Quo usque tandem! An interpretation of “genocide” that deprives the Convention of its appropriate effects
Abstract
In its recent judgment on the case “Application of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”, the International Court of Justice missed a historic opportunity to extend the margin of appreciation regarding the protection of individuals and Humanity. The ICJ consolidates a strict and restricted interpretation of the crime of genocide, contrary to the principles of International Human Rights Law and the precedents of the courts specialized in International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law. The opinion of the majority the defense of State sovereignty is placed above the humanitarian obligations of the State and gross violations of human rights. In Cançado Trindade’s words, the reason of State (raison d'Etat) prevailed over reasons of Humanity. This paper is intended to demonstrate that the interpretation of the crime of genocide by the ICJ deprives the thematic Convention of its appropriate effects which must be aimed at the protection of the human being.
Downloads
References
Boisson de Chazournes, L. y Condorelli, L. (2000). Nueva interpretación del artículo 1 común a los Convenios de Ginebra: protección de los intereses colectivos. Revista Internacional de la Cruz Roja. Disponible en www.icrc.org/spa/resources/documents/misc/5tdnw8.htm
Cassese, A. (2007). On the Use of Criminal Law Notions in Determining State Responsibility for Genocide. J. Int. Criminal Justice, 5(4), 875-887.
Crawford J. (2009). Artículos sobre responsabilidad del Estado por hechos internacionalmente ilícitos. Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law.
ONU: United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law.
ONU (1996). Report of the ILC on the work of its Forty-eighth Session. Yearbook of the ILC. (Vol. II, Part Two). Ginebra: ONU.
Jurisprudencia
CIJ, Opinión Consultiva Relativa a las Reservas a la Convención para la Prevención y la Sanción del Delito de Genocidio, 28/05/1951.
CIJ-ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986.
TPI para Rwanda, Prosecutor v. Rutaganda (Trial Chamber) Caso No. ICTR-963, 06/12/1999; Akayesu (Trial Chamber) Caso No. ICTR-96-4, 02/09/1998.
Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos, caso de S. Veznedaroglu vs. Turkey, Sentencia, Opinión en disidencia parcial del Juez Bonello, de 11/04/2000.
TPI para la ex-Yugoslavia, Jelisic (Sala de Primera Instancia), 14/12/1999; y Prosecutor v Jelisic, (Apelación) Caso No. IT- 95-10, 05/07/2001.
CIJ-ICJ Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Nueva Aplicación 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2006.
CIJ-ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007 (I).
TPI para la ex-Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Mrkšić, Caso No. IT-95-13/1-T, Primera Instancia, Judgment of 27 September 2007.
TPI para la ex-Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Momčilo Krajišnik Caso No. IT-0039-A, 17/03/2009.
TPI para la ex-Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Martić, Caso No. IT-95-11-T, Primera Instancia, Sentencia del 12/06/2007.
CIJ-ICJ, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Sentencia (I). ICJ Reports 2010.
TPI para la ex-Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Stanišić and Simatović, IT-03-69-T, Primera Instancia, Sentencia del 30/05/2013.
CIJ-ICJ, Croatia v. Serbia, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Judgement, 03/02/2015.
CIJ-ICJ, Croatia v. Serbia, Dissenting Opinion of Judge A. A. Cancado Trindade, ICJ Reports 2015, 03/02/2015.
This journal provides open access to its content, based on the principle that providing the public with free access to research helps a greater global exchange of knowledge
Revista de la Facultad de Derecho. Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional License.
