Search

The author analyses certain questions regarding the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the most recent cases deliberated before the Court. Special attention is given to the decisions in the cases The Gambia v. Myanmar and Ukraine v. Russian Federation in which the Court discussed issues of a preliminary character relevant for the establishment of its (prima facie) jurisdiction. Hence, the author particularly addresses the questions of the existence of a dispute between the parties, the ratione personae jurisdiction of the Court, the erga omnes character of obligations under the Convention, jus standi of the parties before the Court, the relationship between Articles VIII and IX of the Convention, and the problem of the use of force for the purpose of preventing or punishing genocide. In the author´s opinion, despite the fact that it has not yet been decided on the merits in the analysed cases, the decisions made so far are significant in two ways. On the one hand, they strengthen the Convention in terms of reaffirmation of the prerequisites for the establishment of the jurisdiction of the Court, and, on the other, they contribute to the preservation of the fundamental principles of international law and the rules on State responsibility, as well as to the prevention of future acts of genocide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 1990 Lithuania has been claiming that what happened there during Soviet occupation is genocide, as per the 1948 Genocide Convention, which embodies universal justice for suppressed nations and other groups. Due to Soviet actions in Lithuania throughout the periods of 1940-1941 and 1944-1990, the country lost almost one fifth of its population. The application of Lithuanian national legal regulations regarding this issue has been recently discussed in the framework of another postwar international legal instrument – the European Convention of Human Rights (1950). The goal of this article is to examine the main debates, which were revealed by the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania (2015) and Drėlingas v. Lithuania (2019), regarding the killings of Lithuanian partisans, including the recognition of the significance of partisans for the Lithuanian nation, the foreseeability of genocide "in part," as well as the punishment for complicity in killing Lithuanian partisans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The importance of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region to China, economically, politically, and strategically, cannot be overstated. Covering 640,000 square miles, Uyghuristan is approximately the size of Iran. Located in the far west, it is Beijing's largest administrative unit encompassing one-sixth of China's territory. Due to an abundance of coal, natural gas, and oil, accounting for roughly a quarter of China's total reserves, Uyghuristan has been described as the country's "national energy strategy base." These energy resources have been indispensable to "growing" the Chinese economy and maintaining the Chinese Communist Party in power. Strategically, Uyghuristan is the vital link for the Chinese economy's increasing need for imported oil from Central Asia and, through the Pakistan pipeline corridor, the Persian Gulf. It is the key to the success of Beijing's ambitious "One Road, One Belt Initiative" to link the economies of Eurasia to China through infrastructure development. The most important strategic value of Uyghuristan, however, resides in its geography. Consisting mostly of mountains and deserts, the sheer vastness of this inhospitable land provides a natural barrier protecting "China Proper", the heavily populated lands in the east of the country lying between the Yellow River in the north and the Xi River in the south, from land invasions. For these reasons, China will not relinquish control over Uyghuristan, its resources or its people. The people are Uyghurs, a Turkic Muslim nation, who have been seeking their political independence for most of the Twentieth Century. The fall of the last imperial dynasty of China, the Qing, in 1911, was followed by the collapse of the Chinese state. In the ensuing political instability, the Uyghurs declared their independence as the East Turkestan Republic - twice. The first time was in 1933 and endured until suppressed by Nationalist Chinese forces under Chiang Kai-shek in 1934. A second East Turkestan Republic was established in 1944 and lasted until it was overthrown by Communist Chinese forces under Mao Zedong in 1949. Since the 1990s, Beijing has initiated measures to permanently secure Uyghuristan to China by colonizing the land with Chinese settlers. These policies have succeeded in reducing Uyghurs from a majority to a plurality. The objective appears to be to make Uyghurs a demographic minority in their own homeland. Chinese colonization has provoked riots by Uyghurs, ethnic clashes between Uyghurs and Chinese migrants, and repeated calls by Uyghurs for their right to self-determination. Beijing's response as reflected in its 2014 "strike hard campaign against terrorism, separatism, and religious extremism" has, itself, been extreme. In the words of a UN human rights panel, Uyghuristan now resembles a "massive internment camp that is shrouded in secrecy, a sort of 'no rights zone'...members of the Uyghur community and other Muslims were being treated as 'enemies of the state' solely on the basis of their ethno-religious identity." This article will examine these issues and the fundamental question they raise -- are Uyghurs victims of genocide as legally defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide?. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Armenian goal to establish "Greater Armenia" in Anatolia ended before it began as a result of forcible migrations and Turkish National Struggle. Since 1915, Armenians have charge Turkey with the crime of genocide. Armenians demonstrate legal claims and arguments against Turkey in the framework of the "genocide law" that developed after World War II. Armenian claims and non-retroactivity rule of 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide are the main research questions of the study. In this context, this paper examines Armenian genocide claims with historical and legal dimensions. Inter alia it discusses 1948 Convention and other legal arguments referred to the convention. The key finding is that it is not possible to legalize the Armenian "genocide" claims directly. Additionally, due to these reasons Armenian side prioritize the political aspects of "genocide" claims . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the long process of ratification of the Convention the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the United States high lighting its racist parameters. In order to do so, one explicits allegations of genocide against the American black population developed within and outside the country and the impact of such denunciations in parliamentary debates and judicial interpretation of genocide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adoption of International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts is considered by many legal experts and practitioners a breakthrough in the successive development of international law. Primary rules of international law define the core responsibilities of states as members of the international community. It is only through their interaction with the secondary rules, outlining essential elements of internationally wrongful acts, that state responsibility can be established in a methodologically sound and a practically sustainable manner. The International Court of Justice clearly stated in the Bosnia and Herzegovina vs. Serbia case that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, though putting an emphasis on individual responsibility and prosecution of indicted individuals, does not in any way exclude state responsibility for genocide as "crime of crimes". States have a three-fold responsibility - not to commit, to prevent and to punish genocide. Though derived from individual criminal responsibility, state responsibility for genocide is not of criminal nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]