If you kill a fewer Jews – you are a genocidal killer, if you want to justice a judaic politician or officer guilty of the death of tens of thousands of non-Jewish people – you are an anti-Semite!
The global Courts are very keen to justice and condemn in decisions and consequences the actions of representatives of countries specified as Russia, Serbia, Belarus, Iran, China, Korea BC, ...still late Syria, etc. On the another hand, they are slow, indifferent, highly "understood", threatened and intimidated by global state terrorists in terms of aggression, mass murder, public genocide – if they are done by citizens of the United States, Israel, large Britain, France and more late Ukraine.If you kill a fewer Jews – you are a genocidal killer, if you want to plant a judaic politician or officer guilty of the death of tens of thousands of non-Jewish people – you are an anti-Semite!
The question can be raised directly: do global law and the UN inactive have meaning and functioning, do we go consecutive back to the times of the stronger law and live in the times of sanctioned barbarism and chaotic force – typical for the “unpunished empires and self-loving elites”?!
Pride walks before it falls. It is simply a pity that it costs hundreds of thousands and millions of lives.
PZ
-----------
What are MTS and ICC?
Court of Justice (MTS) [see:https://www.unic.un.org.pl/mts/%5D Headquartered in The Hague, it is the main judicial body of the United Nations. On the another hand, the global Criminal Court (ICC) is the first always permanent global court appointed to justice individuals accused of committing the most severe crimes that occurred after 1 July 2002. The global Court of Justice judges disputes between states and the global Criminal Court judges war criminals. – MTS is simply a typical tribunal that settles disputes between states but has no right to justice individuals. – ICC (see:https://www.unic.un.org.pl/mtk/), is simply a tribunal that rules on 4 crimes: aggression, genocide, against humanity, and war crimes. He has the right to justice individuals, even if they enjoy immunity. In situations like this, immunity doesn't defend them.
International Courts according to Polish State Interpretation:
The Hague is the seat of the global Court of Justice (MTS), the Permanent Court of Arbitration (STA), the global Criminal Court (ICC) and the global Criminal Courts (MICT) Mechanism. We cooperate and support the activities of each of these tribunals, taking into account their specificity. We participate in the work of the ICC's working groups, support victims of the heaviest global crimes, and we besides accept those sentenced by the MICT to execute prison sentences in Poland.
For:https://www.gov.pl/web/landia/tribunal international
-------------------------
"Explanation" of global law in the issue of the current and most likely next US government (genocide protector?):
"The home (Representatives – PZ) passed a law on Thursday to impose sanctions on officials of the global Criminal Court – in consequence to the court issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The ICC attack on Netanjah sparked opposition from Republicans and Democrats in Congress. The legislature led by the Republican organization is expected to deal with the bill.
There is inactive broad bipartisan support in the Capitol for American military aid to Israel, but control over US support for Israel's war with Hamas has intensified with the deepening of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. This issue sparked a divided in the Democratic organization due to the fact that progressives were very critical of the Israeli government.
Last year, the ICC issued warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu, erstwhile Israeli defence minister Yoava Gallant and a high-ranking Hamas official, accusing them of war crimes committed during and after Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023.
The Prime Minister's office rejected the warrants as "absurd and anti-Semitic".
The government calls for "the beating of warrants against Israeli officials in the strongest possible words". And according to the text of the law, this measurement would impose sanctions on the court for "all efforts to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute any protected individual from the United States and their allies." Sanctions include a ban on U.S. real property transactions and visa blocking and withdrawal.
The ICC, headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, was formed in 2002 and is tasked with prosecuting individuals for genocide crimes, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The ICC does not have its own enforcement mechanics and relies on the support of countries in arrests. Israel, like the United States, is not a associate of the ICC and challenged the jurisdiction of the court over its actions in conflict.
The home adopted the draft ICC Sanctions Act in the last session of legislature with 247 votes to 155, with 42 Democrats supporting Republicans but not put to the vote in the Senate, which was then under the control of the Democrats. Republicans in legislature are raising it again, now that they control both the home and the Senate.
for: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/09/politics/house-icc-sanctions-bill-israel/index.html
——————————————
And now a small general considerations in the release of the “unbiased expert”:
"Ludicide under global law"
With Patricia Grzebyk talks to Cornelia Sobczak
What is genocide?
Genocide is 1 of the most serious crimes in global law. It is simply a situation in which attacks are carried out on 1 of the 4 distinguished groups: national, ethnic, racial or religious. And only so-defined groups can be attacked. The attack aims to destruct specified a group in full or in part. So, in order to prove genocide, it is not only essential to prove that people from a given group are killed, it is essential to prove that they are dying, due to the fact that the mark of the stalkers is to destruct this group as such.
That's the conventional definition?
Yes, that is the definition of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and punishment of Genocide Crimes. The first proposals for the definition of genocide, formulated by Rafał Lemkin, inactive during the Second War, and included in his book Axis regulation in Occupied Europe1, or even in General Assembly Resolution 96 of December 1946 included more groups and types of attacks: for example, an attack on the culture of a given group. At the negotiating phase of the Convention, "social groups" and "political groups" were eliminated by the States, as this was feared to let accusations to be made against, for example, the russian Union, where during the times of terror, "burge" or "cuckoos" were attacked. To destruct specified accusations, they focused on national, ethnic, racial, or spiritual groups.
The Western states were not able to extend their definitions, especially of "cultural genocide", due to what they did in their colonies or against indigenous peoples.
Yes, and the extension of the definition was feared by the countries of South America. With the many political upheavals and changes in power that occurred there, it was feared that virtually all group that would lose the political conflict would accuse the another side of genocide. Poles besides raised 1 of the counter-arguments – although it should be remembered that they had no longer, in 1948, full negotiating freedom as part of the east bloc. We have pointed out that "social-political groups" are an imprecise term, and the groups themselves are not unchangeable enough, so the Convention should only defend those groups which are clearly defined and we have no uncertainty about their existence.
I am asking for a definition due to the fact that it seems that in fresh times we are dealing with any inflation of the concept of “genocide”. Sometimes it is simply utilized rhetorically to emphasize the unique cruelty of certain crimes, whether historical or current. They besides usage it, in good faith, people simply shaken by their scale or perfidy. Do you think that journalists, publicists, historians and politicians should keep terminology discipline, defender the precision of this concept? Or is it that frequently calling various human rights violations or war crimes genocide that indicates that this conventional definition is besides narrow and that it should be modified?
Indeed, there have been many situations since 1948 where the definition could be modified, even erstwhile the statutes of the various courts were adopted, including the permanent statute of the global Criminal Court, but these opportunities were never utilized to extend the scope of protection. It is even said that in the hard negotiations on the ICC Statute, the question of the definition of genocide was the least controversial, as it was simply copied what was adopted in 1948.
However, it remains a challenge that the definition does not cover all groups that may request protection – for example political groups, but besides LGBTQ people who are persecuted or even exterminated in many countries. any researchers point out that the definition speaks of racial groups, and race is simply a concept in the modern word rather fluid, so it can cover different groups if they are sufficiently unchangeable and isolated and do not “get” into the national, cultural or spiritual group – then the concept of “race group” can be a certain rescue, as shown by the work of the Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Why are we dealing with inflation? It is due to the fact that it is simply a word that is very mobilizing, both public opinion and the global community. erstwhile there is simply a threat of genocide, we see the acceleration of certain procedures in various global organisations. due to the fact that this is simply a crime that is called a crime, Crime of Crimes, it is frequently believed to feature the highest level of cruelty, which is not true. Genocide can be done rapidly and efficiently, simply by shooting people, and, for example, a war crime can be about being raped and tortured for weeks. Which crime is scarier? This cannot be compared, but not necessarily all case of genocide will be the top possible beast.
Often, the victims themselves believe that if we classify crimes against them as war crimes or crimes against humanity, it diminishes them that the global community does not appreciate the importance of this crime. We observed this in a discussion about the Katyn crime, which was undoubtedly a war crime, without a uncertainty besides a crime against humanity, but families of victims and the Polish side were very keen to call it genocide. Which was problematic, for example, due to the fact that the crime occurred before 1948, and global law recognises the rule that the law does not act backwards. Interestingly, even the Holocaust, which is an apparent example of genocide, was not named genocide by the Nuremberg Tribunal, which judged 3rd Reich officers for war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity.
There are besides legal reasons why states mention to the concept of genocide crimes. Why is the subject of genocide on Ukraine against Russia? Why is South Africa accusing Israel of genocide? After all, it would be easier to accuse Russia and Israel of war crimes, it would even be easier to talk about crimes against humanity. However, the problem is that the Convention on the Prevention and punishment of Genocide Crime includes a judicial clause which allows the case to begin in the global Court of Justice. The Geneva Conventions that specify war crimes do not offer specified an opportunity, and we do not have a convention on crimes against humanity. That is why states, having no another jurisdictional attachment, begin with the Convention on the moving and punishing of genocide crimes and almost by force effort to qualify any crime as genocide, due to the fact that it is the only way to go to this "world court" and effort to get any form of justice.
Yeah, who's in charge of hunting and punishing genocide crimes and who's in charge of war crimes and who can be held liable for these crimes? States, global organizations, units?
We can talk about the work of natural persons, that is, individuals – they should be tried primarily before national courts. In fact, all states have an work to prosecute genocide crimes and account for criminals. This work derives from average law and Treaty law if the States are organization to the Convention. On the another hand, due to the fact that sometimes countries neglect to fulfil this work ‒ cannot, do not want, there are different political reasons, sometimes organizational reasons – that is why we make global courts. Today, there is simply a permanent global Criminal Court, which may have committed genocide crimes or attempted genocide.
But in addition to the work of the individual, which we frequently focus on today, we besides have the work of the state. In order to talk about the work of the state, we must say that genocide is done by the representatives of this state, by its organs. The state, of course, is liable for specified actions, but it is hard to enforce this work sometimes.
So only nationals of the State who ratified the Rome Statute can be held accountable to the ICC?
Individuals (units) may be held liable if they have committed a crime in the territory of a State which is simply a organization to the Statute of the ICC or have the nationality of a State of the Party. In another words, genocide committed in the territory of Poland, from the vending device is covered by the jurisdiction of the ICC, due to the fact that we are, as Poland, organization to the ICC Statute. But if Polish citizens commit genocide in the United States, which are not a organization to the ICC Statute, they will besides be able to be held accountable as citizens of the state-side. Now we have a case of accusations of genocide against Israeli citizens. Why can the case be pending before the ICC? Since Palestine is simply a organization to the ICC Statute. Israel is not a party, but since there is simply a suspicion that its citizens are committing this crime in the territory of Palestine, the ICC can deal with it.
I thought only states could be parties to the ICC Statute, and Palestine is not a state?
Yeah, the question is, what's the state? The State of Palestine may be a disputed matter, but since the United Nations General Assembly has granted it observer status, i.e. it recognised the State of Palestine, erstwhile it deposited the instruments of ratification with the ICC, the tribunal stated: I am not a tribunal from which to check what is simply a state and what is not. If Palestine is considered a state in the United Nations, I will not question that. That's not my competence. But, of course, you are right that frequently the position of Palestine is undermined, Palestine has sued the United States before another global court, the global Court of Justice, and the United States has defended itself, undermining the state of Palestine. Israel besides undermines the statehood of Palestine. But there's no problem with the ICC.
How to punish people is easy to imagine. Put them in jail. But what can we do to you? And have there always been any cases of "success" in past since 1948, cases that you managed to punish?
In the case of State responsibility, full compensation may be claimed. If genocide occurs, it is known that people have already died, so there is no anticipation of restoring the position quo ante, the pre-existing state, which is simply restoring their lives. So what's left is to pay the cash compensation. But satisfaction is besides very important. This satisfaction may consist in the State's apology, admits guilt, implement appropriate preventive measures so that this does not happen again in the future. That he builds any memorials to what happened, that educational activities are being undertaken, or that various foundations are being created to work for reconciliation between groups whose members in the past were perpetrators and victims.
Do we know of "successes", an effective way to hold the state accountable and make amends? In the case of proceedings before the global Court of Justice, we do not have an example of a judgement on the work of the State for committing genocide, but, for example, in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro, the Court found Serbia not to be liable for preventing genocide in Srebrenica.
Historically, it was besides a success to enforce work from Germany, which paid compensation to victims of genocide, but besides built monuments, engaged in and engaged in educational and relief activities. Many scientists prove that the modern identity of Germany is built on accepting this work for genocide.
But we besides have cases specified as Turkey accused of genocide in the Armenians from 1915 to 1917, which, to date, has even challenged the classification of this crime as genocide, even though there is consensus among historians that this crime meets the conditions of genocide crime, even if it was committed long before the advent of the conventional definition.
Of course, the past of genocide is primarily a communicative of irresponsibility, a communicative of unaccounted for crimes. It is very crucial not to focus solely on the work of the individual, but to effort to enforce the work of the state. These actions, which South Africa has taken against Israel, for example, but besides Gambia against Myanmar (Burmie)2 initiating proceedings before the MTS, are signs of advancement and a breakthrough in knowing global law. They show that states have understood what has previously appeared in the literature of the subject, but is now being implemented in practice: namely, if there is simply a ban on genocide and the state accedes to the Convention on the Prohibition of Genocide, it is simply a promise to all countries of the world: “I will not do so.” If a country commits genocide, then all the countries of the planet have an interest in suing it to effort to enforce work from that country. And these fresh cases before the MTS show this willingness to affect a number of countries in what is not necessarily happening in their territory or just outside their borders. As part of the ongoing consultation procedure on the situation in the mediate East, which the MTS is presently dealing with, a number of states have made clear: "We are held responsible," said that, since they are obliged not only not to commit genocide but besides to prevent it, they must respond erstwhile genocide is suspected.
How?
Take diplomatic action, sometimes judicial action, against this country which is allowed to commit genocide or is suspected of it.
The discussions under the slogan “genocide or not?” frequently emphasize the importance of genocide. For example, Konstanty Gebert, author of the monumental historical work on genocide3, emphasizes that Israel has no genocidal intent, but it can be said that Hamas has it, which has its purposes recorded the demolition of the State of Israel. Can we talk about genocide in cases where the "perpetrators" side is weaker than the "victims" side? erstwhile 1 side expresses something that we can consider a genocidal intention, but there is no means to accomplish its intentions effectively?
Indeed, this genocide intention is crucial and this is 1 of the reasons why the crime of genocide is so seldom tried in practice before global courts. due to the fact that that intention is very hard to prove. In fact, you would gotta get into the heads of perpetrators, specified as Israeli politicians and military, to see if they are now committing war crimes due to the fact that they want to control Gaza, whether they truly want to destruct the full Palestinian population of Gaza. The evidence provided by South Africa in the MTS contained statements by Israeli politicians that could indicate that Israel's goal could be to exterminate Palestinians as a group as such.
This material became the subject of legal analysis. In order to interpret only from the practice of armed action that there has been genocide, it would be essential to prove that genocide is the only explanation for the action.
But Israel has created an impossible situation for the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip: people have nowhere to flee, the areas for which they are ordered to evacuate are then attacked, starving – due to the fact that humanitarian aid is not allowed. Is this not “the deliberate creation of surviving conditions for members of the group calculated to origin their full or partial physical destruction”, i.e. point c of Article 2 of the Second Convention?
In her suit against Israel, South Africa has highlighted these conditions and that account should be taken of the scale of failure among civilians who have nowhere to flee and humanitarian aid is not allowed. possibly from these facts we can interpret the genocidal intention of the state. erstwhile a natural individual is accused, we truly request to dig a small deeper to find out what its objectives were. Sometimes it's not easy. In the case of the Holocaust – and the Polish national courts called the Holocaust genocide – it was easy adequate that there were papers that clearly indicated what the Germans intended. In the case of genocide in Rwanda, it was besides rather easy to prove the intention, due to the fact that it was evidenced by a number of broadcasts on the air of the infamous RTLM radio, openly calling for the slaughter of Tutsi, the words "we will not spare anyone", "all are to be destroyed". If you look at the papers that have been filed by South Africa, there are all the Israeli authorities who say that Palestinians must be destroyed. 1 can interpret intent from this, but will it succeed? For, on the another hand, Israel says, "we are only destroying military targets, we have adopted a number of preventive measures, we are allowing humanitarian aid, the another organization is not fulfilling the arrangements," and so on.
But you asked me what it was erstwhile there was intention, but there was no means. delight remember that in order for genocide to happen, quite a few people don't gotta die. It is sometimes referred to as "one man genecide" – it is adequate even for 1 individual to die to talk about genocide, if you can prove that this individual was killed with the intention of destroying a part or a full group, that this individual killing is just an introduction to achieving the objectives of genocide. And we know that Hamas' victims have been a lot in the past fewer months, but before that.
The question is immediately raised as to whether we can hold organisations specified as Hamas who are not entities of global law accountable?
And that is simply a problem, due to the fact that we have clear rules and clear procedures in terms of state work and individual responsibility. And, of course, we can say that, in the case of global organisations or armed non-state groups, we will apply akin rules. But the question is, do you have courts that can account for it? Indeed, government in any countries allows prosecution of legal persons, armed groups. There are no rules in global courts, specified as the ICC or the MTS, to enable armed groups to be tried as such.
I remember the disappointment surrounding the first rulings of the peculiar Court for Lebanon erstwhile Hezbollah was not considered a terrorist group. But we besides have a precedent for the Nuremberg Trials of the Nuremberg Court, during which organizations specified as SS, SA and Gestapo were recognized as criminal organizations, which meant that each associate of this organization was treated as a criminal from a vending machine. So we have any precedents, we have the ability to justice organizations in any countries, but in the current global courts – no.
Do you think the Convention... the 1948 sound inactive works today?
Let me put it this way: we are dealing with efforts going in different directions. On the 1 hand, attempts are being made to extend in practice the application of the Convention on Genocide, which is how to interpret it today, in order to extend the concept of "groups" and the concept of "actions" in order to be able to cover as many cases as possible. On the another hand, processes frequently decision towards changing the qualifications of a given act. It is much easier to prove a crime against humanity than genocide. Crime against humanity includes various types of attacks, it does not should be killing, it may besides be persecution, arrest, sexual force against civilians, or another inhuman acts, if these actions were committed extensively or systematically.
If you look at the ICC statistics, the overwhelming majority of the cases presently under consideration are crimes against humanity, not even war crimes, and as far as genocide crimes are concerned, these are just preliminary charges against Al-Bashir of Sudan. What is missing in the case of crimes against humanity is precisely the akin convention that we have in the case of genocide, which would let a case to be brought up in the MTS. Crime against humanity is easier to prove, due to the fact that we do not gotta prove this intention, so crucial for the qualification of act as genocide. Therefore, the Committee on global Law has now drawn up a draft Convention on the Prevention and punishment of Crimes against Humanity, and is waiting for states to respond whether they decide to accept specified a Convention.
Although, of course, it is argued that the work to prosecute this crime derives from the average law. But you won't be able to get the right to open proceedings before the MTS.
Is there, in the survey of the improvement of global law, the thought that many crimes are now committed by large corporations that poison the environment, thereby creating conditions that are unliving and contributing to the deepening of climate disaster? Is it possible to prove that genocide is simply a kind of genocide?4.
Yes, specified reasoning appears in the discourse, there are demands that the extermination be distinguished as a separate war crime, but besides as a crime that can besides be committed during peace and that it be included in the jurisdiction of the global Criminal Court. It should be remembered that the ICC inactive judges individuals, not organizations. There is much talk about the work of business in the context of human rights and there are various guidelines in this area. The anticipation of bringing large corporations to account besides exists in national law. besides with the anticipation of attributing criminal liability. So this is where we're going to crash again about practice and the will of the states to see if the prosecutor can build a case against the company. But we besides know that attempts are already being made to at least hold the States liable for protecting the environment, as shown by fresh proceedings before the global Court of the Law of the Sea or the European Court of Human Rights and civilian actions of individuals against businesses. A directive has besides been adopted within the European Union, according to which countries will be required to introduce a criminality of various environmental offences.
Unfortunately, corporations and states frequently interact in environmental devastation.
I agree, and this is besides a question of the common interests of the state and the undertakings concerned. Let us remember that corporations frequently have a budget larger than any countries and taxes paid by environmental harm companies can be a major financial injection and discourage countries from pursuing harmful activities.
And in specified a applicable sense, what can specified susceptible groups do, for example, as national or cultural minorities, indigenous peoples or another groups that are not requested by the state in whose territory they reside, or by any another country?
It fits into something we call safety responsibility. That is: the state is sovereign, and this sovereignty means that it must defend the full population that is in its territory. If you do not comply with this obligation, then this work is passed on to the global community. So it is in the interest of specified a group to publicise violations and mobilise the public. The mobilisation of public opinion puts force on 3rd countries that are starting to claim their rights. And we already have a number of procedures that we can implement in this area, due to course there are places where human rights protection systems are very developed, for example in Europe, where we have a Council of Europe system, and so the anticipation to complain to the European Court of Human Rights.
But for example, there is no specified protection strategy in Asia. Then there is the launch of various procedures in the UN, different committees, specified as Human Rights or the Committee on Racial Discrimination. CERT, this Committee on Racial Discrimination, is very frequently active in protecting indigenous peoples and how their rights are respected. Various resolutions are adopted, declarations as to how specified a population should be protected, the rights it enjoys.
But we know it's not always effective, we know about the tragic situation of the Uighurs in China. I fishy we might even be dealing with genocide. But given the position of China in the safety Council (permanent member), we cannot anticipate sanctions against China for this, at least not those imposed by the UN. In addition, it is specified a powerful country and so powerful trading partner that it is hard to anticipate individual states to make decisions on sanctions against China due to the situation of the Uighurs. Although there are a number of countries that are reproving for this population and in their diplomacy frequently effort to exert specified force on China.
So, speaking to the definition itself and to the Convention itself, I think that it could be considered a useful instrument, but it is simply frequently the execution of its obligations that fails. Even if there are ways to effectively enforce global law, political will is frequently lacking to implement it.
So changing the definition of genocide or introducing fresh categories of crimes, or even fresh entities that may be prosecuted, does not make much sense, due to the fact that we, as an global community, are incapable to truly influence the behaviour of states and groups?
The 1948 Convention was said that erstwhile needed, we could not usage it for different reasons. For example, there are no procedures, or we cannot prove this peculiar intention. And then erstwhile we can usage it, it's actually unnecessary, due to the fact that for example, we can scope for crimes against humanity or war crimes. However, the definition itself and the word itself mobilises the global community. And now is it worth extending the definition? I think that reinterpreting different elements of definitions, specified as the concept of a racial group to include another groups, is simply a good way.
I'll give you specified a remarkable example. erstwhile we think of "typical genocide", specified a classical case after planet War II, we usually think of Rwanda, 1994, the extermination of Tutsi by the Hutu. But erstwhile this case was handled by the prosecutors of the global Criminal Court for Rwanda, they had a immense problem. They asked: how do we qualify these Tutsi? due to the fact that it would seem simple. An cultural group. It's evidently a coincidence. Yes, it is! If you look at the definition of an cultural group as defined by anthropologists, then the Tutsi should be different from the Hutu. But what are the differences? Religion? Language? Customs? Dance? Nope. They had precisely the same culture, the same way they behaved, so in an anthropological context they were not 2 separate groups. But then prosecutors utilized specified a pick-up that they said: whether it truly is an cultural group, so “objectively”. What matters is what the perpetrators thought. If the perpetrators in their heads said that the Tutsi were a separate cultural group, then they were liable for the crimes against them, and for that we could prosecute them.
And this approach allows us to prosecute genocide more effectively today. due to the fact that if, for example, the Russians, on the 1 hand, deny that the Ukrainian people exist, but on the another hand, they want to destruct everyone who creates or supports this Ukrainian nation, that is the question, how do they qualify these Ukrainians? Or as a political group, or as a separate cultural group? We request to analyse what the unsubs' position is? How do they approach that? Prosecutors are very careful and it is frequently that the prosecutor starts with the charge of genocide, but then changes this qualification to a crime against humanity or a war crime, due to the fact that it is simply easier to prove, and the effects are the same. You'll get the same compensation, the same will be the decisions about criminal sanctions erstwhile it comes to a person, so why play at proving peculiar intent erstwhile she's unnecessary? Only then frequently the victims are disappointed and do not realize why the Court did not call the crime genocide. It was besides a problem for families of victims of the Katyn crime who brought proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. At first instance, the Court ruled that Russia had broken Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, committing "inhuman and degrading treatment" of parts of the victims' relatives by secreting the papers from the investigation, not showing the burial place of the murdered officers and denying the fact about the Katyn crime. However, in the ruling, the Court considered the Katyn crime a war crime (for the Russian side it was a ‘common crime’ committed by the NKVD which is subject to limitation). Since the word “genocide” did not come up, it was considered that we had to appeal, which ended in a terrible defeat5. But this is the misunderstanding that sometimes another instruments in a given situation can be more effective. That's what's gonna happen. Just due to the fact that something is simply a war crime does not mean that it is "worse" that victims are little important. Crime against humanity is not a "worst" or little terrible crime than the crime of genocide. These are legal terms. Sometimes it's better to usage one, sometimes another.
However, Rafał Lemkin sought this very concept, coined it due to the fact that in his belief, genocide was something qualitatively new, more than mass murder, just action aimed at full groups. On the another hand, war crimes can be said to be as old as the world, as there is war, almost always any war crimes. And from this point of view, is it worth maintaining, for example, that what happened in Bucza or in Mariupol or what is happening in Gaza is genocide, since we know that it is definitely a war crime?
There may be respective qualifications of 1 act, it may besides be a war crime, and genocide. In fact, Lemkin, erstwhile he came up with the word genocide, he said that since we have a execution on 1 person, what to do erstwhile full groups are murdered. And that's why he thought there had to be a fresh word that would specify specified actions. And for him it was crucial to defend the group as such. That the disappearance of this group would be a tragedy for the full world. On the another hand, yes, war crimes are possibly as old as the world, but at the same time, the rules that make us settle war crimes are not so old. For example, the global Criminal Court will not deal with any war crime, but only crimes that are committed on a large scale or in a systematic manner.
When a discussion begins about possible genocide, about human rights violations, about crimes committed by officials of a given state, this model of cynical, cynical and realistic expression frequently starts. This cynicism is disguised as specified pragmatism, as expert discourse, as realism. It is said that nothing can be done to halt the crimes, that the interests of the stronger states are determined, that the Israeli authorities will stay impunityless, due to the fact that Israel is an ally of the United States, that China and Russia are besides powerful to exert force on them, that strong states cannot be held accountable. That, in fact, global law is simply a con... can be broken.
Of course these countries are already responsible. A number of sanctions have been imposed on Israel, for example, the Netherlands has broken cooperation in the transportation of military parts, many private companies have broken contracts with Israel, these are sanctions, these are consequences. It does not always should be sanctions imposed by the UN safety Council. We have an open investigation into Palestine in the ICC, and there are motions for arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence Minister Yoava Gallant6. It is besides possible for 3rd countries which can initiate proceedings on the basis of universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction is simply a tool that allows us to act in the interests of the full global community, even if the crime was not committed in our territory and does not affect our citizens.
For the time being, this has very small effect on Israel's or Russia's actions, it does not halt them.
In the case of Israel, we have another controversy about the qualifications of what is happening in Gaza. Israel argues that it acts in self-defense and that its actions are proportionate.
In general, it is very hard to halt genocide erstwhile it happens. Sometimes it takes weeks, months to react, and in the meantime, people die. erstwhile a hatred spiral turns on, it's very hard to dissuade the perpetrators from their goals. That is why there are different levels, different steps that lead to genocide, and that is why in the UN we are focusing primarily on prevention, investing in early informing systems, introducing different types of models that make us identify factors that may indicate that genocide can happen. If you catch them early enough, you can influence the decision-makers. This can be said, “listen, we see here that something is happening, we can halt improvement aid”, or “you will not get a debt from the global Monetary Fund”, or “we will not cooperate with you” or “we will impose sanctions on you”. The UN can besides impose sanctions on circumstantial individuals, identify them and say, "You cannot travel", or "we will frost your bank accounts." And it's something that gives specified a reflection, possibly they, these possible victims I hate, but the millions that I have in a Swiss bank – but it would be good to have access to them, wouldn't it? So here we talk all the time about how best to identify at the earliest phase is the threat of genocide, due to the fact that then we have the ability to act. erstwhile genocide has taken place, it is usually besides late to halt an extermination on a larger scale, the full device of force has already begun.
Is it not that, in the current strategy of social and global relations organisations, where the most crucial is this state sovereignty, the inviolability of borders, the rule of non-interference in the interior affairs of the state, it will always be very hard to defend human rights effectively?
Not necessarily, due to the fact that we have already learned after these decades of trials, greater failures and little success that the safety Council should consider examples of human rights violations, including, of course, genocide, as a threat to peace, which may even be a prerequisite for authorising the usage of force. The threat to the civilian population was a prerequisite for authorising the usage of force in Libya in 2011. It didn't work out well, but this authorization came in. If the safety Council is blocked, as is the case with Russia or China, then the debate goes to the General Assembly. And, yes, the General Assembly only gives recommendations, but although they are not legally binding resolutions, they do give large legitimacy to act.
That is why Ukraine, for example, wanted these resolutions in the General Assembly to be adopted, as this gives more legitimacy and encouragement to another countries: “You must aid us”. We have ongoing proceedings on an advisory opinion on the situation in the mediate East. There are respective twelve countries and respective global organisations (which have come forward before the operation in Gaza) who have made clear what is wrong. specified an global commitment has not been observed before.
We have massive interventions in the proceedings before the global Court of Justice. States intervene due to the fact that they say, "we are parties to the Convention, we would like to say how this Convention is to be interpreted." And these interventions took place in the case of Ukraine against Russia, or Gambia against Myanmar. They are besides emerging increasingly in South Africa's proceedings against Israel. And another installment of the engagement of 3rd countries – in March of this year Nicaragua sued Germany for selling arms to Israel, arguing: since Germany is helping Israel by selling it a weapon, it is thus helping a state that is accused of genocide, so Germany is besides breaking the law, they do not fulfil their work to prevent genocide.
We are now observing a very innovative approach by countries to yet exploit the courts we gotta effort to halt crimes. Is that effective? usually not, but these are only the beginnings, these are the pending proceedings, and they will only be the first sentences that clearly indicate this responsibility, so we are at a phase erstwhile the commitment of the states is shaping the fresh law.
Because the specificity of global law is that it is shaped not only by treaties, but besides by the practice of states. But sometimes we request a fewer decades to find whether and how a fresh standard developed. Today, not only the work of the State-recipient, which is indeed hard to enforce, but besides the work of those countries that do not react, and thus violate the work of prevention and response. There are besides diplomatic measures that we will not hear about in the media, specified as secret negotiations: "Listen, we will break specified a deal or retreat from cooperation, consider whether it pays off." And specified more discreet signals besides affect the behaviour of countries.
So there's any advancement in this area.
Of course there is, and of course we would like the changes to go faster. We would besides like to have a convention on crimes against humanity so that we can usage global tribunals more often. The word “genocide” involves specified an odyum that it immediately triggers immense emotions. As Israel heard "genocide," of course, he was outraged, due to the fact that the Jews were the victims of 1 of the top genocides, so the Israelis are not in mind, as it is now possible to accuse the judaic people of committing genocide. There would be no specified emotion if we utilized the words war crimes or crimes against humanity, it would be easier to operate on a legal level, but we don't have the appropriate procedures here. So now we are dealing with a multi-track action to simultaneously effort to reinterpret the 1948 Convention and make fresh instruments, fresh mechanisms to effort to enforce this work or at least exert pressure.
And for example, erstwhile we talk about how to lead armed conflicts, how to conduct armed actions...
Best not to drive.
Of course, but we must be pragmatic, armed conflicts take place. So now that these conflicts are here, first of all, the practice of those countries that wage war is important. Wars happen and we request to know how to apply the principles of global law and talk about it with countries active in conflict. So of course the most active are American or Israeli lawyers, due to the fact that they have this practice all day. And the discussion with them is very crucial to me, due to the fact that we must besides convince them that their interpretations are frequently incorrect and lead to, for example, shooting up a convoy with humanitarian aid and the death of innocent people.
So it's kind of a pragmatist to reduce damage, right?
Yeah.
I want to ask you, what happened to genocide? What can countries do erstwhile this genocide has already been proven and we gotta face it. Outside Germany after the Second War, are there any affirmative examples of corrective or conciliation?
Since genocide requires peculiar intent, the desire to destruct a given group as specified generates large hatred on both sides – perpetrators and victims. So building reconciliation between them is very difficult. But this must be done, or we are waiting for another conflict. All UN statistic show that erstwhile there is simply a conflict, genocide or another mass crimes, there is simply a very advanced probability that another akin conflict or massacre may happen within the first 5 years of their cessation. There are rankings of countries most at hazard of genocide. Different types of factors are being studied and attempted to identify where another crime can be committed and how to prevent it.
After genocide, of course, this is simply a question of the guilty, due to the fact that it is besides a question of the fact that, if the guilty do not account, there is secondary victimization. The victims are not only victims of attacks, they inactive feel humiliated due to the fact that the perpetrators walk slow and are not liable for their crimes.
The issue of justice is highly crucial for victims, as shown by the example of Armenians, who in the interwar period carried out a number of attacks on advanced officials of the Turkish state. That's due to the fact that they couldn't forget due to the fact that there wasn't a settlement after planet War I.
The State is liable for compensation, including the work to supply satisfaction, which is peculiarly crucial for the victims, as well as to work on what happened. Memorizing and building a certain fresh identity of a given community, trying to realize why what happened. After all, in Rwanda, the authorities decided to destruct in general any appeals to be broken down into Hutu and Tutsi. There is 1 Rwandan nation. presently Rwanda is besides 1 of the countries that is considered to be the safest in Africa, so this model sometimes criticized due to authoritarian methods covering restrictions on freedom of speech, to any degree works.
Sometimes, too, erstwhile there is an accusation of crimes, it can origin the country to retreat from its policy. Looking at your hands makes it a country that restricts armed action. This was the case for Israel, who immediately after the charge of genocide fell, issued circulars to its officials that they should not usage hateful language, that certain words could not be allowed to be taken, due to the fact that it was a responsibility. It can be understood that any emotional statements were caused by the shock of the events of October 7, that they were intended to mobilise society and be a way of reacting. But then came the reflection that it was unacceptable to call opponents animals or to say that anyone has no right to exist. For specified words point to the genocidal intention, and not only the carrying out of genocide is punished, but besides the incitement to it.
-----------
Footnotes:
1.Raphael Lemkin Axis regulation in Octupied Europe, first edition Washington 1944, Polish version: Rafał Lemkin The Axis Governments in occupied Europe, translated Agnieszka Bieńczyk-Missala, Patricia Grzebyk, Bogusław Lackoronski, Marek Madej, technological Publishing home Scholar, Warsaw 2013.
2. Gambia initiated proceedings against MTS against Myanmar in November 2019, accusing Myanmar of the genocidal nature of the crimes committed on the Muslim Rohinj minority. Gambia is not a country bordering Myanmar straight and has made a request on behalf of the full global community. (Rep. ed.)
3. Konstanty Gebert Final Solutions. Humanicides and Their Works, Agora, Warsaw 2022.
4. For example, see Lauren J. Eichler Ecocide Is Geno-cide: Decolonizing the Definition of Genocide, "Genocide Studies and Prevention: An global Journal", Vol. 14 (2020), Issue 2 Denial. The global Independent Panel of Experts on Legal Definition Excretions operating at the halt Ecocide Foundation proposed, in June 2021, a legal draft definition of excrement. See
5. For more information see Katyn in Strasbourg.
6. The ICT prosecutor Karim Khan requested the ICC to issue arrest warrants besides for 3 Hamas leaders – Jahj Sinwar, Mohamed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh.
for: https://www.dialog-pismo.pl/in-numbers/humanity-in-light-international law
Patricia Grzybek
habilitated doctor of legal science, lawyer and polytolist, lecturer at the Faculty of Political Sciences and global Studies of the University of Warsaw. Specialist in global Criminal and Humanitarian Law, author of expert opinions for the Ministry of Interior and Administration and president of the Republic of Poland, co-editor of the "Journal of global Humanitarian Action", associate of the global Law Association Committee on Force Use, associate of the Board of the European Association of global Law.
(choice and crowd. PZ)
