio Inc, 720 pages, ISBN 0-87436-928-2 (December 1, 1999)
• Daniele Conversi, 'Genocide, ethnic cleansing, and  nationalism', in Gerard Delanty and  Krishan Kumar (eds) Handbook of Nations and  Nationalism. London: Sage Publications, 2005, vol. 1, pp. 319-333
• Barbara Harff, Early Warning of Communal Conflict and  Genocide: Linking Empirical Research to International Responses, Westview Press, August 2003, paperback, 256 pages, ISBN 0-8133-9840-1
• (French) LeCour Grandmaison, Olivier, Coloniser, Exterminer - Sur la guerre et l'Etat colonial, Fayard, 2005, ISBN 2-213-62316-3 (Table of contents)
• Samantha Power,  and  the Age of Genocide">"A Problem from Hell": America and  the Age of Genocide Harper Perennial (2003) paperback, 656 pages ISBN 0-06-054164-4
• R.J. Rummel, Death By Government, Transaction Publishers, 496 pages, ISBN 1-56000-927-6 (March 1997)
• Lyal S. Sunga, The Emerging System of International Criminal Law: Developments in Codification and  Implementation , Kluwer (1997) 508 p. (ISBN 90-411-0472-0)
• Lyal S. Sunga, Individual Responsibility in International Law for Serious Human Rights Violations, Nijhoff (1992) 252 p. (ISBN 0-7923-1453-0)
• Samuel Totten, William S. Parsons, and  Israel W. Charny, Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and  Eyewitness Accounts, 2nd edition, Routledge, 2004
• Benjamin A. Valentino, Final Solutions: Mass Killing and  Genocide in the 20th Century, Cornell University Press, 2004
• Catharine A. MacKinnon Are Women Human?: and  Other International Dialogues, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006

[edit] Notes

[edit] External links

Overviews

• Aegis Trust (genocide prevention trust) an  independent international organisation dedicated to eliminating genocide
• BBC on defining genocide
• Committee on Conscience of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum; Responding to Threats of Genocide
• Convention on the Prevention and  Punishment of the Crime of Genocide at Law-Ref.org - fully indexed and  crosslinked with other documents
• Documents and  Resources on War, War Crimes and  Genocide
• Genocide Intervention Network
• Genocide Watch stages of genocide
• Institute for the Study of Genocide/International Association of Genocide Scholars
• Never Again International youth genocide prevention organization; organized the 2004 Rwanda Forum at the Imperial War Museum in London.
• Never again  Wiki
• OneWorld Perspectives Magazine: Preventing Genocide (April/May 2006) - global human rights and  development network looks at genocide from a variety of perspectives
• Prevent Genocide International

The Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada; websites: www.hiddenfromhistory.org ; http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org

Darfur

• Protect Darfur UK-based lobbying organisation
• Genocide Intervention Network Building the first permanent anti-genocide constituency
• Africa Action Africa advocacy organization seeking 400,000 signatures on petition demanding US action to stop genocide in Darfur
• International Solidarity Fast for Darfur
• Photographs from the Sudan genocide
• Stop Genocide Now Global community to change the way the world responds to genocide>
• Students Taking Action Now: Darfur Student movement to end the genocide in Darfur with over 75 chapters in the US and  Canada
• United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: Voices on Genocide Prevention Podcast Stay up-to-date on the crisis in Darfur and  the continuing challenge or  preventing and  responding to genocide
• Save Darfur Coalition Alliance of over 160 humanitarian, advocacy, human rights, and  faith-based organizations united to end the genocide in Darfur.

Research Programs

• Center for Holocaust and  Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota
• Genocide Studies Program, Yale University
• Montreal Institute for Genocide Studies, Concordia University
• Minorities at Risk project at the University of Maryland

Other

• Genocide 1971 in Bangladesh (former East Pakistan)
• Genocide in Bangladesh, 1971
• Genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka
• Armenian Genocide
• International Campaign to Stop South African Genocide
• Genocide'83 of Tamils in Sri Lanka
• Map of Occurrences of Genocide Throughout History (open for additions by anyone)
• What is  Genocide
• The Roman genocide of the Jews in the First Century
• The Famine-Genocide in Ukraine (Holodomor)
• The genocidal deportation of the Chechen population
• U.N. Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide

International criminal law
Sources of law:
Charter of the IMT - Crime against international law - Crime against humanity - Crime against peace Crime of apartheid - Crime of genocide - Customary law - Laws of war - Nuremberg Principles Peremptory norm - Rome Statute - Universal jurisdiction - War crime - War of aggression
Courts:
War responsibility trials in Finland - International Military Tribunal for Europe International Military Tribunal for the Far East - Khabarovsk War Crime Trials Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia - Tribunal for Rwanda - Court for Sierra Leone International Criminal Court
History:
List of war crimes This box: view • talk • edit